How capitalism can save art
Over the past century, industrial design has steadily gained on the fine arts and has now surpassed them in cultural impact. In the age of travel and speed that began just before World War I, machines became smaller and sleeker. Streamlining, developed for race cars, trains, airplanes and ocean liners, was extended in the 1920s to appliances like vacuum cleaners and washing machines. The smooth white towers of electric refrigerators (replacing clunky iceboxes) embodied the elegant new minimalism.
“Form ever follows function,” said Louis Sullivan, the visionary Chicago architect who was a forefather of the Bauhaus. That maxim was a rubric for the boom in stylish interior décor, office machines and electronics following World War II: Olivetti typewriters, hi-fi amplifiers, portable transistor radios, space-age TVs, baby-blue Princess telephones. With the digital revolution came miniaturization. The Apple desktop computer bore no resemblance to the gigantic mainframes that once took up whole rooms. Hand-held cellphones became pocket-size.
Young people today are avidly immersed in this hyper-technological environment, where their primary aesthetic experiences are derived from beautifully engineered industrial design. Personalized hand-held devices are their letters, diaries, telephones and newspapers, as well as their round-the-clock conduits for music, videos and movies. But there is no spiritual dimension to an iPhone, as there is to great works of art.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
IOW, enjoy the new Communism, the new Obama Normal. More spoons!
faraway on October 6, 2012 at 10:44 PM
She calls herself a “libertarian Democrat who voted for Barack Obama.” Now THOSE are some non sequiturs.
Warner Todd Huston on October 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM
You mean jars containing human waste and religious symbols aren’t driving the development of culture?
WeekendAtBernankes on October 6, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Well, the current generation defines “spirituality” differently than you or past generations. That’s the point. Their “art” (techno gadgets) and life intersect–no dichotomy. Creepy, yes; but that’s what matters to them because as you say later Ms. Paglia:
They’re taught a form of Marxism, and a key premise is “there is no God.” Deeper meaning beyond the present is unnecessary. Art & spirituality? Whatever, they’d say. *shrugs*
Also, the point of “art dying” with Warhol should be a critique of our culture at large “dying.” Warhol is a point of reference to what has happening in our country at the time. That’s why the recent irreverent and blasphemous urine & Christ “art” is tolerated.
Camille Paglia is a lefty, but an honest, thought-provoking one. I wish she was still writing her weekly column.
conservative pilgrim on October 6, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Absolutely agree. There aren’t many of them left who have even a nodding acquaintance with the truth.
sharrukin on October 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Simple: make art people want to buy, then sell it to them. If you can’t, find something else to do.
Not one penny of taxpayer money should go to subsidize art.
Rebar on October 7, 2012 at 12:15 AM
Art is an intense way of perceiving something.
Diffused attention ( via gadgetry, social networking, gaming, texting, constant news scanning, googling, etc.) makes achieving or appreciating such intensity a rarity.
And Art then doesn’t have a chance to build up the emotional or esthetic or spiritual or intellectual or archetypal pressure needed to break through the level of craft or folk art or design or illustration and become something stronger.
Individuals with heightened (deepened/ broadened) perceptions create Art.
Design for products may be clever or appealing or even superficially sublime, but almost never has an intense impact.
It damascenes the sword, but is not the blade.
profitsbeard on October 7, 2012 at 12:21 AM
art that looks like updated soviet and maoist propaganda posters a la shepard fairey, all Photoshopped and Illustrated to death from stolen photographs taken by other people. can these technotots draw with their own hand and a pencil? oh, i forgot, their internets is the million years reich and drawings on paper and paintings on canvas will molder into dust. their Obey t-shirts and pics of graffiti in pop up ads on the web will last an eternity.
can’t think. can’t reason. can’t write. can’t actually paint, sculpt or make a print. can’t debate.
the Obama Illuminati Special Snowflakes Generations.
the decline has clearly already happened. i take this as the fall.
mittens on October 7, 2012 at 12:57 AM
This is a rather silly premise. Most of the wealthiest people in the world made their fortunes as artists. So of course capitalism serves the art world better than any other kind of society.
But I guess Camille Paglia’s leftist readers need to have it spelled out for them.
UltimateBob on October 7, 2012 at 1:00 AM
There is a potential for artistry in everything created by Man. It is no fault of the composer that a deaf person cannot appreciate the beauty of a symphony, nor of the sculptor that a blind one cannot find the artistic merit of a monument. By the same token, inability to find the artistry in a gadget does not mean the machine is soulless, or spiritless. The designer gives it a spirit. The user gives it a soul.
In a well-designed, well-used (both over time and for its given purpose), and well-kept machine, the result is a beauty that I happily call art. There are museums full of such machines, and walking their galleries can be a greater spiritual experience than seeing an art exhibition or an opera. On the other hand, a sloppily designed, mis-used, or poorly-maintained machine can be heartbreaking to encounter (take a look at the rot and ruin of a boneyard sometime), to the point it can move one to tears.
Given the combination of spirit, soul, and beauty, how can a machine be anything but art?
Blacksmith on October 7, 2012 at 1:00 AM
And Phaedrus asked: what is quality?
John the Libertarian on October 7, 2012 at 1:08 AM
Shorter version of above for the “technotots” (good term, mittens) who always reply “tl;dr” -
A Corvette, or even an iPhone, is a better example of truly modern art than a photochopped neo-Soviet poster, or another mindless rom-com from Hollyweird.
Blacksmith on October 7, 2012 at 1:08 AM
Back in the day I had to take a class in HS called “Humanities”.
I thank the school for doing such too.
Concept was to teach you about art, music, tv, and novels. From the start to finish. It taught me how to “feel” when looking at a painting and make an educated summary of said painting.
It was an awesome class and a majority of my class mates really enjoyed it. We also all had to take econ also.
BTW a very conservative area outside of Milwaukee…I guess teaching kids how to be more well rounded in life was much more important that teaching about being gay and stuff like they do many places.
watertown on October 7, 2012 at 1:24 AM
I think I’ll take the Campbell’s soup can instead of Andy Warhol’s plagiarism of it. Thanks.
Look at how many of painting’s masters first apprenticed for their keep, then mixed their own paints, prepared their own surfaces upon which to make the paintings whether wood or canvas or paper or walls…. Look at how many studies and sketches Rembrandt did on paper… often many sketches per sheet. Leonardo doodled lots of ideas on journal pages. They did lots of low cost practice to hone skills for masterpieces later on. It didn’t require huge government grants though most masters at art certainly painted for royalty. The point is they produced a product which other wanted and didn’t demand some sort of bureaucratic handout or a PC redefinition of what is “art” to achieve excellence. Those able to paint decent portraiture typically succeeded. Those limited to stick figures… not so much
For the opposite observe subsidized NPR. Pretentious airheads babbling about inbred Marxist ideas not subject to sensible scrutiny or real world tests. NPR gets paid whether NPR sucks or does not suck hence the indicators increasing daily that it should be cut from the gummint teat to sink or swim purely on its own.
viking01 on October 7, 2012 at 1:32 AM
Please don’t knock digital art. It takes as much skill and talent to make digital drawings and paintings as it does with traditional media.
TigerPaw on October 7, 2012 at 2:12 AM
Check if there’s a correlation over the last 150 years between the rate of philanthropy and ever-increasing tax rates.
Nudge, Nudge. Wink, wink.
Shy Guy on October 7, 2012 at 2:28 AM
If you look deeper there is an amazing amount of effort that goes into a lot of electronic art. Just the same as charcoal drawings have a different element to them than oil paintings, electronically made pictures have their own depth.
angelwing34215 on October 7, 2012 at 4:17 AM
No, it doesn’t. A traditional painter can more quickly grasp the skills of using a mouse or drawing tablet than a digital artist can go from a drawing tablet to picking up a paint brush and painting on canvas.
Plus with traditional painting there are no re-do’s or going back in history to correct mistakes or filters or layers or saving different versions, etc, etc as it is with digital art.
And with digital art there is one very big thing missing – there is no original – every digital copy is the “original”. With painting there is only one original work of art.
Digital artists make some great art – but it does not compare to painting with real paint on a real canvas.
albill on October 7, 2012 at 6:27 AM
Nah. Most Marxists believe in God — their aren’t enough of us atheists to fill all those spots. They are, however, taught that traditional values and virtues are “outdated”, and that “organized religion” has been oppressing them. Further, they are taught that “art” is “being true to yourself”, which is just a euphemism for “only do what feels good”.
Count to 10 on October 7, 2012 at 7:35 AM
Yes.
Count to 10 on October 7, 2012 at 7:38 AM
In Thomas Sowell’s essay
“Trickle Down” Theory and “Tax Cuts for the Rich”, which illustrates the terms as “caricaturizations” by the Left to avoid any argument that emphasizes the well proven effects of supply side economic theory, and that no serious supporter of SSE has ever made claims that “trickle down” is the effect or intended result, begins with a quote by a J.A. Schumpeter, a turn of the 20th century economist.
I had never heard of him before, so I read an overview of him in wikipedia, and was enamored by his foresight of how capitalism would eventually collapse, if it were to fail. This quote you emphasized is a frightening example of Schumpeter’s wisdom and I see why Sowell gives Schumpeter such high regard.
Saltysam on October 7, 2012 at 8:19 AM
That’d be god, and in that group most believe they are “it.”
conservative pilgrim on October 7, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Oops…
My comment above is a response to you, CP.
Saltysam on October 7, 2012 at 8:22 AM
Personal interpretation, but I always thought Warhol was bowing to the graphic arts. His message, to me, was that more thought and creativity was being put into consumer label design than to artists’ canvases at the time.
I love Rothko but the lesser artists he inspired paint like children.
Meh.
My favorite part:
I had a talk with one of my artist friends who was spouting out a la OWS about the “rich.” I asked him, who has disposable income to spend on your artwork? Capitalism allows you to make a living creating art, selling to people who have enough disposable income to buy your works. Would you take government subsidies if the trade off were that the government could restrict and dictate what you were allowed to paint and sculpt? He actually said, I never thought of it that way.
Fallon on October 7, 2012 at 8:37 AM
I’ve never heard of him. Very intriguing quotes. If Sowell acknowledges him, then he must be good. I’ll have to read your links later; gotta run now. Thanks!
conservative pilgrim on October 7, 2012 at 8:39 AM
As in, worth knowing, not necessarily “good.”
Ok, I feel better.
conservative pilgrim on October 7, 2012 at 8:44 AM