The Value of Art…. What determines what makes art valuable?
When discussing art there is always the debate about what makes art so valuable. Does art become valuable simply because it is something that is rare or cannot be reproduced? Is it valued because of the artist’s name that is attached to it? Or, is the value of the piece simply in the eyes of the beholder? In our world today artwork is easily available to all people, and technology has made this easier than ever before. Technologies such as printmaking, lithography, photography, and film have made it possible for art work to be mechanically reproduced and available to almost anyone in the world. Does the fact that artwork can be so readily reproduced take away from the value of the piece? If a piece is rare or limited does it actually mean that it is better or it holds more value? Is it the rarity of a piece of art, or is it the actual beauty or evoked emotions that give art its value?
In the past the reproduction of artwork decreased its value, and only if it was a rarity did it continue to hold its value. When art was produced so long ago it was made with a particular purpose, for a significant reason, and done only in one location; where it was meant to stay forever. The simple fact that people, in order to view such works of art, had to leave their homes and go to the locations to see it made them so valuable. Even though replicas and fakes have surely been produced, only the actual original work held any value. “Even the most prefect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” (Benjamin) Therefore nothing is as valuable as the original piece of art, in its time and place, where it was meant to be.
Much has changed about how art is valued now, oppose to how it was valued so many years ago. Art in the middle ages was mostly dominated by religion. Artists were commissioned by the wealthy and their subject matter was chosen for them. Along with the rise of technology came the rise of being able to reproduce art. Many artists broke these views on reproduction, and took advantage of this new process. Due to artists such as Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp art soon started to become valued in partial because of the ease of reproduction.
Andy Warhol was an artist who believed that art was affected by culture, and that anything can be considered art. He was a main figure in the visual art movement, and is most commonly known for his pop art. The main focus of his work was everyday items, and American icon’s and symbols. Warhol created his famous images by using paint, lithography, printmaking, and silk-screening. Some examples of his works would be his images of Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, Campbell’s soup cans, and Coca Cola bottles. He was an artist that would take common things that would not be considered art, and turn them into something valuable. Not only did Warhol reproduce his art by using these particular mediums, but a lot of the time he hired assistants that would reproduce his images for him. Did the fact that his images were being mass produced by not only him, but other people as well, change its value? Or, Did Warhol prove that the symbolism and meaning of his work held more value, rather than how it was produced?
Marcel Duchamp is another artist of his time that challenged conventional thought, and gave insight as to how it was valued. He was a French artist that was a part of the surrealist movement. Some of his works that gave value to everyday items were pieces such as “In Advance of a broken Arm,” and “Fountain.” His piece “In Advance of a broken Arm” depicted a snow shovel, and “Fountain” was simply a urinal. He would choose an object and supply it with another function. Despite the fact that Duchamp used the most common everyday items in his artwork it was still considered valuable.
Warhol and Duchamp can be criticized for their subject matter, and production, but have proven that their work holds value in their themes and their impacts on society. While they both have their own unique styles, and expression, they continue to show us how value should not be placed on the process alone. The authenticity of artwork is not what determines its value, but rather the quality of the work. An artist creates a piece of art to convey a message, an idea, to evoke some type of emotion in its viewers. With the ability to so easily reproduce artwork they are able to spread their work and make it more accessible. The value of a piece can longer be placed under the same standards as they were in the past. With the use of photography, film, and so many other medias that make it simple and effective to reproduce, value can no longer be placed on solely the original piece. Reproductions allow artwork to be seen and enjoyed from almost anywhere, and can reach people all around the world. Mass produced artwork not only has the ability to make an impact on its viewers, but it gives them the opportunity to enjoy the artwork in their own way. The rise of these new technologies over the years have allowed for great advancements in the arts. Where once value was placed on limited availability and the ease of reproduction, value of art is now based on reproduction in a positive way. Value of art also evolved as much more than just reproduction, but the originality, the subject, emotions, and impact, all hold value in the artwork as well.
danajm722 