Paintings Lack Vitamin C

If I ate paint I would die. I think. Art is unnecessary for the physical survival of humans. It provides no shelter, food, or utilitarian function. Because of this, art doesn’t really show up historically until a culture is advanced enough to have free time when they don’t have to run around catching rabbits or building tree houses. After the culture has some level of civilization they can afford to spend some time on useless things like art and TV watching. So the Neanderthal first invented charcoal to draw on his cave. Then he invented Oprah.

Since art didn’t feed them they didn’t trade it for things like deer meat or roof-thatch. Instead they gave it away. It wasn’t governed by the rules of capitalism, it was governed by the Laws of the Gift. Maybe. Or maybe there was a Neanderthal Picasso who was given 40,000 ears of corn for his cubist cave paintings of deer-hunting stick figures.

It might be true that deep down we believe art should be a gift. How many art centers and libraries are provided for free public use? What about groups like MoTab that work to bring free music to the world? Art, literature, and music are often freely shared. This breaks down when the artist, musician, and writers realize that they have to survive. Art then becomes a commodity. Sometimes the price of the artwork even affects our perception of it. Is that okay? Are we losing something here? Should art be a gift or a commodity?

Gift Consumption

Let’s expand the concepts from two previous posts. There is an idea present in many cultures that says a gift should be consumed. This is literally true with some gifts and metaphorically true for others. If someone gives you a pie you should eat it. You should not sell it in the local county fair. Similarly, if someone gives you corn you should eat it. You should not “invest” it by planting it for next year’s harvest. Sometimes consuming a gift isn’t so literal, like when someone plays a song for you on the piano. The gift of music is experienced and then it’s gone. Sarah brought up an excellent example when she talked about the woman who anointed Christ’s feet with oils. That was a consumed gift and no one benefited monetarily.

More specifically though, a gift is consumed in the giving: it is no longer something the giver has. After it has been given the gift does not directly benefit the giver. This is why a gift shouldn’t carry an implied obligation to reciprocate. This is what separates giving something and selling something. So what do you think- should the gift be consumed, or can it be invested by the receiver (as in the case with planting corn)? Should the receiver be obligated to “return the favor” or is he off the hook because of the nature of The Gift?

My Birthday Cake: For Sale

It might be true that a gift should never become a commodity. When this rule gets broken, people get annoyed. Peter Everett told me about someone he knew who donated a bunch of famous old paintings to the Springville Museum of Art. It was a gift and everyone was happy- until the owner of the museum turned around and sold the paintings off. Of course he has his reasons but that family was ticked. I guess I would be too. My mother in law enlisted many helpers and invested many hours in creating a beautiful quilt to give my wife and me on our wedding day. I got fifty bucks last week when I sold it on ebay… not really but boy would I have made some people angry if I did, right? So tell me what you think. Is it improper to turn a gift into a commodity? Do you have examples in support or opposition to this idea?