The following is a column I wrote for a now defunct zine called BRONZ that never ran. I dug it up from the archives because I felt it needed sharing. Some of this maybe be a little out of touch because of the timeline, but should still translate to things today.
Back in college, art history was one of my favorite classes. Oddly, the same subject in high school seemed dull, but the presentation of the subject matter in college seemed much more appealing to me. Perhaps it was the instructor or maybe I was just more open minded. Either way, I ate it up; the Renaissance, Preraphaelites, Impressionism, Abstract Expressionism, Pop-art and everything since. However, I'm guilty of taking the information I was fed about these movements and assuming there were clearly defined moments in history where one period started and another ended. We get told about the different movements, but there isn't always much detail on the overlap, so we make the assumption that art history is a straight line.
Contemporary seems to be the art term people attach to most artists these days when they don't know how to label them, but artists themselves tend to shy away from labels if they can avoid them. As I was browsing through art magazines at a local bookstore recently, I couldn't help but notice how varied the styles were even with the pages of any one niche magazine. This made me wonder how art historians in the future will define this period, whether they will stick with the contemporary label or come up with something entirely different. Some folks today will tell you we're in an art dry spell, nothing new and inventive is being presented. Others might tell you that television and movies have taken the place of traditional art and most people don't have the patience or interest in painters, sculptors and other artisans. And then there are some who feel the control is quietly being taken away from the critics and put back in the hands of artists to define themselves and to redefine what constitutes the artistic endeavor. In the late 60's, nobody would have ever considered Ken "Von Dutch" Howard and Ed "Big Daddy" Roth contemporary artists, but today those men are the godfathers of the "lowbrow" generation. Again, lowbrow isn't a term these artists appreciate, but it's from this period that you see divergence into many different categories. Roth begot Robert Williams who begot Frank Kozik and Mark Ryden who begot Sheppard Fairey, Banksy and so on. Of course I'm simplifying, but you get the picture.
One thing different from the past is that more artists are making a living on their art. With social networks like Deviant Art, Behance, Twitter and Facebook, the little known artist has almost the same power of persuasion as the big names, but does the commercialism compromise the authenticity of the work? Even though I don't like the subject matter and execution, I believe Thomas Kinkade and Wyland are talented artists. These men can paint anything they want, but they choose instead to paint generic subjects and sell thousands of prints to mall shoppers and tourists. Art becomes more homogenized with each piece Kinkade produces because his goal is to make money, not art. Artists should be able to make money off their craft, but not at the sake of compromising themselves or their peers. Mark Ryden and Gary Baseman are both brilliant artists who I believe skate on the edge of commercialism. I don't place them in the same category as Wyland and Kinkade, but they're one giclée away from going to the dark side, which is a shame, because if their core fans feel they've sold out, Ryden and Baseman run the risk of bringing a lot of other artists into the pit with them.
I love Sheppard Fairey's work, but the first time I saw an OBEY t-shirt in a Hot Topic, I knew he'd crossed over. Can he still produce quality work? Of course, but my perception of him will forever be tainted. However, it's not the first time any artist ever "sold out". Picasso will forever be an icon, but knowing how much he took advantage of his success by nearly mass producing works and selling them for ridiculous amounts knocks him down a few notches in my opinion. It also makes me wonder how many other artistic icons compromise their work for the sake of a money. Were Monet's water lilies the precursor to Kinkade? Did Michelangelo rush the Sistine Chapel because it was a paid commission by the Pope? History doesn't paint that picture, but we will never know for sure. Perhaps I'm holding today's artists to an unreasonable standard, but I wonder what history will say.
When the work of graffiti artists and commercial illustrators are defined as fine art by their fans, are the critics right in saying the bar has been lowered? When popular artists produce work on skateboards, tennis shoes and toy figurines, does the commercialism compromise the importance of the work overall? I have bought my fair share of vinyl toys from famous artists both out of interest and with the idea I could eventually sell them for a profit. Am I the problem or am I just helping define a new generation of artists? I don't know the answer and I can't honestly tell any artist that what they are doing is hurting the art world, but I'll always wonder what effect today's actions will hold in the future. Until then, I'll be on eBay looking for my next Ron English print, but that's a discussion for another day.
0 notes:
Post a Comment
Thanks so much for stopping by! I'd LOVE to hear what you have to say, yes you!