Quality aside ,it take more money to make large works of art than small ones. ab
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 6:31:30 PM Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art It would be interesting to see if the better art were consistently made in more prosperous times or if stress & poverty spurrd invention etc. Kate Sullivan In a message dated 12/3/10 11:58:17 AM, [email protected] writes: > Dear List; > > Why do we fret over the art as commodity in today's world. . And why not > look to > the distant past to see how closely linked art and money were? Abbot > Suger, in > his lavish 12C building of St-Denis, used the richest materials and > jewels, > etc., as a metaphor to illustrate the richness of heaven. For some > reason, > modernity has justified art partly on its spiritual value without ever > determining what that is. Perhaps Kandinsky came closest when he spoke of > > 'inner necessity" as the spiritual impulse; others did as much in > different > terms. But no-one can say what, exactly, the spiritual is and how it is > embedded in art, beyond alluding to it it largely romantic form. At least > Suger > was honest enough to admit he couldn't "express" spirituality in material > terms > without metaphor, without equating the uniqueness of the former with the > rarity > of the latter. Thus the richer, rarer and more costly a thing is the more > easily > we can attribute to it the elusive spiritual substances that otherwise > escape > our grasp. True for Suger, true for today's money-based art market. > > We know a big diamond is not a spiritual presence but we easily accept > the > pretense through metaphor; likewise, we know that a painting costing a > million > dollars is not necessarily a significant, spiritually imbued artwork, but > we can > accept the pretense that it is through its market value, especially if > that > value is freely determined by a public auction. > > The question regarding art and money deserves closer analysis than it > gets. It > deserves a study of how we place value on immaterial qualities, or how and > why > we think they exist at all or have any value. It is one thing to value > material > things with money as a relatively simple process. It is another thing > altogether > to try to value immaterial beliefs, customs, symbols, knowledge, feelings, > and > the like, in material ways. It is of course done all the time anyway. For > > example, every court in the land does this on a routine basis in > determining > settlements or compensations. Art is just one of many, many examples. > We > don't really have any alternatives. We are matter, art is matter, matter > is > equated with matter. The spiritual, the aesthetic, the subjective > "qualities" of > experience and desire, etc., are not matter. But, paradoxically, they > cannot > exist except by metaphor; that is, as if they were matter. > > I plead to either bring this Art and Commodity issue up to a more > interesting > level or drop it. The banal underlying interest of those who focus on > art-money > is political and generally ultra-conservative, as if one can separate the > moral > and spiritual qualities of life from its material reality. Strangely, the > > argument enables "free-market" amoral exploitation because after all, the > important things, the spiritual things are unsullied by money. > wc
