Art and the Politics of Eliminating Handicraft (original) (raw)
Related papers
A Conversation on Art and Labour
A Conversation on Art and Labour 1. How can the economic exceptionalism of art be described? What is the "mode of production of art"? What do you mean when you write that "art has been commodified without being commodified"? My argument in Art and Value that art is economically exceptional came out of a critique of the twin Western Marxist ideas of the commodification of art and the culture industry. Marxists and mainstream economists alike have tended to apply the standard methods of economic analysis to art focusing on the operations of the market, collectors, dealers and instruments such as art fairs, rather than examining the differences between artistic production and capitalist commodity production. The emphasis on the consumption and distribution of art is realistic and urgent insofar as the global art market is enormous, powerful and dominant. However, the absence of the study of artistic production is a serious methodological error for a Marxist analysis of capitalism since, for Marx, capitalism is not a mode of consumption or a mode of distribution but a mode of production. My argument is that artistic production does not conform to the capitalist mode of production and that this fact should not be lost in the clamour for a politics of artistic consumption. Classical economists that subscribed to the labour theory of value (principally, Smith, Say, Ricardo, Malthus, Senior, De Quincey and Mill) argued that art was economically exceptional on the basis that the prices for art could not be regulated by the market because artworks, like antiques and rare books, cannot be produced in volumes to respond to increases in demand. This explained the 'fancy prices' that artworks fetched. Marx modified this argument by pointing out that artistic production is exceptional to the capitalist mode of production insofar as artists do not sell their labour-power for a wage but sell the products of their labour. Marx argued that artworks have no value in the strict sense of average socially necessary labour time because the labour that produces artworks cannot be replicated by others. The question for my critique of commodification theory, therefore, turned on whether the economics of art had transformed sufficiently between the middle of nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth to justify the switch from economic exceptionalism to the commodification of art. I tested the idea of art's commodification by subjecting art to the criteria developed within the so-called 'transition to capitalism' debate. I built my investigation on the principle that the transition from feudalism to capitalism is not brought about through changes in distribution or consumption but only through changes to the mode of production, specifically the formal and real subsumption of labour under capital. Following this, my analysis of the economics of art during and after this historical period of transition, demonstrated that artists did not become wage labourers for capitalist employers but that they continued to own their own means of production, owned their own products, controlled their own production processes, and so on. Capitalists, in the form of gallerists and dealers, entered art not at the point of production but at the point of distribution and consumption. As a result, artists had effectively won for themselves both the autonomous control of their own production and an independence from capital and developed a hostility to commerce. This, clearly, was exceptional to the capitalist mode of production. an audience whereas others can be produced by individuals with little or no outlay except the expenditure of their time. What this means is that some arts have in fact been commodified in ways that my principal case studies of painting and sculpture have not. There is, in fact, a job market for actors and musicians who are employed by profit-seeking commercial companies. At the same time, of course, there are counterexamples such as radical street theatre and self-organised musicians who go out of their way to avoid the economies of the capitalist mode of production that have transformed their disciplines. Your question about the division of labour in art, however, is very important. The technical division of labour typical of the capitalist mode of production takes two forms. First, skilled work is divided up into simple repetitive tasks performed by multiple workers, and second, production is increasingly divided among different firms, so that the manufacture of a single product might be produced over several stages across considerable distances. The first is usually called deskilling whereas the latter is called specialisation and includes outsourcing. What happens with the transition from feudalism to capitalism in the history of art is that the artisan workshop is dissolved. Usually, art historians talk about the transition from the workshop to the studio or the transition from the artisan to the artist, but the process was much more complex. The numerous activities that used to take place in the workshop do not all find a place within the studio. It is not a single linear development but a process of dispersal and specialisation. Whereas the artisans of the workshop were producers, teachers, shopkeepers and tool makers combined, with the rise of capitalism these various tasks are divided up in a social division of labour. Art's new social division of labour after the transition from feudalism to capitalism both establishes the distinction between art and craft and, at the same time, contains within it the highly charged distinctions between art and craft, intellectual and manual work, authorial and anonymous work, autonomous and heteronomous labour, blue collar and white collar (and no collar) workers, self-realizing and self-denying labour, etc. And, of course, various activities that constitute this fragmented whole of artistic labour are assigned to men and women, to bourgeois and proletariat, to the city and the country, to the advanced industrial nations and the neocolonial nations, and so on. These divisions have been largely excluded from mainstream art history until very recently because they are not visible in the works themselves and also because the divisions fall on either side of the walls of the studio. I wrote Art and Labour to show that the blindness to the social division of artistic labour was an historical achievement in their struggle to elevate painting and sculpture above handicraft. On the one hand, for instance, the Royal Academy under Joshua Reynolds protected the status of the Fine Arts by excluding water colour painting, pictures made from human hair, paper cutouts and other crafted objects from the annual salon exhibition, but on other hand, the purchasing of art supplies from commercial manufacturers converted the technical division of labour within the studio into a social division of labour that kept the artist at arm's length not only from handicraft but also industry and commerce. Ironically, the actual self-reliance of the artisan workshop, which made everything itself from raw materials, appears to be a shadow of the absolute self-reliance of the artist who pretends to work alone in the studio while buying all their artistic supplies from the marketplace. When art historians, aesthetic philosophers, economists and sociologists study artistic labour by considering only what happens in the studio, therefore, it appears as if the differences that matter are between the disciplines of paintings, sculpture, printmaking, dance, film, performance and poetry, whereas the differences that matter for a twenty-first century social history of art extend beyond the walls that demarcate the studio from the world. So, while it is important to conduct specific economic analyses of the various disciplines of art rather than imagining that the economy of art is unified across the whole sector, it is also necessary, in my opinion, to analyse the economics of artistic labour in full as including suppliers, assistants, fabricators, teachers and university staff, museum workers, and so on. What I wanted to underline in Art and Labour is that the mythic isolation of the artist in the studio depends on a social division of labour that includes processes of commodification, specialisation and industrialisation which are external to artistic labour itself but integral to the ensemble of economies that constitute the material condition for the artist to operate. This is why I have argued that it is misleading to talk about the deskilling of art. In my investigation of what happened to art in the transition to capitalism, there was, instead, a displacement of skill. 4. In Art and Value you write: "[…] the key to understanding art's relationship to capitalism must be derived from questioning whether art has gone through the transition from feudalism to capitalism." Is artistic labour a pre-modern form of labour? Art was never converted into the capitalist mode of production but, as I have indicated in my previous answer, it was not left alone during the transition to capitalism to continue in its feudal form. In my book Art and Labour I trace how the rise of capitalism radically transformed art through the commodification of certain phases of its production. The first things to be
Art history cold cases: artists’ labour in the factory
Artnode, 2017
This paper calls into question the context in which artistic production related to industrial history may enter art official narratives. Drawing on the examples of the Voltron sculpture series by David Smith (1962); Yvonne Rainer's performance Carriage Discreteness (1966) and Stuart Brisley's work at the Hille Fellowship Poly Wheel factory (1970), I will propose that observing the production of artworks within industrial environments implies a twofold commitment for art history. On the one hand, investigating artworks relying on industrial materials and production modes calls for the analysis of the " concrete and direct evidence " that materials provide (Didi-Huberman, 2015; Domínguez Rubio, 2012). On the other, they invite consideration of informal archives and " suspect evidence " related to the tacit knowledge of production, subjective self-documentation and oral history (Rosnow and Fine, 1976). Seen from this perspective, artists' production in the context of industrial culture and workers' practices of self-managed time both contribute another point of view on how the inscription within the realm of high and low culture is done in art history. At a time when contemporary artistic and curatorial practices show a renewed interest in " outsiders' " artefacts, the different work models and modes adopted by the proposed case studies enable a reading of potential art historical narratives through the lens of working-class studies and the contemporary material turn.
Il Capitale Culturale, 2024
The article studies the institutional positioning of art makers who collaborate with artists and who, far from being institutionally recognized in and by the art world, are fundamental in the artistic creation process. The article analyzes the working relationships between craft makers and artists and their institutional dynamics; it also critically assesses the problematics of the craft sector in relation to the artistic one. The qualitative research methodology is based on the thematic analysis of 15 semi-structured interviews with dif- ferent Italian artisans who work with different materials (glass, bronze, paper, marble, neon, ceramic). The article concludes that the art world’s institutional logic prevents the recognition of the artmaker, but potential opportunities can come from its recognition as a part of the value-creation of artworks without diminishing the role of the artist and also answering to the problems of the craft sector.
Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2022
History reveals how the production and function of art have been progressively changed. This paper will investigate the emancipation of a work of art derived from historical accounts that are grounded in Marx and Engels' theory of communism concerning the abolition of private property. This inquiry encompassed three phases: In the first phase, nature rules over man; in the second, private property develops and nature is reduced to a simple object for man; and in the third phase, man revolutionizes and eliminates everything. This study will tackle the historical development of art, including 1) on ritual activity, 2) on commodification and exploitation, and 3) on revolution and distribution, to describe the present condition of art. Finally, surpassing modernity and moving into a new condition, the work of art arrives at its final point of departure-maturity. Upon entering the information age, the attitudes of art emancipate from ritual representations to economic commodification into technological expression. Nevertheless, the emancipation of the fine arts into mass art is expected to take place.
Artistic Labour: Seeking a Utopian Dimension
Cadernos de arte e antropologia, 2016
This article investigates the notion of artistic labour by elucidating how artists can create ethical social relations to perform "a new, possible world" by reinserting labour and advocacy into their practice. An examination of contemporary works by Ahmet Öğüt and Cevdet Erek who attempt to create micro-utopias by situating artistic labour at their core or by emphasising the power of networks and the "commons" to foster social integration are juxtaposed with the discussion of a possible genealogy of such utopian artistic attempts from the late 1960s and 1970s. The historical trajectory delineates the common denominators of artistic practices that proceed from utopian ideals such as anti-isolation, anti social division, anti self-reflexivity, process instead of object-based work, and investment in human value rather than materialistic value.
(Français : Ci-dessous) What is the meaning of craftsmanship in the era of digital production? Applied Arts as Implied Art is a critical reflection on artistic creativity and its cultural significance today. In the light of a confrontation between the art theory of Aloïs Riegl and Frank Lloyd Wright, the essay debates the role of technology in craftsmanship and its impact on artmaking. Referring to the aesthetics of Paul Valéry and the design theory of Jacques Vienot, the author proposes a contemporary interpretation of applied arts as implied art, a form of art between fine art and design that describes human life, its experiences and the occasional poverty thereof. ____________________________________________________________________ Quel est le sens de l'artisanat à l'ère de la productibilité numérique ? Arts appliqués, art impliqué est une réflexion critique sur la créativité artistique et son importance culturelle aujourd'hui. A la lumière d'une confrontation entre la théorie de l'art de Aloïs Riegl et Frank Lloyd Wright, l'essai discute le rôle de la technologie dans le design artisanal et son impact sur la création artistique. Se référant à l'esthétique de Paul Valéry et de la théorie de la conception de Jacques Viénot, l’auteur propose une interprétation contemporaine des arts appliqués comme art impliqué, une forme d'art entre les beaux-arts et le design qui raconte des histoires sur la vie humaine, ses expériences et de la pauvreté occasionnelle de ceux-ci.