Reference no: EM131465677
What is art, in the metaphysical sense? That is, what makes something be counted as a work of art? If your own view of art is simply some version of the subjectivist cliché, "beauty [or art] is in the eye of the beholder," then what can be said about the fact that some artworks are worth millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars, displayed with utmost reverence in museums, galleries and other public venues, while others have little if any monetary value? Why should the opinions of art critics, art historians, philosophers of art, art collectors and art dealers, and even artists themselves matter more than the opinions of those of us who make up the public at large? Is it appropriate that the views of the experts and the stylistic tastes of the wealthy should matter more than the opinions of ordinary folk? Why or why not?
Be sure to bring in some consideration of the various theories of art we have studied in this unit: Plato's mimetic (or imitation) theory, Danto's reality theory, and Marcuse's theory of art as a medium through which is funneled human will and opposition as it combats surplus repression. Does the kind of modern art reviewed in these two documentaries fit into what Marcuse's theory about art says about the function of art in society? Hughes seems to imply, especially with what he implies about the "real value" of Warhol's work and the disdain he shows for the work of Damien Hirst, that art is nothing like what Marcuse envisions it to be, at least as a socially beneficial activity.
The art that seems to matter--great art--is the art that is most highly valued (and here, monetary value is the operative sense of value). And such art is highly valued because it is such great art. The circle is pretty small, as the critics say. Is Marcuse really thinking of something other than fine art, like performance art or conceptual art interpreted through mediated imagery like we see in advertising art or posters and public campaigns involving a theme and an "esprit de corps"? How can Damien Hirst's polka-dot paintings be valuable at all? This is certainly not the revolutionary art theorized by Marcuse is it?
What do you think of the minimalist art reviewed by Michael Collings? As reported on Rothko's Wikipedia page, "In May 2012, Rothko's 1961 painting Orange, Red, Yellow was sold by Christie's in New York for $86.9 million, setting a new nominal-value record for a postwar painting at a public aution. In May 2015 “Untitled (Yellow and Blue),” which sold for $46.5 million at a Sotheby’s auction in New York." Yves Klein's Wikipedia page reports the following current values for his work: "Klein's painting RE 46 (1960) was among the top-five sellers at Christie's Post-War and Contemporary Art sale in May 2006. His monochromatic blue sponge painting sold for $4,720,000. Previously, his painting RE I (1958) had sold for $6,716,000 at Christie's New York in November 2000. In 2008, MG 9 (1962), a monochromatic gold painting, sold for $21,000,000 at Christie's. FC1 (Fire Color 1) (1962), a nearly 10-foot long panel created with a blowtorch, water and two models, sold for $36.4 million at Christie's in 2012.. In 2013, Klein’s Sculpture Éponge Bleue Sans Titre, SE 168, a 1959 sculpture made with natural sea sponges drenched in blue pigment fetched $22 million, the highest price paid for a sculpture by the artist."
Do you have any explanation for why this kind of art is so valuable? Do you consider this minimalist style of art genuine art? Is it really all about beauty's being in the eye of the beholder?