Prızeless Artifacts and All That Glïtters

Art’s Evitable Undoing of Commodification.

Can art become less authentic to itself, based not only on how it was created, but why it was created? How does one’s reason interfere? Must someone have artistic intentions to bless something as art as if spells cast? And can one’s intent misdirect the art they produce as a visor stained?

The forms art are appreciated as can carry its conceptualisation.  One could be deliberate. Creating what is meant to be art, purely for it to be perceived as art and revered so. Conversely then another could be accidental beauty through the chaotic unpredictability of creation and destruction randomly melded.

Another form could be sentimental art. That might be a drawing from your child. Or something symbolic and commemorative towards a memorable time? Or could even just be a clipping of a plant from outside stuck in a pot on the dinner table and help brighten the place up a bit by your lovely wife. That it is then art, to be valued on a personal level that is.

Is there such a thing as ‘artistic value’? What special class is this? And if so, in what way can it elevate? For much of sentimental art, way may not necessarily be something someone would pay money for, for a number of factors that, many are entirely unbeknownst to why they would reach to their pocket.

The purchasing of art is a complex phenomenon. Art could be without context, without the ego of reputation, just be like any other ‘thing’ likely to be discarded, ignored and so disregarded. And whilst this may not be common should it fall into set categorisation, it’s something on the table.

It could be in some cases, only when knowledge comes out that surrounds such a piece that can whip others into a frenzy, does that contagious curiosity come to loiter. And so the objective of any artist naturally would of course be to mine this complicit storytelling hot air, whilst pretending like they have no idea what’s going on…

Does Art Manifest Negative Outcomes?

An example would be the development of style.  Some might glorify such a thing. Finesse. To have originality. To be able to show yourself into your art notably though it’s a trend of yourself. Which is partially what art’s all about, that self-expression. But, in a way, it’s an egotistical thing. It’s to have something identifiable to you. It means a pattern, that associates with your identity and therefore, not as someone else’s.

It becomes branded, claimed as your own and not to be claimed by someone else blocking them from expressing in that form without association even when there is no inspiration, it lingers. The same is true in humour, or inventing. You need to be first to something, race to stick your flag into the New World of that idea, and it becomes your trademark as you ‘make a name for yourself’. 

Other resembling expressions become copycats and nulled as if ‘stealing ideas’. These things that don’t even actually exist become something wrongly removed. And from there to whom enabled, can open exclusive portals of wealth amongst the globalised masses and can solidify their life in this occupation. You, doing what you love, and might even be the one to retire early and can provide well for your children and that avenue for others, a little more closed as a massively widened gap appears.

Since you become known as that, the pioneer. The tool of style allows one to gain social advantage amongst the group. Perhaps it’s cultural entrained from our monetary systems or perhaps it’s human nature, the difficulty in appreciating those between being a beginner and accomplished. But it’s a form of elevation as the spotlight only becomes populated by a small few compared to all the rest that try, as everyone else lives in their shadow. How long does it last?

It is naturally gravitational for art true to itself to be praised, and adored as it lures in desire. And if it is so desired, it will then not be long for it to soon be acquired. And at a price.

It does though make me wonder, does materialism in art – despite how compulsory it is to capture something for the sake of the art – envenom it? Or was it always to be? For what is art without materialism? Emotion? A situation? Passing clouds? Biology? Conservation? At the cost of more like.

How intertwined is this inside what art is? And how does it come to change art itself? Art’s inescapability of materialism comes tied with the desire to keep for one’s self. Capture in time and hold onto the past so dearly and afraid to let go. The desire to glare at what’s most precious. The desire to hoard collections and so to boast something that grants the illusion of your own significance amongst the collective like a flex of wealth.

All enabled and secretly transpired throughout the group through this supposed virtue? This supreme grace of beauty as if beauty never corrupted? And who would we blame in that case this time, the corruptor or corruptive? Such is as we may have already become. And what else can we see becometh.

Considering The Artist

MONITARY INTENTIONS INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME.

But what would be an even more important question is that of the purification. Do financial intentions sully the meaning and direction of what the art is meant to be? Does the gatekeeping of price, deny the civility of what art imbues? Maybe it’s so this granted is the grand struggle of art’s transformation itself, as if as a being, evolving through our culture and appreciation of it. A sign of its health if you will.

How can the culture of art represented by the society combined with the need to make a living influence art as an artform? Introducing the docile trance of celebrity idolisation, is evidence of those that ‘made it’? And how we wish so hopefully it could be ourselves and blindly follow whatever by-product.

Welcome to stupid art. There’s your few lashes of the brush. There’s your suggested ideas. There’s your little famous artist squiggle at the bottom right there. That’ll be the price of a small house please. The art politics in the recognition of a masterpiece that people are pressured into adoring the genius and the silliness that can follow maintaining being held highly and balancing upon a pedestal.

If art does signify intelligence, progression – the development of a society – wouldn’t a sign of its prosperity be a plethora? And portrayal of its wealth held upon access to its landscape? And if we could agree on that as a truth, how could we then fault the work of industry? Holding back all that prosperity. But that’s partially why we have museums isn’t it, but enter then into what it takes to get into such places not as an admirer or employee. And here we are…

My Own View on Art and Money

I can see the paradoxical contradiction, and obviously it would depend. But I don’t think the want of making money ubiquitously impurifies artistic intention but of course it most certainly can. Nor would I morally arm twist someone directly with question of no-true Scotsman fallacies of what it means for their trade though I can’t imagine word getting out making art for a spare bit of cash works well with the buyers.

Having said that, in my own experience, the worst offenders of finger pointing is done by those without hands full. Never really actually had to try and make it on their own themselves, putting themselves out there. For if they had, there would be a restraining humbleness from what it takes to actually succeed. A threshold of approval to sacrifice for and have a bit more of a bite on their tongue because of that. And without is so easy as it is to not even try as if they don’t even need to.

There’s a certain waring of motivation that comes with age, hastened by the need for money, that then supplements the motivation to do. Drug like is it, that to need it for your new normal. Finding it extra difficult to work for free. Though we should be asking at that point is if it should be work?

On the contrary, I’ve found being motivated by money results in a bit more dedication. Especially in the realm of art incorporating the creative defuse mind that tends to… wonder off… And to live in a protective little bubble you think you’re so great in, as your own ego flourishes and protects, hearing what you want to hear preventing personal growth.

And this idea of the opposite. Doing it for the love and passion and nothing more, never really have I seen that purely outshine and I would question the legitimacy of someone that says that. But having fun and expressing yourself is most definitely key to fun that unlocks motivation, which is one of the most valuable tools of all. That, along with the lead of hope for some kind of particular outcome. There’s no reason that couldn’t be supplementary.

Whilst common place is it for those that chase wealth to find themselves miserable, and instead on your deathbed it’s all about personal connections that matter yaddy yaddy yadda we’re all very wise. I myself have come to see the art in the covetous dragon. The storytelling in the attainment of wealth comes patently the most tragic downfall of greed as a metaphor leaking through persona. Adds a bit more colour wouldn’t you say? And that colour would be…

What to me seems conclusive, is that the terrain in which art grows from, and then exists in, can be different and that could then be cautionary to this whole discussion, changing it entirely. A trend would reveal art playing an advisory role of disunity and deterioration of wealth. Art isn’t always going to be appropriate to how a culture is socially progressing naturally, for new avenues are under researched. But it would help pay attention.

The perception of those that receive the art matter, and what matters to them is what kind of state their life is in. Would you expect an economic class should the society possess many, hard done and going without to spend their time pondering at paintings? Such a privilege is more, reserved. If anything they are more likely to question how did the artist keep themselves afloat to begin with? Where did they find the time between housework, work, and sleep? To take such a risk, were there hands not tied from the start? Which would be the wrong questions.

To enable more of an artistic world, to enter into a realm of beauty and intelligence that art can provide, one must first not be so burdened by their mortality. Distracted by painful restrictions.

For whilst it can be common place for an artist’s suffrage to be magnificently exemplified, little can be expected from a culture burdened with poverty and disease other than to fight for their survival. And it is so that what art appears to do, is emerge from a more, enabling, environment. I wouldn’t then ask how pecuniary motives of depreciate art separately, I should instead be concerned by if the ratio of how many can afford.

Then these questions can be properly answered.