pop art worth less?

This lesson we had lecturer Richard Orjis come to speak with us about his work, and how he first put himself out into the world. He spoke of his interests with flowers and how these are important to his practice because of them being culturally safe, and that he sees them as defining beauty. Overall, he seemed to be a very spiritualy strong person. One other thing which came up was his interest in the shift between hight culture and popular culture. What are my thoughts on these? Well if you ask me, you shouldn't have asked.

Ha ha, but no seriously. When I define high culture in my mind, several things float in. Louis Vitton bags. Snotty broads smoking cigars, handling their money while they stand grinning smuggly at gallery dealers. And the silence. The deafening silence of a gallery. Will I be kicked out if I whisper something into the harsh white void? I also think of classical music. And opera. Loud, horrid, and shreiking. It all seems so rough and threatening. I have come to the conclusion that high culture is something which cuts a strong line between the "high breeds" and the barbaric oafs. I hate to see such patronising difinity being made. Popular culture art is defined as cheap, and tacky. Something which perhaps was made with no actual idea of the real value in art. Something such as Andy Warhol's multiple celebrity prints, or Duchamp's readymades. They are seen as inferrior to "high" craft. after all, who would want to buy a toilet? That cant be real art. But then I think that perhaps they want to be defined as "popular culture" for a reason.

Popular culture breaks the restraints of regular art. It is free and loud and different. It expresses things which the world are interested in and often in a very relaxed nature compared to "high" art which is very tight, and strict on formalities. There is room for experementation, often breaking the boundaries of the formal white canvas. Popular culture art exists in t-shirts, album covers and magazines, expressing Bright colors, Music, and Celebrity culture. And although some pop culture artists did display their art in a formal gallery, they still often broke a few formalities. An artist which does come to mind is Steve Keene. He produces mass produced paintings over and over, selling them for a very small price in an atmosphere similar to a bustling market. This is something which Richard Orjis was explaining. He likes the idea that an image can be very easilly accumulated. Magazines are an example, where you can often simply tear out an image if you like it, and stick it onto your wall. What steve keene is doing is very similar. by making multiples of an image (like in a magazine) he can sell it for a small price, and everyone can have a genuine piece of art for your home.

"Steve Keene says his art is like a CD — and this has nothing to do with his designing cover art for some of the world's hippest indie rock bands. It's disposable and forgettable or pleasing and memorable, depending on who owns the wall where the piece hangs." - http://www.thegreenbuilding.net/gallery/press.html

Limits increase the value of art. By having less and less of a certain image, like an original painting it increases the ammount of money it's worth. so why do it? Pop culture is known for creating "throw away" art, which is created in the masses. On T-shirts, canvas or paper."High" art is far too cherished. Surely by having the idea that pop art is barbaric and "un-art-like" , then an ACTUAL art piece such as a Monet would be valued and cherished more. It is not "throw away" art. there is only one.

But I dont see the difference in value between a rembrant compared to a piece by say, steve keene. They are both art, and like an expensive bag, or a cheap one, which ever you like better should in my opinion hold more personal value.

Do ya research!

Research for me, is the hardest damn thing in the world. It can take a long time to finish my research processes, and actually see where I am heading with these. I think for me it is very important that I push myself to develop on my thoughts, and accomplish a strong concluding point. For me, my conclusions are often some of my biggest weaknesses, and that is mainly due to lack in background research. To focus on my ideas, I must proceed in the examination of my concepts, and find out how these relate to the things I am reading and viewing.

When starting any kind of research based task such as an essay or assignment, I usually start off with a brainstorm. A kind of map that spits out all of my ideas and thoughts around a certain topic that I have chosen. Each thought can branch out into another, and from this I can begin to sift out and pick the most important ponts from all of the chaos. soon after, I may hop onto the internet to get a basic idea of someting that I am trying to research (like a book, event or artist model). I say a rough idea because the internet often warps the truth a little. Once I am certain about what kind of things I am looking for I could move onto a library to get further information on these details. And sometimes, a few straighter details than the internet.

This makes me think back to something which Grant told us in today's lecture. Colonialism. Settlers coming into New Zealand, and building their own structures and government with no real knowlege of the land. They hadn't even thought about the phisicality of New Zealands hilly atmosphere before they decided to plonk a pre-designed road layout over the top. What they did, was take a chunk of road from edinburrugh, copy and duplicate it onto a part of Dunedin. They only built from the things they knew. Even street names were exactly the same. The only problem was that by merely duplicating what they knew without any real research, the grid shaped road, suited for a flat type of landscape was a total missmatch to the bumpy curves of New Zealand.

This is how I see my work. If I only thought about ideas in my head, and wrote duplicates of the things I already know, I am going to end up with a pile of useless, insufficient reasearch. I wont be able to extend on my thoughts, or back up ideas with new knowledge or quotes. My research will be rather one sided, having only one point of view, and possibly a few twisted truths. If I were to talk about someone I didn't know at all like Charles Dickens, and wrote about him in an essay without background investigation saying, well he was a guy who wrote a book about something. it's obvious that I will fail my essay. My content has to be explained and justified.

For me, my X factor would come from watching and looking. Seeing things, and consuming as much visual information as I can handle. I am a visual learner. And this is most likely why I would get a bigger kick out of a book of photos, rather than a thick paperback. I also like to physically research. Go places and look. Take in the atmosphere. I may go to the place in which I am going to set my phototshoot, and take a few snapshots, so that I can further think and plan out how I am going to approach the task at hand. I find joy in finally concluding what my ideas are, and how I am about to portray these.

value is the key to sales, originality is the key to value.

Todays lecture was spent mostly learning about the differences between art sales and commercial sales. I also learned about the value of art, and why art should be valued. Lecturer Bepen Bhana helped to explain these ideas, after we viewed an episode of The aprentice UK.

In The aprentice UK both teams (stealth and eclipse) had to choose two artists of which they would hang and sell their works in a small gallery. When presented with their selection of artists , I felt that each team wanted to steer towards the artist which made the most asthetically pleasing work. The work which was not weird, or too out of the usual. The program constantly stereotyped art as a crazy, and expensive. Something which doesn't make a lot of sense either. This was because a lot of people in each of the teams didn't seem to quite get it, making fun of the photographer who had captured images of fish over curvy bodies. They made it look like rubbish too. The indian man remarked that there was a picture of a blank space and a cello, and he could buy all three of those items down the road for a few quid. Because the fashion photographer was selling her lip portraits for such a high price, it also stereo typed art as money. However, not all art is money. Often people do work for free because they feel that putting a price on art soils it completely.

The value of art ranges vastly from nothing to everything. As in the program, they portrayed several photographs of lips, all vastly overpriced according to the boss, talking to his apprentices. It's a photograph, yet nobody ever spoke of how many photographs there were in this set. was it a set? were they a one off? In terms of value, I would say that any item with fewer copies made would be much more valued, such as an original painting. This is because it has created rarity within the item. There is only one. Photographs are often not as valued because you could initially make thousands of copies.

the apprentices seemed to have no clue about the value of art, assuming that the images that were prettier had more face value. This is definatly not so, as the other team sold more images of dead fish, than they did the lucious lips. there were many photographs of the lips, with no variety. Yes, they were different in terms of colour, but they were not original within themselfs in terms of images. For example, if there were many lips and one eye for sale, which do you think would sell first? originality is often the key to value. And making something more valuable can lead to better sales.