ae en ee i VOL.4NO.6 1989 ooking around the city, it’s easy to think that there are lots of people who buy art. From where I sit as I write, I can see a store that specializes in post-cards, another that sells native art and another that specializes in glass. There’s a clothing store behind me that sells pictures and fabric hangings. If I go into any of the malls in the city I’ll find a “picture store” (maybe 2 or more) sell- ing framed pictures. There are many people at the College who wouldn’t call this work “art”. They’d point out that much of the work is photomechanical reproduction of painting. They’d draw fine distinctions between “Art” and “Craft”. They’d complain that the pictures aren’t dealing with “art issues” of the 1980’s or even the 20th century - that it’s re-hashing hundred year old themes - or that it is (gasp) “decorative”. To me, these complaints are pretentious (and defensive) quibbling. We live in a culture that is encrusted with art. I take a broad definition of art and would include, with the work found in galleries and museums, all the pictures we see in books and magazines, all the splashy graphics in stores, all the visuals on TV, the ads on busses, the forms of our knives and forks, the shape of our furniture and the style of our vehicles. The list could go on indefinitely. I would use the term “art” to distinguish a kind of human activity from other kinds of activity. Making art is different from growing com or mining or laying bricks or making babies. To be sure, there are different kinds of art, just as there are different kinds of crops, but I think that a painter who says that the work of a designer is not art is as ludicrous as the grower of wheat saying that the grower of carrots is not a farmer. AINNH NILHYVA > aa ~~ — reproduction and the original are almost the same. People will buy pictures for purely aesthetic reasons, but there are pretty stringent limits as to how much they will pay. Even though most people like pictures, hardly anyone would go hungry for a week to possess one. It is only people who (in the main) have more money than they know what to do with, who will spend thousands of dollars on pictures. The problem for emerging artists is that their work has T @ An artist is a prime producer of a certain kind of raw the artist wnevelve sw yor the almostno commodity value. The buying public does not seek material. That raw material is (in the visual arts) the created ¢ no comme ppott onese 2 think . to buy art with no commodity value. One of the strategies of - visual appearance of things. That created visual appearance ho ossivle to et ork ator nist in ee young artists in this century has been to increase the commod- can be put to many uses: it can communicate ideas or emotion, Ist iz yalu § . requ es that ts precy put ity value of their work by seeking personal publicity through it can make people feel good or bad, it can be used to enhance aesthee ‘one, but art as S {i s necesstry than outrageous behaviour. We’ve all seen rebels-without-brains objects that have other purposes, or it can be an end in itself. it 7 than seein ed to see : ead rat the artist whose sense of self-promotion runs to graffiti and vandalism. The work of the artist tends to transform the materials Rather pensive me to see art erspectye», of labour: There are more honourable ways of increasing the worked with. My own work transforms ink and paper into a and We nee om that certatt ee the time ie commodity value of one’s work. Becoming associated with picture. I enjoy the work that is involved in that transforma- cher? WwW or king duct of f ery teast) Jere mater a worthy cause might do this. It’s a sad comment on our tion. The ability to work to transform materials into art is the or art as the paid (at she iece and for sell for ato to society though, that the vandal will be seen as a serious artist ability of an artist. 4 ns need to i i finish Be piece Ne ko = ret : Sooner than the friend of whales. The value of a picture (or sculpture, film, performance, takes t0 it is ade. : poth at : cep ative How can the artist whose work has no commodity etc.) is harder to pin down. Value can come from various 0 whic net it mus 5 th twe t of ¥ eg it valuesurvive? Is it possible to support oneself on the aesthetic sources. IfI could produce pictures that would compel people price ’ This me ci e comfy 25 rt is — ork value of art work alone? I think it can be done, but it requires to buy cigarettes, then those pictures would have a positive - make. ors 08 po One é piece f presentine oy. ashiftin values. Rather than seeing art as stuff that is precious value to tobacco companies and a negative value to everyone fac , ocesses 14. means ; quired corn and expensive we need to see it as necessary but cheap. We : else. This might be called “commercial” value. Other art must be so) ng public ist tryin to s need to see art as bread rather than caviar. productions have value because of the fame of the maker. A to a buyt that we ey price yt Working from that perspective, the artist sees art as the Picasso has value whether anyone likes it or not. This might Z wor cans e+": product of a certain kind of labour. We need to be paid (at the be called “commodity” value. A reproduction of a Picasso may have value because of the experience it causes in the viewer - his “Guernica” is important to many more people than have ever seen the actual object he created, and it is important to many more people than could ever possess it. This might be called its “‘art” or “‘aesthetic” value. Aesthetic value, though important to people psycho- logically, does not necessarily have a high dollar value. Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” has an astronomical commodity value (about $53,000,000), but reproductions of it can be had very cheaply. If I buy a $10.00 poster of the picture, my aesthetic appreciation is not a 5 millionth of my appreciation of the original. In fact, for most people, the aesthetic value of the MARTIN HUNT | BY MARTIN HUNT aJssecom very least) for the time it takes to make a finished piece and for the materials of which it is made. If the piece is to sell for alow price, then it must be both quick and cheap to make. This means that we have to accept these factors as positive compo- nents of our creative processes. Once a piece of art is made, it must be sold. A means of presenting work to a buying public is required. Consider- ing that we are trying to sell work at a low price, it means we have to sell a high volume at low overhead. It makes sense for many artists to get together to sell their work. That way, the potential buyer has a better chance of finding something to buy, and each artist need only devote a small amount of time to selling. I like the idea of forming a co-op mobile gallery. A group of artists would build a display booth that could be set up in a variety of locations. They would fill it with work and set it up at events that have large numbers of people. It might be fun for such a booth to tour fairs, or to set one up at a ferry terminal, or to install it at the market. The possibility of forming publishing groups comes to mind. Groups of artists could publish and distribute various kinds of cards and posters. These needn’t be dreary reproduc- tions. Artists could work with mass media in a vital way. There are people who think that approaching artin such a way would involve pandering to the “common taste”. One response is that] (for one) feel better pandering to the common man than to arich elite. Contrary to what we’ve been led to expect, I think that a mass market would be more receptive to a wider range of work than the elite market. Ona deeper level, artcanonly be areal positive influence ona society when it has a vital and friendly relationship with that society. Art that is hostile and incomprehensible to the broad mass of people serves only to alienate people from culture. Such art does none of us any good. ooking around the city, I's easy to think that there are lots of people who buy art. sellsnative art and another that specializes in glass. There's a clothing store behind me that sells pictures and fabric hangings. IT go into any of the mal Inthe city 'lfinda “picture store” maybe2or more) ell- Ing framed pletures. ‘There are many people atthe College who wouldn't call this work “art”. ‘They'd point out that much of the workisphotomechanleal reproduction of painting. They’ draw finedistinctions between “Art” and “Craft”. They'd complain thatthe plctures aren't dealing with“artisues” ofthe 1980'sor even the 20th century-that it'sre-hashing hhundred year old themes-or that itis (gasp) decorative”. ‘To me, these complaints are pretentious (and defensive) quibbling. We lve in culture thats encrusted with art. Take a broad definition of at and would include, with the work found in galleries and museums, all the pictures we sein books and ‘magazines, llth splashy graphics in stores athe visuals on ‘TV, the ads on busses, the forms of our knives and forks, the shape of our funiture andthe style of our vehicles. The list ‘could go on indefinitely. T would use the term “art” 0