PDA: Public Display of Art

The following is my make-up assignment, but I though some of you might find it interesting to read anyways :]

While searching through March 12, 2009 issue of The New York Times, I happened upon an article titled “Boston Vandalism Charges Stir Debate on Art’s Place.” With my attention sufficiently captured I read on about Shepard Fairey, an artist who is perhaps best known for his Obama posters and silkscreens. Fairey has been arrested on numerous occasions for posting his pieces on public and private areas, and it appears as though the end is not yet in sight as the charges against him continue to mount.

Fairey claimed the police were “gratuitous[ly] piling on,” and stated that he was being punished for using public space for purposes other than commercial advertising. In many respects Fairey has a point. He has pled not guilty to one misdemeanor and thirteen felony charges, and it seems as though the police are pursuing nineteen more counts of vandalism. In such trying times as these, it is odd that so much time and energy is spent on an artist pasting posters across a city. One would think there would be far more important cases to pursue than these, which leads me to question whether or not this has become more of a publicity stunt for the police. On the other hand, it would not be so far fetched to assume that Fairey planned this as a publicity stunt for himself. After multiple alleged offenses, he still seems unwilling to halt this practice.

For me to say police have more important cases to work on is not to say that the practice of vandalism should be allowed without consequence. As someone who has grown up in a “bad” part of town and had my fence defaced many times, I can appreciate people wanting their environment to stay clean and untarnished. I simply question the amount of time they are spending on an individual they have no evidence against. There is also the incidence of Fairey’s arrest as his cab pulled up to his retrospective at the Institute of Contemporary Art last month. Such a public display of police involvement gives the impression that the police force is actively seeking attention to make an example out of Fairey.

With respect to Fairey’s art itself, many appreciate the message he is sending but a great deal of people see his postings as just another form of graffiti. In the article one woman was quoted as saying she felt Fairey was a “rampaging punk.” Personally I believe this depiction is off the mark, as the artwork holds political/social messages and not profanity, pornography, etc. There is not a sense of vulgarity in the pieces, and it is not as though Fairey is running around a city slashing tires or bashing in store windows.

This is a difficult case to reach a decision on, since there are so many principles involved. Socially the word “graffiti” holds a negative connotation, but in the art world it is a respected form of creation. One could argue that Fairey is supplying the people with free art to display for the community. On the other hand, not everyone will be pleased to have stickers and posters on items like traffic signs.

All in all, I believe this is a case with no “right” answer. The beauty of Fairey’s art involves its public display in everyday settings. If his pieces were only shown in a museum they would not receive anywhere near the exposure they do now. A conviction would only serve to create tension in the art world, and possibly convince a few kids not to spraypaint public areas. In the end, I do not feel an artist expressing his philosophy in this way should be punished. People are far too often wrapped up in their own selfish dramas, and to walk out into the world and be faced with something that sparks an important conversation is all too rare.

Pollock

For me Pollock represents everything in art I am incapable of. I approach a piece with every intention of capturing the scene photo realistically, and when I do attempt the abstract I am at a loss. My work is deliberate, intentional, and structured. Watching the videos of Pollock working blows my mind, because I envy the freedom he feels and the motion he can put into his pieces so spontaneously.

The only aspect of his work I take issue with is the fact that his pieces sell for tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars. However, my opinion spans the entire art world, not just Pollock’s pieces. It’s simply that I become uncomfortable when an original is worth such an extreme amount of money because it usually devalues any replicas created for the “common person” to place in their home. In my mind, art should be appreciated for what it is and not by the popularity and rarity of what it becomes.

As for a theorist to apply to the work of Pollock, I thought it would be interesting to contemplate how Tolstoy would view the art with respect to his three criteria of individuality, clearness of the feeling transmitted, and the sincerity of the artist. I think many would agree that Pollock was most certainly individual in the creation of his pieces. Each one holds an energy and wholeness that is unique to his work. Nevertheless, I don’t know if Tolstoy would agree that everyone receives the same feeling from a specific piece, as I myself do not believe this would be so. As for the clearness of the feeling transmitted, this too is questionable at best. I doubt anyone could look upon a Pollock piece and identify perfectly with the emotion Pollock was experiencing at the time of its creation. There is simply too much to take in, and much of his art’s power lies in the “controlled chaos” of it.

The one point I think Tolstoy would wholly support would be in regards to Pollock’s sincerity. I do not believe anyone can question that he worked to create whatever he wished to; it never appeared to me as though he worked in a way to please the recipient. In fact, he attached a great deal of value to his pieces and sold them for no less than what he felt it was worth. Pollock painted to satisfy his need to express himself, not strictly to create pieces he believed others would enjoy.

Nietzsche vs. Tolstoy

After much contemplation, I believe that there is actually quite a difference between the concepts of Nietzsche and Tolstoy. Each seem to be speaking of the same concept but take it in different directions in their discussions of art.

I will begin with Nietzsche, since his was the most difficult for me to work through. His concept of the “collapse of principium individuationis" describes the inability to discern between reality and appearance, thus falling into the Dionysian side of life. Here, there is an association with drunkenness and a loss of the individual. In other words, it is a state of apparent literal intoxication and one becomes a member of a communal experience. To Nietzsche, intoxication refers to the concept of Dionysus and a sort of chaotic ecstasy.

On the other hand, Tolstoy’s idea of intoxication is far more structured. To him, infection serves as the portal for emotional transmission. The degree of a piece’s infectiousness depends on the individuality, clearness of the feeling transmitted, and sincerity of the artist. In this case the recipient is connecting with the artist through the piece of art. There doesn’t seem to be a loss of the individual, but rather an emotional connection between two people. The artist plays an important role in “intoxicating” the individual with his/her message, but it doesn’t seem to be in a chaotic all-consuming manner.

I guess what I’m saying is that to Nietzsche, the collapse of principium individuationis is an unstructured, chaotic group experience while Tolstoy’s concept of intoxication is simply the transfer of emotion(s). In a way they are both speaking of a similar dynamic, but each speaks of it to a different degree. However, both philosophers seem to agree that these concepts are valuable and best convey the message of art when they are at their greatest intensity.

Faking It

While watching this show I became a bit disheartened at how art was treated like a business venture. Instead of simply giving the man the tools in which to create his pieces, he was also given a makeover and taught how to properly speak about art. In this way, it was as though no one would take his pieces seriously unless he appeared to be a fresh new artist. This in itself is saddening, as it completely discriminates against many of the artists out there without the money to dress in such a fashion (or to those who simply do not wish to). Giving him a vocabulary and a new look certainly heightened his chances of being taken seriously, but it is frustrating that personal appearance would play such a strong role.

It was also interesting to me that the art critic recognized his amateur style. In my opinion, his pieces had greater depth than many of those created by artists whose pieces sell for millions. So much is subjective in the art world that it is difficult to sort through what is truly valuable. This was further exemplified by the meeting held to discuss his pieces. While a couple people felt his pieces were deep and full of meaning, others felt that it was only the history behind the works that made this so.

All in all, I truly don’t know if he will be successful in becoming a reputable artist. To be honest, I will be fairly disappointed if he is. So many artists hold a passion for their creations and do not make it, and for someone to come into the scene, fake his way through, and be successful would seem unjust. So much in the art world is subjective, and his success would only prove the fickle nature of critics.

"That Old Master" and Kinkade

Both the article and the Kinkade video represented art in similar ways: as business ventures. Banks used art as collateral for loans, virtually diminishing the pieces to dollar amounts. As for Kinkade, it was clear his pieces were manufactured to rack in the most cash in the least amount of time. This led me to question if the innate aesthetic value of the art was being compromised.

In answering this question I think it is important to understand that art can be viewed in several different ways. It can be judged for its concept, aesthetics, tone, value, etc, but it can also be judged for its worth in dollars or how well it would look above a sofa. While Kinkade is typically not viewed as a spectacular artist among the art critics, many people appreciate his pieces for their calm, cozy feel. By manufacturing his pieces in order to create millions of copies to sell, he is making art available to many more people and surely benefiting much more financially. So does this take away from its importance as an art piece? I don’t think so. Everyone would love to have a piece from their favorite artist, and Kinkade’s marketing techniques have allowed him to profit from this. Multiplying a piece of art does not make its appeal any less, just its dollar value.

As for banks using art as collateral, I find this a bit unsettling simply because I regard original art pieces as precious. It is one thing for an artist to market his own work, but quite another for a bank to hold one hostage. I agree this is a brilliant strategy on the bank’s part and equally beneficial for those taking out the loan, but it is sad to see people pawning these pieces for cash. As an artist myself I am extremely protective of my pieces and would be saddened to see them held by a bank instead of being shared with an audience.

There is more to art than collecting pieces worth money or creating formulaic scenes to rack in cash. While everyone has a right to do with their possessions as they wish, I think once a price is put on a piece its original message can be forgotten.