ARTISTIC QUESTIONS

Does modernist abstract art have any social value at all?

I think it is important to note that within the context of the art-world
'Social Value' currently has a unique meaning. In the context of
contemporary definitions of art including those broad enough to define
things like 'Social Practice' as art, abstract modern art has no social value,
unless it's practice somehow creates that value. Meaning that most of the
works of the modern age are without social value, but an identical work
created today with the expressed goal of providing therapy to the
handicapped (for example) WOULD have social value.
If we are answering from the perspective of society as a whole, then the
answer would be that Modernist Abstract Art carries the same social value
as any other art. Social value comes from art in a variety of ways; it can
enrich a public or private space with beauty; it can convey socio-political
messages; it can convey spiritual messages; it can convey historical
message through documentation of a place and time.
It has as much social value as any other kind of Art, if there is anything
about Art outside of what it depicts.
Art brings people into its presence, into the effect around it, and may
induce or permit them to feel something different. One virtue of abstract
art is that doesn't tell them what they are supposed to think. For some
people that's a benefit and an enjoyable experience.

Does art become entertainment when it is commodified?

As far as I know, art throughout history has alwaysbeen a commodity. I
can't swear that the cave drawings were done for recompense, but I'd be
willing to bet that there was an assigned wall-drawer/shaman who was
better at the job and who received goods or perqs of some kind for his
superior skills. Certainly after that, art has always been a product that has
been created to be sold.
For centuries, at least in the Western world, artists were a kind of elevated
craftsperson who created art on order from patrons, the church, nobles,
merchants, etc. What you see in museums is this work. The exceptions are
works created for learning and practice. The paintings in the Sistine
Chapel were bought and paid for, totally commodified. Rembrandt used to
go the auctions and bid up the prices of his own works.
This only changed in the last 200 years. Immanuel Kant, in his book, "The

Critique of Judgment", in 1790, wrote that artists are geniuses, special

people, that "real art" is created in a kind of elevated state of unknowing,
and that it has to have "purposelessness". This book, plus support from
Schopenhauer and some other philosophers, plus some historical events,
including the invention of the camera which took away artists' traditional
jobs (portraits, illustrations in books, newspapers, etc) - is what led to
most of our current beliefs about art.
So today we have come to believe that "art is for art's sake", that the
proper of intention of an artist is self-expression, and we are accustomed
to artists simply painting whatever they wish for their own purposes. But
these are only 200 year-old beliefs and practices! So this idea that art
might not be commodified is kind of odd to me - and I asssume it derives
from this new set of beliefs also.
Entertainment has always been part of art also, as well as its
commodification. Theater is art. The early Greeks lived for their theater
and today, we still perform their plays. Literature and stories are art and
entertainment. Early paintings were painted on wood. Then, the loom was
developed, so tapestries could be woven and later canvas - and then
paintings could be painted on canvas. This was a huge advance, because
these fabric paintings could be placed over the windows in castles (there
was no glass at the time). Not only did they help to keep the cold out, but
at night and during the long winters, people could look at them by
flickering candlelight and imagine stories from the scenes they showed.
They were truly the first movies. How cool is that!? They were
entertainment.
This is one of the greatest and noblest roles that art plays. It can tell
stories - in literature, in theater, in visual art. Even abstract art can do this
- we put our imagination into it. And by doing this, it draws us together,
unites us in our common humanity. I suppose some people might, from
time to time, characterize this as "entertainment" and think this lessens or
demeans the medium. But in my opinion, it's just a word, and not such a
bad one, at that.
Alexander Solzhenitzyn once wrote that among the things that kept him
going when he was in the Russian gulag was the hope of someday going
to Disneyland. That's pretty good company. And who doesn't need their
spirit lightened?
Basically, art doesn't become entertainment; art is entertainment.
When we talk about art today, we cannot isolate it from image cultures,
which is directly relating to what I believe you were referring to as
"entertainment" - eg. movie. Lenin once said movie would be the most

important kind of art forms in the new (20th) century, which we cannot
say untrue.

What creates value in art?

The value of art does not start with the observer or the art dealers/critics,
or whatever the masses say. If people are willing to pay millions for some
crappy art, that does not necessarily mean that such an artwork is truly
valuable.
Unfortunately money talks, and investors and the dirty side of the
business of art have convinced the majority of the people that a lot of
crap is good art simply because some millionaire paid millions for it.
People should read more about how some galleries and collectors hike the
prices of some artist' works and they also buy most of what the artist
produces just to make those prices skyrocket. Once they do, the collectors
sell their "investment" and make a killing. They probably crack up in their
mansions about the kinds of crap they sold for millions.
On the other hand, an artwork is the reflection of the artist.
If an artist has talent and a lot of knowledge in his particular field, chances
are that he will create valuable artworks, that is, artworks that are rich in
many ways, rich in techniques, emotionally deep and charged with
interesting information.
His artwork will be masterfully made, carefully conceived, it will be a
unique way of seeing the world and interpreting a concept or idea.
This mature artist can create artworks of historical significance depicting
or illustrating the innovations of the times when the artist lived and thus,
they have even more value not just in the field of art but across fields
such as the world of science or technology.
If the artists life is rich in events and the artist has had a vast array of
experiences in life (such as pursuing an serious artistic education, facing
death, raising children, traveling, achieving some interesting feats,
constantly learning, climbing mountains, anything really, etc.) then all
those experiences will enrich his inner worlds and eventually it will
become evident in his creations, or his paintings, or his music.
An example of this is someone like the so famous Justin Bieber. Maybe he
has some talent, he definitely has money and people buy his music but we
all know that he is very immature and pretty shallow. Same thing for his
music. He still has to work hard and mature and live a full life. Eventually

if he doesn't succumb to the unforgiving world of entertainment, he might

well achieve something great and of great value. So far I wouldn't pay a
penny for what he does, nor do I think he deserves those millions for the
little he has accomplished as an artist, that is for the quality of the art he
has produced so far.
So that's my view. FIRST have an awesome mind and experience many
things like DaVinci for example. Be curious, travel, innovate, create, work
non stop, try new things, don't be afraid of change, be unique and
genuine, have a deep life full of accomplishments, study, THEN go show
the world what you do. They will for sure (including the galleries,
museums and collectors) like what they see because it is unique and of
great value.
If all things follow the proper priorities, eventually the masses and the
business of art will be right in wanting to pay a lot for your art.
The artist creates value. The audience determines value.
There is no art before the artist's conception or production.
The viewers' measure of utility, whether pleasure, prestige, or some other
metric, sets the value. Value may be the time or money someone is
willing to spend on a work of art, or the cultural value of a shared
experience.

What is art?
Art is a means for bringing imaginative intensity to life. It functions like
the nighttime dreamwork that reworks the experiences of the day,
revising them in the service of our desires or simply making sense of them
by strengthening meaningful associations and eliminating meaningless
ones. Visual art also enriches our lives by restoring the element of intense
sensation that is drained from experience by reason and narrative. The
meaningfulness and intensity of art compensate for the triviality and
dullness of everyday life.
Art is an expression of the human experience.
In short, we have art because we cannot duplicate nature. Beyond our
ability to biologically reproduce, the best we can do is to represent the
natural world we find ourselves in. This can be done a number of ways,
but I'm assuming you're talking about visual art, so this would be a visual
representation of nature. What we've learned over the centuries though is

that there isn't just one way to represent nature. You can depict it
realistically in a detailed fashion, you can depict it in a less detailed but
more immersive realistic fashion, you can depict it in a less than realistic
yet still representational fashion that tells a story or expresses things in
nature we don't immediately see, or you can depict it in a nonrepresentational fashion that still speaks about nature in terms of abstract
forms, colors, movements and what have you. Even the most conceptual
of art still speaks about nature in a round about way since we are all a
part of nature, and all of our creations are part of our natural functioning.
What is the purpose of art?
The purpose of art is to communicate. Early forms of art can be seen as
ways of communicating mythology and cultural traditions, and as our
cultures grew art developed into new forms of communication.
Sometimes it was meant to communicate the wealth and power of those
commissioning it, however the artist always ends up communicating other
things about the world we live in and our humanity simply through their
creative depiction of people, places and things. This happens through the
innate desire to create something meaningful, either to a specific person,
everyone as a whole, or simply the artist themselves. The meaning of art
is wholly subjective, but therein lies the value, because it can
communicate things that ordinary communication, visual or otherwise,
cannot. It can communicate what it feels like to be in a certain place,
what an individual's personality was like, and certain ideas that challenge
what we think we know about the world. It is unique and vital as it
provides the spark for future ideas, meaningful expressions, and visual
explorations.
What is art?
Art can be in pretty much any form, but that doesn't mean that just any
form is art. Art has to try to fulfill its purpose and communicate
something or else it is, in visual terms, simply just a picture. This can
make judging whether something is artistic difficult, since we may not
know what some piece of art is trying to communicate, and even when we
think someone's trying to communicate one thing, they may really be
attempting to say something else entirely. However if you engage
yourself fully in looking at enough art, you can form your own sense of
what is meaningful and make those judgments yourself, and compare
them with what other people think to form a better opinion. The best
place to go though is usually the mouth of the artist, as whenever they
say "this thing I have created is art" they can usually say what their
intention is behind it. In non-concrete terms though, art is what makes life
interesting. It is what makes things worth looking at for more than a
second. It is what gives things meaning beyond simple utility, and it is
what lets us talk about ideas that can't be expressed in words. In that
respect, it is one of the most important aspects of human activity.

Art is personal, though not necessarily purely original or creative.Art cannot help but to be to some extent derivative, of the 'natural' if
nothing else if nothing else,;of language, of experiences. Consciousness
and intent come into the process very late and rarely bother to inform
itself of undocumented resourcer encountered on the fly.
Art can exist by intent of the artist or be transformed into 'Art' having
been in existence in some other sense prior to its attribution. Duchamps
made it official tho it has always existed.
Art can represent personal perception or as homage to the personal
perception and expression of prior artists.
Art is a license to delve into anything and to go anywhere. Nothing is
immune to the artists expressive and transformational mind.
Art is a license to challenge all existing perceptions and conceptions. The
great British Biologist William Bateson was of the mind that artists
perceptions raised and pressed the important questions of each era that
science was required to address. No Medium can evade an artists interest
though sometimes it may not be the best of ideas. If art can be said to be
bad or ill conceived, then being 'bad' or 'ill-conceived' cannot be used rule
out anything as "art"
As much as anything what people make to express themselves will always
be available to be picked up reframed or redressed and circulated as part
of social culture, By that token everyone is to some degree a socially
contributing or participating artist if only because they got dressed (or
failed to dress) one morning.
Every vital element of the artists may be found in the practices of people
doing everyday things, getting dressed, grooming, preparing meals,
gardening etc. It is only mindfulness that distinguishes the title bearer
from casually engaged or unmindful.

Is art meant to be sold? There's a whole discussion on this that started

in the 50s and 60s, notably from Clement Greenberg and the origins
of conceptual art, which in part was a backlash against
thecommodification of art.
Is the "art event" the viewing of a painting, or the painting of it? If the
later, then why does the painting as a physical object need to exist? If the

former, then what happens when the painting no longer exists?

As Lawrence Weiner said: "Once you know about a work of mine you own
it. There's no way I can climb inside somebody's head and remove it."

What determines value in art? For a painting to even make it to

bidding it has to have a valuation. A valuation is decided based on
previous paintings by that artist and what they sold for. Usually the piece
up for bidding is compared to pieces as similar to it as possible and most
importantly based on the most recently sold. When valuing art one tries
not to compare a piece to works by that artist that sold more than 10
years ago. For accurate valuation it's ideal to be able to compare a piece
to at least 20 other pieces by the same artist that were most recently sold
AND similar to the piece up for bid. If you have any further questions just
ask.