Commercialization has entered every aspect of modern life. A statement is probably true to some extent, but at the same time people tend to believe that some aspects would remain untouched by that material term “commerce”. Speaking of an aspect that is controversially related to commerce and at the same time far from it in its essence, art comes to mind.
Using controversy to describe the art commerce relation is not a coincidence, as for an ordinary person there might be two images that can be recalled when visualizing such relation: an artist living in poverty and hunger drawing masterpieces after which he dies unknown, and auctions and galleries in which the aforementioned masterpieces are sold for enormous sums.
These images are no longer true, which literally means that many artists have started to enjoy popularity and fame selling their works at the peak of their careers. This does not necessarily mean changes in the quality of the works of art, rather than introducing an element into the art-commerce equation which is promotion. This paper analyzes the artist-promotion relation in terms of the forms that it might take and the resulted influence based on a short review of opinions from different media articles.
Analyzing the artist-promotion relation, first of, defining these two terms in the context of the present analysis is necessary. An artist is a person who relies on his/her individual efforts and talent to create forms of expression, for example paintings. Regardless of the quality of the works an artist could be known to the public or an obscure painter. In the article “Art for Everybody” by Susan Orlean, an example of a popular artist is shown through Thomas Kinkade, whereas in “Shapinsky’s Karma” by Lawrence Weschler, Harold Shapinsky is an example of an unknown artist. In both cases, the presence of talent only does not necessarily imply popularity and demand for works. That’s where the other part of the relationship should be explained, i.e. promotion.
Promotion in the context of this paper can be defined as any activity the result of which is the popularization of an artist and his/her works in order to form a commercial demand in the public. It should be noted, however, that originality, talent, and quality are essential aspects, although the correspondence of the promotion to these features might not be present. E.g., in the “Art for Everybody”, Orlean expresses the opinion of art critics on the works of Kinkade stating that “art critics consider Thomas Kinkade a commercial hack whose work is mawkish and suspiciously fluorescent, and whose genius is not for art but for marketing — for creating an “editions pyramid” of his prints, each level up a little more expensive, which whips up collectors’ appetites the way retiring Beanie Babies did.” (Orlean)
Similarly, in “Shapinsky’s Karma”, Shapinsky turned from an unknown painter to a subject of a televised program depending only on the qualities of his promoter, who took the responsibility of advertising Shapinsky’s brilliance totally without his involvement. “I bet him that within a year I would secure a show for his father’s paintings at a major world-class gallery” (WESCHLER)
In explaining the effects of promotion as a process of forming a solid public opinion the word objectivity should be used. Drawing an analogy to the effect of the contemporary media, in the article “Host” by David Foster Wallace, the author states that “the ever-increasing number of ideological news outlets creates precisely the kind of relativism that cultural conservatives decry, a kind of epistemic free-for-all in which “the truth” is wholly a matter of perspective and agenda” (Wallace)
This kind of relativism can be seen in Orlean’s article where the author expressed her opinion on the effect of promotion on the popularity of Thomas Kinkade.
Through Orlean’s article, the artist-promotion relation, in addition to being a commercially successful marketing move, it could be sensed that the author views this relationship as a step of closing the gap between the art and the masses, “My art is relevant because it’s relevant to ten million people. That makes me the most relevant artist in this culture, not the least. Because I’m relevant to real people.” (Orlean) It could be sensed through Orlean’s article from the overall intonation disapproval of Kinkade’s commercialization of the art.
Kinkade’s promotion is similar to the promotion covered in Wechsler’s article, although presented at different stages, is creating a media factory in which people work to convince the public that these paintings are masterpieces made by geniuses, which in cases is true. It could be seen the slightly different outcomes of different promotion strategies in Orlean’s and Wechsler’s articles.
Kinkade has commercialized his work, in a way that he created approved manufacture of an advertised style and content the ownership of which promoted as prestigious. At the same time, the promotion of Shapinsky’s paintings was put with a goal of bringing attention to the artist himself, forcing “the Encyclopedia Britannica to revise its entry on Abstract Expressionism to establish the name Shapinsky in its rightful place among de Kooning, Pollock, Rothko, and the others.” (WESCHLER)
Both those strategies in this artist-promotion relation implement the same approach mentioned in “Host” by David Foster Wallace, in regards to the radio political show business, were “explaining” the news really means editorializing, infusing the actual events of the day with the host’s own opinions.” These opinions are “as just one person’s opinions, exempt from strict journalistic standards of truthfulness, probity, etc., and yet they are often delivered by the talk-radio host not as opinions but as revealed truths, truths intentionally ignored or suppressed by a “mainstream press” that’s “biased” in favor of liberal interests.” (Wallace)
It could be seen that in the previous statement if we replace the word “liberal” with commercial and the word “revealed truths” with promotion, the main core of the artist-promotion relation will be the same as the main principle of the media presented in the example of political radio shows. Artists need promotion to be known to the public and for their works to be recognized. However, the commercialization of the artist’s work might harm the artist as well as the public. In that sense, the success of the artist and the sales of hisher work will depend merely on the popularity of his name resulted from the efforts of his manager. The two artists presented in Orlean’s and Wechsler’s articles are exemplary of such an approach. It cannot be said that they are wrong, rather than they are different, although they might lead to similar outcomes.
References
Orlean, Susan. “Art for Everybody”. 2001. Susan Orlean. Web.
Wallace, David Foster. “Host”. 2005. The Atlantic. Web.
WESCHLER, LAWRENCE. “Shapinsky’s Karma”. 1985. NY Times. Web.