Galleries, Art, and Commercialism
Penguin June 9th, 2008
This weekend, we went to the Met to see its latest exhibits. Although I enjoyed Koons on the roof (when I first heard of it, I was thought “raccoons”), there weren’t as many pieces as I would have liked. The balloon dog is as cool as it looks (if you go to the back, it looks like the dog has an anus).
As I walked through the superheroes exhibit, I thought to myself, is this art? I loved Iron Man, and Batman is one of my favourite superheroes. Granted, comics has influenced mainstream pop culture tremendously in the last few years. Just because it’s influential and it’s put in a gallery doesn’t necessarily make it art.
When we went to the Guggenheim, Ninja and I talked about Art and Commercialization. I posed the question: Is it art if it’s commercial? I cited the example of movies and commercials. This is not to say these endeavors have artistic qualities, but the fact that it’s mass produced no longer makes it unique.
I hugged a $25 mil piece of art. If the “flower” wasn’t a one of, and instead mass produced for the gift shop, it would probably go for $25 instead. Because it is no longer unique, it is no longer worth as much.
As a filmmaker, I struggle with this idea of making art in a medium that wants to be commercial. I’ve watched great movies come out of the studio system. I’ve watched great movies come out of the indie system. Some of it is art, some of it isn’t. And I find that the two are inversely proportional to each other. The more commercial something is, the less it is about art, and vice-versa. Where do I strike the balance?
I don’t think I have any good answers.
-Penguin
Related posts
