CLASS IS CANCELLED TONIGHT!
(Sorry folks, but I’m really sick — so am canceling class). I emailed each of you to let you know, but wanted to post on blog too. For those of you who missed this and the email (and went to see it); if you write a paragraph about the exhibit, I’ll give you extra credit.
I’ll give you until Friday evening to do this blog response; though the new one will be going up for Tuesday. We’ll just have extra to talk about. Email me with any questions.
For Thursday’s class, please read/view the following and respond either to one of the questions below or something (some thread or idea) that took your attention that isn’t represented by the questions, and/or engages some previous view of art (i.e. Sontag, Bell, or Tolstoy) you want to discuss. It may seem like a lot to read/view, but each article is short and Winterson’s writing engaging, so it shouldn’t take you too long.
Please read/view the following:
- Art Objects | extract by Jeanette Winterson
- The Guardian | 2002 | What is art for? by Jeanette Winterson
- View: Jeanette on a thing called art.
- The Secret Life of Us by Jeanette Winterson.
Questions:
- According to Winterson, what makes art valuable? Must art carry a message? Must it demonstrate technical expertise? Or must it simply be aesthetically pleasing? How do we, as a society, typically place value on certain art items?
- According to Winterson, must art do something to be worthy of being called art? And if so, what must it do? Elaborate and explain your response.
- If Winterson had a conversation with Susan Sontag on art and interpretation, on what might they agree and/or disagree? Be sure to explain why.
- How does Winterson seem to view the relationship between art and its audience? Does art have a greater responsibility to its audience than the audience to art? And in what ways does this either directly contradict or support some of the authors we’ve read up to this point?
- When considering the value and/or significance of art, do you think a piece of art stands alone (or should stand alone)? Or do you think knowing something about the artist is important and/or necessary? What do our readings thus far suggest?
- Winterson suggests that art is not a luxury, but rather a need. How does she support this idea? Why, according to Winterson, do we need art?
- Discuss Winterson’s view of art as a commodity. Be sure to reference at least two of the readings/viewings.
- How does your view currently align with or contradict some of what Winterson argues?
![OMG ! [ Explore #1 ]](http://static.flickr.com/2631/4150305338_5dd4270c04_t.jpg "OMG ! [ Explore #1 ]")
13 responses so far ↓
Jordan // June 5, 2008 at 12:07 am |
I had never heard of Jeanette Winterson before reading these articles, and I must say I really respect her. She says in the clip that she does not believe that art is a luxury, but more of a need. She says when a crisis hits a country, people tend to think that art is unimportant, and should be the last thing on people’s minds. She goes on to say that after the crisis is averted, the people affected look for “hope and vision”, then art “can speak.” I almost feel like she is saying, we need this art. All of us, as if it were some kind of unifier in everyone who was effected by whatever crisis had occurred. She also talks about the global crisis we are in right now. Art inclines us to think differently, which we must do in order to change things in our world today. I like it when she said something along the lines of “when we free up our imaginitive world, we are free to imagine a different kind of world.”
I also like her idea of actually sitting and looking at a painting for one whole hour. I have never done this. Most of the paintings I have seen have been in museums, and like she says, you pretty much just bustle through them quickly, and really only look at the ones that are most popular. Our lives are so hectic and filled with other things, that we forget about art, or think of it as an afterthought. What would be think about for an hour? What she says about becoming more uncomfortable reminded be of what Saltz said in his piece in the Village Voice, real art or good art should make us feel uncomfortable. I actually think it would kind of freeing to sit and look at a painting or sculpture for an hour. The exercise we did Tues. in class was kinda cool, even if we only looked at the art for a few minutes, a lot of the things we came up with were interesting, and at least made me think more about the way I look at art from now on.
Saraphina // June 5, 2008 at 8:37 am |
I am lover of art, theater where one gets lost in the already portrayed emotion of a character, or the capabilities of a painting to force the brain to complete satisfying and harmonious thoughts between each other. Being a lover of all “Arts” I am contented to know and delighted to of read Jeanette Wintersons opinions on Art. I found her enticing, thoughtful and direct in impressions of how others view art and how she herself directs her attention to art. How to enjoy art in a real environment opposite of the regular show boat exhibits one might come across while enjoying them selves in a gallery. It is depressing to think about how Art has become more of an elitist culture rather then an emotional attachment to a more natural audience of people; who are not there to sully pay attribute to the paintings worth and popularity but rather enjoy what the paintings primary purpose. Ms Wintersons analysis of how engaging in a picture makes one define questions so abstract that it almost does release the true intention of what the painting really is about. Creating a direct discovery about a painting a being able to fully let oneself go with satisfaction within a painting I found to be necessary and a main point of dictation from Ms. Wintersons article. That to experiment with Art is necessary not only just a sometimes creative process, but to experiment with thoughts about what the painting is actually trying to display in front of us is mandatory in even understanding it. Jeanette Winterson is trying to get the reader to understand the fundamentals to appreciating the art work naturally and as we discussed in class the popular word, discover art with authenticity. That we as people are self consciously obsessed with the future and how one might move from one day to the next rather then from previous to present. That we must learn to accept the art currently in front of us before we go over analyzing what is to come. That one can learn to appreciate and relate to all Art of extreme similarities and this is the true progress of what we all desire from Art.
In the Guardian I concur whole heartedly that art has become “ a hot commodity” not because of talent and pristine over achievement in the category of amazing “Art”, rather because someone someday took a price tag slapped it on the side of a painting and sad, “this you should buy.” Just like a cute pair of shoes, art is beginning to be sold with the same amount of care, very little. That people with millions as pocket change no longer want the “Art” because it moves them to a new state emotionally, but because it moves them into the popular ensemble. Art as Jeanette Winterson discusses is the original foot print in history. That because of art we are able to experience the world at an outside vigilance and with more pondering questions rather then the mundane everyday lifestyle possibly brought on by the rich and elite centers of society. We are again as discussed, a money society where everything is based on Social Economic status. It is just completely depressing to have to think that Art is now a sales item rather then a pleasure item. I love how Jeanette says “Art can prompt authentic desire.” It’s delicious the way she molds herself to relate to the art on a deeper more formal level still allowing it to be truthful and real. Art as I believe and I am sure Ms. Winterson would agree is a form of entertainment to make all the senses interact. As Ms. Winterson discusses toward the end of her second article that “art is a continuum.” never stopping its ever going rotation of expression and symbolism and that even when art runs the elite society out of town, art will Thrive indefinitely.
As Jeanette Winterson spoke in the Video on Art, I was distracted almost by the images that were selected and came to a place with them that was almost comforting and I discovered, almost as if a light bulb went on, that she was not just trying to get the viewer to reach past there shallow state of nature, but explore how Art itself influences our lives and how it is up to us to save its true meaning and true importance. That we can not let art suffer and that we must allow ourselves to be enveloped in the Art, even if it scares us. Boo!
rachel galicia // June 5, 2008 at 1:42 pm |
Winterson supports her idea that art is not a luxury but a need by giving great examples of what art does for us, why it is continuous and why we need it. She states that art provides us with a window to a different life, the other part of reality. Art provides us with love and imagination. I loved this quote of hers, I think it explains it well, she states that “Art is made out of both: a passionate, reckless love of the work in its own right, as though nothing else exists, and an imaginative force that creates something new out of disparate material.”
She explains that the art can do so much for us and make us realize things that we had not seen before. It can make us feel things and realize the possibilities that culture and capitalism wants us to forget.
“By that I mean it can waken us to truths about ourselves and our lives; truths that normally lie suffocated under the pressure of the 24-hour emergency zone called real life. Art can bring us back to consciousness, sometimes quietly, sometimes dramatically, but the responsibility to act on what we find is ours.”
So according to Winterson we need art to have that option that we are otherwise not given or shown. Powerful stuff!
Nate // June 5, 2008 at 2:06 pm |
Winterson’s views on how the Average-Joe looks at art I think is quite valid; when my parents would drag my younger brother and me to the art museum in our youth it would always seem like such a bore. We would show up, walk through all of the exhibits in about two hours and then leave for lunch at McDonald’s. To us children, the art museum was a total drag, we had to stand on our feet and not talk loudly, we would have to walk slowly through rooms that held pictures and paintings that didn’t really interest us (you know, no works about the Super Mario Bros. or Godzilla) and on top of all that we just didn’t get it (art that is)! But as Jeanette Winterson claims in her opening sentence, “Art takes time,” so now that my brother an I are older, we can go to an art museum and not be bored out of our minds. My guess is that art can only be art (and good art can only be good art) if the viewer has in mind (and in Saltz’s mind an eye) what good art is to them. A cartoon villain discussed with a potential art buyer (a really shallow and dumb art buyer) that the only reason the Mona Lisa is so famous is because it was stolen, not because it was a “good” piece of art. The point being is that just because a piece of art is hanging in a museum or is expensive, does not mean that it is “good”. However, that does not mean that just because it’s hanging in a museum or it has an expensive price tag that it is “bad”. Good and Bad only exist inside of you (the viewer), just because the art coordinator at the museum likes it does not mean that because you don’t like it you don’t know what good art is.
torreyanna // June 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
When Jeanette Winterson speaks of Art it is as if she speaks with reverence or worship. In her writing “What is Art For?” she compared Art and God. Notice how I capitalize Art? I think I agree with her and still use the capitalization of the word God from my Catholic up-bringing, but also from my connection to the unknown and how amazing it can be for us to contemplate, experience and even create it, collectively. God is that to me.
She speaks of connectedness, and tells us that art is what asks us to make connections even though our economy relies on separations. Nothing is solid or fixed, yet it’s not chaos either. There are patterns EVERYWHERE. I think I have a crush on Jeanette Winterson.
One question I have for her, one that I know my own answer to, but would love to hear her eloquently state is: “How important is the viewing or experiencing of art if one is not creating art, or unaware of the fact that art is constantly being created in their mind, actions, inactions, etc…How can I say that separating artists from non-artists is a lie, separating art from non-art is another lie, and that Art IS the connection we all have with eachother?”
I guess I could just say that. I think others might argue that this is too simple or sounds too nice to be true. I tend to be a bit mystical, somewhat airy-fairy or even hippy-dippy when I’m not feeling jaded, degraded and hopeless. Reading her words makes me feel that I personally would like to be more eloquent when it comes to expressing thoughts on art and humanity or spirituality and connectedness.
I believe there is a constant balance, like yin and yang, that within every cell there is a universe and that every universe is perhaps a cell making up another universe. I believe there is energy everywhere, in these antique objects, in rocks, leaves, dirt, in plastic. Reading Winterson’s writing has inspired me to write about what I believe in. I think her writing is truly Art, and I wonder if she makes the connection that other people don’t know that it is their experience with the art of other people AS WELL AS their experience with their own art that connects them to themselves, other people and the rest of the world.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that I truly believe, on a good day like today, when I went swimming and have lots of endorphins, it’s warm out, and class got cancelled, that the words “human” and “artist” are synonymous. I’d almost go as far to say “human” and “God”, but I think it is our connection, our collective energy that makes up “God”.
In my quest to understand these things I have become a massage therapist, acupressurist and spiritual councelor. I have decided to return to art school to fulfill a goal and to allow a future teaching other people that they are creative, by nature. I believe what is going on around a person is often reflected within that person, or vice versa.
I’d love to hear Jeanette Winterson talk about each individual’s right to BE the artist that they are. I think she might agree and could perhaps elaborate and give examples.
I wrote down a quote from the article “Art Objects”. I also drew hearts and stars around it. “If art, all art, is concerned with truth, then a society in denial will not find much use for it.” I think she has summed up in this sentence what is truly going on. Denial is not a river in Egypt, but we all want it to be. Only when we truly question ourselves and our nature, when we get brave enough to be honest, will we have the capacity to evolve as whatever we are capable of evolving as. Our society has put Art on the fringe because it NEEDS it to be a commodity, just like it needs EVERYTHING to be a commodity. Our society requires that we walk in, decide and pay, quickly. It falls apart if and when this doesn’t happen. What if we just sat down in front of a painting we liked…and just sat there? What then? What if we felt uncomfortable, allowed ourselves to feel uncomfortable and saw that almost as soon as we allowed the discomfort to take up space in our experience it changed, transformed and became something else completely. What if it became something that we had always been looking for?
Isabel // June 5, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
I once saw in a movie a boy explaining to his girlfriend why he loved movies. He said that since the invention of motion pictures, our lifetimes have lengthened exponentially. By that he meant that with every movie we watch, we are experiencing someone else’s life—we live someone else’s story for a few hours. This idea has really stuck with me. I’d like to think that other art forms can allow us the same opportunity to enter into a space outside of ourselves and expand all the oppressive limits put on us by mortality and the monotony of daily life.
Winterson’s feelings seem to line up with this ideal vision of what art can do. As with Sontag and Saltz, she emphasizes what I think is the most grand and thrilling thing art sometimes does. It can transport people to different states of being and alters the mind. As Winterson puts it, “Art reminds us of all the possibilities we are persuaded to forget. Peace or war, we need those alternatives.”
I like the idea that the viewer is essential to this powerful interaction. The art needs you to activate it. But despite (or rather because of) my idealistic loyalty to the power and potential of art, I felt sort of guilty reading “Art Objects”. The only pieces of art I spend an hour with are ones I can’t get away from because they’re in my house. There is so much to see in galleries and museums it’s hard to slow down enough to let each piece affect me. The average person spends about 2 seconds with a piece of art. After reading Winterson’s essay I’m determined to try to spend more time with the art I look at, even if it’s just to make sure I look for a solid 5 seconds.
Danny A // June 5, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
I really enjoyed reading Jeanette Winterson’s writings. She uses a Socratic approach to make some of her points that I found intriguing. In her blog “What is art for?,” she argues that art is a necessity, rather than a luxury. It’s pretty simple to just agree with it, but much harder to justify.
In our modern, capitalist world, art has become a commodity, a product, something known more for it’s price tag than it’s beauty. She notes that it’s a byproduct of our culture that art is being absorbed to the point of neutrality as is religion. She adds:
“Like God, it fails us continually. Like God, we have legitimate doubts about its existence, but like God, art leaves us with footprints of beauty.”
Like God, the true form of art is intangible, but even if we don’t believe in it, we can experience it. It is these experiences that fill our lives and minds with feelings unavailable in the material world. It is part of the human condition to express and seek out these feelings, and that has been true since the time of our first ancestors.
This idea reminds me of a line from the movie “Hedwig.” In a scene, Hedwig tells Tommy, her lover, that she believes love is immortal. When he asks her why she thinks that, she says, “I don’t know, perhaps because…love creates something that was not there before.” I believe that like love, art does the same.
While it may seem that Capitalism has perverted our appreciation of art, it’s a moot point. As Winterson explains, if money ceased to exist, there will always be art.
Ashley // June 5, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
When considering the value and or significance of art should the art stand-alone or should there be some knowledge of the artists? Winterson seems to believe that the knowledge if the artists in unnecessary and I at one time agreed I believed that the life of the artist is irrelevant, that in fact even knowing whom the artist is doesn’t make a difference. I mean look at all the beautiful works of art created be artists unknown. If I can connect with the art and make it connect with my life why does it matter what the artist’s life was like. Whenever I would go to a museum I never read the little plaque that lays bellow the painting, in fear of what I would read would alter my perception of the art, that those words would influence my judgment.
But things started to change for me; I began looking at art and wondering why the artists created this certain piece and for that I needed to know a little more about the artists. For example Steven Spielberg, here is a guy who was making almost purely escapism films, then suddenly his films began to have a greater meaning, he came out with “The Color Purple,” a great work of art and I truly loved it I had no knowledge of Spielberg’s life and it wasn’t necessary for me to enjoy the film. But I began to question why he made the film, this man never had an African American in any of his films, or made any films that had a focus on women what brought this on? I wanted to know what inspired this creation, I read some information on Spielberg and learned that he had adopted and African American child, which caused him to want to learn more about African American history and culture and he used film as a way to discover this information and a the same time have the audience discover it too. So I do believe at times knowledge of the artists is necessary. Having knowledge of the artists allows one to see the artist’s growth throughout their career. Having knowledge of Spielberg’s, family issues and religious background gives me better understanding of his films. But at the end of the day I would rather see the art as it is without any knowledge of the artists or their views and create my own understanding and interpretation of the art and if I find that there is more information I need to understand the art better then I will go out and search for it.
Laura // June 5, 2008 at 5:53 pm |
On the first day of class I had an initially fleeting thought that has since been resonating, as I never brought it up or discussed it with anyone. Jeanette Winterson beat me to the punch, and at first I felt that sinking discouragement tied to intellectual property and pride, but then quickly recovered in my realization that this is the first time in this class that I have so much enjoyed the writer being presented, and beyond that felt a significant level of empathy and agreement. Finally someone was hitting the point about appreciating art from a standpoint inclusive of content, context, and aesthetic connection.
The fleeting thought I spoke of, was more extreme in nature than Winterson’s views on art in our current socio-economic age, however I am not an established writer and therefore have complete literary license to say whatever I feel like. “It may be that Capitalism will be as successful with art as it has been with religion; absorb it to the point of neutrality.”, this struck a chord in me, obviously triggering the recollection of my original thought which was in response to the moment in class when Kristin asked who among us considered themselves writers, and hardly anyone raised their hand. It was at this point I realized that art really doesn’t have a succinct place for itself in capitalism, and therefore the artist must find a way to incorporate their artistic validity into the pre-defined constructs of the system. As established, the general consciousness surrounding the concept of “being an artist” is shackled by the underlying feeling of the need to be outwardly validated as such. How is occupational identity formed in this country? Do you get paid for it? If not, then chances are you’re not considered whatever you’re calling yourself. Therefore, artists in our society don’t always feel like or identify themselves as artists when there is nothing on their resume to confirm them as such. Because of this, art is only more and more being regarded as just another industry, and I don’t think I have to detail the frightening implications behind that.
Samantha H. // June 6, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
I agree with Laura on many points on Winterson. I felt that her pieces were refreshing, and speaking to a bit of an elephant in the room, not just in our class–but at columbia in general, and maybe further–that if we are to speak of art today, we must speak to how it has become commodified and how it has transformed through that. She, of course, merely touches the surface, but begins an important conversation.
I too liked the quotes about how art how capitalism may well absorb art to the point where it neutralizes it. I think about this often: how forms of rebellion, or things that have the capability of pointing to truth (which under capitalism, which thrives off of illusion–the truth of how people are forced to relate and live is a horror, and therefore, the truth is dangerous) are appropriated and neutralized. A good example is the modern world of art that Winterson points to in her piece on art galleries. How can art really be dangerous when artists are forced to think about how much money a piece is worth, how “sellable” it is–most of the art world cut off to “the average joe” and limited to the wealthy? Or, when the only means for “average” people to view ar t is through the gallery–where art has already been filtered through a market, chosen not by the masses, but by art dealers, etc., and set up and marketed as a brisk walk through the cultured world, where in order to get a taste, one must briskly walk through to consume as much as humanly possible in the matter of a couple of hours? This alone seems to me to deprive art of its potency. This reminds me of a film, that isn’t great, but still worth seeing, called Basquiat. It is about jean basquiat, a famous painter who was homeless in new york city and did graffiti, or street art–and made it big. The film exposes how his art and his life, for that matter, which wreaked of elements questioning the norm, subversion, and hinted to the enormous angst it is to be alive, was in effect, completely appropriated by the dealers of the art world, by capitalism itself, you might venture to add. There is one scene where they are grabbing at him like he is literally a dollar sign–fighting over him and who has right to his work–and it is really very disgusting. After watching it, a question emerged, or perhaps, reemerged–in a system that usurps everything that has a hint of “the real,” and packages it to sell diffused of all substance–how do you actually rebel anymore? How do you speak the truth, in whatever form, in a way that will actually reach large amounts of people, become popular amongst large sections of people, and not have it appropriated and made into a trend that can be bought? I believe that this is a question we artists need to be asking ourselves and each other, very urgently–as the world is crying out for those who are brave enough to stand against the status quo–but how?
Nancy // June 6, 2008 at 6:59 pm |
I didn’t really realize, until I sat down, how the thread of money runs through art. Of course, I think that same thread runs through everything, but it brought me back to the interesting, are you an “artist” only after you’ve published or sold a piece of your work” question.
That being said, I really enjoyed these writings by Winterson. I found her references to God and Mammon (yes, I had to look it up) really interesting…
She mentioned in her video how some may feel it’s absurd to talk about art during an “acute crisis” when people are hurting. I completely agree with her when she said it’s then, after that acute crisis, when people are looking for hope, that art can speak. But even then, I couldn’t help but think of the money… Just look at Shirley Temple during the Depression – people were looking for something to make them feel better and because she was so successful she became a top grossing star of the time. —There’s no getting around the money…
I know first-hand how true her, “let those who want it pay for it” statement is. Oh, you want to do a one-act play? Sure, but it’s up to you to raise the money for sets and costumes… Meanwhile, the varsity basketball teams get brand new Nike Airs. For free. I know this because I participated in both. What a rip-off.
No matter what role money plays, I do believe art is essential. I think that we lose something when art, whether it be in images or song, is not available to us. I know it sounds corny or hokey, but I think we lose a bit of our humanity when we don’t care and can no longer appreciate art. Whatever art may be to us. I loved Winterson’s closing on the video which sums it all up, “Through art we recognize life’s intrinsic quality, that everything is connected.”
Rachael Harter // June 6, 2008 at 9:09 pm |
So this week’s readings have finally started shift the ground that is my understanding of what art is. Having come to the conclusion that art is and is not many of things I found it much easier to soak in everything Jeanette had to say and I definitely enjoyed reading multiple readings from one individual. I say, “shift” the ground because that is the only adjective that will fit my ideas now on gaining knowledge. To say “break through the ground” would suggest that somehow I came to grips with a sense of breakthrough and peace on what art is or is not, and that would be a lie. But to deny that there was movement in the ground, even if only the lightest, would be also lying to myself. I liked that Janette didn’t seem to state a “truth of nature” in her definition of art. In fact she never really came out and bluntly stated, “This is what art is, and this is what art is not.” It was her style of speaking and writing that make me comfortable to allow the ground of my mind to be shifted. I love that she does not claim that art in itself changes your life, but rather, “What art can do, is to prompt in us authentic desire. By that I mean it can waken us to truths about ourselves and our lives; truths that normally lie suffocated under the pressure of the twenty-four hour emergency zone called real life. Art can bring us back to consciousness, sometimes quietly, sometimes dramatically, but the responsibility to act on what we find, is ours.” I think this is what makes art so uncomfortable to the human soul at times. To really view and take in art in its pure from not tainted by value, perception, and anything else that blurs our vision awakens us to truths. And lets be honest, how many humans enjoy truth. We all say we want the truth but in reality most walk around asking for what they want to hear so they can deem that as truth and feel better about themselves. Self-deception is a human comfort. I remember having a conversation with a girl once. I was unable to figure out the emotions I was going through when news of once again more natural disaster was affecting friends and people I consider family in Pemba, Mozambique. I was grappling again with life and the issue of the lack of knowledge that most of us as Americans have on issues outside of ourselves (mostly due to a lack of coverage or education in). She looked me straight in the eyes and blankly stated, “honestly I would rather just not know about any of that stuff…it just depresses me.” I was completely taken back, but not really. It just proved a point to me that most people don’t like truth. They spend their lives trying to run from it. The thought of art bringing out these truths in life has intrigued me. Maybe that is some of the purpose of art. In some since or another the artist has captures some since of truth from within and expressed it. It would explain a lot to me. Why some flock to art and others run from it. And even most of the art that causes many to run is the very art that typically causes great change for those who will allow it. But the verdict is still out in my grappling with what art is, or is not.
Michael Miles // June 10, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
Winterson has some pretty negative feelings about the way in which art is being treated in our modern capitilistic society. She talks at great lengths in, “The Secret Life of Us,” comparing art to religion inside of the capitalist system. “It may be that capitalism will be as successful with art as it has been with religion, absorbing it to the point of neutrality. Capitalism, for all its emphasis on the free market, hates competition – that is, any challenge to its system. (Winterson The Secrets life of us)”
The point I believe she is trying to make in this discussion is that capitalism is set on dealing with the finite world. The world of things which we can see and touch. Gold, money, land, objects, etc. Where as, religion and art touch something deeper in the human experience. However, because of the power of the capitalistic system, art, like religion, has lost its power in society to capitalism which has then absorbed it and made it into a commodity. Much in the way that Jesus is a brand with Christian music and WWJD bracelets, art has also become about branding and selling.
“In the West, we avoid painful encounters with art by trivialising it, or by familiarising it. (Winterson, Art Objects – extract)” This is done exactly by making art something to be a sell through product with its only goal is to slightly entertain its audience enough to make it worthy of purchase or re-purchase.
By turning art into a product (which I consider to be even of less value than a commodity like Oil) it has become something of a novelty. It is now devalued and the comparison between art of the past and art of the present takes shape. Of course, this debate is vanguarded with what we all know. Art made today can’t possibly be of the same quality as art of the past, because art today has been treated solely as a novelty product.
However, Winterson argues in Art Objects, that even art that is made and packaged can and should be given the opportunity to have an impact and be placed outside of the capitalism context it is often viewed within. She says, “Supposing we made a pact with a painting and agreed to sit down and look at it, on our own with no distractions, for one hour…What would we find? (Winterson Art Objects- extract)” Thus making a simple point. We can give art back its power by simply choosing to view it and understand it as more than novelty, as something of value and important in our culture.