ARTblog +

Does the world need another Tiger Shark in Formaldehyde?

Another Mona Lisa, another Stonehenge?

Will the world’s problems be mitigated somehow by the existence of [and the trading of] Art Objects, the visual arts?

Will art feed the hungry, assist in social justice, or offer economic value and utility for large populations of people?

To answer these – identify art’s true efficacies in human society – requires that we gain some clarity over what is Art, versus what is Design, versus what is Industrial Design, versus what is Architecture. If we can divorce Art (aka “Fine Art”) from the rest of the Creative Pursuits [and I'm not sure, in the Very Final Analysis, we can], and compare the inputs in production AND the outputs, and measure them, maybe we can answer: WHAT GOOD IS ART IN ACTUALITY?

Consider:
A Henry Moore sculpture, which hearkens Primitive design and offers the viewer (either in person or in photograph) the gravity of monumentalism and a connection, subconsciously, to our universal nakedness under the sun — this seems important, non?

The visual cues from the Moore phenomena yield [above] positive reflectedness, evoke deep inner feelings (often undefined), and possibly allows one to identify the stoppage of Time: modern time, the velocity of daily digital life.

Yet the Moore sculpture can really only be seen by those that have the means to travel to the site, or buy the Moore book in the store, or have the educational influence to seek “it” online, at the museum, or at the library.

It’s utility might be profound, but its accessibility is low.

Compare this to the Mickey Mouse plastic toy of extruded rubber-plastic [designed by Ub Iwerks, 1925], pressed on an assembly line from 1930 onwards in buoyant colors, and sold ubiquitously for almost a century now. This “sculpture” has offered happiness (aka utility) to literally billions of people, and is rather accessible.

If indeed the Mickey Mouse toy passes the test of “What makes a [good] sculpture,” and I claim now that IT DOES, then: why isn’t it venerated often and rhetorically?

I observe, to wit, that in Economic terms, in Logical Positivist terms, it [Mickey], IS VENERATED, AND RESOUNDINGLY, when looking at the most rational measures [e.g. Price]. In fact, the Good Mouse may be more venerated than ALL OF THE PICASSOS AND BRANCUSIS AND MOORES COMBINED!

WTF? No Way!

Let us look at the productization of the Mickey Mouse image, produced ad nauseum, over time. Let’s agree that the market of the Mickey image, in aggregate, over nearly 80 years, is astronomical in revenue terms, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars [USD 56 billion market capitalization, circa 2007].

Compare this to, say, the productization of the Picasso franchise, where, when all the high estimates of value for each piece in the inventory [e.g. the Price] are added together, maybe USD 10 billion of value can be guessed at [the private family Pablo Picasso Estate in 1973 was USD 750m - valuing a private estate can be problemmatic.**].

If one is to add up all the revenue streams of the Mickey franchise, say Mickey Mouse clothing and films, and compare those to all the revenue streams of the Picasso-family products in the market (including clothes, toys and film) — Picasso doesn’t even come close.

Further still, the question of overall utility to the world [READ: THE WORLD'S HAPPINESS] is answered succinctly by the data above: in free-will, free-market, low-barrier bourses, numbers speak for themselves. Mickey has pleased more. Period.

Under the rules of Aristotelian aesthetics, et.al, where the definition of SUBLIMITY is Art which Elevates the Soul, for more metaphysical gain, I am not sure that there is much difference of the modern image of Mickey Mouse and the modern image of a Picasso work!

To wit:

Both are of the modern time — anthropomorphisms of the eyes, body and body-kinetic narrative, turned upon us for emotional reflection and response.

Both are employing a colour palette to be noticed, even touched [fruit is like that, in colour and also in form: you want to touch it].

Both employ the very classic S-curves of the human form [I really can't say mouse form here, since it's too damn funny to contemplate, and also Mickey was formatted as a human. S-curves are the natural lugubrious lines of the human body: in side profile, the back of the head sweeps down into the valley of the neck, up out again to the scapula of the back, down again to the very lower back, then up again over the buttocks, down again to the thighs, up again at the calf, down to the Achilles, and then up again to the ball of the foot = lots of continual sinuous lines, like a smooth surf. The S-curves].

Both can be displayed creatively as decoration, either for interiors and exteriors and for ironic or fantastical effects.

Both call attention to themselves as Special Objects outside the normal objects we tend to ignore [park benches, parking decals, bars of soap]. This is what Heidegger called their dasein.

So then, if you were to ask me – what would I prefer, a Picasso, or an excellent example of the Mickey Mouse toy, I would say… probably… the Mickey Mouse toy! And I LOVE Picasso!

The Mickey Mouse toy is aesthetical and inviting, REGARDLESS OF ITS UBIQUITY AND ITS INCESSANT TIE-IN TO THE MODERN MIND AS A MEME. Held in objective observation, the Mickey toy has a lot of value in relation to a Picasso work. I can play with The Mouse more readily, and it’s portable. It also has the capacity, by association, to assist me in making friends [mostly kid friends, though].

In speculative markets, in a single lifetime, if I had to invest in an image, I would feel the pressure to follow the psychological pull of the market-makers and their offerings of exclusive luxury and choose the Picasso over The Mouse. In essence, I would garner fractional-shares of the Identity of the Provenance of wealthy investors before me. I would rationalize my expensive purchase to be a product of the smallness (hence rareness) of the production lot, and I would invoke the usual casuistries like “supply and demand.” I would speak of the investment as a narrative of my wealth, imbue in it a TOTEM STATUS TO MY POSITION. A Veblen good.

This is not dismissive logic: this is economics, plainly reviewed. I actually like both Mickey and Picasso, and I’m a sculptor. In fact, Picasso is famous for saying:

“Unlike in music, there are no child prodigies in painting. What people regard as premature genius is the genius of childhood. It gradually disappears as they get older. It is possible for such a child to become a real painter one day, perhaps even a great painter. But he would have to start right from the beginning. So far as I am concerned, I did not have that genius. My first drawings could never have been shown at an exhibition of children’s drawings. I lacked the clumsiness of a child, his naivety. I made academic drawings at the age of seven, the minute precision of which frightened me.”

And this, too, a quote from an interesting article on Picassos’ many thousands of works on childhood themes [When Picasso Painted Children, by Michael Lawton, IHT]:

“Picasso learned much from his children: as he got older, his drawings became more and more like theirs; he once told Henry Read at an exhibition of children’s drawings: “When I was as old as these children, I could draw like Raphael. It’s taken me many years to learn how to draw like these children.”

THEREFORE, I CONCLUDE FOR TONIGHT:

ART CAN MAKE THE WORLD HAPPY (IE. PRODUCE UTILITY) WITH BOTH ACCESSIBLE AND NON-ACCESSIBLE PRODUCTS. HAPPINESS IS A KEY EXPECTATION IN THE MODERN DAY, FOSTERED BY THE STILL UNFOLDING FRUITS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, THE UBIQUITY OF THE MEDIA, AND THE “BABY BOOMER” JUGGERNAUT THAT DECIDES THE MEDIA’S PROGRAMMING. HAPPINESS BLUNTS THE STARK REALITIES OF LIFE. HAPPINESS IS OFTEN QUALIFIED AS AN “INALIENABLE RIGHT.”

Look here for the next installments of this article, where the Positive Functions of Art will be diagrammed and include:

> ART AS A PHOTOJOURNALISTIC-LIKE VEHICLE, A FORM OF REPORTAGE [IN A "FORM-LANGUAGE"].

> ART AS A TRANSFORMING METAPHOR, TOWARD SENSUAL AND SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE [ON A SPECTRUM].

> ART AS A COMMUNITY BUILDING PHENOMENA, IMBUING TO A SOCIAL GROUP SPECIAL CODES AND RITUALS OF CONDUCT.

> ART AS A BRAIN-PROCESS, AIDING IN BRAIN DEVELOPMENT, NUMBER OF NEURON CONNECTIONS, CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH, AND ADULT THERAPIES.

until then!

very best,
michael james hawk – beacon hill

————————

**Note: Accessing the value of a product through time is daunting for a multi-variate franchise such as Disney or the Estate of Pablo Picasso. Assumptions have to made about Work For Hire conscription of designs (in the case of Walter Disney, master art director) versus a single tractable artist like Picasso, who produced everything himself (albeit with help from his production teams – Picasso did not pour bronze; same for Rodin, Moore, et.al). Furthermore, Disney has properties that are not Mouse-based, and other characters that were not Mouse-based, and those revenues would have to be excluded for a comparative analysis. The Estate of Pablo Picasso is a private concern, so revenues are not forthcoming — only joint ventures can reveal the net worth of the asset base of all of the heirs. Even then, adding up all of the revenues from each sale ever to have existed will never include re-sale markets, ie. auction markets. I will write an article on Valuing a Portfolio soon, as part of a larger article on How To Price an Artwork.

September 30th, 2008 | Category: journal, poetics, sculptors, utility | Subscribe to comments | Leave a comment | Trackback URL