Should price and quality of artwork be interdependent?
A few weeks ago, I was surfing around the cool hunting websites that I check regularly, and I noticed an article on
Josh Spear's blog about a new artist collective (just two artists really, Justin Gignac and his girlfriend Christine) calling themselves
Wants For Sale.
Apparently,
Justin is a friend of Josh's, which may explain the sycophantish nature of the post, but it wouldn't explain how the "artwork" created by the duo has been selling. Sure, it is mainly just the cheap stuff, and I guess the exposure could explain the sales, but the quality of the work is just so poor and there is no distinction in quality dependent on price, which is what I find especially objectionable.
The theme of Wants For Sale is that Justin and Christine chose something that they want, paint it, then sell the painting for the price of the item being represented. I have nothing against this concept, it actually seems like a good idea. They will even trade the painting directly for the item. What I find irritating about their work is that the quality and the price do not coincide. For example, their painting of an iPhone, which costs $649.17, is the same size and quality of craftsmanship (or lack thereof) as their painting of Buffalo wings, which costs $12.70.
So, should quality and price be dependent on one another? Should two paintings of equal quality and size, produced by the same artist, have the same value? I think so. In order for a work of art to have a higher value, I believe it should at least be of greater quality, if not a larger size.
To me it makes sense that this artwork comes from the mind of the same guy who collects
garbage from the streets of New York, puts it in plastic cubes and sells it for $50. It's a gimmick, but is it art?
In my initial post, I try to determine what is art and what is gimmick. By my own definition, art can be anything that is created by an artist and recognized as art by an audience of at least two people. According to that definition, the garbage cubes barely pass as art, but the Wants For Sale work passes the muster. The garbage cubes barely pass because the artist did not create the initial garbage. He just collected it and encased it in plastic cubes. This act of collecting and preserving, much like the found art objects created by
Robert Rauschenberg, qualifies the garbage as art, but again, just barely.
The paintings from the Wants For Sale project qualify as art (illustration to be precise), but I guess that is not really my qualm. To reiterate, the issue here is whether quality and price should be dependent on one another. Again, yes, I believe they should. So it pisses me off to see these piss-poor paintings of various sizes being priced dependent on the subject matter of the painting. Should a landscape painting cost more than a portrait? Should an abstract piece be less valuable than a still life? I'm not sure what I can do about this, other than to rant, pull out my hair and avoid Justin Gignac and his girlfriend Christine for fear that I would put my fist through their faces. I just needed to get that off of my chest.
Who wants a spoon?
There is an exhibit at
Wootini gallery in
Carr Mill Mall in Carrboro, NC by a Portland-based artist by the name of
Bwana Spoons that I find to be one of the worst, most garish exhibitions of trash that I have seen in a long time. I am pretty open-minded when it comes to art, but come on. This is the kind of stuff that elementary school kids drew on their denim-wrapped
Trapper Keepers back in the 80's. I am all for freedom of expression, but is an exhibit of this work really necessary? Couldn't this guy's parents just put his pictures up on the refrigerator and be done with it? Who else wants to see this stuff?
One thing I don't particularly like about the Wootini gallery is that they often have artists' work unframed and hung on the wall with magnets, like at the
Jermaine Rogers exhibit. It just seems so unprofessional. Of course, not having framed work seems unprofessional to me in the first place. This is one other reason I don't particularly appreciate Bwana Spoons' work. Unframed, mediocre, and dated is no way to show art. I do kinda like his
Steven the Bat toys, but that is the extent of his work that I actually find interesting, and it seems to be a prototype for a product that once mass-marketed ceases to be art.
So I guess this blog has become something of my own personal critique of artists who may be more successful than me, but whose work is boring, repetitive or mediocre. Yes, I am jealous of these people for their success. But does this make any of my points any less valid? I would just like to see more creative, interesting and less repetitive art get the recognition that it deserves. The question is, can this kind of work be marketable? And if you market it, is it still art? Can commercial or consumer art be fine art?
These are the questions I deal with on a daily basis when I paint and try to sell my artwork. Why can't today's society be more like the
Italian Renaissance, when patrons like the
Medici's kept artists like
Michelangelo in business. Sure times were tough back then, but with all of our modern conveniences, keeping artists from having to do any
real work nowadays shouldn't be a problem. I guess the problem is that there are too many artists and the ability to distribute their work is too great.
Mac, I think it's time to go on that
interstate killing spree. But this one can't be random, it has to be specifically targeted at artists. Kill them before they spread like
kudzu covering and smothering society like a filthy green blanket.
Why doesn't Coop love me?
I love him. Or at least his artwork. Well, most of it, that is. It reminds me of my childhood affection for
comic books,
hot rods,
Ed "Big Daddy" Roth, and
Pop Art. I even visit Coop's blog,
Positive Ape Index, on a daily basis.
Coop's artwork should probably be considered Pop Art. His subject matter is definitely "Pop". Devil
girls, hot rods, motorcycle helmets,
video game joysticks, etc. are all pop culture icons, and these are the things that Coop paints. Is his work gimmick, however? He does sell quite a bit of his artwork in various forms. I have one of his
Qee keychain figures. But does his
merchandise in all of its various forms make his work gimmick? His
original artwork is very clean and stylized, and also fairly expensive for its size and subject matter. Do other comic book artists sell their inked comic book pages for these kinds of prices. Probably some of the golden age stuff, but what about today's crew? Could my friend
Jacen take his pre-production pages and sell them for thousands of dollars? His stuff is at least as good as Coop's, in terms of its illustrative qualities.
I still don't know whether I would put Coop in the gimmick category. He is similar to
Dalek in a lot of aspects, which makes it hard to categorize him as gimmick. The difference is that Coop calls himself an "artist", the first sentence on his website is, "Coopstuff is an art site, featuring the art of COOP." He doesn't call his work "commercial art" or "consumer art", yet it is clearly intended for mass-consumption. I think he may be a gimmick.
Coop sells his work in any form available to him, from books to tattoo flash to toys. Nothing under the sun is off limits. I guess this is a good way for an artist to make a living, but is it an honest way? Has his work become stagnant and repetitive? The themes and style of his work are all very similar. So I will go ahead and say that his work is gimmick. Come on Coop, bring it on! You can't faze me.
Bob Timberlake vs. Henri Rousseau
During his lifetime,
Henri Rousseau was considered the best "bad" artist around. Even today some art critics regard his art as something nice to look at but not as serious art.
Bob Timberlake faces the same scrutiny today. This should be one of the bloodiest battles ever waged by two underwhelming artists.
Rousseau was a working-class, self-educated artist who did not go through the French Academy and Salon system and therefore his work was not considered serious art during his lifetime. Although Rousseau may not have been popular while alive, his paintings did begin selling after his death and his work is included in many important museums today. He was appreciated by the likes of
Toulouse-Lautrec,
Edgar Degas,
Odilon Redon,
Auguste Renoir, and
Paul Gauguin, who, like Rousseau, came from a working-class background and was a self-educated artist.
Bob Timberlake is almost the opposite. His work sells quite well today, but I don't think it will ever be considered serious art. He was also self-educated, and, according to his website, was encouraged by Andrew Wyeth at the age of 33 to devote himself full-time to his painting. How unfortunate. His first three solo exhibitions at New York's Hammer Galleries were sold out days before their openings. He has held numerous solo museum exhibitions, including the North Carolina Museum of Art in Raleigh, the Corcoran Gallery in Washington, D.C., the Fry Museum in Seattle, and the Isetan Gallery in Tokyo. Bob designed the first Christmas Stamp for the US Postal Service, both the North Carolina and South Carolina statehood stamps, and the commemorative postcard marking the bicentennial of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Do all of these accomplishments make his work good? Do they make it anything more than gimmick?
He has completely sold-out, that's for sure, but is his work gimmick? With all of his accomplishments it would seem that he might be a genuine artist, but his work, which is sold in editions of 50,000 or more and is still called "limited", has become so generic and universally recognized as crap that it has become simply a sales scheme, and can therefore be considered gimmick. If he called himself an illustrator, along the same lines as
Norman Rockwell but more of a sell-out, then I wouldn't consider him a gimmick, but he doesn't.
At least Rousseau wasn't a sell-out during his lifetime. His work may have been considered inferior because he was a retired, uneducated, working-class customs inspector, but he is now considered the grandfather of
Naïve Painting and
Surrealism. The only thing Bob Timberlake will be considered the grandfather of in the future is his grandchildren, of which he has seven according to his
bio.
Oh yeah, and all that stuff about Bob Timberlake goes double for
Thomas Kincaid. I think I might have to take a whack at
Coop next.
Jacob Cooley
Here's an artist that I have actually met, he lives right up the street from my parents, so I can talk smack about him all I want. Alright, I won't be too harsh. I like
Jacob Cooley's work, to an extent. It's just so repetitive, I can almost say with certainty that it has become gimmick. Here's my reason: unlike Dalek's work, which does not purport to be fine art, Jacob Cooley's work is definitely meant to be. Every single painting has that feeling of dusk in the marshlands; the dark, distant trees, the cloudless, gradient sky reflected perfectly in the ever-present stream, the soft brushstrokes of the reedy grass. It looks like he learned to paint from
Bob Ross.
One thing I have been told by every gallery I ever approached to show
my paintings in, is to have a unified portfolio. The work should all have a similar look. This helps sell the work because it makes it recognizable as being painted by a specific artist. Sure this is good for business, but is that what art is all about? Is it just about commerce? I have seen Jacob Cooley's paintings sell for over $10,000 a piece, so if art is just about commerce, then apparently he is a great artist. Is it about repeating the same process over and over again? I thought that was called mass-production. This type of work could come off an assembly line as easily as it could come from an artist's easel.
Calling something fine art and then mass-producing it in order to promote it qualifies in my opinion as gimmick, and this is just what Jacob Cooley is doing with his work. If he considered his work illustration, I would not be so quick to judge it as gimmick, but under the previously outlined definition, gimmick it is. Of course, that's just my opinion. Next up, I rip
Bob Timberlake a new asshole.
Oh yeah, many thanks to Lindsay Marshall over at Bifurcated Rivets for the link.
Dalek's Space Monkeys
I don't want this blog to feel like I am picking on people or their artwork. That's what critiques at art school are for. I am merely trying to determine whether or not what these people have created should be considered art or if it has become a deceptive scheme promoting a project and is therefore "gimmick." Remember I want to hear from readers, so if you disagree with what I have to say, let me know.
When I first saw
Dalek's paintings, I was fairly entranced by them. The weird little Space Monkeys, which to me look more like stylized, distorted, graffiti versions of Mickey Mouse, were cute enough to hold my interest for a little while. Then I realized that they are the
only thing that Dalek ever paints. And always facing left. And usually with a simple color field background. It is impossible to determine from his bio why Dalek sticks with the same imagery, he poses more questions than he answers, but one reason that comes to my mind is that Space Monkeys are profitable. He sticks with the same theme because it is making him money.
The question is, "Is this a 'deceptive' scheme?" There is no way to tell from his bio whether Dalek considers his work fine art or commercial "consumer" art. But from the look of his
store I would say that he knows what kind of art he is producing. From
limited edition resin figures to
skateboard decks to
mouse pads,
books,
stickers, and even
shower curtains, Dalek has transformed his artwork into several consumer products. Does this make his work a gimmick? I think it's getting very close.
The only reason I wouldn't call Dalek's artwork outright gimmick is that nowhere on his website does he state that it is merely fine art. And there's that handy-dandy store of his, which pretty much shouts, "This is consumer art!" I am getting rather bored of seeing his Space Monkeys, though. Maybe it is time to move onto new subject matter. The only difficulty in doing so would be alienating fans and collectors of the Space Monkey. But with so much merchandise out, it would seem like true collectors would want to limit future production in order to keep the value high. If I were Dalek I would want to get my stuff mass-produced and in as many stores as possible so that I could make as much money on it as possible. No more limited runs on toys and such. Of course, once he has done this, he can no longer call his work "art." If he did, then it would be truly become "gimmick."
Juxtapoz magazine
If you look at the sidebar over there on the right under the heading "Art" you will notice the first link is to
Juxtapoz magazine.
Juxtapoz is one of the few art magazines that I read, along with the occasional perusal of
Art News or
Art in America. I should probably read more art magazines, but I find most of them banal, pretentious and self-serving. I often think of myself in these same terms.
Juxtapoz is somehow different from most other art magazines, calling itself, right there on the cover, an "Art and Culture Magazine." Started by
Robt. Williams way back in 1995, Juxtapoz began as a small, alternative, low-brow, bi-monthly art magazine. Starting in January, it is going to become a monthly publication. We can only wait and see if this compromises the quality.
I remember when I first saw
Robt. Williams' artwork on the cover of the
Guns N' Roses album
Appetite for Destruction back in 1987. I was instantly mesmerized by his intense use of color, heavy linework, somewhat realistic representation, and perverse subject matter. I stared for what seemed like hours at his picture-books whenever I visited one of our local book stores. Later, in college at
SCAD in 1995, my roommate Carl introduced me to the subversive contents of
Juxtapoz magazine. I've tried my entire life to subvert the dominant paradigm, and here was a magazine devoted to art that did just that.
Unfortunately, sometimes what is once underground
becomes the dominant paradigm. With the naming of
Banksy as
Esquire magazine's
"Artist of the Year," street art -- low-brow art -- has apparently gone mainstream.
What does this mean for
Juxtapoz magazine, other than the fact that they are going monthly? One result, I'm sure, is more advertising dollars as more galleries show low-brow art and want to advertise in
Juxtapoz and more limited edition toy, shoe, and other stores associated with the low-brow-art-culture scene do the same. Does the fact that quite a bit of the artwork shown in
Juxtapoz is by artists whose work has become repetitive and commercially produced for sale make the magazine a gimmick? Or is it still relevant to the world of fine art? I don't know if that has yet to be determined. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens in January. Let me know what you think in the comments.
What is art? What is gimmick?
The question of
"What is art?" has been asked for millennia through the philosophy of art, also known as aesthetics.
Plato speculated that art was useless because it was simply a reproduction of the physical world, which in turn was merely a representation of some "Divine Reality" in which every earthly object was reflected in its perfect form.
Most modern
aestheticians have agreed that the basic definition of art is, "anything that is created by an artist and recognized as art by an audience of at least two people." This could define pretty much any object ever created. As long as you can find two friends to call your nose-goblin collection "art", then apparently, that's what it is. Twentieth century artists, who were no longer bound by conventional notions of art as a reproduction of reality due to the timely invention of affordable photographic equipment, pushed the boundaries of what can be considered "art" with such artistic movements as
DADA,
Abstract Expressionism,
Pop Art,
Op Art,
Minimalism, etc.
In today's capitalistic society, objects are valued as much for their commercial, consumer appeal as their are for their aesthetic sense. This is where the idea of gimmick comes into play.
Word Reference defines the word
gimmick as, "Any clever (deceptive) maneuver."
Dictionary.com defines
gimmick as, "An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project." By these definitions, a lot of art could be considered a gimmick. Plenty of artists use clever, innovative stratagems and schemes to promote their work. The difficult part is recognizing when the work itself is simply an innovative scheme or if it can stand alone as art. That's what I plan to determine through this blog.
I have a degree in painting with a minor in art history from
Savannah College of Art & Design, so I consider myself somewhat of an expert on the subject of aesthetics. You may not, that's cool. That's what the comment section is for. Anyway, art can be aesthetically pleasing or displeasing, as long as it contains some aesthetic merit or interest. When it becomes stagnant and repetitive, it starts to lose its ability to hold the audience's attention and subsequently loses aesthetic interest. This happens frequently with
consumer art, which is transformed by this process into what I consider "gimmick."
Not everyone will agree with what I have to say here. That's why aesthetics holds such an appeal for me, it is an open dialogue with no hard and fast "truths." Please feel free to comment on anything I have said here or in any subsequent posts. I look forward to not only voicing my opinion on the subject but also hearing back from anyone who agrees, disagrees or just wants to vent their frustration with me or the art world in general. And now, let the melee begin.
