Ramblings on Contemporary Art (V)

Part 5: Of Original playback and mass creativity

“I started as a commercial artist and I want to finish as a business artist.” – Andy Warhol

In the era of art reproducible and replaceable to herself, and industrial design, in the age of “original playback” and “mass creativity”, it is possible to understand the difference that exists between a work of art and an object design (or, even worse, in a reproduction of departure)?

The pop art of Andy Warhol had, among its principal precepts, reproducibility. So much that, even today, the foundation that deals with “authenticate” the artist’s works, is in trouble: the same Andy claimed that some did not care if the work had actually made him or not, both the principle was that of reproducibility, so what did it matter who had made it?

In an era in which “we are all artists” and “everything is artistically eligible” how can he not be art a vase for flowers?

You could change attitude and read a Ikea catalog as you browse a catalog of an exhibition: the objects are often compelling, rich colors or with sinuous shapes. Often not what they seem to actually have (design) and are reproducible drop. What difference runs, then, between Kärleken (a frame dubleface heart-shaped, red plastic) and a picture of the famous can of Campbell’s? I would say none. Both are reproducible and their same concept is developed from this assumption: the reproducibility.

The materials now are so usual, often the artists are thinking about objects or textures to objects in favor of big brands. But then, where is the difference?

And this is the real big questions, in an art world that has lost the main value: the uniqueness of the creative act. Sure, the “creative gestures” there are many, but each is individual and unique. The Mona Lisa, the David, the island of the dead, the scream: they are all creative gestures, but each is unique.

The Scream. Artist, Edvard Munch

The Scream. Artist, Edvard Munch

A collector who bought The Scream by Munch would own, before even a mountain of money, a unique and unrepeatable object. Not rare, but unique. There may be some of the copies, but would not be the original. In this pop art destroyed patterns: there are works of art that are the concept, then they are made by the artist himself in hundreds of copies. So they are not unique objectively.

You could argue that even etchings and engravings are not unique. It ‘s true, but beyond that are produced in limited numbers and then abandoned, the artistic gesture is unique in the realization of the matrix. And anyway, the copies have value, but not as unique works. And it is therefore important to establish what the real value of which must have a work. The idea? The uniqueness? Or both? Or neither?

The realization in series of an artistic idea of aberrant has the absolute similarity with the realization of massive objects of low design for large chains, such as Ikea. It then the low profile design the new frontier of Pop Art? Of course, this would make every house an art gallery. Always with the usual art throughout the world.

Artistic globalization?

The following two tabs change content below.



Latest posts by PeggyMaltby2187 (see all)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *