After reading the numerous philosophers’ opinions on what constitutes art, it appears that today, the meaning of art has dwindled down to one aspect: money. Owning a piece of art is an exclusive game in which only the wealthy can afford to participate. Quality of art does not necessarily correspond to the price tag—an expensive piece really is just a product of those on top who deem it worthy. And many buyers do not buy because they think the artwork has merit, but because that six-digit price gives them bragging rights and the appearance of “good taste.”
However, the rich are finding themselves overspent in a sinking economy, and are putting their prized artworks into pawnshops like Art Capital Group. Likewise, artists that found their art gaining increasingly more income (like Annie Leibovitz) got caught up in a world of wealth and with no other monetary option, are now using their art as collateral in paying off debts. It appears art has become a bargaining chip and is the first thing to go in a house full of riches. If art these days is appreciated more for its monetary value and not its meaning or quality, and then the values vanishes, it is possible that many of the significant artworks will fade into a forgotten museum or history book and lose their importance in society. As we reach hard times economically, does this mean that the art world will die?
This is connected to another question: how many popular artists today are really creating for art’s sake? The video of Thomas Kinkade explores one popular artist, who in my opinion, is creating for money and not because those little river-side cottages give his life purpose. For him, art has become a full-fledged corporation. Thomas Kinkade realized his marketing power early on in his career, and turned this distributes millions of carbon-copy “paintings” to hungry buyers. Sure, his buyers love his work (almost in a cult-like way…), but one has to ask if what he’s doing is really art, and if it is helping art in the long run. A manufactured painting, created by a computer and finished by a worker in a factory, degrades the value of art in my opinion. If everyone can have a Kinkade in their house, the originality is lost and the other artists out there trying to create something meaningful will be overlooked. With technology the way it is, we do have access to art very easily, and it can’t be denied that Kinkade is a genius for capitalizing on this aspect. But personally, I would like art to stay the way it is, with each piece having that special quality of an original, and being appreciated for the way it is and not for any amount on a price tag.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I enjoyed your 'good taste' comments, price and taste seem to have a 'conflict of interest' regarding art. Should the two have a correlation? Yes, but sometimes the two are related for the wrong reasons.
ReplyDeleteinteresting, correlating tough economic times with potential loss of meaningful artwork due to the largely monetary focus we put on art (rather than appreciating it for its artistic value)
ReplyDeleteI think its ironic that art that was created to be enjoyed or to be beautiful is now used as a currency and so that rich people can act like they have culture.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why people are interested in Kinkade whatsover. If artists are producing solely for monetary gain, where is the appeal in purchasing their work?
ReplyDelete