 |
| American Gothic by Grant Wood. You know this work, but why do you know it? |
Along that vein, does the ready access to reproductions of these works cheapen their significance? I honestly feel that sheer number of copies of such famous works, although being great for spreading the availability to viewers, also dulls some of their impact. Instead of picking up on the subtleties of the piece, we glaze over. I've seen this a million times already. Geez. With the spread of media and the advent of Web 2.0, it is easier than ever to view almost anything and everything worldwide. The main issue I have is the complete removal of the work from its original context. And, as a consequence, we become blind to the intended function and significance of the works.
For centuries, artists have been using the idea of assistants and workshops to produce high-demand items in a timely fashion. On top of that, artists have almost always produced as a means of making money. Essentially from the ancient world on, artists and guilds would accept the task of completing a commissioned piece. In a modern setting, you have artists like Andy Warhol with his Factory, Lady Gaga with her Haus of Gaga, and Jeff Koons all had or have teams (upwards of 100 people, in Koons's case) working with them. Of course all artists working on such a scale as to require a workshop are looking to make a profit from their work. It just seems of late that there is dual saturation. There is the immediacy of an online or print (newspaper or magazine) reproduction of works. On top of that, artists are making multiples of these works in various sizes, colors, and media. Is the work we create now bound to the same fate as the great art and artists of the past? Or can we find a way to preserve the artist's (or patron's) intent in conjunction with the image?
 |
| The Capitoline Wolf 13th Century. How many of you see the reference to the Roman foundation myth? |
These are some of the topics I hope to address in this blog. I'm still grappling with how, or if, this basic concept of keeping art contextualized and preserving its meaning is possible in the world today.
It is rather interesting to put an art historical spin on this topic, because Warhol is essentially art history at this point, although his work is of the modern type. His factory really was a source of mass production, but there was also some personalization put into his works, as in the portrait commissions he did. But I agree, to some extent he was simply producing art for the sake of it, because at that point he simply needed the money to clear up his debts.
ReplyDeleteThere are many topics that arise when tying the implications of Warhol and his ideas to art history. Have you considered how your views oppose or align with theorists and critics in art history. Speaking specifically about lost meaning, mass production, and value of works certainly brings to mind Walter Benjamin if no one else.
ReplyDeleteAlso, do you think that people like Koons or Lady Gaga have a direct debt to Warhol in their endeavors or business/art models?
Have we passed the point that context no longer adds meaning? That seeing it on ones smart phone is as good as being there? The mind and imagination seem to have evolved to a new state.
ReplyDelete