Kinkade. Where to begin.
Honestly, the man is a capitalism genius. He's got everything from mass-produced prints to puzzles to plates to chairs to figurines to a neighborhood of real cottages built to look like the ones depicted in his paintings. There's probably even more production in the works that we don't know about, and it's all for sale for more than it's worth in this blogger's humble opinion. The reason? Kinkade is not an artist--he's a business man.
That is not to say that his work is not art. By my definition, I have to identify his cottage fetish as art, but under no circumstances would I call it good art. That right I reserve entirely.
In regards to the article, the things Kinkade peddles to middle America via his galleries is reminiscent of a pawn shop. When the author discusses the worth of the paintings, I begin to wonder why certain paintings are "worth" more. One possible reason would be the price rises with who will pay most for it in a bidding war, like stocks in the stock market.
Now my favorite part about this is the fact that if someone were to hock a Kinkade, it would not catch a higher price than some less well-known artists just because he's more famous. I would guess that that is attributable to saturation and dilution of the market: Since he mass-produced his work, it is not as rare, and rarity is often the final word on how expensive something is. Inflated prices to show quality can only bring someone so far.
In today's video, Kinkade claimed that a Picasso will not be worth as much in the future as it is now, and he alludes to the fact that a Picasso will not be worth as much as Kinkade's own work because Kinkade creates art that people can understand and appreciate. While I agree with one Kinkade fan that he should hang what he likes on his wall regardless of deeper meaning, I do not think that is a good enough reason to write off the value of a Picasso.
Overall, I personally feel that the value of art is inflated overall. Sure, someone could have bought a painting for a million dollars before the economic slump, but after, the price may have dropped to half that because the price is only determined by what someone will pay for it. And that is unfortunately what we sometimes base our judgment of talent on as well. It's all inherent to the subjectivity of art.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Running the Reviews: Criticism or Neutral?
According to Chris Jordan, “The problem with statistics is they’re so dry and emotionless (Pasulka).” In the same interview, he goes on to say, “Because statistics are so hard to connect with, we’re not going to find motivation from them.” He is correct that it is sometimes hard to connect with a context-less number, especially a number so large. Another problem with plain statistics is the difficulty most people have truly understanding the scale of the numbers displayed, such as the 12.5 million dollars spent ever hour in Iraq. To resolve this problem with dry data that he perceives, Jordan helps the observer conceptualize the numbers of consumption by showing them entirely and in detail. Jordan’s exhibit Running the Numbers supposedly examines the United States’ mass consumption, but it leaves the audience wondering: Is it a criticism?
Upon entering the gallery, the first print to the right is his 2004 work, “Containers and Mount Rainier”. At first glance, this work seems to be nothing more than a portrait of Tacoma skyline, but upon rumination, it is much more than that. It sets the stage for the rest of the prints by juxtaposing nature and our influence on it. It acts as an introduction to the statistically based commentaries on how our culture behaves, but the print itself is not critical. Some could view it as a condemnation of how people use land and space, but “Containers and Mount Rainier” is merely a foreword for what is to come. Jordan’s works that follow “Containers and Mount Rainier” appear to be more specifically critical of consumerism and wastefulness.
His criticism is exemplified with “Skull With Cigarette”. It is fairly apparent what he is saying when he creates a picture of a skull out of cigarette packs: “Cigarettes will kill you.” Jordan’s representation of the number of American deaths due to smoking per six months is clearly negative. It is difficult, however, to determine exactly who or what he is critiquing. Is the cigarette company the problem, or is it the habit of smoking? The piece is purposeful and impactful, but if his intent was to precisely pinpoint one target, Jordan fails. Still, without a specific mark, Jordan is able to condemn the entire cigarette industry. In that way, this work becomes critical of western culture.
While Jordan seems to be criticizing American consumerism with some of his work, other pieces are much more neutral. Some appear to be there for the sole purpose of facilitating conceptualization of the large numbers we hear about our own consumption. For example, Jordan uses one hundred dollar bills to display 12.5 million dollars spent in Iraq every hour in “Ben Franklin (2007)”. Most of the time, the news will report new budgets or extreme figures for spending in Iraq, and it is difficult to truly understand how much that is. In “Ben Franklin”, Jordan lets the audience understand how much money that is by showing us the pure statistics without criticism.
Though the majority of the pieces in the exhibit are geared toward disparagement of the western, or sometimes more specifically American, consumerist lifestyle, his contemplation is not always negative. Sometimes, Jordan lets the audience come to their own conclusions, as with “Jet Trails (2007)”. In this picture, Jordan displays the jet trails of 11,000 flights which is supposedly the number of flights for every eight hours. This picture could be taken as a deplorable waste of fuel or a demonstration of how our culture has developed with technology and instant gratification. Either way, Jordan does not pass judgment. In some ways, the jet trails are necessary for our lifestyle—exchange of foreign goods, diplomat travel, or vacationing tourists. In other ways, they could be seen as necessary for the stability of world economy or maintenance of peace, especially because not everyone flies. Eleven thousand may be a small number given how many people are in the world. The choice of how to interpret this statistic is left up to us.
Of course, other reviewers believe that Jordan’s goal is not to criticize or lead others to criticize but to wake people up to their roles in the grand scheme of consumerism. Julian Champkin interpreted Jordan’s work as an “underlying desire is to emphasize the role of the individual in a world that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible and overwhelming (Champkin 142).” Jordan has said that the wastefulness “is happening because of the tiny incremental harm that every single one of us is doing as an individual (Champkin 143).” Champkin also agrees that Jordan’s “His work brings out the meaning that statistics contain but fail to convey (Champkin 141).”
Even so, Champkin has some criticism of Jordan’s art. Referring to some of his pieces, Champkin observes that “the detail of the image is lost,” 3 which is true. A problem with his approach, neutral or critical, is that in such photos as “Lightbulbs (2008)” the detail is lost as it fades to black or merges together. On one hand, it is good to see the large scale of the statistic, but on the other, it is still as useless to view a demonstration of said statistic when the detail cannot be surmised. In that way, Jordan fails.
In this audience member’s opinion, Jordan’s best work is that which is real and ambiguous, such as his introductory piece “Containers and Mount Rainier”. Because it is a real place that someone could go and view in the real world, not just a doctored photo of unrealistic proportion, it is much more impactful. It is a real place that the effects of consumer culture can be observed in the natural environment, for better or for worse. In this piece, he provokes us to think and leaves the conclusions up to the viewer—the best kind of statement. As a whole, Jordan’s exhibit does an excellent job of triggering his audience to contemplate their place in the process of consumption, and while he gears his critique toward negative criticism, he lets the audience decide for themselves.
Works Cited
Champkin, Julian. "Running the numbers: statistics as art." Significance 5(2008): 141-144.
Pasulka, Nicole. "Running the Numbers--The Morning News." The Morning News. 23 Jul 2007. 15 Feb 2009.
Upon entering the gallery, the first print to the right is his 2004 work, “Containers and Mount Rainier”. At first glance, this work seems to be nothing more than a portrait of Tacoma skyline, but upon rumination, it is much more than that. It sets the stage for the rest of the prints by juxtaposing nature and our influence on it. It acts as an introduction to the statistically based commentaries on how our culture behaves, but the print itself is not critical. Some could view it as a condemnation of how people use land and space, but “Containers and Mount Rainier” is merely a foreword for what is to come. Jordan’s works that follow “Containers and Mount Rainier” appear to be more specifically critical of consumerism and wastefulness.
His criticism is exemplified with “Skull With Cigarette”. It is fairly apparent what he is saying when he creates a picture of a skull out of cigarette packs: “Cigarettes will kill you.” Jordan’s representation of the number of American deaths due to smoking per six months is clearly negative. It is difficult, however, to determine exactly who or what he is critiquing. Is the cigarette company the problem, or is it the habit of smoking? The piece is purposeful and impactful, but if his intent was to precisely pinpoint one target, Jordan fails. Still, without a specific mark, Jordan is able to condemn the entire cigarette industry. In that way, this work becomes critical of western culture.
While Jordan seems to be criticizing American consumerism with some of his work, other pieces are much more neutral. Some appear to be there for the sole purpose of facilitating conceptualization of the large numbers we hear about our own consumption. For example, Jordan uses one hundred dollar bills to display 12.5 million dollars spent in Iraq every hour in “Ben Franklin (2007)”. Most of the time, the news will report new budgets or extreme figures for spending in Iraq, and it is difficult to truly understand how much that is. In “Ben Franklin”, Jordan lets the audience understand how much money that is by showing us the pure statistics without criticism.
Though the majority of the pieces in the exhibit are geared toward disparagement of the western, or sometimes more specifically American, consumerist lifestyle, his contemplation is not always negative. Sometimes, Jordan lets the audience come to their own conclusions, as with “Jet Trails (2007)”. In this picture, Jordan displays the jet trails of 11,000 flights which is supposedly the number of flights for every eight hours. This picture could be taken as a deplorable waste of fuel or a demonstration of how our culture has developed with technology and instant gratification. Either way, Jordan does not pass judgment. In some ways, the jet trails are necessary for our lifestyle—exchange of foreign goods, diplomat travel, or vacationing tourists. In other ways, they could be seen as necessary for the stability of world economy or maintenance of peace, especially because not everyone flies. Eleven thousand may be a small number given how many people are in the world. The choice of how to interpret this statistic is left up to us.
Of course, other reviewers believe that Jordan’s goal is not to criticize or lead others to criticize but to wake people up to their roles in the grand scheme of consumerism. Julian Champkin interpreted Jordan’s work as an “underlying desire is to emphasize the role of the individual in a world that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible and overwhelming (Champkin 142).” Jordan has said that the wastefulness “is happening because of the tiny incremental harm that every single one of us is doing as an individual (Champkin 143).” Champkin also agrees that Jordan’s “His work brings out the meaning that statistics contain but fail to convey (Champkin 141).”
Even so, Champkin has some criticism of Jordan’s art. Referring to some of his pieces, Champkin observes that “the detail of the image is lost,” 3 which is true. A problem with his approach, neutral or critical, is that in such photos as “Lightbulbs (2008)” the detail is lost as it fades to black or merges together. On one hand, it is good to see the large scale of the statistic, but on the other, it is still as useless to view a demonstration of said statistic when the detail cannot be surmised. In that way, Jordan fails.
In this audience member’s opinion, Jordan’s best work is that which is real and ambiguous, such as his introductory piece “Containers and Mount Rainier”. Because it is a real place that someone could go and view in the real world, not just a doctored photo of unrealistic proportion, it is much more impactful. It is a real place that the effects of consumer culture can be observed in the natural environment, for better or for worse. In this piece, he provokes us to think and leaves the conclusions up to the viewer—the best kind of statement. As a whole, Jordan’s exhibit does an excellent job of triggering his audience to contemplate their place in the process of consumption, and while he gears his critique toward negative criticism, he lets the audience decide for themselves.
Works Cited
Champkin, Julian. "Running the numbers: statistics as art." Significance 5(2008): 141-144.
Pasulka, Nicole. "Running the Numbers--The Morning News." The Morning News. 23 Jul 2007. 15 Feb 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Kant
First of all, Kant's quote "If we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost (106)," immediately calls to mind a contrast with Plato's concepts of art. As we recently learned, Plato considered art to be three times removed from the "real", and along comes Kant claiming that beauty is nonexistent if judged by Plato's standards. Of course, not all art is beautiful, but since the goal of many artists is to represent things in beautiful ways, the direct contrast is worth examining.
And in regards to universal goals, I latched onto Kant's words: "It is of no consequence how [gratification] is attained, and since then the choice of means alone could make a difference, men could indeed blame one another for stupidity and indiscretion, but never for baseness and wickedness. For thus they all, according to his own way of seeing things, seek one goal, that is, gratification." (pg 99-100) I'll say it bluntly: B.S. Of course we can blame someone for their baseness or wickedness because wickedness stems from the choice that one makes to gain that gratification. I won't dwell on it... but this is me mentioning Hitler. So I do think that the choices someone makes about art, whether it be taste or what they're hanging in the livingroom, or keeping hidden in the garage, speaks to who they are or perceive themselves to be. Art is iconic in that without the messages behind it, it would be merely aesthetics.
Kant claims that once you become interested in something, you are no longer fit to judge its beauty. I disagree, proposing two scenarios:
1. I become interested in the art because it is beautiful. Just because I begin liking it, since humans are after all drawn to beauty, doesn't mean I can't determine whether it is beautiful. It is true that the bias may obscure or polarize my views like a mom's perception of her child, but that by itself doesn't make the determination wrong. Like any other critique of that nature, one person's view must be contrasted against a backdrop of others'.
2. I think the particular art is not beautiful but like it anyway. Sometimes a piece of art is hideous but likable because of what it represents. I personally didn't find all of Chris Jordan's art beautiful--for example, the airline plastic cups--but I did like the art and what it represented.
Kant insults my intelligence by suggesting that liking something pulls the wool over my eyes, and my perception and ideas about that thing skews any reasonable judgment about it.
And in regards to universal goals, I latched onto Kant's words: "It is of no consequence how [gratification] is attained, and since then the choice of means alone could make a difference, men could indeed blame one another for stupidity and indiscretion, but never for baseness and wickedness. For thus they all, according to his own way of seeing things, seek one goal, that is, gratification." (pg 99-100) I'll say it bluntly: B.S. Of course we can blame someone for their baseness or wickedness because wickedness stems from the choice that one makes to gain that gratification. I won't dwell on it... but this is me mentioning Hitler. So I do think that the choices someone makes about art, whether it be taste or what they're hanging in the livingroom, or keeping hidden in the garage, speaks to who they are or perceive themselves to be. Art is iconic in that without the messages behind it, it would be merely aesthetics.
Kant claims that once you become interested in something, you are no longer fit to judge its beauty. I disagree, proposing two scenarios:
1. I become interested in the art because it is beautiful. Just because I begin liking it, since humans are after all drawn to beauty, doesn't mean I can't determine whether it is beautiful. It is true that the bias may obscure or polarize my views like a mom's perception of her child, but that by itself doesn't make the determination wrong. Like any other critique of that nature, one person's view must be contrasted against a backdrop of others'.
2. I think the particular art is not beautiful but like it anyway. Sometimes a piece of art is hideous but likable because of what it represents. I personally didn't find all of Chris Jordan's art beautiful--for example, the airline plastic cups--but I did like the art and what it represented.
Kant insults my intelligence by suggesting that liking something pulls the wool over my eyes, and my perception and ideas about that thing skews any reasonable judgment about it.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Tastes
There is a very good reason as to why different preferences in art are called different "tastes". It's because people's preferences for what they hang on the wall or display in their living rooms or attend at a theater vary as much as people's preferences for food. For the most part, I do believe that much of what we are willing to digest as a common group depends on the culture from which the observer is coming. For example, someone of United States descent might be less inclined to appreciate a nude painting than another culture thanks to our roots as a country in Puritanism.
Regardless of the cultural aspect, personal tastes seem to be rather consistent in many people, or to borrow a term from experimental literature, people demonstrate internal consistency. That is to mean that tastes draw people toward the same kinds of paintings which in turn individually demonstrate their personal tastes. Let's say that a fan of ironic art walks into a gallery and spots the two paintings on the UH 440 class's group page hanging up on the wall. That person would purchase both of the paintings because they both demonstrate irony, and it would not be a long stretch to claim that they are meant to be displayed in the same collection or even in close proximity. Since the man is making a monkey face, and the monkey is posing for a portrait the way a man might, it is easy to make several conclusions with regard to what the artist could be saying.
Because they seem to be of similar origin, message, artist, and/or genre, they could be considered tasteful.
One thing I would like to point out about taste is that it does not determine what art truly is. When someone claims that a piece is not art, it is because s/he is using the term "art" dripping with connotation. "Art" does not imply good or bad: That's the job of "skill".
Regardless of the cultural aspect, personal tastes seem to be rather consistent in many people, or to borrow a term from experimental literature, people demonstrate internal consistency. That is to mean that tastes draw people toward the same kinds of paintings which in turn individually demonstrate their personal tastes. Let's say that a fan of ironic art walks into a gallery and spots the two paintings on the UH 440 class's group page hanging up on the wall. That person would purchase both of the paintings because they both demonstrate irony, and it would not be a long stretch to claim that they are meant to be displayed in the same collection or even in close proximity. Since the man is making a monkey face, and the monkey is posing for a portrait the way a man might, it is easy to make several conclusions with regard to what the artist could be saying.
Because they seem to be of similar origin, message, artist, and/or genre, they could be considered tasteful.
One thing I would like to point out about taste is that it does not determine what art truly is. When someone claims that a piece is not art, it is because s/he is using the term "art" dripping with connotation. "Art" does not imply good or bad: That's the job of "skill".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
