Why Is Art Important?

Posted by jjamdesign on April 30, 2011 · 1 Comment 

Art is important because people make it important.

People make it important because something powerful happens with Art. It turns out that Art makes people important and important people use Art to magnify their importance.

By David

One good example is Napoleon. The Arc de Triomphe and numerous major paintings (see sidebar illustration) by major artists of the time such as David and Ingres as well as many lesser works were made essentially as myth-making public relations exercises. And they worked!

It was Napoleon who gave the famous quote, “A picture is worth a thousand words”. And he used this to great effect. He had portraits commissioned that contributed significantly to his mythos, and they still convey a sense of power and leadership that may or may not have been truly representative of the man.

Another example of political use of Art is Roman sculpture and wall paintings.It wasn’t love of culture and beauty only that birthed Roman Art. Monuments to Roman generals and Caesars were more than personal ego; those monuments and displays of ornate and ostentatious wealth were to impress policy makers and even to intimidate decision makers so that when say a vote came up in the Senate, the odds were that the views of the most impressive politician would be given weight.

But what about art of non-famous artists?

I am a non-famous artist. I have a confession actually. I went to Art School (Kansas City Art Institute, 1972) to evade the draft. I wanted to be a doctor and not an artist. I was excellent in Biology. However I was poor in Chemistry. A doctor needs to be good in both subjects. And I had friends who were in the art classes. So gradually I moved from interest in the sciences to interest in the arts. Or more accurately, interest in the art students. I went to art school because art was the onliest avenue open to me.

And I think that most people who make art do so because it’s what they can do and what they like to do. Not because like law or medicine one can make a lot of money. We do art for us, not for the marketplace. I’m talking about the vast majority of artists. We wash dishes, we drive taxis, we work in rest-homes, we teach. In short we do anything to make a living, but at the end of the day we like to do art. Sometimes we starve so that we are not encumbered by other distractions. We mooch, we don’t pay our bills, we squander the inheritance, we get money any way we can in order to support our habit. Because for the most part art doesn’t pay. We pay for the opportunity to make art. Van Gogh complained bitterly that street sweepers would work all day at a dirty job for a pittance, but demand (and get) a lot more money to model for an artist. And paints and supplies are indeed expensive. It’s expensive to make art. On the other hand, unless you are in a select class of artists who make their living from art, prices are low.

I have a friend who is a full-time practicing professional artist. Until a few years ago he made his living as something of an interior decorator. But he stopped painting murals in private homes to paint full-time. And it’s been a rough go. But he has an unmatched personal fulfillment. He’s an amazing painter and he should have recognition. Nevertheless, for inexplicable reasons he doesn’t have the recognition that he should have.

That’s the reason artists make art. And the reasons patrons buy art (this is the premise of this treatise) is to prove or project a sense of power.

Maybe artists should seek out politicians as a niche market. There are many painters who make a nice living by painting portraits of captains of industry and their families. But that’s not for everybody.

Meanwhile I am making art for my children and grandchildren. In 100 years they will have something that old granddad has made and be happy.

That’s enough for me.

+++

Below is an excerpt from an interesting read that I found. It may be of interest or not. Optional reading only.

From the website http://www.oneonta.edu/faculty/farberas/arth/arth200/politics/roman_imp_sculpt.html

Roman power was constructed and made manifest in its marble monuments. Emperors from the pagan Roman empire of Augustus to the Christian empire of Constantine and Theodosius were aware of the important role architectural and sculptural monuments played in establishing their power.

and

Power is very rarely limited to the pure exercise of brute force….Power is …a far more complex and mysterious quality than any apparently simple manifestation of it would appear. It is as much a matter of impression, of theatre, of persuading those over whom authority is wielded to collude in their subjugation. Insofar as power is a matter of presentation, its cultural currency in antiquity (and still today) was the creation, manipulation, and display of images. In the propagation of the imperial office, at any rate, art was power (Jas Elsner, Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph, Oxford, 1998, p. 53).

I read in the International Herald Tribune (I can’t remember the reference) an article about how oil rich Gulf States are buying Art. The comment was something like, “Where there is money there is Art” or “Art follows Money”. I know that in Japan’s bubble years enormous numbers of Martin Guitars and Van Goghs were snapped up by wealthy Japanese corporations and individuals for super astronomical sums. Pre-war Martin guitars are impossible to find these days. Perhaps now that Japan is in trouble, the Sheikhs will be taking them off Japanese hands.

But shouldn’t Vincent have had some of the money?

Take care yall.

See you soon.

J.

Advertisement

Filed under Uncategorized · Tagged with Caesar, David, Ingres, Napoleon, Pre-war Martin Guitars, Roman sculpture