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.