Art as a political/social platform

Although it is said that life imitates art, I find it hard to imagine that art is also not a reflection of life itself, and its circumstances. Given the highly materialistic conditions in which we live, it is inevitable that art would not incorporate commercialized images into its essence. After all, art is a form of expression. Rather, it is the intention with which art interacts with commercialism that truly defines the kinds of normative judgements that are being suggested.

For instance, those who were artists and instead became designers for the Campbell's soup can became what we referred to in lecture as "sell-outs". However, other artists like Warhol also interacted with items like the Campbell's soup can, but in this case used his art to not only mock the commercialist nature of the circumstances of his era, but also used what he created to generate discourse regarding the material focus – in fact, it is evident that to some degree it must have been effective, as we are still discussing it to this day.

It cannot be so simply said that interaction with social reality cheapens and lessens the value of art. Rather, in respect to art and its ability for freedom in expression, it must be used to create commentary on circumstance, much as literature does, without conforming to the commercial environment with which is must interact.

I agree. I think that while today's art is largely a product of desublimation as discussed in lecture, art is also more than just merely an acceptable outlet for advertisements to extend themselves to the general public. People see art in different ways as art is not an evidence- based statement but rather is an outlet for the mind of people viewing the art to see what they want in it. For this reason, art does play a part in commercial society in order to appeal goods to a variety of audiences but the art itself means more than what it is being depicted to promote in my opinion. As well, art can bring communities together through commercial or non- commercial outlets such as painting classes at community centres, or the giant decorative orca statues with sponsors that Vancouver placed around the city several years ago.

1) I agree with you both that art cannot be so readily dismissed as a product of desublimation. This leads me to believe that Marcuse's concept of repressive desublimation may be be an overly simple diagnosis of the role of art in society. Take technology as an example. Designs and artistic ideas are transformed into everyday objects that are gratifying and instantaneous. Marcuse would say that this is repressive for art and very much so, for us, because it is dominating us. However, we do not feel that it is repressive. Instead, we are completely trapped in illusion of feeling like we are liberated, the world is our oyster, we can have control of time....etc. We don't feel repressed. We actually feel quite content and comfortable. I think that this can be brought back to Evelyn's point of how art is not all repressive and can provide more to people like bringing communities together.

2) I have a question (on a slightly different note). Is it possible for non-commercial outlets of art like fostering community to counterbalance those repressive commercial outlets like commercialism of art?

Jaden, I complete agree to it when you say that art is a reflection of life and its circumstances. If you walk down main mall on UBC, you will see a museum with the quote, "A museum is a school: The artist learns to communicate. The public learns to make connections." I feel that this quote highly resembles the thought process for Marcuse as art is allowing for individuals to have experiences. Although I believe that individuals are still learning to communicate and make connections through art, there is a difference in where this social interaction takes place. It no longer takes place in the museums but now on social media through technology. On social media, individuals are able to take pictures of their art, and put it up for the public to look at. On a very superficial level, the artists are in fact learning to communicate, and the public is making connections. But, what Marcuse says is missing is the aspect of experience, in which the public is in a position to interact with the art through their sense. However, what Marcuse does not pay enough attention to, is the experience the public is able to have as they can be directly in contact with artist. Due to social media, the public is able to instantly comment on the art with their feelings, and opinion, thus making a connection with the artists. Although, there are pros and cons (and I prefer the real life interaction with art), seeing new ability given to us of expression back to the arts, gives the public a say in a discipline they felt they could never be a part of.

Jaden, I like your point on the commercialization of art. This is something that really moved the pop art movement through the 50s (when warhol would have been making art). If you dig a little deeper into his works, this process of commercialization actually is brought into the actual process of art production, which warhol had called 'the factory'. This is an idea where the artist hires low wage workers to make art in their stead and begs the question of where we draw the line of art belonging to whom. Warhol is clearly exploiting the labour of the low wage worker, sometimes physically or emotionally abusing them, but he knows that in order for these low-end artists to develop their careers, or to survive in the world of artists, the workers have to be exploited. Following that, Barbara, when thinking of commercial art I think it's really interesting in thinking about the distinction between commercial art and commercialized art. Perhaps we can discuss a certain threshold of snobbery that needs to be achieved in order to be able to profit on the surplus value of the name or the branding of the artist in itself rather than simply the object that is being sold. If you think about it, nobody would care about the art piece itself if it were a graphic print of a campbell soup can, but knowing that it is a warhol piece or any other pop or contemporary artist really changes the scope of the market of these pieces.