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?
Rats! I had a brilliant post and because I wasn't "logged in" my browser deleted it.
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell, I made the point that art can easily be either a gift or a commodity. I used the cave drawings as a reference because analysts suggest that they were intended to communicate information to others; such as where to find food. The information a work of art communicates establishes it's worth and that worth is different depending on the individual viewer.
I used Grok in my analogy, the cave drawings may communicate how Grok got himself impaled during today's food-providing shift or they may communicate how he got there and how tomorrow's shift could be safer.
Referring to previous comments, a work of art may elicit an internal monologue that brings understanding to the viewer or a variety of different experiences based on colors, shapes, or texture. Using the Horse image again, perhaps the horse has died and the artist has captured a specific moment where the owner can reflect on memories suggested by the image.
Depending on the information communicated, a piece of art may well be priceless. The interesting thing here is it depends on the viewer and what they have invested in it. To some, a work of art is nothing special and therefore worth little. While to others it may be of great worth simply because they understand it. A pirate's treasure map is worthless to anyone until they know that point 'A' is 2.5 miles east of their current location.
I ended with the thought that perhaps all the cave drawings were nothing more than Neanderthal Picasso's work to remind us all of Grok's great sacrifice and how he might live on with each of us in thrilling 2D monochromatic glory.
(Dave, now I'm thinking of the value of the drawings on the walls in the Lost TV series. If I knew what they meant, I might not have to spend hours and hours and hours watching every single episode (and recap). If I had chosen a different major besides Elementary Ed, my time could be worth more than $5/hour and it could really add up. There are a lot of "if's" here so the my best approximation of the value of "Lost art" is 1 million.)
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest of this idea, sometimes I hate it when people try to make money. Like salesmen. And scam artists. I think there are a lot of careers like doctor and lawyer that people enter just because of the assumed return and not because they want to better society. I like the doctors and lawyers that want to better society...better. I think I also like the artists that are in it for the beauty of the work better than the ones who try to find out what's going to make them rich and then paint that. So sincerity matters. But how do you judge sincerity? You just have to find out who made the first painting of an American Indian on a horse and then all the others after that are insincere. That's why Jackson Pollok hit the jackpot with his splattered paint right? No one else had done it before. That made him very sincere and gifty and not commoditized so naturally he gets lots of money as a reward.
Dave, I agree that the value of art is subjective. But the value of art doesn't really determine whether it should be transferred as a gift or a commodity. Let's say I own a Rembrandt painting that my grandma gave me. I could keep it for myself. I could donate it to a museum for millions of people to see and experience its beauty. Or I could sell it for 1.6 million dollars at Sotheby's to some rich guy to store in his summer home.
ReplyDeleteI think that Johnny Lingo means something about this. If a popular guy deems something beautiful and pays a lot of money (or cows) for it, then other people start to give it some respect and also call it beautiful.
ReplyDeleteI think a good experiment would be to put a painting on sale at Walmart and an appropriation in a nice gallery with a really expensive price tag. Then show them both to multiple people and record their comments. Or maybe have them fill out a questionaire about how they like the piece. My guess is that the gallery piece would get a lot more praise than the Walmart one even though they're the same.
Randy,
ReplyDeleteI would say display as much art as you can immediately at the top if your wanting people to get a quick idea of your art.
I think it's a great idea.
Hope all is well!