SES ART GALLERY ART MANIFESTO
A view of ART
Art is the most subjective of universes, what I see is not what you see and what you see is not what I see. We may both like what we see but for very different reasons. What you like may be the part I most don’t like and visa versa. If this is true, then what is “great art?”
Is it what you see and think or what others see and think. What is the purpose of an art appreciation course. Art is a visual interpretation of the visible world by a particular person so why do you have to be taught to appreciate what your eyes already see on their own? If you look at something and like it, that is not an intellectual reaction, it’s a gut reaction beyond your conscious thought. You may not even know what it is, all you may know is that you like it. What is more important than that? How and why would someone else’s opinion of what you like matter at all to you? Someone is telling you that you don’t know or understand what “you” are seeing?
Yet there is consistent historical evidence that this is true and that their opinion trumps your view, why? Who are they, who have the audacity to tell you good from bad and who have the power to make the world accept their interpretation of what you see and think above on your own?
The history of art appreciation is the history of human feelings and social and political norms existing at a particular time for a particular moment.
If all art is subjective, if the appreciation of all art is subjective where does the value of art come from? Why is one work of art worth millions and another only a few dollars? One answer to the question is “who” thinks X artwork is worth millions and “who” thinks another is only worth a few dollars?
Another issue is the relationship between the artist and the art they create. If two images are identical in every perceptible way, even to the extent that they can only be told apart through some scientific process, what difference does it make which is the original? I visited the Louvre in Prais and saw the Mona Lisa and only later found that what was on display was a duplicate. As with very expensive jewelry, the insurance companies only allow duplicates to be worn while the originals are locked away. So, what you see is actually not what you get.
Where does the difference in value come from between the original Mona Lisa and a perfect copy?
In the beginning there was only one Mona Lisa, the artist painted only one and if you thought it beautiful or desirable and wished to own it, there was only one and that is the one you would own.
This painting is known as one of the most beautiful artworks ever created. For a moment let’s agree that this is so. Is this so? Do the vast majority of people on earth think that it is truly a stunning beautiful work of art? Or is that simply the opinion of a “chosen few”? If everyone was as captivated by it as the “chosen few”, would it not make sense that everyone would want one? And what is it they would be attracted to, what is it they would want, how would they judge the beauty of the artwork? It is a visual image; if one thinks it’s beautiful, they are exclusively responding to what they see. This visual experience would be completely independent of who the artist was. As with classical Greek and roman sculpture and Egyptian artwork we “see” it and it pleases us with its visual value, but we have no idea who created it and the fact that we have no idea who the artist was does not distract from our appreciation of the work itself.
So today we find ourselves in a world where everyone who wants a Mona Lisa can have one, a cheap one that looks just like it or a valuable one that looks just like it. The question is this, if the original, the cheap copy and the valuable copy all “look” alike, and the only thing that separates them is not how they look but who made them or how they were made, where does the value in the original come from?
In the beginning, everyone could not have one, as there was only one. Now everyone, no matter how poor or how rich, can have one. Yet they don’t, why is that? Mainly because the vast majority of humankind does not agree with the “chosen few”. They declare something beautiful, stunning, amazing, wonderful and work to sell that idea to everyone. But it is not a real-world idea, it is as artificial construct, a way of establishing a store of value. It is also a cultural construct for a specific time and place.
In his lifetime Van Gogh was considered a horrible painter, a failed artist, whose work was actually a diminishment of the materials used to create it. But time passed and a new breed of “chosen ones” was born. They took the work of a failed artist and declared it great works of art. Consider, if when this transition came his work was worth nothing, they acquired it for nothing and then created “created” a myth and value for it. The myth they created made the value of their discovery explode to fantastic heights. They created wealth from failure. What a wonderful thing if you happened to be the myth makers. His original works today are worth multimillions and is an excellent Store of wealth for the wealthy.
By doing this they were able to create value out of failure and to create value, not in the visual aspects of the work itself, but in the maker, in the artist. Creating a situation where I have an original and you have an identical copy, mine is worth millions and yours is worth hundreds; not because of the beauty or quality of the work but merely because of who did the work.
Recently a painting “attributed” to Leonardo DaVinci, sold for four hundred and fifty million dollars. What does “attributed” mean? It means that the actual truth is unknown and unknowable, but a small group of “the chosen” have declared amongst themselves that it is so. So, this small group of “the chosen” have taken something that could be worth nothing and made it worth a fortune simply by their naming it so. Amazing!
The hand of “the chosen” is everywhere in the art world. They declare something good, and it becomes valuable. Paintings that look like they could have been (and sometimes are) created by drunken children suddenly become all the rage and with great value. There are so many major artist like this in modern society, shall I name a few; Lichtenstein, Warhol, Picasso, Haring, and many more, those chosen by the “chosen few” and then sold to the privileged, both creating and storing wealth, but having little to do with art or artistic sensibilities.
I am speaking of paintings, but it is true throughout the arts, from paintings, sculptures, furniture, and every artistic endeavor. Look back to the “General Cadwalader” armchair and the Keno brothers to see this at work in furniture. An un-upholstered chair frame which sat in a boy’s school in New Jersey, being crawled on by children for decades, which had been appraised many times over the years and declared worthless was suddenly found and blessed by Leigh and Leslie Keno and launched from obscurity to the first million-dollar American chair sale is Sotheby’s history.
How does this relate to your experience with and love of art? How does it relate to the art that you buy? For one thing its purpose is to make you think about what you like, what you will feel pride in owning. To free you to enjoy art on your own terms, to see beyond the system to the beauty of visual art itself. To give you faith in your own eyes and soul. To allow you to look at something and say to yourself, “I like that” before who made that, where did it come from, is the artist known, is his work valuable, if I buy it, is it for an investment or love. In short, it is food for thought, something to make you free, something to consider. Now the rich and powerful, and most certainly the “chosen” will balk at this, because they are not looking for art, they are looking for a way to store wealth. They create value in things by buying things only they can buy. And who is “they” in this instance? At auction, ultimately there are only two people who determine the value of a work of art or whatever is being sold on the block. The winner and the “under bidder”. And of the two who is the most powerful? Actually, it is not the winner of the auction, it is the underbidder as he is the one who drives the price to its selling point. Oddly enough this state of affairs puts the winner in a peculiar situation because the item is only worth what he paid for it to him. And it can only retain that value if he does not sell it until a buyer appears willing to pay more for it. If no such buyer appears when he wants to sell it, then the equation changes dramatically. Why, because all items in the world are only worth what someone will give you for them when you want to sell them.
This is not the world that I and if you are exploring here, are looking for. What we are looking for is art, things that we love, things that put a smile on our faces whenever we see them.
How does this relate to my art collection? I do not buy artist, I buy “art”, every item found in my shop is searched out, found and curated by me personally. This is a one man show, there is no staff between you and I, between what I offer and what you may or may not wish to buy. Each item is both artistically pleasing and unique (in my opinion). My mission is to share them with the world in an affordable way. I do not collect art for profit, I collect art for love. Selling artwork accomplishes three basic things for me, it gives me an opportunity to share what I have found and an opportunity to put a smile on another’s face, and an opportunity and reason to go out looking for more things to share.
Of course, at this juncture the question may be, who am I, why would anything I say matter to you? I am simply a person who has appreciation for the aesthetic beauty of the universe, one who loves to surround himself with things “he” finds lovely, things that put a smile on his face.
From my point of view who I am is unimportant, I am just a man in love with art, but if for some reason it would be helpful for you to have an idea of who I am visit my site:
Robertsaundersauthor.com