Art World Seminar: Danto, Afinogenov, and Caesar - Essay Example

? ART WORLD SEMINAR ART WORLD SEMINAR Response to Danto In his article, Danto (1999) generally attempts to debate the assertion held by Hegel that the end of art has come. Generally, the basis for Hegel’s argument was that "Art, considered in its highest vocation, is and remains for us a thing of the past. Thereby it has lost for us genuine truth and life, and has rather been transferred into our ideas instead of maintaining its earlier necessity in reality and occupying its higher place” (Hegel, 1975). This means that Hegel saw a generation of art world whose major purpose for presenting art was no longer for its original purpose of presenting originality to the audience but presenting art that was based on the subjective reasoning of the artist. It is this position that Danto (1999) saw as misplaced and lacking basis to consider art as coming to an end. Indeed, the basis for revisiting the subject of the end-of-art thesis in the present seminar is to compare the validity of the arguments presented by the two writers in today’s era of art world. The opinions that are going to be expressed on the article will therefore be broad enough to capture the entire relationship between the artist’s power of innovation and the influence it has on art world. Much of the argument would also focus on modern day art so as to have an understanding of the power of the artist in using some of the world’s modernity to transform the art world. In the article, Danto (1999) identifies two modes of thought in art. These are subjective and objective spirits. According to Danto (1999), subjective spirit deals closely with the artist’s cognitive interpretation of the world around him, based on which themes of art world are presented. Largely so, Hegel (1975) had argued that in the application of their subjective spirits, artists have refused to have an awakening of thought that is based on the need for the output of their works to be based on genuine truth about human reasoning. This is a notion that Danto refuses to accept because in the opinion of Dante, generational dynamism is necessary for giving the artist much room to try out more innovation that presents the art world with an era of social thinking that is based on the artist’s own cognitive empowerment. Indeed, taking the arguments presented by the two writers on subjective spirits of artists and presenting it in modern social art, one would say that the new era of artist subjectivity where genuine truth of life no longer exists as the subject matter for most forms of art has been accepted as being fairly befitting for the changing society. A very typical example that can be cited of this is the use of sci-fi art where artists create ideas from their subjective reasoning that are not based on original human reasoning. Indeed, record sales of sci-fi movies and books such as Inception and Men in Black glorifies the point by Danto that the trend of subjective spirit in modern art does not necessarily mean an end to art. There is also the second mode of thought that has to do with objective spirit. Under this mode of thought, Dante (1999) explains in his article that it has to do with the reasoning of art that is taken from a broader social perspective such as political institutions, moral codes and forms of family life. From this score, Hegel had argued that artist are no longer doing society much good from their themes of art work because they had taken new position in the art world where sensationalism had become the order of the day. Yet again, Danto does not see eye in eye with Hegel. In the opinion of Danto, “It is from the perspective of objective spirit that any institutional theory of art is credible” (p. 4). This means that once a piece of art that is produced from an objective spirit becomes accepted by society and judged as credible, not much can be said against it in terms of whether or not it is contributing to a dying art world. Clearly, any modern day artist who takes up an objective perspective of art from a more open ended approach as it is being defended by Danto than a close ended approach as it is being condemned by Hegel will not be far from right. This is because through the power of technology, of which the social media is a very powerful entity, the definition given to society has seen an entirely new twist and turn (Hurwitz, 1993). today, society has become so open ended that nothing can actually be accepted as a limited social value for a certain group of persons, while eliminating what others from other side of the world holds. In effect, globalization has made the world a single village where social norms and rules bind all people. Based on this, any attempt to limiting art work to only a defined group of persons for the sake of social objective social identity will not do the artist much good. True objectivity in modern art is thus the kind of art that is made to break cultural boundaries. Art should be about creativity and creativity is the ability to bring out of nothing, something that exists to have meaning and purpose (Foster, 1999). In context with the debate on the end-of-art thesis, it would be said that modernity should meet art with a spirit that makes it possible for artists to vary their forms of art to suit the needs of the modern audience. As much as it is important to consider originality in the production of works of art, it is also important to have a reflection on the all important phenomenon of competitive global art world. Today, art world is not a matter of limited scope of ideologies that dictates to artists as to what they should do and what they should avoid. Rather, artists are becoming more and more discerning to the quest of their audience, whereby they understand that in order for them to become competitive and rise above their competitors they must produce works that are in line with the demand of their customers. Based on this, it can be concluded that the point held by Danto (1999) in defence of the continual of art rather than the end of it is rightly placed. Response to Afinogenov In his article, Afinogenov (2010) laments a trend in art world where materialism has taken the better part of art-criticism because in his opinion, this is taking the better part of originality in the spirit that backed the creation of various works of art. In doing so, the works of Ben Davis are scrutinized as to how he focuses on the thesis of art and class in his production works rather than focusing on the core traditional sphere of artistic practice. In the opinion of Afinogenov therefore, there is misplacement for differentiating between art and business by the various artists including Ben Davis. The interest of this selecting this article for this particular seminar would be to understand the place of class in art world and try to reason from the perspectives of the artist who is criticized by Afinogenov as to whether the need to commercialise art work to focus on class and the elite is a wrong step in art world. Generally, it would be noted that as the global economic climate become an issue that affects everybody, including artists, it would become fairly justifiable for artists plying their trade in modern society to have a means by which they can turn their talents into trade, and their trade into profession (Irwin & Miller, 1997). By and large a more commercially lucrative art venture would attract more participants. Writing on the theme of “orthodox Marxism”, Afinogenov explains that the issue of class is a political concept rather than a social concept. Meanwhile, art is a social phenomenon that seeks to bring some level of satisfaction and solutions to the day to day problems of stress and distress that face people. In light of this, the reviewer argues that brining in the issue of class limits the scope of art world and denies legitimate people from becoming beneficiaries. In the opinion of the writer therefore, it is only art that can produce realistic and creative products that are born out of pure ingenuity and talent. But because artists of today are becoming more and more economic and class attentive, they have moved away from the art norm into a business norm, whereby they sit to carefully produce works of art to satisfy a limited population with class, generalising these as works of art. Cleary, the argument of Afinogenov requires further debating because it fails to acknowledge the place of user or customer specification in the production of work of art. It also refuses to acknowledge the all important subject of artistic dynamism in art world. This point is made against the backdrop that in modern times, most consumers of art have become highly discerning on specifications of art work that meet their various political, social, religious and moral needs. It is not surprising for a customer to therefore walk to an artist and present the artist with a specific idea of what he wants to be produced. In such instance, the artist cannot be faulted for being uncreative because he did not get the customer something that was produced from the artist’s own creation but created to meet the demands of the customer. Arguing his case further, Afinogenov scrutinises the work of Davis by asking if the said people with class really rules and holds the place that is suddenly being given to them in the art world. On this point, Afinogenov’s major concern against the thesis of Davis is the issue of reinvention, which has constantly become part of bureaucratic art such as Chinese bureaucrats. In the opinion of Afinogenov (2007), bureaucratic art, which is backed by reinvention, is a flawed design process that serves to make consumers aware of the alienating effects of modern day art. But clearly, there seem to be a lack of understanding for prevailing consumer culture that is based on publicity and promotion. Indeed, there is now an art world where the consumer is so powerful that he is the one who determines the trend of production (Kwon, 1997). Meanwhile, consumers continue to be easily influenced by promotions and publicities that they are easily tempted to ask their artists and for that matter designers to produce certain forms of art that they have seen or heard of from another quarters as art galleries. In such a situation, the true potential of the artist who has been asked to reinvent should be looked at from a perspective where he is able to produce something that gives the consumer much satisfaction. This should be the only way by which the quest of the consumer can be respected. But should the artist turn the consumer down in the name of originality would be most unfortunate. With this said, it is important to also point out the importance of differentiating reinvention from imitation. This is because in an attempt for most artists to satisfy their commercial thirst, they tend to imitate rather than reinvent. Meanwhile, the two forms of practice are totally different have varying effect on art. Finally, the writer pays homage to the importance of viewing art as a service to society rather than a means of taking from society through class art work. This is because according to the writer, “The growth of service industries, the expanding proportion of contingent and temporary labour, the decline of unions and traditional industry—all of these developments render utterly pointless any attempt to construct a unified concept of the “working class” that would be equivalent or even broadly parallel to the old Marxist proletariat.” Due to this, the writer condemns the commercialisation of art as a misleading practice. To some extent, there could be some levels of justification for what the writer argues on. For example in a situation where the need to make money makes every other person go into art even when the person does not have what it takes to give a good representation of art as a unique field of study is very disturbing. Having said this, the need to clearly emphasise the place of commercialisation in the promotion of quality art world will also be stressed. This is because as the global economy becomes dictating on the artists in terms of the prices of art materials and tools, it is just important that the artist will also be commercially viable to capitally invest into the kind of art that he does. With this in mind, doing art for commercial gains would be the only means by which the artist can earn out of what he does. In conclusion, the point held by Afinogenov is not supported as a justifiable cause for commercialisation of art to be condemned as a negative practice. Response to Caesar Caesar (2013) does not seem to understand why people would see the art work of other people. This is the basis of his article as he tries to question the mentality behind stealing other people’s work of art with the notion of selling them in either their most original form of in a remake form to make money. From every indication, the shock and questions raised by Caesar are justifiable in today’s world and worth all the necessary addressing it deserves to stop it. Among other things, the article reviews statistics and data from credible sources such as the F.B.I to support the rising incidence of art theft. Generally, the indication and notion that the article, which are written with so much proven fact evidence propagates is that there is not much security orientation in the production of modern art work. As art becomes more and more lucrative because of the commercial value that most forms of excellent and quality modern art has, it is important that all stakeholders in the industry become conscious of ways of protecting the intellectual properties of artists. The selection of this article for the seminar is therefore based on the need to look at the place of security in modern art and for that matter art world. This is because as art world stands as an advocacy for the promotion and preservation of art work, it is also important to look into ways by which the art that is being preserved would be available for their original owners to make the most out of them in terms of rightful sale of products. The first point that is stressed by Caesar as an intervention for dealing with the situation is for there to a very high level of consumer awareness when making purchases of art works. This point is well placed and rightly targeted. This is because it takes a more preventive approach to the problem of art work theft. It is argued that consumer awareness will lead to a more preventive approach to controlling art work theft because the elimination of theft is something that can hardly be stopped my agency system of security. Day in and day out, people who engage in various acts of theft get sophisticated in their approach and attempt to taking from rightful owners, things that does not belong to them. As this happens, it is important that buyers will become the best watchers against the sale of stolen products, this is because if consumer awareness levels continue to go up and consumers stop buying from art work thieves because consumers will have what it takes to differentiate a thief from a genuine owner, stealing of art work will no longer become an incentive for people who engage in it for the purpose of making profits. With this point made, the need for consumers who engage in the sale of high profile art work to go to designated and authorized quarters only to make purchases is very important. Studies from Caesar (2013) actually indicated that most of these thieves walk in to consumers to make their sales. Consumers should therefore adopt the attitude of going to recognised places such as art fairs, galleries and prominent art stores, where the authenticity of art works are always verified before putting them up for sale. As the consumer receives education on ways to avoid buying stolen art work, artists themselves would also need a word of caution when handling their art works. It has been identified that, most artists who do not have the platform to trade their own art works depend on the services of art sales entrepreneurs to get this done. Often times therefore, they carry their works to these entrepreneurs only for the works to be turned down. But after a short time, they find similar forms of their work of art on the market. Caesar explains that the reason this is possible is that when the artists go to the entrepreneurs, they give a thorough explanation into how they came about their final products. This then makes it possible for the entrepreneurs to employ the services of skilled but crock artists to remake or imitate the works that were brought in. Artists are therefore advised on the need to be careful when issuing out details of their work to people who do not represent their esteemed interest. The commercial registration of works of art by up and coming artists is an important way of checking this as most of these people are the victims of criminal entrepreneurs who engage in these practices. Through the registration of art works, it will be possible for artists to receive higher levels of legal protection for their works, even when it comes to protection against imitated production (Kwon, 2000). Finally, the point of legal protection is made, which is strongly supported as an intervention to stopping the menace. A very unfortunate situation that exists with the stealing of art works is that even though there are legal provisions that protection artists who register their works against thieves, these laws have not been found to be deterrent enough in putting future occurrences away. This is because in most available legal jurisdictions, people who are found to be engaged in these practices are only fined and let to go, having to pay less than the wealth they have actually made out of their practice. It is therefore recommended that instead of viewing the theft of art work as a civil liability, it is high time the practice was viewed as a criminal liability. This way, there would be much deterrent punishment for culprits to put others who have intentions of repeating such acts from doing so. But if artists would have this form of legal representation among legislatures they would first have to prove themselves as being a credible and united front whose interests are worth protecting. This can be achieved when artists come together to fight their own course and make the world understand that they have a professional approach to how they go about their trade. References Caesar Ed 2013. What Is the Value of Stolen Art? [Online] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/what-is-the-value-of-stolen-art.html?ref=design&_r=0 [November 20, 2013] Danto A.C 1999. Hegel’s End-of-Art Thesis. New York; Liberal Arts Press Foster, H. 1999. The return of the real. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hegel’s Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Arts. Translated by T. M. Knox. Oxford; The Clarendon Press, 1975. 10. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Hegel’s writing are to this superb translation. Hurwitz, A. 1993. Collaborationin art education.R eston, VA: National Art Education Association. Irwin, R. & Miller, L. 1997. Oral history as community-based participatory research: Learning from First Nations women artists.J ournal ofMulticulturala nd Cross-cultural Researchin Art Education, 15, 10-23. Kwon, M. 1997. One place after another: Notes on site specificity. October, 80, 85-110. Kwon, M. 2000. Experience vs. interpretation: traces of ethnography in the works of Lan Tuazon and Nikki S. Lee. In A. Coles Ed., Site-Specificity: The ethnographictu rn, pp. 74-91. de-, dis-, ex-. Volume 4, London: Black Dog Publishing Limited. Afinogenov G 2007. Mis-design: Art in a consumer landscape. Melbourne: School of Culture and Communication Read More

 

Read More