 This page is an archive from the previous version of The Row Boat, which is why it doesn't look and work the same as the current version. However, these archives are fully functional and integrated with the new system.
Why does this site permit advertising?
Powered by Little Logger |
The Row Boat"Had we but world enough, and time..." *
The Market as (the) Medium of Art9/22/2007 21:24:12There would seem to be a lot of sense to Walter Benjamin's argument that the work of art loses its "aura" in the age of mechanical reproduction, except that it has not turned out to be true. Of course, people still pay great amounts of money for originals of this or that at Sotheby's auctions, but their motives are hardly the purest art appreciation. And are these high-priced few really the driving art of our time? Beyond dispute, the greatest artistic inventions of the technological last half century since Benjamin have been technological in form: film, recorded music, advertising, the internet, and mass market books. What is more, the reproduction lends the art its power. We listen to a hit song because everyone else is, or don't listen to it for the same reason. As a Marxian critic, Benjamin should have been able to recognize the larger principle behind the transitions he was trying to describe: the aura of art obtains from reference to the society's means of production, whether for or against. Despite attempts to demarcate it from the whole rest of life by a set of intellectuals in the European tradition, the medium of meaningful art is the medium of society at large. As any struggling artist knows, even the finest of art depends on an economy of relations. What will the critics, one's associates, and even oneself accept as meaningful art? What is familiar enough to twist the familiar in new and affecting ways? And of course: what will sell? These questions cannot properly be separated from the process of making art. They do not simply comprise "selling out," but rather the whole of "taste." This is not to say that art cannot be subversive against elements of the system. But fundamentally, while attacking some elements, it cannot escape depending on others. Otherwise, it would not exist. Take, for instance, the music of the 60s counterculture, which could not have mounted its assault on the war-mongering establishment without the record industry, television, universities, and, of course, technology. In a world that is increasingly determined by the forces of business and market forces that operate beyond the local human scale, I suggest, these can be the modes of conveyance for a new, more self-aware art. Much "high" art in the West prides itself on being separate from the shady world of business, which in turn gets represented as anti-art. Even while their work is bought by high-rolling business executives and corporate decorators (almost the only ones who can afford the prices), such artists insist that art can inhabit a world apart. Perhaps in the worlds they create they can, so long as there is no looking beyond. And good thing; beautiful work can be made in such worlds, things otherwise uncreateable. But from the perspective of the markets, of the world outside, art is simply part of the mix. Like Benjamin's nostalgia for the one-of-a-kind, separatist art is the exception that proves the rule. Meanwhile, the art that is transforming the fabricated world (and by extension our internal worlds) is the sellable, the useful, the enjoyable, and the like. Art in the market medium doesn't mean doing business like Enron. That is only one way of operating, and apparently not a very artful one. It does mean, however, taking seriously the fact that art is part of a larger economy, and that economy can be a source of inspiration. Michaelangelo could never have created the Sistine Chapel ceiling if the Papal economics had not offered the space and opportunity to him. The work is surely recognizable now as a tribute to its patron as much to divine metaphysics. Small's Clone Industries, which hosts this site, is one small attempt to create an art project in the image of business. Some years ago I had been experimenting with literary hypertext until I realized that the kinds of websites that were most familiar, most intuitive to explore, were those of businesses, from Apple to Amazon.com. The art should begin there and transform it. I thought of the rise of the electric guitar, which the engineers designed to sound just like a louder acoustic one. But once the artists got hold of it they turned it up louder than it had been designed for and invented rock and roll. Not only was it revolutionary, but it could be blasted at more (paying) people at a time than an old-fashioned orchestra. A friend of mine, a trained artist, found himself at a crossroads, unsure of what direction his art was going in, or what art even meant to him. The solution he is in the process of finding, it turns out, was to start a gallery. It is called 5 Traverse, located in a wonderful little space in Providence, Rhode Island. He told me that he hoped, by working with artists, dealers, and buyers, to understand his role better as an artist. This seems incredibly refreshing to me: a willingness to recognize what many artists would rather pretend isn't there. Seeing the place, it is clear that he is well on his way. The gallery itself, as a growing business, is becoming his work of art. Just as there can be art as business, it is worth recognizing businesses that bring art to their craft. So many have shown the capacity to create transformative, even utopian work environments and products. My father's small real estate business is one I am proud to mention, which treats its clients, so far as they have told me, with artful care. On a larger scale, Google is an important example. Even while becoming one of the most profitable businesses of the .com era, they managed to cultivate a culture that values interesting ideas over profitability. In doing, they have transformed the way the world accesses information. Art that takes seriously its place in business, as well as business that takes seriously its potential for art, have the capacity for doing real, meaningful good. Each avoiding the other, rather, is dangerous: Enron accompanied by imaginary anarchy.
re: the aesthetics of markets - 9/22/2007 21:34:30
re: The Market as (the) Medium of Art - 9/23/2007 03:56:58
re: The Market as (the) Medium of Art - 9/23/2007 04:01:16
re: The Market as (the) Medium of Art - 9/23/2007 09:51:22
I seem to have forgotten the most important point: that is: the beauty of the market. To me it's dangerous to aestheticize market relations. The "beauty" of an efficient system usually depends on a whole sector of people getting outright crushed or eliminated. I just don't think aesthetics is the right criteria to judge economics. I won't personally diss Taylor again here, but T. pointing out the intertwining of religious themes/terms and existing economic relations doesn't strike me as particularly novel or insightful -- he seems to just romanticize the indeterminacy or uncertainty of our particular stage of capitalism. What would the art of the invisible hand look like? The art of the invisible hand looks the lives in this movie.
re: The Market as (the) Medium of Art - 9/25/2007 10:29:10
|
|
| |
