• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Mona Lisa Curse

"They didn't come to look at the Mona Lisa, they came in order to have seen it."

Fascinating documentary about the shift in the art world toward superstar status, mass commercialization of iconic imagery, and unregulated big business.
 
I'm currently on Part 5 of I think 10 parts (with each one only about 6 minutes long).

Part 5 is a key episode in the program and could probably be watched by casual viewers looking to get the gist of the program.

The gist: "Art as commodity" began in the early 1960s when a NY investor named Scull auctioned off several contemporary works by living artists; Scull made a fortune at the expense of the artists, whom the investor had paid far smaller prices for their work, only years or even months prior.

The documentary argues that the exhibit of the Mona Lisa for one month at the NY Museum of Art in 1963 (an event presided over by JFK & Jackie) began the meme, if you will, of art as superstar, art as disposable commodity.

For a degreed artist like myself (who has made very little off his work in the 20 years of my adulthood), I find this subject very intriguing.
 
On the one hand, Robert Hughes shows himself to be an old man being nostalgic about a time in which he was young himself and argues that the art as he came to love it is what art should be. But of course this crass commercialisation isn't the first time art has been reinvented and reshaped to something that wouldn't have been recognised as art before. Art has always reflected the time and culture in which it existed. In some times, it was mainly used to glorify kings and noblemen, their battles and their works, in others to propagandise the virtues of political philosophies. When Hughes was young, a whole culture was in search of meaning, and in criticising society itself. No wonder that this became apparent in its art. In a world that has tried to hypercommercialise and commoditise itself in all aspects, art will reflect that too. This too shall pass; a cultural shift will occur in which art is again reinvented.

On the other hand, he's right. Something is lost in this commercialisation of art. I've heard people argue that art subsidies are unnecessary because if you want art you can buy it yourself, and you can buy whatever you want. Not subsidising it doesn't mean people will stop making art, so nothing is lost when it is commercialised. Such an argument ignores the fact that commercialisation will change what sort of art will be produced. It assumes that art is something you want and are willing to pay for and that popularity and price define good art. It also assumes that encouraging the productivity of an artist is good thing, and this documentary argues that this is not necessarily true; quality (however defined) is valuable at least as much as quantity. What is lost in such an art culture is art that is not popular despite being good, that encourages introspection or social critique instead of entertainment. Every shift in art culture caused some form of art to be lost -- in the sense that it is not frequently made any more or giving a new context and meaning, usually not that old art is destroyed.

On the third hand (Three hands, artsy!) he misses is a potential drama possibly far worse than cheap posters of Mona Lisa and art dealers flaunting their wealth by buying art detached of its original meaning and context. A drama that might very well cause the actual destruction of artworks. Investors are now investing in art, trusting that they can sell it for more than they bought it for. They are creating a huge bubble. A bubble that is no doubt going to burst; there is going to be a shift in culture that is going to reinvent art as something other than commodity. When that happens, prices of existing works will plummet as no one wants to seen with what will be understood as shallow representations of crass commercialism. Those art works will enter into a context, in which they cease to reflect contemporary culture and become a sign of an earlier time... needing to be preserved for art history. But without monetary value, who can keep those haphazardly silk screened images and the sculptures made out of flimsy materials preserved?
 
Thanks for starting this thread. I'm watching the series now. I have always liked Robert Hughes.
 
Hi there. I'm a long time forum reader but I finally joined the forum to thank you for this link, it is a wonderful little documentary/editorial. While I think Earthborn is right about Mr Hughes lacking a certain amount of historical perspective there is a point to his editorial. The game has indeed changed and the art itself is no longer necessarily the focus. If you will indulge me rambling a bit I will try to explain where I am coming from.

I actually got my BFA from The School of Visual Arts in New York City. My degree was in animation, not "fine art", and my mentor was an old animator who had worked all his life in advertising animation. I've never really understood art as anything other than a business. Either you create something the view likes and is willing to pay you for, or you lose the contract and go hungry.

Animation was a tough major. It is as much a craft as an art and requires precision and an ability to repeat the same forms over and over with subtle, carefully controlled variations. I still remember our anatomy instructor, he was like a Drill Sargent! I swear, he would have smacked us with a ruler if the college had let him. But we learned a lot and put out beautiful, well rendered anatomical drawings.

Anyway, at the college they would often show student work in the halls. It would often be the best of each class. One day the halls were filled with these garish, over done, imprecise monstrosities of anatomy drawings. Legs out of proportion, heads badly shaped, and sloppy rendering. After half a year of intense anatomy classes I was shocked. When I asked about them I was told that they were from the Fine Arts majors and that they were allowed to submit such things as their anatomy assignments. One of the other students grinned and joked that it was alright if they slacked off in the anatomy classes because apparently they were required to take a whole other set of classes we were never even offered. Those classes? They were on such things as how to get into a gallery and how to create an artist persona.

So, long story short, what I learned was that most of what hangs in the modern art galleries is only the backdrop to what had been a much more interesting piece of performance art. The real art is convincing your audience to buy the piece in the first place. Getting a gallery showing, wooing clients, getting recognized, those are the real art for fine artists.

Me, I'm just glad when I can get a bit of contract work here and there and make ends meet. I just don't have the hootspa to be a fine artist. The world of Fine Art does not seem to be about who is the best artist or the most skilled, in fact I would hazard a guess that most of the most skilled artists are now in commercial fields like comic books and computer games.

Business is always about figuring out what people are willing to pay for and convincing them to but it from you. And don't kid yourself, art is a business just like any other.

Wow, long first post. If you read through all that, thanks for indulging me.:D
 
Very good first post Weak Kitten, and good to hear from someone with first hand experience.

Welcome to the forum and I look forward to your further contribution.
 
"They didn't come to look at the Mona Lisa, they came in order to have seen it."

Well I would definately be one of those people. I have never gotten the point of the Mona Lisa - as in what makes it such a fabulous piece of art.

Having said that art does suffer a sense of pretentiousness. I can recall an encounter at the NSW art gallery looking at a peice by Arthur Streeton. This woman was bleeting about all the technique and composition in the painting to her group of friends

I politely pointed out that she was wrong. Streeton had no control of the composition he was paid to paint exactly what he saw, and that what he did. And if you went to that spot (Which I have) It would look exactly like this painting

She huffed off and I chalked it up as a win for the common (art loving) man
 
Haha, that's great MG1962!

I have a friend who actually majored in, I think it's called, Museum Sciences. Anyway, she's really good at throwing around the curator lingo. One time she was doing such a great job entertaining a friend of hers that a bunch of other people started following them thinking that she was a tour guide! They never even realized that it was all a joke and she was making it up as she went along.

Oh, and thanks for the warm welcome lionking. I love your icon!
 
Thanks for that - a fine documentary about an area I know very little about. It must be saddening for someone who has spent his life understanding art to see the show being run by those who did not, and never will put in the hard work either.

(I haven't learned to appreciate modern art - to me, Hughes' beloved Rauschenberg and that stuffed shark are about equally interesting (for a short time) and aesthetic (moderately); but the Klimt I would be happy to look at every day.)
 
I'm glad you're enjoying it!

I too have wondered about the "art speculators" driving up the price of works to such a degree that the value can only plummet. I think pieces that aren't considered particularly "aesthetically pleasing" would be especially vulnerable, since they might not have any perceived value in being "beautiful."

A diamond is going to retain a certain amount of value, even if the market for them collapses, because they are well, pretty. There is a small --could you call it intrinsic? -- value in "pretty" art. Even if you don't consider technique or historical setting or its effect on later artists or art in general, the Mona Lisa is kinda pretty. You probably wouldn't be ashamed to hang it over your couch.

This, on the other hand:
http://www.arcanabooks.com/bookimages/008709.jpg

:confused::confused::confused:

I guess it's its own kind of "pretty" but I don't think it's anything I'd want in my home.


Also, there is a lot of suspicion in America that "modern art" IS actually a joke on the public, perpetrated by artists who are infuriated by the "commodification" of their work. People like deKooning might have turned down the $40k for a trashed canvas, but I can see that accepting money for what the artist KNOWS is trash -- wouldn't that be the ultimate in thumbing your nose to the Man? I'm not into conspiracy theories regarding contemporary artists and conceptual art, but it's not that hard to believe that the actual ART they are making is actually a cultural statement about the foolishness of the people who purchase the stuff as an investment.
 
"They didn't come to look at the Mona Lisa, they came in order to have seen it."

Fascinating documentary about the shift in the art world toward superstar status, mass commercialization of iconic imagery, and unregulated big business.

Is this really new?

Wasn't the "Grand Tour" of the Victorian Era kind of the same thing? People went to Europe and visited all the galleries because that's what you did. Not necessarily because you really appreciated it but it was more of a checklist.
 

Back
Top Bottom