Should art outlast the artist?
Posted on | 1/22/11 | No Comments
I love the ephemeral nature of art, and I'm not just saying that. I believe that the value of art comes from its transient nature. Graffiti artists, concept artists and installation artists seem to understand this nature instinctively. I understand that this point of view is not common to the art world. In fact this industry seems to be geared mostly towards making as much money as possible from as few artists as possible, saving some pieces for hundreds of years. Take Picasso for example. What is his value now? What do his pieces mean? Of course his art sells for millions of dollars, something I find vaguely obscene considering that most artists die impoverished. Then again art is now considered an investor's market because of the very transient nature of art and artists. The fact that artists die effectively limits the supply of their art, which automatically jacks up the price, whether the piece is worthwhile or even good.
This puzzles me. Isn't arts meant to be about expressing the now? What value does a piece by an artist, even one as great as Picasso, hold for me as an artist now? Certainly I can learn from his example by seeing his art and studying it, but I will never see his art face-to-face. His work, like that of so many other brilliant artists, is kept locked away from the public in special rooms owned by the elite. And yet, all art fades in time and its meaning is eroded by changing history. I can learn from the history but it would be pointless for me to imitate it. There would be no value in it, either for me as an artist or for the art world at large. I celebrate the deconstructionists who understood that the very process of degradation, aging, and destruction was an art form unto itself. Instead of being angry or upset at a pieces loss or damage, they would incorporate that damage into the piece, make it a part of the piece; integral, functional and necessary.
This puzzles me. Isn't arts meant to be about expressing the now? What value does a piece by an artist, even one as great as Picasso, hold for me as an artist now? Certainly I can learn from his example by seeing his art and studying it, but I will never see his art face-to-face. His work, like that of so many other brilliant artists, is kept locked away from the public in special rooms owned by the elite. And yet, all art fades in time and its meaning is eroded by changing history. I can learn from the history but it would be pointless for me to imitate it. There would be no value in it, either for me as an artist or for the art world at large. I celebrate the deconstructionists who understood that the very process of degradation, aging, and destruction was an art form unto itself. Instead of being angry or upset at a pieces loss or damage, they would incorporate that damage into the piece, make it a part of the piece; integral, functional and necessary.
I find that for me the best way to celebrate the nature of art is to accept that it is transient and ephemeral. What I create now will have little or no meaning tomorrow but it is beautiful because it shows me the value of today. And so unlike most artists I'm not sad when a piece of mine is damaged or destroyed or altered by another artist and not because I do not value my own work, as some have implied. Rather, I know that art was only mine while I was making it and when I was done I gave it to the world.
Category:
concept art,
ephemeral art,
grafitti as art,
high priced art,
impovershed artists,
instalation artists,
nature of art,
painting,
Picasso,
transient art
