The first article is authored by Michael Fried and it explores the form of the photograph. The article begins by discussing the nature of still-life paintings. The paper also looks into the views of some art critics concerning still-life art pieces.
According to the author, visual art gives several but particular impressions to the viewer. Consequently, painters are more aware of the ‘expected’ end results than they were in the past. The article proposes that for artists to avoid looking like they are trying too much to produce an ‘effect’, they have to try to ‘do nothing’.
The author concludes by exploring the issue of absorption and invisibility in the interpretation of photographs. The other article is authored by Nicholas Brown and it forwards the argument that artwork is just like any other commodity.
The article begins by exploring an excerpt by Karl Marx and then continues to outline the roles of art buyers and sellers. The element of satisfaction and its relation to commodity exchange in the art market is explored by the author.
Art as a commodity that can be sold and purchased applies to culture and its capital value. According to the author of this article, the commodity market leads to self-representation. Consequently, it has been argued that most of modern art is produced under restrictive environments.
The lack of ‘real subsumption’ is a factor that has affected art in modern times. This paper is a discussion of the arguments that are presented by both articles concerning art in modern times. The place of art in modern times is adequately investigated by Michaels in his article.
One of the most prominent arguments in the first article is the connection between still-life art and photographs. According to the author, the photograph is a representation of the Diderotian still life (Michaels 1). In this regard, photographers are nowadays regarded as artists.
However, the claim that photographers are a part of the fine art community has been challenged by several stakeholders. The main opposition against photography being an art form is based on the argument that photographs do not carry with them the adequate ‘intentional meaning’.
The argument against legitimacy of photographs as a form of fine art is still debatable. Most art scholars are of the opinion that photographs are not art because they ‘capture’ rather than ‘convey’ meanings. This argument is quite solid especially in an age where photographs and videos have bombarded everyday art life.
Consequently, admitting photographs into the category of fine arts would saturate the market with a ‘shaky’ art form. For instance, the intention of modern photography is to present audiences with products that are pleasing to the eyes. The argument of most art scholars is that art should carry ‘intentional meaning’ (Michaels 4).
Michaels also explores the idea of ‘art and objecthood’ in a modern context. According to the author, in the past art has responded to ‘theatricality, minimalism, postmodernism, and literalism’ (Michaels 5). Consequently, art and objecthood makes the silent nature of photographs to be ‘artistic’ in translation.
Nevertheless, the author notes that the objecthood of various forms of art varies. On the other hand, the author of the second article uses Marxist arguments about commodities and the market place to explore the place of art in modern times.
According to Marx, whenever the element of money is featured in a transaction, the most important relationship is between the artist and the market (Brown 1). This argument is quite interesting because it covers a large part of modern culture.
For instance, some paintings can fetch millions of dollars in the market while others only sell for a few hundred. After a close investigation, one might find that the quality of the materials that is used to make both paintings is similar.
However, one painting becomes very appealing to the buyers while the other one is hard to sell. Naturally, the artist will seek to find out what appeals to the buyers during art auctions. In the process, the artist will abandon his/her self-expression in favor of the tastes of the buyers.
This argument appears simple to most people. However, given the capitalistic nature of the modern art industry, this argument is quite significant. The author solidifies this argument by explaining that modern artists only strive to produce products that are of value to others and not to themselves.
Both authors reckon that art has changed over the course of time. For Fried, the proof is in the fact that the consideration of photographs as a form of art is commonly debated in modern art circles. On the other hand, Brown investigates the place of art in the modern capitalistic environment (Brown 2).
In both articles, the authors do not offer blanket judgments on the place of art in modern times. However, the authors explore the arguments of other art experts such as Ranciere, Diderot, Robinson Crusoe, and Hegel among others.
Both articles discuss modern complexities that characterize modern art. On nature and theatricality, Fried explores Ranciere’s argument that paintings are legitimately artistic because they only imitate non-art without themselves being ’non-art’ items. On the other hand, photographs can be non-art (Michaels 4).
This argument was broken down by Fried when he explained that a photograph acts like one of the many items in the world but it does not act like a representation of any of these various objects. This argument is quite similar to Brown’s argument that modern art only exists in a market place.
Consequently, art has always been produced in accordance with the needs of the users and not the artists. This argument also translates to the fact that not all art has managed to retain its autonomy in the prevailing market conditions.
For Fried, the legitimacy of art depends on its form while for Brown authenticity relies on the intended market (Brown 7). These two arguments focus on the factors that give art a place in modern society. In both articles, there are several arguments that appeal to art enthusiasts.
The argument about photographs being termed as people, places, and objects can resonate with any art scholar. For instance, when most people see the photograph of the president they say that ‘is the president’ instead of using the latter explanation.
Therefore, photographs are more like reflections than they are expressions. All these circumstances solidify the argument that photographs do not fit the description of art. Fried’s article is a deep analysis of the form of photographs in relation to art.
Previously, art was rarely taken to the market place and in most occasions, the market itself found the art. This interesting argument is contained in Brown’s article. Furthermore, the author notes that today’s market place is quite competitive as a result of globalization.
The article maintains that art has the potential to achieve autonomy in modern times. However, factors such as globalization, capitalism, and mass marketing prevent art from gaining autonomy. Brown’s arguments appeal to art scholars because like Fried’s claims, they provide important points of discussion.
Works Cited
Brown, Nicholas. The Work of Art in the Age of its Real Subsumption under Capital. Nonsite. 2012. Web.
Michaels, Walter. Neoliberal Aesthetics: Fried, Rancière and the Form of the Photograph. Nonsite. 2011. Web.