Commercialization Kills

In the fast-paced capitalistic society we live in today it is hardly a surprise that nearly everything has become a commercial commodity. America cannot even let veteran’s day pass without turning it into a reason to shop. From president’s day to sports teams the commercialization is extreme. Even the type and brand of underwear we buy has some sort of commercial status attached to it. Let’s face it, commercializing a product generates a lot of cash for those involved. Where would Viagra be without commercialization? The pharmaceutical world has managed to take a very personal, sensitive issue that was once discussed between a man and his doctor and turn it into a household name. Because of things like this, I am not at all surprised that this moneymaking commercialism has penetrated the world of art.
In the article “That Old Master? It’s Down at the Pawn Shop,” by Allen Salkin, he discusses a fascinating new trend in the art world in which art is used as collateral for loans. This commercial value of art may not yet be widespread, but as the economy slows to a crawl, more and more people will be turning to the unorthodox to generate capital. The company providing the loans makes millions of dollars when their clients default on their loans because they simply auction off timeless pieces of art. This is where I feel these pawnshops and Kinkade have the same ideas about art and its commercialization. If it makes money, why should anything else matter?
Although Andy Warhol might applaud Kinkade’s ability to mass-produce his art using machinery and assembly lines, I feel this somehow cheapens the art. Just as the pawnshops cheapen the art by seeing it as nothing more than its worth in gold. I am conflicted however, because I cannot prove or defend that this commercialization makes the art…not art. Kinkade’s works, though clearly devoid of passion, meaning or artistic expression are, regrettably, aesthetically pleasing. It truly is an art the common person can relate to and understand. What irks me the most is the artist’s lack of passion for his work and transparent passion for the fame and fortune it gains him. Kinkade likened himself to Walt Disney, claiming that his brand is creating a whole world people can enjoy. He is using his art and his name to create an entire label, like Martha Stewart. Although this is incredible marketing, I don’t see a place for it in the art world. I would prefer to see one, incredible, original Monet in a museum than 300,000 Monet prints plus a Monet china set and wallpaper.
Both the article and the 60 minutes video demonstrate how the meaning and purpose of the art is lost when it becomes commercialized. This falls in like with everything else we have managed to commercialize and rob of its meaning. My veteran’s day example is a perfect parallel. We all get the day off school or work to remember the veterans who have fought our wars so we don’t have to, and what do we all do? Shop, sleep, party…pretty much anything except reflect upon American history and our veterans. The holiday has lost its meaning because of commercialization, just like Kinkade’s art and the art the pawnshop auctions off.

A Picture in a Picture

Seattle-based artist Chris Jordan has made a name for himself as an artist with a purpose, as well as a taste for social and political commentary. This lawyer-turned-artist has swept the nation by storm with his unique vision and stunning pieces. From the Colbert Report to The New York Times, Jordan’s thought-provoking artwork has captivated audiences and sparked conversations about the consumerism and commercialism that permeate the western world. Jordan’s style of inkjet print photography gives a surreal feeling to his work that starkly contrasts the reality his images represent. His most recent traveling exhibit, so aptly named “Running the Numbers,” is currently on display at Washington State University’s art museum.
One step into this exhibit takes the viewer first to the docks of the Port of Tacoma where thousands of containers await placement onto barges. In the background Mount Ranier looms over the strangely beautiful rows of colored flatbeds, reminding humanity that natural beauty is being overrun by society’s mass consumption. Though this particular piece is one with a more obvious message than several others in this exhibit, it sets the stage for a journey through our world of globalization and mass consumption that manages to highlight the role of the individual. Wandering across an almost eerily empty gallery surrounded by rich hardwood floors and walls creates a sensation of connectedness to the art. This particular atmosphere compliments the message of Jordan’s art by manifesting the polar opposite of the materialistic and cluttered lifestyle each piece embodies.
Jordan’s style involves creating large images through a succession of smaller ones, which creates a sense of wonder and excitement with each new piece. At the first glance at one of the more striking pieces in the exhibit, one will see Benjamin Franklin as he would appear on a 100-dollar bill on a canvas over ten feet tall and three feet wide. A closer look reveals thousands upon thousands of 100-dollar bills creating the larger image of Ben. Although intriguing in itself, upon reading the plaque to the left of this larger than life founding father one will find that there are in fact 125,000 100-dollar bills. This is the equivalent of 12.5 million dollars and the exact amount the US government spends every hour on the war in Iraq. This is just a small sample of Chris Jordan’s unique style and view on the world.
Although political issues are addressed in some of Jordan’s works, this is by no means his only topic. He addresses everything from wasted electricity, to breast augmentation: each in a unique and significant way. Jordan’s messages are made even more clear by the plaques next to each piece giving the statistic he is illustrating. Each piece was inspired by a certain American statistic Jordan wanted to represent visually:

“Each image portrays a specific quantity of something: fifteen million sheets of office paper (five minutes of paper use); 106,000 aluminum cans (thirty seconds of can consumption) and so on. My hope is that images representing these quantities might have a different effect than the raw numbers alone, such as we find daily in articles and books. Statistics can feel abstract and anesthetizing, making it difficult to connect with and make meaning of 3.6 million SUV sales in one year, for example, or 2.3 million Americans in prison, or 32,000 breast augmentation surgeries in the U.S. every month” – Chris Jordan on “Running the Numbers”.

Some argue that Jordan’s work is biased and perhaps ‘picks on’ America and her citizens. However, it is difficult to take statistics and make them anything but what they are: facts. Every last one of Jordan’s statistics can be found and verified, which gives him credibility. He also addresses the issue of picking on America by stating that as an American he is in no position to preach to the public. He makes it clear that he is trying to simply give these statistics an aesthetical representation so the American public can perhaps grasp these numbers in a different way.
Chris Jordan’s “Running the Numbers,” regardless of one’s opinion about the environment, politics or even smoking, will leave every viewer wanting to know more. Some will want to know how he actually created his pieces, while others will want to do some research of their own on these seemingly ridiculous statistics. Either way, this exhibit makes an impression on each person who experiences it and will spark conversations that have the potential to change the world. Jordan’s artwork will be a testament to our time and our culture for years to come.

In Kant’s Critique of Judgment he thoroughly deconstructs how we, as humans, judge the objects around us. He discusses aesthetics and pleasurable sights as something we must be detached from to fully appreciate. Kant states, “If we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost.” This sentence is particularly interesting due to the subject matter of the rest of his work. He contradicts himself several times on this point. Kant claims for several paragraphs that “The beautiful is that which apart from concepts is represented as the object of a universal satisfaction.” This directly contrasts the former statement by implying that there is something universally aesthetically appealing about beautiful objects. He goes on to address the ideas of objective and subjective universal validity, which, in my opinion, addresses this contradiction. The objective is based on a subject whose beauty is always valid under the same conditions, while the subjective is based on something aesthetic, something whose beauty is subjective.
These thoughts on beauty can be compared to Kant’s idea of ‘purposiveness without a purpose’ addressed in Cynthia Freeland’s book. By judging something as beautiful or not beautiful based on its usefulness or its purpose, we are denying its true beauty. Pure beauty must be appreciated in a detached manner, seeing only what is in front of you rather than what it means or represents. Kant gives a perfect example when he is discussion the concept of sensation:
“ Flowers, free delineations, outlines intertwined with one another without design and called (conventional) foliage, have no meaning, depend on no definite concept, and yet they please. The satisfaction in the beautiful must depend on the reflection upon an object, leading to any concept (however indefinite), and it is thus distinguished from the pleasant, which rests entirely upon sensation.”
Judging an object based on the concepts associated with it turns the judgment into a logical assumption rather than an observation based on aesthetics.

Katharsis

In chapter 2 of Freeland’s book we were introduced to several great thinkers’ perspectives on art and art theory. From Plato’s ideas to the gardens’ of kings, everyone has their own thoughts on what constitutes art and why it affects us the way it does. The philosopher I related the most to in this chapter was Aristotle. His description of the cathartic experience involved with art describes almost exactly how I feel about the artistic process and experience. Plato’s ideas about Forms and Ideas are interesting, and exciting to study but I feel that regardless of the fact that art may simply be an imitation, it is no less real than the reality we each create every day. Human emotion may just be the only truly ‘real’ thing in this world and art evokes it, therefore art itself must be real. Aristotle’s discussions of the Greek Tragedy and the feelings the audience undergoes over the course of the play really struck me. Why is it that something we all know is fabricated can make us feel everything the characters feel? We form emotional attachments to the characters; we worry about them, we are sad when they perish and we cry when they are hurt. Plato says that art is thrice detached from reality, so it shouldn’t affect us. On the contrary, Aristotle argues that the way art imitates our realities help us learn and grow. Watching a tragedy and going through such a wide range of emotions will lead to a katharsis. This is especially true of the performing arts and music, yet the cathartic experience is also present in the entirety of the artistic process. As a sculptor creates his masterpiece, he too experiences a wide range of emotions including frustration, love, despair, tranquility, and in some cases perhaps heartache or remorse. The completion of the piece brings about katharsis, but only does so due to the range of emotions the artist goes through during the creative process. In a similar manner, the tragedy takes us on that path to katharsis. Art helps us have these feelings and cleanse ourselves of them, even though we know the sculpture and the characters aren’t actually in themselves ‘real.’ I am a classically trained singer, so singing is my art and my path to a cathartic experience. Singing helps me express emotions I am unable to put words to, yet the most important piece is the cleansing that occurs after I have put my sweat and tears into a piece and perform it flawlessly. The process of learning and perfecting the piece is one that brings about nearly all the basic human emotions. When I finally perform the piece I am cleansed of all the emotions that went into it. Humans do not always understand our own emotions, and art facilitates the natural and necessary katharsis we may not be able to achieve on our own.

The Natural History of Art

This article and the prompt have led me to the conclusion that art and evolution will never be fully understood…and maybe that’s the beauty that lies in each topic. And perhaps there is no reason at all to assume from the beginning that they are inherently separate. As a genetics major, I am head over heels in love with our genes and how they influence everything from disease predisposition to mate choice. So for me, this begs the question…why not art?
Aesthetic preferences, at some level, are biologically based. Human babies prefer images that are symmetrical, so is it not possible that other types of basic aesthetics are ingrained into our psyches? Coniff’s article does it’s best to explain and defend this point, but in light of our class discussion I feel he could have been more compelling. Despite a slight lack of literary prowess, there are several issues in the article that stood out to me. I was able to feel a connection to art, my world, the earth, and my ancestors in a very different way than I had previously experienced. I started thinking about my current needs and how vastly they differ from those of my predecessors, which in turn made me wonder if there are any similarities between us at all. Conniff’s article had some great points that helped me decide that maybe this concept of aesthetics is one of the things that ties us together as humans. By no means do I think this article is suggesting that all opinions on art and all artists are influenced solely by inherent, genetic fears and needs. I do however believe Conniff is trying to establish a baseline and perhaps a reason behind certain aesthetic qualities, and feelings associated with those qualities, that permeate the generations.
For example, something I felt was neglected in class was this link to “habitat selection.” Conniff discusses most aesthetic preferences in a link to habitat selection as a deep, unconscious basis for being drawn to certain settings and art, particularly in reference to landscapes. He is not saying that all people are attracted to a, b, and c because of reasons 1, 2 and 3…he is simply laying out the possibilities and saying perhaps there is a connection here. I believe there is. What makes one piece of property more valuable than another even if they are in the same neighborhood with the same square footage? A view? Landscaping? Now who is to say we don’t seek comfort in these things due, in part, to a genetic need for safety and resources?
Art has been a part of human nature since, I would like to think, the dawn of man. It has always been there for us to express ourselves; our ideas, hopes, fears and cultures. Just because there are differences in our artistic tastes due to the time period or culture does not imply that there is absolutely no biological basis for aesthetics.