What value does Art for Art's sake have for 21st C society?

Setun

Obviously it's a massive and relatively open-ended question, but I'm curious about how people understand or recognise the function of contemporary art, or indeed if they do see a function for it at all?

Historically, art has served the churches and the bourgeois - in basic terms, either as a signifier of wealth, a pre-photographic document marking the existence of a wealthy subject, or as a visualisation of religious ideas in appraisal of a god. Of course at the beginning of the 20th century (and there are numerous scattered examples before this too) artists began to create art in isolation of religion or other historical purposes - simply to create a work of art for the sake of it being a work of art. Over the last 100 years of so, its function has become ambiguous - it questions our aesthetic values, raises various philosophical questions about art and culture, and self-reflexively can provide critique of itself. But value does this have to people who aren't actively interested in art? And for those that are interested in art, has the greedy art market rendered them cynical?

Denerick

What annoys me about modern art is that it is remarkably superficial, and most purchasers buy art 'for the name of the artist' and the prestige attached. The price of art is astronomical and completely detached from ordinary people on ordinary incomes.

I understand the allure of art and how it attracts the people it does. But it is a flawed medium of expression because it is shamelessly elitist and profiteering.

A far more meaningful medium of communication and/or expression of existential meditation lies in the written word (Novels/poetry) or in film, theatre or opera etc. These are accesible to the masses at reasonable rates and quite affordable. I don't need to pay 50,000 euros to have the privilege of having War and Peace by Tolstoy sitting in my living room. I can pick that up second hand for 2 euro in a charity shop.

SugarHigh

Fine art serves no other purpose than investment. In the same way gold only has value as an investment, it's something that isn't really useful bar small amounts in computers. Most of it is just in safes or fashionable because of it's rarity.

Fine art is just about buying an artist and then trying to increase demand for them. Just look at Charles Satchi who owned the largest advertising agency in the 80's(So he knows how to sell crap for more than it's worth). He basically created Damian Hurst the same way he would "add value" to any product.

The fine art world seems to be very small and incestuous. Full of millionaires who then appoint themselves as art experts and set up galleries like the Tate modern(Henry Tate who was a millionaire sugar merchant) or the satchi gallery(Owners of the worlds largest advertising agency). They build up expensive art collections and then buy some unknown artists who then become credible through association with the art collector who has now built up a reputation which of course increases demand and value.

It's not really about how good of an artist you are it's just about appealing to the right people like millionaires with already extensive art collections or politicians who fund local art projects.

Actually those local art project raise another issue. Why should we pay an artist €30,000 to express himself in the middle of a town center? Surely having so many people view your work is a privilege not an entitlement and they should be paying us.

Setun

Interesting points raised so far. I actually work as an artist at the moment, but the kind of art I like to make doesn't fit in well with the art market (maybe I'm cynical because I am excluded? :P), in fact I don't think my work can even be "sold" in the expected sense. Personally, I am more excited by art as invention: for example, an innovative use of technology or a scientific idea that could perhaps feasibly be integrated into daily life to make peoples lives easier, or more playful. Art in this context is about the avant-garde, or having the freedom to explore ideas or obtuse connections between various diverse subjects. Obviously such works of art have a clear functional definition: they are crazy ideas that can inspire design that will in turn lead to products, systems, or cultural ideas that will help people with their daily lives.

For me, such art is not motivated by an art market at all - mainly because such artworks are technology based, and technology becomes outdated and will after a number of years be irreplaceable, and this does not fit in with the idea of collecting art. Imagine buying a digital artwork for a few million, then in 15 years time the filetype is so out of date the artwork won't run any more!

ztoical

Denerick wrote: »

A far more meaningful medium of communication and/or expression of existential meditation lies in the written word (Novels/poetry) or in film, theatre or opera etc. These are accesible to the masses at reasonable rates and quite affordable. I don't need to pay 50,000 euros to have the privilege of having War and Peace by Tolstoy sitting in my living room. I can pick that up second hand for 2 euro in a charity shop.

But you don't have to pay anything to go to a gallery and enjoy looking at said 50,000 art work. You can pick up a digital print for your living room for a fraction of the cost just like the second hand War and Peace but if you wanted to have a first edition of the book signed by the author then you'd be throwing down 50,000 just like for the original of the painting.

Setun

ztoical wrote: »

But you don't have to pay anything to go to a gallery and enjoy looking at said 50,000 art work. You can pick up a digital print for your living room for a fraction of the cost just like the second hand War and Peace but if you wanted to have a first edition of the book signed by the author then you'd be throwing down 50,000 just like for the original of the painting.

Again I find this point very interesting - the value in a work of art is due to its singularity. It exists in one place, and one place only, at any given moment. There is no replica, it is a brand new individual object, created by an artist. If a photographer makes say 100 editions of a print, the image is much less valuable than if there were only 2 copies. That aside - the other major pricing factor is how well known the artist is. Reputation precedes skill and concept, unfortunately.

Having thought about it a bit over the last few days, I think the basis that combines all "good art" is that it challenges reflex thinking - ie, questioning why the world is the way it is, rather than taking it for granted. If contemporary art can be seen to have a purpose and be of benefit to society, then perhaps stimulating our curiosity and inquisitiveness could be it.

Standman

I think placing value on art is difficult to do as it's such a subjective thing. Different paintings can do very different things for different people, from what emotions can be brought up in a person through the colours and textures or the wonder experienced when looking at historical art - it's all relative to the individual and their experiences in life.

I think that the importance of any form of art comes from the way it can inflame the human imagination and can really tap into the beauty of the world in a way that is relatively easily accessible. It can give you a different perspective on things, it can capture the emotion and atmosphere of the world that may strike a chord with the viewer who can relate to the feeling. This is the core value of art I believe, and it always will be.

nyarlothothep

I think as with all things a measured approach should be taken to art, not all modern art is pretentious crap, not all the classical paintings are that good either.

In relation to artists paying for the so called privilege of creating works of art for the public this open the doors to exploitation. You'll have thousands of artists paying people for something they really shouldn't in order to get recognition, when it should be based on aesthetic value, otherwise your just buying your way in and compounding the problemmatics of reputation etc over riding skill and concept. Its like paying someone to give you a job for the experience which is bullsh1t.

If anything the artist can just say, well why should I produce anything for the public if I actually have to pay them for my labour, the investment of my time when I could be doing something else? I mean its hardly an incentive, the reversal of this is that the public should be grateful for the privilege of public art, its not a necessity/entitlement for them, that or they can just learn to live with much drabber surroundings.

I think the extension of classical art in popular entertainment has found its way into videogames and films, there you'll find all the principals of the old masters at work because the artwork in these mediums tends towards photorealism. Kind of like the way metal music is a popular form extension of classical music with the scales, arpeggios, technicality etc. Not all of it mind but a significant amount.

SugarHigh

nyarlothothep wrote: »

In relation to artists paying for the so called privilege of creating works of art for the public this open the doors to exploitation. You'll have thousands of artists paying people for something they really shouldn't in order to get recognition, when it should be based on aesthetic value, otherwise your just buying your way in and compounding the problemmatics of reputation etc over riding skill and concept. Its like paying someone to give you a job for the experience which is bullsh1t.

If anything the artist can just say, well why should I produce anything for the public if I actually have to pay them for my labour, the investment of my time when I could be doing something else? I mean its hardly an incentive, the reversal of this is that the public should be grateful for the privilege of public art, its not a necessity/entitlement for them, that or they can just learn to live with much drabber surroundings.

Is public art chosen because of it's cosmetic beauty or on the ability of the artist to network in the right circles to get them funding? The public in my experience don't like most public art until it has been around long enough to be part of their memories and has sentimental value to it, this kind of appreciation can be built up for absolutely any piece of art no matter how ugly it is. Kind of like how if anyone suggested battersea power station should be knocked down would probably be lynched. The same people would probably object to it if it was a new building trying to get planning permission.

I think the extension of classical art in popular entertainment has found its way into videogames and films, there you'll find all the principals of the old masters at work because the artwork in these mediums tends towards photorealism. Kind of like the way metal music is a popular form extension of classical music with the scales, arpeggios, technicality etc. Not all of it mind but a significant amount.

I don't understand how aiming for photorealisim in video games has anything to do with art? Films are pretty much always photo-realistic:P

nyarlothothep

SugarHigh wrote: »

Is public art chosen because of it's cosmetic beauty or on the ability of the artist to network in the right circles to get them funding? The public in my experience don't like most public art until it has been around long enough to be part of their memories and has sentimental value to it, this kind of appreciation can be built up for absolutely any piece of art no matter how ugly it is. Kind of like how if anyone suggested battersea power station should be knocked down would probably be lynched. The same people would probably object to it if it was a new building trying to get planning permission.


I don't understand how aiming for photorealisim in video games has anything to do with art? Films are pretty much always photo-realistic:P

Yes I believe it probably is, though demanding artists to pay for it just adds to the problem of elitism and is pretty exploitative, in any case its not going to incentivize people to produce art in the first place for the public unless that is the public don't want artworks in their area. In any case there is a metal sculpture in my area, when it was first put there people seemed to like it, there were no objections, I thought it added to the place. As for the subjectivity of aesthetic appreciation I think certain pieces of art are going to strike a fundamental nerve of appreciation, its the transcendence of great art if you will approaching a platonic universality. Other types may be an acquired taste after a while. So I don't think its all relative, certain forms will gain instant appreciation, others may take longer but hold a deeper beauty, others may be a combination of depth and beauty will some will just plain suck. As power plants, that could be moreso for economic reasons than aesthetics.

If you're modelling characters for videogames you'll be applying many of the traditional concepts of sculpture, attention to form, detail, creating smooth transitions in the topology of the object to avoid pitting etc. Same with environment art and texture art, you'll be using blending techniques, focusing in on detail, getting a nice balance between light and shade and so on. You'll be studying reference images too just like you would for any art project. In the case of film its the same, the effects and computer generated imagery have to appear realistic normally in the same way that portraits/sculptures tended towards realism in the renaissance. Jeff Bridges CG face in Tron was more than likely modelled by a crack team of master sculptors using a modelling program.

Cannibal Ox

To me I think the value is in how it communicates ideas. I don't know a whole lot about art, but I do gravitate towards groups like the Impressionists and the Surrealists because to me they were trying to look at the world in radically different ways to the traditional. And that kind of..."action", of looking at things differently, at looking at them anew, and trying to communicate a new way of looking and thinking about the world is as invaluable in my mind as any novel, business idea or philosophy.

(edit: I think this is why I'm more interested in groups around the end of the 19th and early 20th century because, with all the chaos in the world at that time, there was a huge proliferation of new, and often mental, ideas.)

On the other hand, what is also interesting to me is how quickly they become swallowed up by the traditional. Street art I think is a good example. It went from being an illegal, underground movement to being hung on celebrities walls. That's kind of interesting, and I'm sure it plays into how human beings create, legitimize and, I suppose, wear out new ideas, though I've no idea how to approach it.

SugarHigh

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Yes I believe it probably is, though demanding artists to pay for it just adds to the problem of elitism and is pretty exploitative,

It is in no way exploitive That would suggest they are being forced to do it. However whether I want that piece of art or not I will have to pay for it in taxes.

If you're modelling characters for videogames you'll be applying many of the traditional concepts of sculpture, attention to form, detail, creating smooth transitions in the topology of the object to avoid pitting etc. Same with environment art and texture art, you'll be using blending techniques, focusing in on detail, getting a nice balance between light and shade and so on. You'll be studying reference images too just like you would for any art project. In the case of film its the same, the effects and computer generated imagery have to appear realistic normally in the same way that portraits/sculptures tended towards realism in the renaissance. Jeff Bridges CG face in Tron was more than likely modelled by a crack team of master sculptors using a modelling program.

What has any of this got to do with art? The techniques can be used by artists but the techniques themselves aren't art. Modeling a human face to be photo-realistic is a technical problem not really an artistic one. If they use laser scanning is that art?

If someone makes a mathematical model of a lake is that art?

nyarlothothep

SugarHigh wrote: »

It is in no way exploitive That would suggest they are being forced to do it. However whether I want that piece of art or not I will have to pay for it in taxes.


What has any of this got to do with art? The techniques can be used by artists but the techniques themselves aren't art. Modeling a human face to be photo-realistic is a technical problem not really an artistic one. If they use laser scanning is that art?

If someone makes a mathematical model of a lake is that art?

If the artist wants to launch their career and has to pay for the "privilege" of doing so, thats pretty exploitative. Moreover the transaction relationship is completely lopsided, they're paying you to give you their labour hours, their time and effort. In addition the situation that could occur would be one in which the well off could afford to produce such works, whereas capable but poor artists wouldn't have a chance to begin with. You'd end up with an even more clique-ish and that would lead to creative stagnation after a while. Then you would have some of those artists accruing debts to pay for work. It just doesn't add up. As for the tax issue, well think of it this way, its not going to cost you individually that much since the cost is distributed, moreover you can argue that your paying for the upkeep and improvement of your community. Whereas if the individual artist has to cough up the funds they're really going to take the financial brunt and all for giving up their time to produce something for you! Its no way to incentivize the creation of public works of art in the first place. Also such works can yield returns by drawing in tourists, improving the reputation of the area etc.

There is an art in using the techniques sucessfully to create something. Most of what you see in films is a type of art, to dismiss it as not conforming to conventional notions of art is ridiculous. The evocation of a particular mood, atmosphere or host associations is quite often achieved through the aesthetic use of computer generated imagery for example in Sci Fi and Fantasy films. So it does qualify as art. Even effects work from the pre cg era is art. The Death Star model is a work of art, its an image in peoples minds, it took skill, creativity and aesthetic nous to create so it fulfills all the criteria for a work of art. In the same way, the environment generated in LOTR are digital pieces of art, the lifelike fantastical creatures are also works of art. Animation is a type of art.

Technically yes, there is the possibility that a mathematical model of a lake could qualify as art. I've spoken with mathematicians who regard algebra as tending more towards an artform rather than a science. Dentistry and surgery involve artistry. What about the martial arts, dancing is an art form. You could expand the definition to include any situation where you have to use your intuition, skill and experience to achieve a desired outcome.

InTheTrees

Speaking as a painter...

Humans have been scratching out marks on things since before there was music or books. Its my own personal psychosis that drives this obsession so i'd be doing it even if i was locked up in a padded cell.

And weirdly enough that doesn't mean I'm going to give it to you for the price of a used paperback. You can figure out how many hours it took, materials, rent, tax etc and make me an offer. Its a free market out there and you can go and buy mars bars instead if you want.

I could really care less whether if you "cant understand it" or you find it pretentious or, heaven forbid, Over Priced.

SugarHigh

nyarlothothep wrote: »

If the artist wants to launch their career and has to pay for the "privilege" of doing so, thats pretty exploitative.

No it isn't. Why shouldn't you pay to launch your career people do it all the time in terms of education. Models sometimes have to pay to fill up their portfolio and even top models do work for free if it's in the right magazine.

Moreover the transaction relationship is completely lopsided, they're paying you to give you their labour hours, their time and effort.

The current system is people paying to hear an artists message. If he wants to get his message out their he should pay the same way a company would. It's a privilege to have your art seen but it isn't always a privilege to pay for art you don't like.

In addition the situation that could occur would be one in which the well off could afford to produce such works, whereas capable but poor artists wouldn't have a chance to begin with. You'd end up with an even more clique-ish and that would lead to creative stagnation after a while.

I don't know if it would lead to stagnation. During the renaissance no one would train you to be sculptor for free so you had to be well off anyway. Arts and English degrees used to be solely for the rich. I don't think giving artists money improves the art world. Has giving them tax breaks achieved anything in terms of quality of output. Is Ireland literary output better during the start of the 21st century than it was at the start of the 20th? Writers are richer now than they ever were.

Then you would have some of those artists accruing debts to pay for work. It just doesn't add up. As for the tax issue, well think of it this way, its not going to cost you individually that much since the cost is distributed, moreover you can argue that your paying for the upkeep and improvement of your community.

This doesn't apply if I don't like the art which is possible since I've had no say in what gets chosen.

Whereas if the individual artist has to cough up the funds they're really going to take the financial brunt and all for giving up their time to produce something for you! Its no way to incentivize the creation of public works of art in the first place. Also such works can yield returns by drawing in tourists, improving the reputation of the area etc.

It's pretty rare that public art attracts tourists. There are some big examples but they are rare and hard to replicate on purpose.

There is an art in using the techniques sucessfully to create something. Most of what you see in films is a type of art, to dismiss it as not conforming to conventional notions of art is ridiculous. The evocation of a particular mood, atmosphere or host associations is quite often achieved through the aesthetic use of computer generated imagery for example in Sci Fi and Fantasy films. So it does qualify as art. Even effects work from the pre cg era is art. The Death Star model is a work of art, its an image in peoples minds, it took skill, creativity and aesthetic nous to create so it fulfills all the criteria for a work of art. In the same way, the environment generated in LOTR are digital pieces of art, the lifelike fantastical creatures are also works of art. Animation is a type of art.

This is along the lines of everything is art. I don't think there are many video-games which could qualify as art.

Technically yes, there is the possibility that a mathematical model of a lake could qualify as art. I've spoken with mathematicians who regard algebra as tending more towards an artform rather than a science. Dentistry and surgery involve artistry. What about the martial arts, dancing is an art form. You could expand the definition to include any situation where you have to use your intuition, skill and experience to achieve a desired outcome.

This just makes art meaningless. How about just calling the motorway bridges art so we don't have to pay for extra art along side the motorway that just gets stolen and sold for scrap.:D

nyarlothothep

SugarHigh wrote: »

No it isn't. Why shouldn't you pay to launch your career people do it all the time in terms of education. Models sometimes have to pay to fill up their portfolio and even top models do work for free if it's in the right magazine.

The current system is people paying to hear an artists message. If he wants to get his message out their he should pay the same way a company would. It's a privilege to have your art seen but it isn't always a privilege to pay for art you don't like.

I don't know if it would lead to stagnation. During the renaissance no one would train you to be sculptor for free so you had to be well off anyway. Arts and English degrees used to be solely for the rich. I don't think giving artists money improves the art world. Has giving them tax breaks achieved anything in terms of quality of output. Is Ireland literary output better during the start of the 21st century than it was at the start of the 20th? Writers are richer now than they ever were.

This doesn't apply if I don't like the art which is possible since I've had no say in what gets chosen.

It's pretty rare that public art attracts tourists. There are some big examples but they are rare and hard to replicate on purpose.

This is along the lines of everything is art. I don't think there are many video-games which could qualify as art.



This just makes art meaningless. How about just calling the motorway bridges art so we don't have to pay for extra art along side the motorway that just gets stolen and sold for scrap.:D

1. Just because it happens in other industries doesn't make it right. Work for free is different, you're not paying someone to work for them. With regards education, you're getting knowledge and skills in return. Its not just about launching a career. Say you have two parties, the town council and the artist. The council demands that the artist pay them money to invest probably upwards of 100 hours in the production of a work of art. What is stopping the artist from the telling the council to p1ss off? How is it in anyway reasonable that one party is being given something by another and then demanding to be paid for it on top of that? As I said its like someone paying their employer 30,000 for the privilege of working for them. Its grossly unfair.

2. Thats just your opinion. I could say that its the artist who is giving something back to their community and its not about them imposing their message.

3. I'm saying that stagnation and group think occurs when the creative pool becomes closed off. It happened in Ireland in the political world, it happened in the Israeli Kibbutzim with old boys networks due to leadership rotation and it happening in Bollywood cinema with the who you know and familial connections ethos at work, and this I learned from a friend who is a Bollywood music film director. As for Ireland literary output, entirely debatable either way, predicated on a whole host of factors.

4. There could be a participatory framework for the public to have input into the brief for the artist. We often have to pay taxes we don't like or agree with for the welfare of others or society in general. Thats not to say I agree with all kinds of taxes either and that some shouldn't be changed which anyone is welcome to do.

5. Again thats really debatable

6. No its not. I've specified that visual effects and modelling are art forms in film you haven't given any good reasons for why they're not other than saying that they don't conform to your notion of art. There would be plenty of VFX artists who would disagree with you. Perhaps you should study up on the discipline and then you might see that it is an artform. A videogame is another form of art, its just new so most people wouldn't consider it thus. Its usually massive creative project involving huge teams of artists working round the clock. These artists are the best of the best, have gone to art college or have the ability to match it. They create artwork which is incorporated into the game.

7. As I said you need skill, intuition and experience to arrive at a desired outcome, creative or practical. I've given examples where just following an algorithmic pattern won't necessarily get your very far. Anyway what you're talking about is engineering, which is more of a science.

In any case this is turning into a rather circular debate so I'm bowing out of this one.

Boskowski

Art is so much more than a 'mad' sculpture or a seemingly nonsensical installation. Art is aesthetics, art is creativity, art is spirit. Art is very influential in our every day beyond that mad sculpture. Art is in the design of your car and your household items and whatnot For gods sake every song you listen to is art (say nothing just leave it there). And its all connected. The notion of there being an art for arts sake is a misguided one to begin with. Art itself can not be measured as in putting a materialistic value on it. One would only realise what art does for us when it's missing. It would be a horrible world I believe.

I must add that it's becoming a terrible habit in these times that everything is questioned for it's commercial value or similar usefulness. But maybe that's not where you're coming from.

SugarHigh

Boskowski wrote: »

Art is so much more than a 'mad' sculpture or a seemingly nonsensical installation. Art is aesthetics, art is creativity, art is spirit. Art is very influential in our every day beyond that mad sculpture. Art is in the design of your car and your household items and whatnot For gods sake every song you listen to is art (say nothing just leave it there). And its all connected. The notion of there being an art for arts sake is a misguided one to begin with. Art itself can not be measured as in putting a materialistic value on it. One would only realise what art does for us when it's missing. It would be a horrible world I believe.

I must add that it's becoming a terrible habit in these times that everything is questioned for it's commercial value or similar usefulness. But maybe that's not where you're coming from.

The greatest skill an artist can have is the ability to búll****. If you can convince people your art is good then it is good. This is why the biggest players in the art world are also the biggest players in the advertising world where "adding value" to crap makes you king.

I'm not saying art is useless or crap I'm just saying the art world is a playground that attracts a lot of spoofers.