this…?

or this?

Perhaps this has been discussed before, and I wouldn’t be surprised, but I thought of something last week that I never encountered in five years in art school.  I have a rather obvious dismissal for the value in abstract (or bad) art.  Perhaps everyone knows this but simply doesn’t want to hear it since that would preclude their bad art/abstract art from garnering high prices.

The thought is quite simple.  Up until recently (i.e. basically the last century) nearly all artwork was valued by collectors based upon the content of the work.  Art was a commodity that conveyed a message based on the visible content within.  For example, look at the work of any of the master artists from any period in history after the term “Art” (or Artist) existed and you’ll find that they made their living on commission pieces.  Trust me (I have an Art History minor) these pieces were not abstract paintings.  Even ancient cave paintings were functional – they were the earliest form of history books (and also instruction manuals).  Artists until the 20th century made their living (and many abstract artists IN the 20th century) on commission pieces usually consisting of portraits or religious reenactments.  The content was determined by the buyer in most cases, not the artist first. This is why when you go to the art museum portraits and religious imagery make up the majority of the work.  Yes, we also see plenty of landscapes, some of which were commissioned and some of which were the artist’s personal “free-time” work.  However, why didn’t these same artists do abstract art in their free time? 

The reason artists didn’t really experiment with abstract painting until recently in their “free time” is because it wasn’t profitable.  They weren’t practicing their real craft.  A race car driver doesn’t work on crashing his car in his free time, only if spectacular crashes had a payday would a driver ever deliberately crash a car.  Painting (and all art) used to be about a subject; about the content.  Being able to render subject matter in this way was a skill that the general public didn’t have, and that made it valuable.  In the last hundred years, though, the onset of photography cheapened the value of the painter’s ability.  But what could the camera NOT do?  The camera could not render a scene unintelligible (although it could be blurry – but that would just be a blurry photo) to the viewer.  Painters needed to be able to make money somehow, and it was going to be harder than ever to make money by reproducing the real world.  Cameras could do that job faster, easier and cheaper.

And so abstract art was born to bring value back to painting.  This time the value would be solely placed on the artist, and not a split between the artist and subject.  This was a sad turnabout for the future of art.  Art has always been about bringing content to light through the unique view of the artist.  With an abstract painting the view of the artist is sealed separate from the viewer.  It is only recently that publications have realized the value in using an artist’s view of subject matter.  For example, TIME could have just put a photo of Sonia Sotomayor on their cover and not a Chuck O’Brien painting.  It is this quality, reproducing the world in unique form, that separates us from animals.  Animals use simple tools (click the round button on the silver box).  Painting a masterpiece is anything but simple.

Now, I don’t mean to disparage photography, I have my own “art photography” after all.  However, in the grand scheme of things I do believe that fine art and photography are two very different beasts (not necessarily precluding some photography from the realm of Art).  This post wasn’t about photography though, it was about why abstract art, well… sucks.   If you don’t believe me, keep in mind that abstract (or “modern”) art also includes pieces like Duchamp’s “fountain” and Damien Hirst’s shark sealed in plastic… as well as Terence Koh’s gold plated feces.  What personal value an art collecter gets out of owning a literal gold plated piece of shit I have no idea.  Having a beautifully painted portrait of their daughter I can understand.  The former is no more a piece of Art than a Google stock certificate, it is simply an investment because anything Terence Koh does will (supposedly) increase in value.  Any object that derives its value on this basis is NOT ART.