"That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop"

Read the article: "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop" and discuss it's emphasis of the commercial aspect of art in relation to the Kinkade-video.

Both “That Old Master? It’s Down at the Pawnshop” article and the Thomas Kinkade 60 Minutes video diverted attention to the commercial aspect of art and how it can be financially profitable. Objectively speaking, the Art Capital Group, mentioned in article, is able to profit from art by commercially selling the art that they acquire from art owners who default on the loans that the company provides and Thomas Kinkade is able to profit from art by commercially selling mass productions of his original pieces.

From a subjective point of view, I felt the actions of the Art Capital Group and Kinkade were deceitful and served as a disservice to art. In reading the article, I didn’t perceive the Art Capital Group as an honorable loan organization for owners of fine art as I felt their practices lacked legitimacy and transparency. In my eyes the Art Capital Group provides extraordinary loans at excessive interest rates to financially troubled art owners in ill faith. Unlike most loan organizations, the Art Capital Group provides loans hoping that their clients, who have signed the rights to their fine art as collateral, will default on their loans. When clients default on their loans, the Art Capital Group seizes their fine art and places it up for sale. In that sense the article was correct in treating the Art Capital Group as little more than a glorified pawn shop.

In the case of Thomas Kinkade, his organization is deceitful in an entirely different aspect. The video segment made it apparent that Kinkade maximizes his profit by providing the illusion that his art is original and unique, despite that fact that his art is mass produced and, if it does have the pleasure of touching an actual paint brush, it is often at the end of an intern artist’s hand. Kinkade’s art lacks personal touch and meaning.

In my opinion the Art Capital Group and Kinkade’s organization financially exploit art by commercializing it. Both organizations value the art they handle and sell for solely monetary purposes, each lacking all appreciation for value associated with meaning derived from each piece. The Art Capital Group acts as a disservice to art by treating it as merely a commodity that can be used to achieve financial success. Kinkade’s organization acts as a disservice to art by stripping it of its unique properties. The commercially distasteful practices of each company demean the intrinsic value of art, condensing the beauty of each to piece to a dollar amount.

Image Above: One of Kinkade’s Pieces

“Can”did Awareness

“Can”did Awareness
“Chris Jordan Running the Numbers” Review

In examining American society, it is evident that we are a nation of consumers. So often, the public is only made aware of the consequences associated with our consumption through lengthy speeches made to politicians, wordy news publications, and dried out television segments. In my opinion, such avenues are fruitless in promoting consumption awareness and change, as they are uninteresting and difficult to conceptualize. Only the media pieces that vividly illustrate the enormity of the issue successfully promote awareness and initiate change. One such example is the anti-smoking campaign that has swept the country, in which disturbing images of the health effects caused by smoking are shown along with creative anti-smoking messages that are clear, concise, and to-the-point. The anti-smoking campaign has been successful in reducing the number of smokers, while initiatives pertaining to reducing our dependency on gasoline at an individual level have been slow to ignite.

During my visit to the WSU art museum, it was clear that Chris Jordan, an ex-lawyer turned professional photographer, realizes the importance of the visual aspect of human comprehension. As an artist, Chris Jordan fuses together photographs of consumer products to create a piece of art that demonstrates the sheer scale of American consumerism. Each image portrays a vast quantity of consumer items – two million plastic bottles, one hundred million toothpicks, 2.3 million folded prison uniforms – and includes a statistic to put the quantity in perspective. Jordan, in his website, conveys that society overlooks our enormous levels of consumption because we are unable to wrap our heads around the numbers. By providing a visual representation, Jordan, has made the statistics comprehendible while subtly imposing his personal critique on imperative social issues that revolve around environmental waste, criminal justice, drug abuse, and product consumption.

I was particularly interested in three of Chris Jordan’s pieces when I was viewing his exhibit: Plastic Bottles (2007), Skull with Cigarettes (2008), and Cans Seurat (2007). The element that struck me most about these photographs was the clever additions Jordan made to each piece to direct the viewer into a particular reaction. In my opinion, Jordan predisposes his photographs to ignite a reaction from the viewer that is consistent with his views on consumerism.

In Plastic Bottles (2007), Jordan effectively encouraged a negative reaction from the viewer by making the shocking terrain appear to travel back as far as the eye can see. He achieved this by making the bottles near the front of the photo appear large and detailed, while the bottles in the back of the photo diminish in size making the landscape appear never ending. While Jordan could have illustrated the statistic by making the bottles appear flat, I believed he created the photo as he did with the intention of evoking a negative reaction towards America’s consumption of canned beverages. I speak from personal experience as my initial reaction, after viewing the photo, towards American consumerism was one of waste and excess.

I appreciated how Jordan was able to vividly associate death with cigarette consumption by arranging cigarette packs to illustrate a skull in Skull with Cigarettes (2008). He effectively did this while staying consistent to his style of art as the photograph depicted 200,000 packs of cigarettes, equal to the number of Americans who die from cigarette smoking every six months. Again, he could have just illustrated the stacked packs of cigarettes, but instead he directed the viewer into a particular response by creating a broader image of a skull. I believe he created this photograph to make viewers aware of the ultimate consequence that arises from American cigarette consumption.

I was intrigued by the angle Jordan took in Cans Seurat (2007). The majority of photographs I saw during my tour created by Jordan appeared to condemn American consumerism. In Cans Seurat (2007), it is as if Jordan beautifies and applauds the number of aluminum cans used by Americans every 30 seconds by assembling 106,000 aluminum cans into an eye pleasing park scene. The photograph reveals a delicate contrast between natural scenery and processed metal. When I initially viewed it I assumed the statistic would revolve around the quantity of cans American’s recycle every hour, but, to my dismay, it was the quantity of cans Americans use every 30 seconds. I believe Jordan altered the photograph, making it visually similar to one of Georges-Pierre Seurat’s pieces, to draw the attention to the piece.

I enjoy the passion and creativity of Jordan’s art work. He chooses to focus on real consumerism issues that are affecting a real society. In my opinion, while I support his work and the awareness he is seeking to promote, I believe it will have little difference in the grand scheme of things. In accurately illustrating the enormity of an array of consumerism issues, Jordan belittles the individual contribution. In my opinion, his pieces enabled me to justify the number of plastic airplane cups I use because it doesn’t significantly increase or decrease the total number used Americans every year. Additionally, Jordan’s statistics become dated rapidly—further supporting the notion that his work will have little influence on American consumerism.

In Jordan’s defense, I don’t think he is using his art to initiate change in the way his viewers consume. I believe Jordan’s goal, as an artist, is to promote awareness pertaining to American consumerism issues and to get each individual thinking about how he/she contribute to each consumerism issue.

Photo Above: Skull with Cigarettes (2008) by Chris Jordan

Kant’s Belief That Taste is Aesthetical

Kant writes: "If we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost." (p. 106).

What (on earth) does he mean? Which other Kant-concept/idea could you connect this statement to? Give it your best shot in a not too long blog.

Kant is reinforcing his position that the judgment of taste is aesthetical through his statement, “if we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost.” Kant believes that the beauty of art is not distinguished by a judgment of cognitive understanding for an object, but instead by aesthetical meaning. I completely agree with Kant, for if society were to strictly critique art on a cognitive level then each piece of art would merely have a title and become a definition rather than a form that is sentimental and beautiful.

In judging objects according to only concepts, Chris Jordan’s photograph illustrating 2.3 million folded prison uniforms would be exactly as it is represented by the text statistic. The piece would signify the exact same thing to everyone in society because of the objective nature by which it was judged and it would fail to promote awareness about criminal justice by evoking emotion.

We know that Kant’s position holds valid to society today because art pieces have different meanings to different people. Kant’s thought that the determining judgment of art is subjective is further supported by the cliché that “the beauty of art lies within the eyes of the beholder.”

I feel that Kant’s belief regarding the judgment of taste connects to elements of Hume’s idea pertaining to “the standard of taste.” Hume expressed that “beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” Through his statements, Hume essentially communicated if we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost because beauty results from individual meaning and sentiment. It is evident that both Kant and Hume agree that the judgment of taste is aesthetical and that beauty is derived by subjective means.

Image Above:
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804)
www.stumpertenrod.de/mf_08_immanuel_kant.jpg

David Hume Review on Aspects of “On the Standard of Taste”

After reading the section on David Hume (p. 78-92) discuss your relationship to the notion of “taste” (e.g. is either, both, or none of the provided two paintings tasteful).

In the section on David Hume, pertaining to “the standard of taste”, Hume expressed that “beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” Hume’s perspective on beauty reinforces the cliché that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

I was intrigued by the method in which Hume conveyed the impossibility of creating a standard of taste among men, as an individual’s preferences are highly influenced by sentiment and factors related to the delicacy of the imagination, personal prejudices, experience derived from practice, and formed comparisons. I agree with Hume in that all sentiment is right, or rather no sentiment is wrong, and due to the diversity of opinion among humans it creates a situation where it is impossible to define real beauty or deformity.

Although Hume is unable to define absolute beauty and absolute deformity, he effectively communicates the parameters for which what is real can be considered tasteful. He expresses that taste is entirely based on personal palette as “to seek real beauty, or real deformity, is as fruitless an enquiry, as to pretend to ascertain the real sweet or real bitter.”

In referencing Hume’s philosophy on taste, I find neither of the paintings to be tasteful on many levels. First, coming from an entirely objective stance with minimal prejudices, I find deformities or inferior beauty in both the paintings. The painting of the monkey holding a flower, in my opinion, combines the superior beauty of a flower with the inferior beauty of monkey as I see monkeys to be a substandard of human beauty. In no logical circumstance can an individual obtain anything more than mediocrity from a mixture of greatness and commonness.

The portrait of the man is also not tasteful. There is no beauty associated with the painting that registers with my palette. I am unable to relate to the man’s appearance, style of dress, and facial expression. I find the painting similar to the story mentioned about the kinsmen who pronounced the King’s wine to be satisfactory if it weren’t for the hint of leather taste or the distinguishable iron taste left from the key with a leathern thong in the hogshead. The painting, at a fundamental level, illustrates the sweet beauty of a human, but takes a sour turn with the apparent displeasing characteristics in it.