I wrote this while listening to my country-western music cd and watching Phantom of the Opera: The Movie

The article “…Down at the Pawnshop” by Allen Salkin reveals a little-known aspect of the world of art collectors and the artists themselves. It is something we can all relate to; financial difficulties. What do you do when you can no longer pay your bills, or lack the funds to purchase something you want (like Evan Tawil, an art collector who wanted to buy even more art)? Well, you can follow suit with the famous photographer, Annie Leibovitz, and essentially get a mortgage on your art, as many people do at pawnshops for various items. However, these mortgages start at $500,000 and carry interest rates of up to 24%, at least for a company called ArtLoan, which Salkin mentions in this article. Indicating the controversy surrounding these artistic pawnshops, at least one lawsuit has been brought against such companies, also mentioned in this discussion, over whether a patron had fulfilled his end of the bargain.

The worth that can be siphoned from art cannot be better exemplified than in Thomas Kinkade’s multimillion dollar (billion?) empire that he compares to Walt Disney’s domain in the presentation by 60 Minutes. He has used some very good marketing skills to sell record numbers of his prints, as well as several other products, including snow globes, trinkets, and even houses, which all carry the “Kinkade” brand.

These two phenomena are possible because of the capitalistic society that we live in, and in my opinion, no one can blame people like Leibovitz and Kinkade for taking advantage of it. As was brought up in class, Andy Warhol did incredibly similar things with his art, much of it not even designed by himself (for example, the Brillo boxes, which already existed; they were merely larger copies). At the very least, Thomas Kinkade hand-paints the original piece of art before it is mass-produced; even if people do not consider him an “artist,” it cannot be argued that he possesses artistic talent.


You may have gathered that I have a problem with those who criticize Kinkade. Perhaps I am doing as was quoted in either Freeland’s or Ross’s text, and “speaking to reveal my class,” but so be it. I do not know how anyone can find anything wrong with Kinkade’s “empire” when some drips and swirls on a canvas (i.e., Jackson Pollock, the topic of my future presentation) can sell for ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY MILLION DOLLARS. I believe that it would be difficult to find someone who finds Kinkade’s work unattractive, however redundant and predictable. Is it so bad to like pretty things? I also take issue with how everyone in the 60 Minutes presentation was portrayed, like lemmings with no class and no mind of their own, following the Pied Piper Kinkade off the edge of the cliff. All of the people in the film simply enjoy comfort and familiar things. Also, the $150,000 that the couple with 138 Kinkade paintings spent shows that they are at least members of the upper middle class. They have the means to spend over $1,000 per piece of art, an amount that many people would never be able to accomplish.
Kinkade mentioned his “cultural identity” as a key component in his business. He includes family and God in his values, and whether he believes in these two or not, his audience does. It was also mentioned in class that he paints according to what he knows pleases this audience, but I do not find anything wrong with that either. Warhol said that he did not intend his art for anyone in particular, but he was obviously a self-promoter whose goal was to become rich and famous. If Kinkade wants the same thing, who is to judge him?


Al Capp said this about abstract art, but perhaps it applies to other kinds; “A product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.” Does Warhol apply? Kinkade? You be the judge, but you now have my opinion.


The image used in this blog is from http://www.kinkadecentral.com/paintings/tk97-01.htm
It is from 1997 and is entitled "Tea Cup Cottage."

Condescension and Conviction through Artistic Medium

Puzzlement descends on most observers as they enter the WSU Art Gallery and their eyes rest on the nearest piece. Strategically facing the entrance of the room, it appears to consist of a mountain range and a nearby lake in grayscale. Looking closer, one can see that it is made up of miniscule rectangles. Those in the upper half are printed with the word “Denali,” while the lower half is covered with similar rectangles with the accusing “Denial.” The plaque off to the side lessens the initial confusion by informing the reader that the piece consists of 24,000 logos from the GM Yukon Denali, representing the number sold in the U.S. during a six-week period in the year 2004. The exhibit entitled “Running the Numbers” has just presented a staggering figure of U. S. expenditure. The question arises: what is Chris Jordan trying to tell us about the elements included in this piece; our consumption rates, denial, and nature?

The artist’s intention begins to elucidate itself after one peruses a few more pieces and pauses at “Toothpicks.” Its innocuous scene of clouds and a tan ground that fades off into the horizon communicates no straightforward message upon first glance. Closer examination reveals that the “ground” in the artwork consists of one hundred million toothpicks, representing the number of trees that are cut down in the U.S. annually to provide paper for junk mail. You might ask yourself, what does this mean, and how does it relate to me? At this point, Jordan has you right where he wants you. The confusion he creates upon the first viewing of his artwork is designed to transform you, the observer, into a representation of his message. You are the stupid American, ignorant of both the meaning of his art and what you, and those like you, are doing to the planet. Take a look at his art, like Lichtenstein’s “self-portrait,” and you will see at least some part of yourself reflected in it. Both “Denali Denial” and “Toothpicks” do a fine job of completing this task through their initial beauty. Perhaps Jordan is utilizing Conniff’s claim that we as human beings are innately drawn to such natural beauty, and are therefore lured in with ease, before being visually assaulted with the cold, hard facts.

In the former piece, the U.S. culture of capitalism comes under attack, and we are bluntly made aware of our ignorance of its difficulties. The latter speaks to a division of business in this country that harms the environment; and challenges us as a nation to pay attention. Jordan is also obviously communicating his political and social views; as the “aware,” to us, the “unaware.” No other piece makes this clearer than a work entitled “Ben Franklin,” which demonstrates, through 125,000 one hundred dollar bills, the amount that the U.S. spent per hour on the war in Iraq. Several other pieces presented examples of the loss of life related to our country’s habits and lifestyles, such as a depiction of 29,569 guns representing the same number of gun-related deaths in 2004. He makes it clear what he thinks of this country’s spending and consumption, as well as the foci of this spending and consumption.

After experiencing this exhibit, one might pose the question of who Chris Jordan is to cast these judgments on his country. It is highly unlikely that he has not contributed to the 320,000 kilowatt hours wasted every minute in the U.S., or many of the other statistics presented in his exhibit. He states that he hopes to “raise some questions about the roles and responsibilities of the individuals in a society that is increasingly …incomprehensible” (http://www.chrisjordan.com/). There is no question that the numbers presented here, as well as others need to decrease, but is raising awareness enough? Only time, as well as our observations of the environment, will reveal the truth.

My Take on the One who Judged Judgment Itself

After reading this quote, I believe that Kant is making a valid argument concerning our judgment of art. Concepts, to me, refer to concrete, universal rules that we as a society have fabricated throughout our development as a civilization. This argument is quite applicable, regardless of the society or civilization that the person making the judgment may belong to. If these socially-accepted concepts are the basis for an evaluation of an artwork’s beauty, for example, then the judgment being put forth would be completely objective. On page 98 of the Art and Its Significance text, he states how this objectiveness is impossible to achieve in this particular scenario, saying that “In order to distinguish whether anything is beautiful or not, we refer… not to the understanding to the object for cognition, but… the imagination.” The representation (art) is evaluated through our imaginative process, which is anything but objective. Since, according to his terms, beauty cannot be objective, the beauty would indeed be lost “if we judge objects merely according to concepts.”
An additional applicable argument by Kant is one of the four qualities concerning the judgment of beauty (of art); the true appreciation of art requires “disinterest” in order to be valid. One of the concepts used to judge artistic objects in general is their “purposiveness,” or what we think they were intended to be used for (by the artist). One of the most urgent points that Kant makes in his argument states that if we judge an artistic creation by its function, or if its function elicits some sort of desire in us, then the quote above is proved true again, “all representation of beauty is lost,” according to his definition and guidelines of how we should go about evaluating art.
This second argument reminded me of Freeland’s discussion of Versailles and Kant’s theory. The gardens of Versailles would be a perfect example of the “purposiveness without purpose” statement. They are indeed vast and ornate, but there is no real purpose for them; they produce no food to feed the people, they merely show that the ruler of the land is powerful and wealthy enough to have such a massive gathering of plants constructed (I wonder what Chris Jordan would have to say about that; I’m sure the citizens of the kingdom during that time could have used some help from the king). In that respect, they would qualify as beautiful, as long as pleasure was elicited from observing them. They are a “representation… [where] beauty is [not] lost.”

Hume & the notion of “Taste”

I have experienced the concept of “taste” only in passing discussion or comments from others, in a casual manner throughout my life. Phrases like “she has very good taste in clothes,” or “that film was made in very bad taste” are examples of these.
After reading Hume’s selection entitled, “Of the Standard of Taste,” I gathered the impression that he wished to convey the message that every individual possesses his or her preferences or “tastes,” and unfortunately, we as a society often forget to accept others’ standards of taste regarding various things (for the purpose of this class, specifically art). He states that the “variety of taste is obvious to the most careless enquirer,” but also that we tend to throw this truth to the side when encountering objects that are very different, but not objects, or pieces of art, that are very similar. This is important to remember when evaluating the two paintings that were available for viewing on this course’s website.
In my opinion, both of the paintings on the course website were tasteful. They represent a kind of art that some people would desire to display in their homes, and others would not. They do not appeal to my personal taste for art in general; although they depict a chimpanzee, a flower, and a person’s face, objects that are found in nature, I do not find them attractive and would not hang them on my wall. The chimpanzee and flower are not “cute” enough and do not display enough humor to attract my fancy, and the person’s face is also unattractive to me. According to Hume, we as a society would accept different critiques of the paintings from different people because they are very similar. They are both paintings of naturally occurring objects and actually appear to be created by the same artist. If they were, for example, a sculpture and an oil painting, people would not accept different critiques of them, simply because the mediums and methods in which they were prepared are so different.