Context of practice

Art vs Craft vs Design

Any functional objects following a plan cannot be considered a creative action, therefore it cannot be considered as art.
The use of certain technologies have brought fine art to the masses. The use of mass production has reduced the value of certain pieces because it is no longer ‘hand-crafted’.

Raising the question can creativity be taught or are you born with it already. Reference world historic individual – Hegel and the idea of ‘genius’ – Kant

There are very few people nowadays which are competent in a multitude of fields. For example very few people will be able to excel in photography, painting, drawing and design.

Marxist idea that machinery is intended to cheapen commodities, and that is its sole purpose in a capitalist society.

Mass-production has changed the relationship between man and machine. In that man is now a tool of the machine rather than vice versa. [Dehumanisation]

Karl Marx-

Material Value – What an object is made of

Labour Value – How much work went into it

Use Value – What is it used for? – brings up debate about art because there is no definitive use for it

Fetishisation of the commodity – this is what sets an object apart from other objects. EG. Apple and how the brand has become synonymous with the idea of affluence

Watercolour could now be considered a craft in that is seen as an amateur art form and by some considered kitsch. However watercolour was originally used by artists to quickly portray a scene in which they could go back to the studio and sensationalize and such.

Street art is something which has become dis appropriated by the fact that it is in a lot of cases no longer street art and that it lives in galleries. The work of Banksy and such originally carried a strong political message about the value of art and he as an artist has become a victim of his own nightmare so to speak.

The work of Damien Hirst shows how the material value of a piece of work can be considerably lower than its selling value. A good example of this is ‘For the Love of God’ in which Hirst stuck £8,000,000 worth of diamonds to a skull. The piece later sold at auction for £50,000,000

The Context of Practice module was divided into three key parts; the lectures, the essay and the Millennium Square task.

Throughout the year I have attended contextual lectures on various art forms. Having never previously been taught the theoretical side of art practices except for my own personal research, I found this beneficial to both to my work and my understanding of the history and development of art movements. Each lecture covered different movements and art forms, and I found some of the lectures very engaging, and was able to then expand my own opinions after learning of the leading artists and critics within certain movements. However, I don’t think it is unfair to say that I enjoyed some lectures more than others, and I preferred lectures where a certain amount of social history was spoken about as different artists were introduced, to give an indication of the social changes which were affecting art. The Women Artists lecture I particularly took little away from due to this reason and the lack of social context within the lecture, which was disappointing as I was looking forward to learning more on the subject.

The lectures were a great way to build up contextual knowledge, which then provided me with the confidence to research for the essay. My chosen essay question was one which the class did not receive a lecture on before the deadline, but was something I was highly interested in and wanted to learn more about. I’m glad I chose the subject of ‘Could it be argued that fine art ought to be assigned more ‘value’ than visual communication?’ as I enjoyed researching it and felt I learnt a good amount on the subject independently as we were initially told to reference 5 books. I am happy with with my essay and enjoyed writing it.

The class were then divided into groups of their chosen essay topic, and we were briefed on our task relating to Millennium Square. At first, I found the task of relating our essays to Millennium Square quite daunting, but after talking to David and Christian about what we were being expected to do, I felt more confident knowing it only had to be a proposal if necessary. I do not hold the Millennium Square site in particularly high regards, and wanted to develop the idea of public reclamation of the site. I chose the picnic proposal as I wanted to hold an event which would not cost any money for the attendees, and would also allow for personal freedoms. A picnic seemed the perfect way to get the wider community in a space, enjoying an afternoon together. The ‘point’ behind my picnic was that there were no restrictions on who could attend, how long attendants could stay for, what food could be brought, where attendees could sit, etc, etc. And a picnic would hopefully bring a wider age range of audience as it would be available for anyone to enjoy. I am happy with my final idea for the Millennium Square task, our group statement, and also my design for my ‘Fine art and value’ group cover for the publication.

Overall, I believe the module has allowed me to broaden my knowledge and understanding of art history, and then relate the knowledge to my practical work. I think it has benefited me as a practitioner, and I can now go on to use this context and theory in future projects.

Performance art does not fit in accordance with the traditional mediums of ‘art’, and only began to become popular in the 1960s-70s.

Performance art is usually very audience based, with the audience sometimes playing a part in the performance itself. Often it is spontaneous, confrontational and sometimes relies heavily on improvisation.

In is similar to conceptual art in the way that performance art focuses more on the production and process of the piece rather than the finished product. However, many pieces of performance art were also documented and captured with film, photography and video, but the emphasis is on the moment of performance, and if you were not there to view it, it would be a case of relying on other spectators interpretations of the piece.

Performance art started with the idea of using the body and other non tradition art forms to create with.

However, performance art can tie in with other art movements - for example, Jackson Pollock’s action painting. Pollock painted by dripping his paint from heights onto his canvas on the floor. Pollock enjoyed the movement and process of the painting, and without his careful performance he would not have been able to make his art.

Performance art has and can be used to challenge stereotypes and authority, such as gender issues, art institutions galleries and museums, authoritative tradition, the relationship between artist and audience, and the possibilities that can be acheived by using the human body to create art.

How do we define the museum?
Museums can be defined in various ways, and can be as personal or impersonal as the viewer or local community chooses. However, for the sake of classification it is easy to say that museums are iconic, important structures with powerful meaning. It is worth noting though, that to say museums are in the public interest is an argument upon itself. Who defines what public interest is? What system is used to measure the amount of cultural worth or value which is places upon an object?

The original meaning of the word ‘museum’ is Latin, and was used to signify a temple dedicated to the 9 muses. The muses were the Goddesses of the arts and literature and were also the daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne (memory). They spent nine nights together, and the muses were created.

Western museums can be traced back to the objectification of religious items and iconography. The church would display objects of significant religious value or meaning, placing them in glass so they could not be damaged.

So how does society class the museum, and how does the museum class itself?

Institutionally - ie, museums are classed as the objects they have on show. eg;

the Natural History Museum
the Museum of Fine and Decorative Art
the People’s History Museum
the National Media Museum

To classify a museum at the entire level of its institution feels natural, because it has always been done. However, could that put some people off from becoming visitors if they have a preconception of a lack of interest in that subject matter?

There are ways in which museums must class themselves and their exhibitions. This is internal classification, and some examples of this could be:

Schools
Periods
Countries
Donors
Function of artefacts
Maker of the object

Also, on a more specific level of classification for each object, museums may categorise artefacts into the following:

Maker
Value
Originality
Significance

The continued classification of objects and artifacts within museum institutions has developed a focus towards objects with social values and worth placed upon them.

The museum originally began from collections belonging to European aristocrats and monarchy. These collections were allowed to be seen by scholars and distinguished travellers, but not by the public.

This idea of hierarchy and class when it comes to museums has always remained, however to a lesser extent in the modern day. Though the idea that the museum is still a refined space for intellectual stimulation and the need to act in accordance to this has remained. For example, there are still some museums which in their signage say that children and/or families are welcome.

In the Victorian era, there were museums set up specifically to educate the working classes, and Leeds City Museum is a good example of this. Other institutions were created for this purpose - including libraries and public parks. General fear of the working classes existed at this time amongst the bourgeoisie and upper classes, and this was a way to give the working classes something to occupy themselves with.

In the 21st century, significant funding is still given to creating and expanding new museum space. More people are comfortable in visiting museums than ever before. Perhaps this is due to museums actively becoming more user-friendly, and in particular, more family/child friendly, with many museums now putting on specific family events. Museums can bring about positive change and benefit the local community, improving the quality of local residents lives through their extra activities and outreach facilities.

The factors as to what makes high art or low art are difficult to specify, but exist nontheless. Galleries and art ‘experts’ identify beauty and what is truly art, and the artists who do not fall into these categories are seen as low brow and unworthy of exhibition and artistic credibility.

For example, the artist Jack Vettriano is immensely popular, and prints of his work outsell popular 20th century artists such as Monet and Van Gogh in high street poster stores. His paintings are often seen in living rooms across the country, yet despite his popularity with the British public and Vettriano making a living from his art, Tate Britain refuse to exhibit his work or even regard him as an ‘artist’ - their reasoning being that he creates his art for commercial purposes.

Until the 18th century, beauty was regarded as something upon itself. Beauty was seen as ‘god given’ to objects. Then in the 18th century, perceptions of beauty changed along with the exploration of beauty by philosophers. David Hume coined the term ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ around this time, which translates the idea that there exists no inate beauty, and one can only recognise beauty once beauty has been judged. This new way of approaching beauty was personal and subjective. However, the idea of beauty being subjective can be problematic when it comes to judging art.

Hume then went on from this to develop the idea of connoisseurship; a notion that certain people who are educated (a certain class of people who are aesthetically ‘sensitive’) could be taught the idea of what makes something beautiful and the connoisseurs would then share this idea so it could become the norm.

Zoffany’s painting ‘Charles Townsley’ features one of these judges. Townsley was a wealthy man, and spent his time inspecting artworks to decide their beauty and worth. Throughout this time, a certain priviledged class emerged of people who could afford to spend their time judging beauty, and not having to work. This class of judges then created the idea of their having a superior mental faculty, and this is still reflected today.

The idea that a subjectivist approach to judging art wouldn’t benefit the art world resulted in a set of rules being created when judging art.

Monroe Beardsley then developed this idea, and the rules of ‘aesthetic experience’ were born.
An aesthetic experience requires the judgor to have acute attentiveness to the artwork they are looking at. They must also inspect with a factor of disinterestedness, ie to focus in a disinterested way as to bring no bias to the piece of work, and also a factor of intensity. The artwork must be the focus and thought of the judgor in order to properly judge it, and only through this will the judgor be able to recognise an artwork’s true beauty, and have an intense aesthetic experience.

Clive Bell wrote ‘Art’ in 1913, and the focus of his book is what makes art beautiful. He said it requies “The relations and combinations of lines and colours, which when organised give the power to move someone aesthetically.” In Bell’s opinion, if a piece does not have this aesthetic form, then it is not a work of art. For example, popular art of this time were Victorian genre paintings, an example being William Powell Frith’s ‘Derby Day’, but Bell’s rules of ‘art’ say that narrative or storytelling in any form within art get in the way of it being art, and remarks that Victorian genre painting is more of a social document. Art by Bell’s standards should also not include any social or political point.
Cezanne was Bell’s favourite painter, and ‘Mount St. Victoire’ his favourite painting.

This ‘art for arts sake’ approach dominated art practices in the 20th century.

Clement Greenberg was another notable art critic. He was a driving force between 20th century abstract expressionism, and championed the artists within this movement as the finest. Jackson Pollock’s ‘Lavender Mist’ (1950) is a prime example of Greenberg’s taste.

Whilst Greenberg was favouring abstract expressionism on the grounds that it is ‘pure’ art, as it contains no narrative and only focuses on colour and form, he was also arguing against ‘kitsch’, and the art of soviet Russia - The latter of which Greenberg claimed was ‘bad’ art as it included social and political statements.

The arguments against kitsch created a 20th century divide between low art and avant garde. The ‘low’ art being the mass culture of America; Hollywood films, mass produced furniture, television etc.

Kitsch can be described as something which aspires to have the qualities of a piece of art, but for one reason or another (eg, quality of materials used, how well the drawing/painting of the piece has been carried out, etc) fails to be art. Objects can also be deemed ‘kitsch’ if they are seen as badly outdated. Objects which use stylistic trends (such as airbrushing, for example) can be seen as kitsch as this visual style is no longer fashionable, and these sort of vogue techniques often go out of fashion.

Arnold Hauser described kitsch and low art as attempting to be art but failing.

However, artists have tried to challenge this battle of ‘low art’ and ‘high art’. Jeff Koons’ ‘Michael Jackson and Bubbles’ deliberately tries to look like bad art, as if by its creation Koons is asking ‘is this art now?’

Andy Warhol also challenged these ideas of art by creating works which took out the skill, were able to be reproduced easily as many times as he liked, and used garish clashing colours - colours often associated with advertising and mass culture.

Thomas Kinkade is the worlds second richest living artist (after Damien Hirst, bork), and has made his money through selling paintings and merchandise of his paintings for the public to hang in their living rooms. He dubs himself the ‘painter of light’, and often goes on television shopping channels to sell prints of his paintings on mugs, mousepads, and other objects. Each time he does this, all of the stock sells out within the hour. Kinkade’s works are undeniably popular, but art collectors and critics alike wouldn’t dream of calling his work ‘art’.

Is this because of elitism in art which in turn makes it hard for those who are not so privileged to understand art movements and the theories behind ‘true’ art? Is it because the people who buy these prints to hang in their living rooms want to appear cultured by owning such an object? Is it because the buyers know that artists and art are often worth large sums of money, so believe they are buying the merchandise as future investment pieces?

Kinkade’s landscape scenes are painted in a very careful way as to be understood by as many people as possible - They often play on nostalgia, and old scenes of days gone by. But by this same standard, Kinkade’s landscape scenes are painted in a way that purposely does not include any kind of political point. Therefore they are unbias and uncomplicated and fit to the ‘aesthetic experience’ rules perfectly, but still somehow fail to be ‘art’.

Kinkade’s paintings show a different attitude towards art from the working classes, and this can be seen in other works. When Tate Britain bought ‘120 Bricks’ for £60,000, the Daily Mail wrote a response headline which read ‘What a load of rubbish!’

George Dickie wrote ‘An introduction to relativism’ which explored the ideas behind relative judgement.

Every person will have pre-concieved ideas when studying a piece of art for the first time, and every judgement of what is tasteful will always then go on to reject something else.

A lot of the artists in the lecture are featured in Nancy Heller’s book ‘Women artists’, and this book is recommended for further reading.

Sofonisba Anguissola, 1532 - 1625
Anguissola was a renowed female painter who was the daughter of an Italian nobleman.
Female painters in this period were often from wealthy/privileged backgrounds.
Her self-portrait in 1556 became so popular that Anguissola became a celebrity in herself. Michelangelo sent her drawings which she copied oin oil and sent back to him, so her talent was well recognised.
She inspired many younger women to become artists.

Artimesia Gentileschi was a female painter in the 17th century.
Heller described her as a ‘quintessential painter of the baroque era’.
She painted in a caravaggio style, with human form and dark backgrounds.
Gentileschi is said to have brought this style of painting to Naples.
Her painting ‘Judith Beheading Holofernes’ showed a scene of a story popular with painters, however unlike other paintings of the story, Gentileschi’s version depicts the actual moment of attack (rather than the aftermath which was chosen by other artists) and features two women powerfully holding down a man and beheading him.

Another female painter around this time was Elisabetti Sirani.
Her painting of ‘Judith With The Head of Holofernes’, unlike Gentileschi’s, shows a full body portrait of a woman who seems passive and shows little emotion in comparison. Sirani was a well known painter, but died aged 27 of unknown circumstances.

In the 18th century, the attitudes of women artists were finally starting to be recognised, Picturesque lottery remarked ‘Finally a worthy sex to rival ours (man)’

Marie Louise-Elisabeth Vegée-Lebrun, 1755 - 1842
Marie was a society painter who was able to make enough money from her art to support herself. She was from a wealthy background. She painted the famous portrait of Marie Antoinette which can be seen in the Louvre, and often used the elaborate overdecoration typical of the rococo period in her pieces. She was accepted into the Royal Academy in 1783, however Vegée-Lebrun ultimately suffered for her powerful contacts, and was forced to flee Paris during the french revolution from her association with Marie Antoinette.

Countess Golovine was piece painted of a Russian aristocrat, and Heller says that despite Vegée-Lebrun’s piece not portraying a ‘classic beauty’ with Golovine, there is still a strong sense of beauty within the painting. However, the painting received criticism as its wealthy subject and idea of ‘wealth through clothing’ was in denial of the matters which were happening at the time, and only portraying the rich.

Marghuerite Gérard was a painter who focused on motherhood in her work, and the idea that mothers should devote themselves and their time to their children. Her work features a lot of melodrama, with dark backgrounds and illuminated foregrounds.

In 1883 Harriet Hoomer called for women to take up more active social roles, and said she applauds women who have already done so.

Emily Mary Osborn’s 1934 painting ‘Nameless and friendless’ is a good example of victorian genre painting. It features a woman in an art dealers shop, looking tense and nervous. A boy is holding her portfolio while an art dealer is examining one of her paintings, of which the woman is obviously wanting to make a living from. The entire scene focuses on the dominating forces of the men in the painting. Some of them are looking at erotic art in the corner, another is snooping over his shoulder at the womans work - none of them offer her a seat as she is unmarried.
Osbourne was exhibiting at the Royal Academy at age 17.

Lilly Martin Spencer’s ‘We both must fade’ in 1869 is another notable piece by a woman artist. Spencer was self-taught, but from a privileged background. She was from a political family, and was aware of womens suffrage.

Examples of other women artists are;

-Gabriele Munter - partner of Kandinsky
-Suzanne Valadon - Expressionism, painted different a different type of nude
-Natalya Gondiarova - Russian neo-primitivean
-Louise Nevelson - Became known for found objects sprayed gold
-Florine Stettheimer - Her work pokes fun at New Yorkian high society.
-Alice Neel - Painted portraits of family and neighbours, suffered personal tragedy.
-Leonora Cannington - Rebelled against her upper class family, taught in Florence.
-Georgia O’keefe - Flower paintings, says nothing sexualised about them.
-Lee Krasner - Abstract expressionism, married Pollock. Working class.
-Niki de Saint Phalle - pop art, folk style, colourful sculptures, naked women.
-Audrey Flack - Photo realist tradition. ‘Vanitas’ of Monroe.
-Jenny Saville - Celebration of female form. Angled from knees upward. Map.
-Tracey Emin - Tent.
-Sarah Lucas - Mattress with references to male/female sexual organs.
-Yayoi Kusama - Crazy, polkadots, mirrors, hallucinations, Japanese, bob cut.

The Leeds City council promote Millennium Square as a social and cultural hotspot. Their website describes Millennium Square as ‘Leeds’ award winning city centre outdoor public space and live entertainment venue. Built as Leeds’ flagship project to mark the year 2000 the £12m scheme funded by us and the Millennium Commission successfully transformed the old Mandela Gardens at the front of the Civic Hall into one of Europe’s most innovative multi-purpose city centre spaces.‘ It all sounds very impressive, but upon being told that our final project for Context of Practice would be based around Millennium Square, I visited the site specifically to find something interesting and was incredibly underwhelmed.

Millennium Square is in the heart of the city, and the grand architecture surrounding it (such as the civic hall and the city museum) give a notion of opulence to the area. However, when I walked around the square it occurred to me that it was not being used by the public whatsoever, except as a shortcut for locals to pass through. There is little to no seating for the public around the site, and the square’s status as a ‘cultural hotspot’ is only accurate if you regard a J.D. Wetherspoons and Vodka Revolutions as cultural. During the class site visit to the square, there was an ice rink and snow slide in the centre of the site. It cost a fair amount to go on. I then began to think about the other ‘events’ held in Millennium Square and realised that the majority of them are for profit, and arguably do not benefit the greater community.

Millennium Square to me is a cold, sterile site with strict bylaws preventing the public from doing anything public within its perimeters. It is used by the council as a site to show the city’s affluence, and by private companies as an easy cash cow. The string of chain companies surrounding the square can be seen in most of the cities around the UK, and the others do not give Leeds any of the much needed personal identity in Millennium Square either.

Could it be argued that fine art ought to be assigned more value than other forms of more popular visual communication?

To establish a stance for this essay, I will first try to define the differences between fine art and visual communication. The term ‘fine art’ itself translates from the 17th century French term ‘beaux arts’; a style defined by its classic aesthetic inspired by antiquities. Classic fine art includes a limited number of practices, predominantly painting and sculpture. Modern fine art has grown to include the performing and visual arts, but has retained the idea that it is seperate from applied arts and the artists works serve to intellectually stimulate their audience. ‘More popular forms of visual communication’ then, are these various forms of applied arts which do not fall under the category of fine art - such as design, photography, decorative and functional arts and crafts.
When trying to compare the physical differences between fine art and visual communication, it seems that fine art cannot be defined by what it is, but rather what it is intended to be by its creation and existence. By this, I mean there are numerous factors which lead to work being labelled ‘fine art’ rather than simply being deemed so due to its medium or aesthetic. It is often these underlying factors which also determine an artworks value in the market, and so I hope to establish the differences given to fine art and visual communication by exploring these factors in this essay.

Fine art has always retained a notion that it is more ‘pure’ than other forms of the arts, because it exists not to make money. When comparing fine art to illustration, Marshall Arisman said ‘In my opinion, the intent of the artist determines whether the final product is art. If the intent of an illustrator is to make money, the results are usually commercial. If the intent of the artist is to explore personal concerns, the result is generally art.’ (Arisman, M. 2004, p.34) Arisman has written a lot on the subject, and in his book ‘Is there a fine art to illustration?’ goes on to rank the different types of art based on their purity; Fine art being the highest, and advertising being the lowest. His opinions imply that the more communication there is in a piece and the bigger the intended audience, the more it fails at being art. This opinion is shared by many figures in the art world, and common arguments for the superiority of art generally argue that art is more complex and ambiguous, and exists not to fill a practical purpose, but as a means of self-expression. So what is it that makes a piece of art so valuable on the art market?

The 20th century saw record prices paid for modern fine art at auction houses. Paintings by modern masters were sold for vast amounts of money under the hammer, and the press would give intense coverage to these procedings, their outcomes, and the lucky winners. Sotheby’s and Christie’s auction houses played host to the majority of these auctions, during which their rooms were filled with as many spectators as potential buyers. An interpretation on the origin of this fascination and interest in modern art collecting from art journalist Judith Benhamou-Huet: “The art market as we know it today is the product of a small revolution that occured in the 1980’s … When the Anglo-American auction houses decided to extend the demographic of art consumers. The revolution lay in the fact that these firms made the art market accessible, not only to those wealthy individuals belonging to a narrow circle of cultivated initiatives, but to wealthy individuals in general.” (Benhamou-Huet, J. 2008, p.33) If this is true, then the art market itself has made it easier for buyers to understand fine art, yet the auctions which fetched the highest prices were all modern works of art. Benhamou-Huet adds: “The intellectual accessibility of artworks also explains the disparity between the prices for modern artworks and older artworks. In order to understand an early painting, you have to recognise symbols that convey the brevity of life, or purity, or madness, or some other theme -not the case for an impressionist sky or a bouquet of flowers, nor a Rothko composed of flat washes of pink, yellow and white - now worth $72.8 million.” (Benhamou-Huet, J. 2008, p.33) Are then, the prices paid for these works a market response to the intentions set by the modern fine art painters themselves? Rothko is well known to have based his paintings around emotions, and often purposely left his work ambiguous so viewers can reflect whilst in their presence. Perhaps it is this idea of ambiguity which can be realised and empathised with in different ways by any individual which gives fine art its perceived value. Another idea as to why art is held in higher regard is the idea of artistic ‘merhwert’, a term coined by Diedrich Diedrichsen which translates as ‘surplus value’ or ‘payoff’. Diedrichsen’s merhwert is the idea of an extra value which is given to artworks that have had labour poured into them by their creators. “Artistic mehrwert tends to come up when there is a desire to justify a special effort made or expense incurred by an artist, or in the course of production of an artwork.” (Diederichsen, D. 2008, p.21) It could be argued that fine art pieces have more time spent on them than some other types of visual communication, and this may be another reason why the latter is not prescribed as much worth.

Contrary to this argument however, are the types of art which do have a lot of time spent on them and require considerable skill and knowledge for their creation, and the assorted forms of technique which fall into the category of ‘craft’ are an example of this. Yet craft is often seen as amateur or low brow. In his book ‘A theory of craft’, Risatti notes his distinctness of the two: “Any activity that involves making of functional objects is simply executing a preconceived plan or design and therefore cannot possibly be a creative activity, hence it cannot be art.” (Risatti, H. 2009, p.11) Although this definition of art and craft can raise numerous questions, this idea that craft is not creatively free enough to be art is echoed throughout the art world, with others claiming craft is the “ghetto of technique” compared to the “free play of ideas” in art. (Adamson, G. 2010 p.71) The dismissal of craft on the base of its technique-based approach can almost contradict Diederichsen’s idea of added value to an object through the labour spent on its creation, and thus there may be other factors to artistic merhwert.

Karl Marx also used the term ‘surplus value’ when describing art, and value according to Marx is stripped down into the categories of material, labour and use value. Beyond these values is what he describes as ‘the fetishisation of the commodity’, which is the factor that sets the work apart from others. It ties in with Diederichsen’s merhwert, but Marx associates this extra value with the wealthy and higher classes, claiming “Works of art, which represent the highest level of spiritual production, will find favour in the eyes of the bourgeois only if they are presented as being liable to directly generate material wealth.” (Marx, K. 1906, p.46) He also states that the arts are “a form of hegemonic idealogy, in which the transmission of the arts from generation to generation serves to preserve and reproduce the dominant position of a dominant class.” (Marx, K. 1906, p.47) If this is the case, then the mehrwert in works of art could be seen to be based around luxury and the exclusivity that comes with ownership. Japanese artist Takashi Murakami states on his website “Art is the supreme incarnation of luxury entertainment…” (Benhamou-Huet, J. 2008, p.120) and if this is true, does it mean the value of art in comparison to other forms of visual communication resides around its apparent fiscal value? Art critics John Berger claims “The meaning of the original work no longer lies in what it uniquely says but what it uniquely is. How is its unique existence evaluated and defined in our present culture? It is defined as an object whose value depends on its rarity.” He then goes on to say that art is “declared art when line of descent can be certified.” (Berger, J. 2008, p14) Berger’s opinion can be applied to the reasoning as to why crafts and other communications are not given equal worth as fine art - This notion that an art piece, where the market is concerned, is not taken for its face value but rather based around the individual artists fame and the pieces rarity, could tie in with the idea that other communications do not sell for as high a price due to the creators name not being as established or perhaps their creating enough work to make a living from that they fit supply with demand, eliminating any mystified notion of rarity and/or exclusivity.

There have, however, been artists who attempted to challenge this idea of value placed upon exclusivity whilst managing to still be seen as creating fine art. Arguably the first artist who sought to question this was Marcel Duchamp, with his idea of the readymade. Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’ in 1917 used the idea that any object, handmade or found, can be classed as ‘art’, and for his work, he used a common, mass-produced urinal, signed with a pseudonym. This attack on convention would go on to create a new standard in art, which still influences artists today. Diederichsen states “Since Duchamp, the goal of art has been to deliver a punchline.” (Diederichsen, D. 2008, p.23) and an artist who can be seen to follow Duchamp’s sentiment is John Baldessari, who said in his talk at the 2007 Art Basel fair “The art market is absurd. It has nothing to do with art itself.” In 1968 Baldessari had painted a white canvas which read ‘Quality material - Careful inspection - Good workmanship. All combined in an effort to give you a perfect painting.’ The canvas sold for $4.4 million. Was the mehrwert in Baldessari’s instance revolving around the impression that his work was a ‘first’ in attaining such a witty concept? This vast sale figure for a work which seems almost spiteful of its audience reeks of irony, and by being sold for such an amount has almost certainly made it ‘fetishised’ by Marx’s standards.

Sotheby’s worldwide head of contemporary art, Tobias Meyer once said “The best art is the most expensive, because the market is so smart.” (Benhamou-Huet, J. 2008, p.80) and if this is true, then it is important to look at the man who holds the title for the most money paid at auction for a living artist; Damien Hirst. Hirst’s work seems to fit in with Diederichsen’s idea of art with a punchline - Many of Hirst’s works feature witty one-liners and rely on a shock value from their audience, and if Meyer’s quote is anything to go by, Hirst’s works are extremely successful. Yet it can be argued that Hirst’s works blur the line between fine art and visual communication. Hirst’s style, featuring objects fixed in a metal cage filled with formaldehyde, is instantly recognisable. Yet many of his works are completed by a hired team. Does Hirst’s success perhaps then lie in his familiar aesthetic? In 1998, Hirst teamed with Vodka company ‘Absolut’, to create advertising images titled ‘Absolut Hirst’, which feature an Absolut bottle in his signature metal cage. With sarcastic intent from his part put aside, this collaboration of fine art and advertising discredits any idea of Arisman’s ‘purity’ within the piece, and could perhaps lead to the theory that Hirst’s work is so successful because his customary style has enabled him to willingly fetishise his work as its own ‘brand’. If Hirst’s work has become a brand then, there is little difference between this and other communications.

With museums and galleries, such as the Tate, actively trying to communicate with the wider public in the 21st century, is the art world also going to be encouraged to open up to larger audiences? Modernisation is key as the new facilities and opportunities provided by the internet are affecting the worlds markets, and the internet is allowing people the chance to both view and share art on a scale that has never been possible before. This is having an interesting affect on the differences put onto fine art and other communications. Users are now able to set up personal websites, and social networking sites encourage users to customise web pages in order to communicate their personalities. With the Mona Lisa being easier to view on Google Images than it is behind it’s glass cage in the Louvre, the internet is opening up art and other forms of creativity on a new scale. And while fine art collecting and ownership may continue to be a rich man’s sport, the 21st century may see more value being placed upon other forms of visual communication - due to its importance and relevance with online activities, the breakdown between fine art and communications, and new significance with online social status - which could then affect the monetary difference between fine art and other communications.

Arisman, M. (2004), Inside The Business Of Illustration, New York, Skyhouse Publishing Inc.

Benhamou-Huet, J. (2008), The Worth Of Art (2), New York, Assouline.

Diederichsen, D. (2008), On (Surplus) Values In Art, Belgium, Der Kuere.

Risatti, H. (2009), A Theory Of Craft: Function And Aesthetic Expression, Carolina, The University of North Carolina Press.

Adamson, G. (2010), The Craft Reader, Oxford and New York, Berg.

Marx, K. (1906) Capital: A Critique Of Political Economy, 4, Modern Library.

Berger, J. (1977), Ways of Seeing: Based on the BBC Television Series (A pelican original), 4th Edition, Penguin, London.

The modern art school promotes the idea of what it is to be a creative. It pushes boundaries, innovation, and revolves around this idea that it allows its students to be constantly experimenting. Behind these factors is the suggestion that copying is ‘bad’, originality is key, and institutions serve to bring out depth from their students.

But when the modern art school is structured so strictly, how can it bring out creativity?

In ancient Greece there was no seperation between the arts, and the arts also crossed over into other elements such as philosophy. Art was cultivated to be a shared system of knowledge. Romans also shared this idea of art fulfilling this role.

When Universities began, art was not taught. In medieval times, art was seen as different to other subjects, and was considered more of a craft, and if people wanted to learn this craft or skill, they would have to undertake an apprenticeship.

In the 18th century, to ‘learn art’ you would have to assign yourself a master and copy the masters work until you were skilled enough to replicate it. When this level was achieved, apprentices would then be required to start the masters work; painting backdrops, or chiseling the first bit of a sculpture, and the master would then finish the piece. After a few years the apprentice would then go on to become an artist in their own right.

This system of learning and copying meant that apprentices learnt to paint in a set style, and thus there was no originality. Artists were also a particular class, usually with a privileged background. This set idea of art means all apprenticeships taught the same style of art, and this style kept in tune with what the academies also classed as art.

With the advent of romantic philosophy in the 18th century, and German romantic writers including Immanuel Kant becoming more popular, an idea of ‘individual genius’, that artists/poets are different, began to emerge.

Hegel once said that artists and poets are ‘world historic individuals’, and creatives were somehow seen as better than the rest of society - that these people should lead and progress the world. This idea of artists being suffering, misunderstood bohemians is still played up to today.

In the 19th century there were radical changes in art, including the idea of how art should be taught. These challenged traditional art, and the paths one had to take to become an artist. In Paris, to be an artist, you first had to exhibit at the Napoleon Salon. And to do this you had to make art which the people in charge liked, thus continuing the cycle of one style of art created by painters and art critics.
In 1863, the academy received a lot of submitted art which they rejected. It was then decided that there would be an exhibiton of this rejected art, to make the academy look better. The work in this exhibited was very experimental, and different to the tradition style of art favoured by critics. The exhibition had the opposite of the desired effect however, and enabled people to realise that it’s possible for there to be various stlyes of art, and the show became more inspirational than the academy - which led to the withering of the academy and the beginning of impressionist groups, and other groups such as avant garde, etc.

Following this, there were similar situations in the UK where traditional methods of art were challenged. In 1871, Ruskin school in Oxford became the UK’s top art school, and this institution seperated itself from the traditional apprenticeship model of art education, and instead had a programme of drawing nature, and focused on individual observation to improve drawing skills. This then produced different styles of art.

Another big influence was the arts and crafts movement. William Morris wrote the essay ‘Art and Socialism’, and equated art as having the role of changing the world by bringing about individuality and restoring man’s link with the world.

The art & craft movement changed what people thought what purpose art served. The Glasgow School Of Art formed under these ideals, and is still renowned to be one of the UK’s top art schools. The Art & Craft movement also brought about the Art Workers Guild in the UK - a sort of trade union for skilled creative people. This meant artists could now work together in common interest, and were able to take control of their own future.

Institutes have evolved to try to reclaim art from the elitism of academy and traditional art, and art & design is now promoted as the catalyst of human development.

The new styles of art brought about by different methods of teaching it, have enabled it to tie back in with politics, much like the ancient Greeks viewed art. The move away from one style of art and the notion of ‘art for arts sake’ being purer and more important, has allowed artists to use much broader medias and messages within their work.

Contemporary art is created surrounded by theory and media attention.

Damien Hirst’s Physical impossibility of death in the mind of someone living. 15 foot white shark, slowly, options to change shark to another to keep the piece going questions authenticity, Hirst didn’t even do it himself yet is the richest living art what is going on.

Michael Glover said in the Independent ‘Art is about the beautiful. It is also about the nasty, the unpalatable.’

1990s:
Rachel Whiteread’s House, 1993. Mold of house. Cost £50,000. Critics argue it would have been better if the £50,000 was actually spent on housing. I’d agree.

Michael Landy, Breakdown, 2001. Destroyed everything he owned including his birth certificate.

Earlier:
Couri Andrew, Equivalent VIII, 1966. Bought by Tate Britain in 1972 for £120,000. Slated by the British press. Daily Mirror headline states ‘What a load of rubbish’ in response, in their usual charming fashion.

Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, 1917. Urinal, signed with pseudonym. The versions in galleries now are copies, no-one knows what happened to the original.

Sherrie Levine, Fountain after Marcel Duchamp, 1991. Bronze cast of a modern urinal. Very clever etc.

High modernism: Between 1880-1960.
New forms of abstract art emerged in 1940s-1960s.
Abstract expressionism - Jackson Pollock - ‘action painting’.
Mark Rothko.

Greenbergian modernism - formalism, high culture over low culture, self-referrencial and medium specific, art for arts sake.

‘All art (after Duchamp) is conceptual in nature because art only exists conceptually’ - Joseph Kosuth (‘Art after philosophy’, 1969)

‘One will have to wait fifty or one hundred years to meet one’s real audience, but it’s this real audience which interests me’ - Marcel Duchamp.

Conceptual art, 1960’s & 1970’s.
Idea and concept was given priority over the visual or ‘retinal’, also the materiality of art.

Dematerialisation.
Challenge to the visual and status of an art object.
Systems, series and structures used as concepts for art.
Analytical art focusing on language and statements.

Michael Craig-Martin, An oak tree, 1973. Glass on a shelf which the artist insisted was actually an oak tree.
John Baldessari, Everything is purged…, challenging if painting makes art.

Altermodern - after postmodernity?

A lot of this lecture is derived from Modern Sculpture Reader by Jon Wood, first printed 1938.

Sculpture is concerned with objecthood, and intends to allow the viewer to concern his/herself in an instant. Gotthold Lessing defines sculpture as a body in space. It is there to be perceived and taken in at once. It is something physical, spatial, there.

Krauss said ‘The logic of sculpture seems to be inseperable from the logic of monument’, and the example he gave to follow this was a bronze statue designed by Michelangelo of emporer Marcus Aurelius in Rome. The statue speaks about the Italian nation whilst it contextualises Roman history. It speaks of the context in which it is presented.

Statues are normally figurative and vertical, and stand upon pedestals, and it can be said this is to allow the sculpture to speak for itself.

Around the 19th century there was an increase in sculpture sale. This meant the sculptures were shifted around a lot, and arguably lose context of their surroundings. The sculptures then became more about the physical objects themselves, and experimental sculpture really began.

Auguste Rodin’s ‘Monument to Balzac’ is a prime example of this, and rather than the sculpture being a traditional portrait, it shows how the artist saw his subject. It is divorced from its context and speaks for itself.

Constantin Brancusi created self-contained sculptures. He wanted to create sculptures that show natural forms, and his work is very stripped down and simplified, such as his ‘Beginning of the world’ piece.

Cubist sculptures then took this experimental idea and pushed it further. Picasso’s ‘Guitar’ in 1914 is a good example of this, and he created it with the idea of viewing an object from several different viewpoints, taking a detail from each viewpoint, and combining them into one form.

Other examples of multipart sculpture constructs;
Naum Gabo’s ‘Head no. 2’, 1916 and most of Anthony Caro’s work, which combines different elements of sculpture held in relationship with eachother, such as ‘Sun Feast’, 1990, and Robert Morris’ Green gallery installation. Krauss argues that the context of the latter means the objects become undefinable. They are not architecture, they are not sculpture, but something inbetween, and define the viewers movements around the gallery. ‘The artwork participates in a complex experience which combines the object, your body and space, creating a unique experience.’

This combination of sculpture and architecture has inspired many other pieces, such as Hans Haacke’s ‘Germania’, and Rachel Whiteread’s ‘House’ - both in 1993.

• Marx, K. (1906), Capital: A Critique Of Political Economy, 4, Modern Library.
• Adamson, G. (2009), The Craft Reader, Berg, London.
• Risatti, H. (2009), A Theory Of Craft: Function And Aesthetic Expression, The University of North Carolina press.
• Benhamou-Huet, J. (2008), The Worth Of Art (2), Assouline, New York, USA.
• Diederichsen, D. (2008), On (Surplus) Value In Art, Die Kuere, Belgium.
• Arisman, M. (2004), Inside The Business Of Illustration, New York, Skyhorse Publishing Inc.
• Berger, J. (2008), Ways Of Seeing, London, Penguin.

‘Logically, post-modernism is 1960’s - today.’

Postmodernism is a term which can be used in a variety of ways to describe different attributes of design and ideas, but the basic notion that created postmodernism was the reaction to the rules of modernism.
Whereas modernism was born of optimistic ideals, with the view of harnessing technology to improve lives and the idea of international design (ie. design suitable for everyone regardless of nationality/age/gender etc), modernism eventually became an almost elitist movement due to the set of rigid rules regarding form, function and truth to materials which surrounded it.

Postmodernism then, was the response this rigidity, and focused on the idea of design with no rules. Postmodernist design often focuses on complexity and chaos rather than the utopian ideals of early modernism.

There is a questioning attitude within postmodernism, often focusing on juxtaposition and irony. This questioning of modernist conventions and limitations gives postmodernism it’s playful edge, along with the element of kitsch that is often found in postmodernist design.

This development of postmodernist attitudes, especially the idea of there no longer being any limitations or rules, made it easier for demographics who were not previously easily recognised to become more involved in art and design, and art/design then became more multicultural, and women became more prominent and accepted.

Early postmodernist design came about architecturally with the introduction of brutalism. The term ‘brutalism’ derives from ‘beton’ - the French word for concrete, and is apt as many brutalist designs are concrete structures. Brutalist design takes the idea of truth to materials, but deliberately tries to go against modernist rules. Some examples of brutalist architecture are Le Corbusier’s Chapel of Notre Dame du Haut 1954, and Chlorindo Testa’s Banco de Londres y América del Sur, 1959.
There were socialist/utopian ideals within the brutalist movement, much like early modernism, which included the idea of the buildings being used by all, but critics have since argued that the stark designs of brutalism are perceived as esoteric and uncommunicative above anything else.

Other postmodernist architecture incorporates a lighter, more blithe spirit. It moves on from modernist ideals by combining new ideas with traditional forms, with added ornament and clashing styles. It features much more of the architect’s own expression, and returns to decoration. A noteworthy piece of postmodernist architecture (as I’ve seen it myself and it’s intense) is the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris, the huge modern art gallery which features all the buildings innards on the outside and was disliked by Parisians when built as it is such a stark contrast to the delicate buildings lining the capital.

Some examples of postmodernist design which takes the modernist aesthetic but adds to it by putting decoration on what modernists would leave as stripped down as possible are:
Michael Graves’ kettle which he designed in 1985. It features a small bird on the spout which whistles when the water is boiled. The kettle itself is modernist in design, as the steel is left undecorated and uncovered. It is also modernist in that Graves designed the kettle to be more efficient - giving it a wider base and narrow tip for quicker boiling time. What makes it postmodern is the added design of the handle and spout, turning the otherwise minimal looking kettle into a playful decorative object with function. Phillipe Starck’s juicer is another postmodernist design for the household. Like Graves’ kettle, it sticks to the modernist idea of truth to materials, but Starck’s iconic design can be said to be anything but practical. Although made with the function to juice, Starck’s juicer does not function successfully and so becomes more of a decorative object and status symbol for its owner Ettore Sotsass’ Carlton bookcase was designed in the 1980’s, and features an elaborate symmetrical pattern of coloured angular shelves.  Sotsass designed this to be loud, tacky, and almost tongue-in-cheek, in the way that the bookcase itself is made using cheap industrial materials, yet it is an expensive luxury object bought by design collectors. (Yet again the notion that postmodernist design includes an air of exclusivity through its own price tag.)

Postmodernism also carries with it the idea that art can become almost interactive, with art intervention (other artists using existing artwork to create something new) becoming prominent. From Damien Hirst’s (what became) Black Sheep, to Japanese performance artists jumping on Tracy Emin’s My Bed and calling it Two Men Jump Naked Into Tracey’s Bed.
The concept that art is interchangeable can also be seen in Marcel Duchamp’s L.H.O.O.Q., where Duchamp drew a beard and moustache onto the Mona Lisa and gave it a title which when pronounced in French translates to ‘She has a hot ass’, perhaps to challenge the concept of ‘classic art’, and Barbara Kruger’s Untitled (I shop therefore I am), her slogan a play on philosopher René Descartes’ statement I think therefore I am. Duchamp created numerous art pieces using objects he found, and he referred to them as his ‘readymades’. Kruger ended up replicating her statements and hanging them from the walls and ceiling for a Selfridges sale (though this time with an attached company logo at the bottom and probably a lot of money for doing it) Cool.

The playful, tongue-in-cheek attitude of postmodernist art and design allowed what would usually be regarded as garish to become high brow, such as the pop art movement which took inspiration from comics and other sources generally regarded as unsophisticated, and abstract expressionism which came about as a response to new painting techniques becoming possible.

As postmodernism and the idea of there being no rules in art developed, so did the idea to push controversy as far as possible, for example the various works of Chapman Brothers. The Chapman Brothers seek to create art which is as offensive as possible, and their works have featured everything from nazism to naked kids with a bit of anti-consumerism thrown in. I reckon this subgenre of postmodernism is arguably the one which the tabloid press seem to feature on a lot more than… Anything else art-wise, giving most people the idea that any sort of modern art is ‘weird for the sake of weird’ (to quote the Simpsons).

To summarise - postmodernity is still alive and kicking, not only because of it’s namesake (what’s next, post-post-modernism?) but due to it’s sheer variation in styles.