Although the first three readings (Whistler vs. Ruskin, Gilbert Stuart, and The Chinese Art Explosion) did not seem to me to be very similar to each other, they each raised important questions. They made me question the definition and value of art and the role of the artist, three topics I have not often considered.
I found Whistler vs. Ruskin somewhat amusing. It seemed silly to me for the mentally unstable Ruskin to attack Whistler's work and for Whistler to then file suit against his critic. This is what made me consider what art is, for Ruskin did not recognize Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket as art. He astutely interpreted it as a challenge to the established norms of the art world, something that would revolutionize modern art. Why he saw this as a threat escapes me. Ruskin himself, anything but conservative, justified Turner's work by using detached metaphors and analogies, not even returning to the actual work; if anything, he should have supported Whistler. But who was he to question the authenticity of Whistler's Nocturne? Furthermore, who is anyone to do so? This brings the role of the critic into play as well, because it is largely up to the art critic to set the standard for what can be called "art." In any case, the deranged Ruskin could not have hoped to quell the coming modernist movement. The art changed with the times, and pieces such as those of Whistler, which were formerly considered heretical, came to define the popular idea of what constituted art.
The Gilbert Stuart reading left me a little confused. To begin with, my first impression of Stuart's reduplication of his original portrait of Washington seemed inauthentic. In reproducing the image so many times and selling off the copies for quick money, Stuart lessened the relative value of his original piece. In addition, he created a multitude of future unknowns by distributing so many versions of the same portrait, not the least of which include the identity and intended recipient of each painting and the order in which the paintings were created. But why would Stuart impugn a piece attributed to him? Modern forensic analyses and extensive research virtually nullify his claim. This brings into question the role of the artist, about which I have begun to formulate strong opinions. I don't think that an artist should be able to disown his own work. Once he has made for himself a business of making art, he cannot simply renounce responsibility. Art is not a means of making profit; it is a statement. A statement cannot hold credibility in anonymity; therefore, the artist must stand behind his work. I think Stuart's repudiation of that one portrait was cowardly and represented on his part a fundamental lack of understanding and respect for his trade.
Finally, The Chinese Art Explosion made me think about how society values art and the extent to which people will go to gain social standing. I was shocked at the exorbitant prices that people are paying for others' work. In the simplest sense, the price of a good or service reflects its intrinsic value - or rather, how much others are willing to pay for it. These prices are artificial, however; in this corrupted Chinese art market of auctions, the highest bidder sets the price of the piece. So buyers can boast of their accomplishments upon acquiring pieces of art that fetch such high prices. And for what? Prestige? I repeat, art is a statement. And the Chinese, of all people, should take this seriously, as visual art is basically the only form of expression not censored by their government. That's why artists like Ai Weiwei take advantage of it. Despite the rapid and recent growth of the market, there have been signs that the market is reaching maturity. In other words, it's a stock market of art speculation that's in imminent danger of crashing.
These readings
I found Whistler vs. Ruskin somewhat amusing. It seemed silly to me for the mentally unstable Ruskin to attack Whistler's work and for Whistler to then file suit against his critic. This is what made me consider what art is, for Ruskin did not recognize Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket as art. He astutely interpreted it as a challenge to the established norms of the art world, something that would revolutionize modern art. Why he saw this as a threat escapes me. Ruskin himself, anything but conservative, justified Turner's work by using detached metaphors and analogies, not even returning to the actual work; if anything, he should have supported Whistler. But who was he to question the authenticity of Whistler's Nocturne? Furthermore, who is anyone to do so? This brings the role of the critic into play as well, because it is largely up to the art critic to set the standard for what can be called "art." In any case, the deranged Ruskin could not have hoped to quell the coming modernist movement. The art changed with the times, and pieces such as those of Whistler, which were formerly considered heretical, came to define the popular idea of what constituted art.
The Gilbert Stuart reading left me a little confused. To begin with, my first impression of Stuart's reduplication of his original portrait of Washington seemed inauthentic. In reproducing the image so many times and selling off the copies for quick money, Stuart lessened the relative value of his original piece. In addition, he created a multitude of future unknowns by distributing so many versions of the same portrait, not the least of which include the identity and intended recipient of each painting and the order in which the paintings were created. But why would Stuart impugn a piece attributed to him? Modern forensic analyses and extensive research virtually nullify his claim. This brings into question the role of the artist, about which I have begun to formulate strong opinions. I don't think that an artist should be able to disown his own work. Once he has made for himself a business of making art, he cannot simply renounce responsibility. Art is not a means of making profit; it is a statement. A statement cannot hold credibility in anonymity; therefore, the artist must stand behind his work. I think Stuart's repudiation of that one portrait was cowardly and represented on his part a fundamental lack of understanding and respect for his trade.
Finally, The Chinese Art Explosion made me think about how society values art and the extent to which people will go to gain social standing. I was shocked at the exorbitant prices that people are paying for others' work. In the simplest sense, the price of a good or service reflects its intrinsic value - or rather, how much others are willing to pay for it. These prices are artificial, however; in this corrupted Chinese art market of auctions, the highest bidder sets the price of the piece. So buyers can boast of their accomplishments upon acquiring pieces of art that fetch such high prices. And for what? Prestige? I repeat, art is a statement. And the Chinese, of all people, should take this seriously, as visual art is basically the only form of expression not censored by their government. That's why artists like Ai Weiwei take advantage of it. Despite the rapid and recent growth of the market, there have been signs that the market is reaching maturity. In other words, it's a stock market of art speculation that's in imminent danger of crashing.
These readings