I think that we should not be able to reduce ‘a piece of art’ to ‘a product’. We should not be able to equate ART to PRODUCTS.
A friend of mine says: The distinction between art as product and art as art is purely theoretical and artificial. You may as well say we should distinguish between, say, evil trains that take us to work and good trains that take us to the beach – they could be the same train. Your judgment has no necessary connection to the subject.
I can see what he means but I think the problem is beyond any external theoretical definitions of art, aesthetics, etc. I think the distinction between ART and PRODUCT should be made, and more importantly maintained, by the artist so that the need to comment on the difference between ART and PRODUCT becomes an impossibility.
I think ‘artists’ (designers) choose not to make such distinctions so they can sell their work as products, instead of preserving them as pieces of ‘ART’.
I think if a piece of art is meant to represent or be a psycho physiological sum (‘the sum’) of a number of original and personal experiences, dreams, imaginations, etc., how and why should it be expected to satisfy market needs? It cannot!!!! It exists so far outside of any such constraints (ideological or physical) that any attempt to frame it within them is an example of the need to maintain the economic and reduce the anxieties of the psyche and is not an attempt to understand all art for what it is, whatever that might be.
I think artists can sense the problem but refuse to acknowledge it. They are suppressing it and are moving away from personal experiences in order to satisfy market needs. I think that’s what’s been happening all along, but it’s beginning to culminate into a new kind of social ideology. Perhaps a belief that is transforming art into some kind of small scale personal commercial enterprise.
I guess I am proposing that ART (the creative process and the physical object) should be a form of moral and ethical tool. The creative process, as well as the object, are an expression of a unique human condition and there is no way to quantify or qualify or limit such experiences. Any attempt to do so is to supress the psyche. And, as we know, the repressed/suppressed feelings or emotions do not disappear, they change the way they manifest themselves. The only reason why certain individuals attempt to do so is so they could make money from other people’s personal experiences, from ART. To deny the fact is to ignore the basic operating principles that drive the entire commercial enterprise known as ‘contemporary art scene’, indeed, a large scale product design (supply and demand) scheme.
Doesn’t the act of attempting to assigning a value to a personal experience defeat the purpose of the experience and of the creative process? Isn’t the purpose of personal experiences and creative processes to discover new feelings, sensations, shapes, forms, structures, or dimensions of experience? How can we expect new ideas, theories, forms, shapes, structures and so on (which are meant to be created by artists and which are meant to expand our senses, perceptions and experiences and therefore change our interpretations and definitions of the very reality within which we are contained) to fit into niche markets and be expressed in terms of economic constants such as money and shares. Can somebody please explain that to me. I would really like to hear it? It is a ridiculous proposition.
It is ridiculous proposition because the economic system claims that it wants to explore humanity and expand its definitions of reality and become more humane yet it is willing to accept only ‘art’ (thus really products) that can satisfy its ancient economic criteria. The very criteria that prevents it from expanding its sense of empathy and therefore its experience of itself, its humanity and the world that surrounds it. Its key driving force (the force that drives its global buyer/seller psyche: the false supply and demand need) is the very factor that is preventing it from seeing how IT, ITSELF, limits ITS VERY OWN ABILITY TO INCREASE ITS SENSE OF EMPATHY. It’s a tragic and vicious circle that is continuing to divide and destroy the world, yet many young ‘designers’ continue to perpetuate it precisely because they are unable to set themselves free and escape its effects on what they think are ‘their creative minds’.
If we, as artists, need to take into consideration and calculate some imaginary value in order to determine what emotion to experience or what piece of art to create, or what piece of art to acquire then isn’t it clear that the experience and the sensation of empathy are not the driving force of our psyche?
The need to maintain the imaginary profit margin, of what psychology defines as ‘pseudo ideologies’, has become the driving force of our psyches therefore of our existence, and there is nothing humane or empathic about it. After all, aren’t we witnessing its effects every single day?