Nietzche and Tolstoy

So far in class we have discussed a number of art theories, some of which I find more meaningful than others. Our analysis of Plato, for instance, reinforced my opinion that his theory of art was confusing and not applicable to modern day situations. The last two theorists we have discussed—Nietzsche and Tolstoy—in a way exemplify my thoughts on art theories. Nietzsche’s theory seems rather bizarre and esoteric to me, while Tolstoy’s down-to-earth thoughts are relatable and comprehensible.
Nietzsche discusses art in an off-the-wall manner that I never would think of myself. Granted, I am not from Nietzsche’s time and hence wouldn’t look at things in the same way he did. Maybe it is the terminology Nietzsche uses that confuses me (and others, I imagine). Maybe I am supposed to familiar with the concepts behind such terms as “Apollonian” and “Dionysian”, but I am not and therefore have to learn not only his theory but the words he uses to describe his theory as well. Once studied though, the order and structure described in Nietzsche’s Apollonian characteristics contrasts well with the chaos and complexity of the Dionysian. To me, Nietzsche seems to be trying to quantify the feeling of an artwork.
In contrast, Tolstoy tries to present discrete, uniform criteria based on specific characteristics for which to classify art by. In class, we even learned about a “3 step” process by which to judge art with. This method makes the most sense to me as it is more relatable. As an engineering student I spend my days classifying things based on characteristics and not on feeling, so it is only natural I suppose that I “get” Tolstoy’s theory of art.
In my previous blog post, I tried to look at Jackson Pollock’s art through a Tolstoy filter. This got me thinking, however, that maybe some theories are more applicable to different kinds of art. I had some trouble fitting Tolstoy to Pollock, as Pollock’s work is hard to classify and the meaning behind it can be somewhat cloudy. It is, however, based heavily on feeling and I feel that applying Nietzsche ‘s theory and calling it “Dionysian” might make a little more sense.

I’m still not quite sure what to make of Jackson Pollock’s work. My gut reaction to seeing his work is probably similar to that of many other people—sort of a “come on, really?!” exclamation. When we discovered that the most expensive painting ever sold was a Pollock piece, we heard a chorus of statements amounting to, basically, that a 2nd grader could produce better work. I have to agree. For all we know, Pollock’s paint rack might have fallen over onto his canvas one day, inadvertently (or conveniently) creating something resembling art. I personally don’t like Pollock’s paintings and can not begin to understand it. As an art layperson trying to “get” Pollock, I feel like a 2 year old trying to understand the federal tax code. Not that most adults do for that matter. But with that said, I have a hard criticizing somebody who can create works so widely successful and admired. What is it about Pollock’s paintings that give them such great value? I don’t know, and as such would not pay large sums of money for his work except as an investment perhaps.

Looking at Pollock through Tolstoy’s art theory (while it is still fresh in everyone’s heads), we can see that Pollock certainly satisfies Tolstoy’s first condition for art: individuality of feeling. From learning about Pollock’s background and viewing his short video, he clearly puts a great deal of emotion into every painting. To him, the paintings are his personality and feelings. Pollock says he wants to “express his feelings rather than illustrate them,” and he accomplishes this by being “in” the painting where he feels more at home. Similarly, Pollock is sincere in the emotion he tries to transmit. However, he personally falls short in my book in the clearness with which he transmits whatever he is trying to say. Maybe I am base and simpleton, but despite all the hype and high prices commanded by Pollock paintings, I simply do not understand his works.

Faking It????

I take slight issue with the way Faking It tries to turn Paul, a self described non-artistic individual, into a “true artist.” Faking It seems to have a narrow view of what they are trying to transform Paul into, and their attempts to blend Paul into the established art community remove some of Paul’s open-thinking creativity.
In the beginning of the four-week “transformation period”, Paul is given free reign to create pretty much whatever he thinks is artistic, and his creative side expands into new areas he did not even know he could go. However, this artistic freedom is checked after a week or so as his tutors, who professionally produce art for a living, guide him towards making what they deem as acceptable art. Despite attempting to put passion and voice into his works, Paul is being somewhat molded into a stereotypical artist, someone who can fit in and mingle with the elites of the art community. Part of fitting into this stereotype involves transforming Paul’s image from who he is currently is towards somebody that his tutors think would be more accepted by other artists. To me, their message says that to look like an artist is to be an artist, and Paul seems to take this in stride by happily buying new clothes and cutting his hair. The result is a new identity for Paul, and while I do not agree with the show’s notion that to succeed in art (or anything for that matter) one must mimic other’s identities in creating their own, Paul’s new self jumpstarts him into playing the role of an artist—and after all, this show is about jumpstarting and doing things quickly.
It will be interesting to see how Paul’s month-long art “career” culminates, for despite being shaped into an artistic mold, his work is quite impressive for somebody with no art background. Of course, I am somebody with no art background as well, so my opinion may or may not be valid. I do, however, feel that it is hard to be a “fake” artist. The works Paul is creating are clearly not fake, and I find it hard to believe that others not in the know about his TV show situation would view his art as fake, if there is such a thing.

The Painter of LIght.......And Money

To me, the likes of Thomas Kincade’s company and the Art Capital outfit represent a uniquely American attitude towards art. A raw, capitalist, money-craving attitude governs both of these operations, and I have no surprise that the singularly intellectual world of art should intersect with the beast that is American economic and marketing power.
Art Capital Group seems to send a somewhat hypocritical message. From their own website, through “combining expertise in finance and fine art, we provide customized solutions to the fine and decorative art world.” It seems that they try to create an aura of art appreciation and concern, a safe place to go for discerning art lovers who happen to be in need of some quick cash. This is all well and good, but there is something deeper in what Art Capital is doing. By turning art into loans, they are devaluing the aesthetic intent of the art and turning it into an anonymous commodity. This practice is certainly nothing new (just look at auction houses such as Christies and Sotheby’s), though Art Capital Group puts a new spin on making art more of a commodity rather than art.
This concept ties in rather well with what Thomas Kinkade is doing with his art. Honestly, I had no idea of the scale or methods of Kincade’s art business operation until watching the 60 Minutes piece on him. While Morley Safer’s position on Kincade was obviously critical, it was hard for me not to feel both disgusted and impressed at the same time. Kincade’s products are art, but they are art that has been disconnected from the artist and scaled in such a way that the end result appears more mechanical than passionate. Sure, Kincade does personally create all of his paintings, but he creates them with a formula that is designed to sell. His paintings are equivalent to The Hardy Boys books—good natured, mass produced, virtually identical products not taken seriously by connoisseurs of the trade. In fact, Kincades’s devoted customers seems are in many ways similar to the children Hardy Boys are targeted to. He has found a formula that sells, and he is doing everything in his power to reach any person he possibly can. As much as I disagree with the principal of Kincade’s art, I can be impressed with his brilliant marketing. He knows whom he wants to sell to and targets people who may not ordinarily consider purchasing anything artistic. Using various selling ploys, like introducing God into his sales pitches, he finds devoted customers to continually throw more products at. For the rest of us with our heads out of the sand, we can admire (or cringe) at Kincade’s sales genius following in the footsteps of other marketing giants like Disney and Apple. Kincade is open and forthright about what he does, and while I don’t like his devaluing of art, we all have a choice of whether to buy his products or not. Trust me, I won’t.