#6 - Commodity, Cult or Ritual Value, and Other’s Opinions

In this series I attempt to express my views on art as they have been influenced by the philosophers I have studied. Although many of the ideas are directly connected to the ideas of these philosophers, it is often the case that my use of their concept is not quite in harmony with what they were originally claiming.


A man’s relative view of beauty is closely related to his taste in any art form. In a world where most art forms are reproduced to allow for mass participation, a man’s view of an art form is always affected by the reception the art form has received by those he knows. Unfortunately, it seems that Adorno is right in his observations about how elements of the art are fetishized and become commodities. Although Adorno addresses music specifically, I can see the same patterns in visual art. A man’s circle of friends could become interested in color-field painting. The man would then be more likely to enjoy color-field paintings and may find himself wanting one in the same way he wants a pair of bell-bottomed jeans that are in style. The style of color-field painting would be the commodity. A well known artist's name could similarly become a commodity. When art is functioning as a commodity it could still reveal truth, but the judgment of the work loses some of its sincerity. I think the art world is largely affected by the commodification of certain elements of artworks. This clouding of taste does not have a positive influence on artists who seek to make successful works of art that communicate truth. I believe that the art world often has a negative effect on artists who leave their sincere search for discovery in favor of popular styles that appeal to critics or art professors.


Walter Benjamin talked about the ritual or cult value of artworks that has existed in the past. In the age of technical reproduction this cult value is being replaced by the commodity value of works. I view both the commodity value and the cult value of an artwork as a means of displacing an artwork from everyday life and allowing it to be considered as an artwork in the Heideggerian sense. For example, if there is only one statue and it can only be seen in a certain place then the man who puts forth the effort to confront the statue on its terms will enter the space predisposed to consider the statue in the artistic sense. Thus the ritual value of the work affects the man’s perception of it. The cult or ritual element of the work can be created by its inclusion in a gallery or museum setting, or by it's framing and presentation.


I also think Adorno was speaking accurately when he said that a consumer who pays a premium price for a performance to a show pretty much guarantees the success of the performance in his mind as he reflects the exchange-value onto his taste. Similarly, a man who pays $2,000 for a limited edition print will have elevated the value of the thing in his mind. He will then consider the print to be more than just a copy of something or a piece of decorative equipment. Instead he will likely consider the print in the artistic sense (as Heidegger has described). I do not intend here to confuse the value a man places on an artwork with the artistic (aesthetic?) experience, but rather to claim that when a man holds a work in high esteem he may be more likely to think on it deeply. I suppose there is another possibility that the man will never truly consider the work because he has already pre-judged it. I expect both cases occur frequently.


The commodification of art conflicts with our idea that fine art is a thing that is made for its own sake (the communication of truth) rather than for its utilitarian or commercial value. Art that is produced to sell and panders to the tastes of a certain clientele is less likely to include meaningful pieces of truth and more likely to include trendy elements. It seems this happens among the most high brow circles in a similar way that it does with Thomas Kincade paintings. This is where the distinction between fine art and other arts is gray for me. Illustrations could definitely be perceived as art in the Heideggerian sense on occasion and it would be foolish to think that famous contemporary artists never consider the potential response of their audience.


One last thought on this topic pertains to the way in which we learn to appreciate new art forms. New styles, media, methods, and concepts often carry the ability to communicate truth. Sometimes a viewer isn’t willing to consider the new form until it has been endorsed by someone they know or whose opinion they trust. So although it may be a disadvantage to let others' opinions mold one's own taste, it is likely an advantage to listen with open ears to their opinions and critiques. It is then the responsibility of the viewer to accept or reject their ideas. The conversation about art can go a long way toward helping us discover truth where it is in the work. After we learn to see a certain way we may find we can do so without help. A well-taught literature class or book group would be an example of this.