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.