Should fine art be given more value than other
types of communication?
Throughout the ages people have used fine art
to communicate both physical events and emotions. In recent years the new forms
of communication made available through technological advances have become more
popular. This essay focuses on fine art and photography, a more recent visual
form of communication, by comparing and contrasting Pablo Picasso’s famous
Guernica (1937) (see figure 1) with the well known photograph ‘Napalm girl’ captured
by Nick Ut in 1972 (see figure 2). The context of both pieces is focusing on
the destruction and impact of war and how the war was portrayed to the outside
world.
Picasso’s piece was commissioned by Spanish
Republicans after Hitler and the uprising fascist party of Spain tested out
weapons on town of Guernica. It is painted in black and white which emphisises
the bleakness of war. Initially the painting appears to be jumbled but on
closer inspection each section depicts the brutality and true horror of the war
through the use of semiotics.
‘Napalm girl’ captured the terror of the
Vietnam war. It was the most important war photo to bring home to ordinary
people the truths and horror of what war was actually like. The naked girl
suffering from severe burns would have died except for the intervention of the
photographer and the subsequent fame of the photograph.
The value placed on something depends not
only on how value is defined but also can vary according to the time period. In
the past fine art had higher value because it was used extensively to preserve
‘moments of time’ for example portraits.
Until the beginning of the 20th Century it was also the
general publics main source of information regarding wars fought on foreign
soil. Artists would often add or miss out details, which would alter how they
wanted the piece to look. For example, they could choose to paint thousands of
the opposing side defeated. This would then distort how people perceived the
war. Photography in its infancy suffered
from many of the same difficulties; the photos were staged and the participants
had to remain still for extended periods (up to 10 minutes). A great example of
this is photos from the Crimean war where there are pictures of soldiers having
a drink and reading the newspaper (see figure 3); this completely romanticised
the war and takes away the depth of mindless destruction. This can be shown by
the reactions of the general public when actual film footage of the war was
shown for the first time. Shocked people ran screaming from the cinema as they
had not previously encountered the full horrors of war. As photography became more advanced, cheaper
and quicker, it gave a truer version of the events and removed the need for
fine art to depict history. The only time
that art is now used to record an event is where cameras are forbidden such as
during a trial in British courts. ‘Value,
therefore, does not have its description branded on its forehead; it rather
transforms every product of labor into a social hieroglyphic’ (Marx K, 1986, p.167) This supports the
argument of there being no definitive meaning of value, as it is subject to
change depending on the time period, culture and even the individual. By
‘social hieroglyphic’ Marx is referring to the signs that are not immediately
understood. For example in Picassos Guernica, the bull figure at the top is
supposedly related to a minotaur. This is a symbol to portray mans irrational
side, it is also a famous icon of the Spanish culture. This sign is not
immediately obvious.
Photos of the Spanish civil war factually
record the damage to both buildings and the population; the viewers immediately
understand what is being shown. However, Picasso’s work is harder to appreciate
and the time and effort taken by the viewer to understand its meaning increases
its value and adds another dimension. ‘Value
is determined by the average amount of labour that is socially necessary to
produce a given product; it is informed by the countless acts of individual
(living) labor performed by individual workers’ (Diederichsen, D, 2008,
p.22) This quote is in favour for the argument that fine art should be given
more value because more labour and hard work is put into creating a fine art
piece like Guernica compared to a photograph such as the ‘napalm girl’
irrelevant of how moving the photograph is.
The viewers’ imagination plays into the hands
of Picasso as the piece may be interpreted in different ways, for example, in
the bottom center there is a flower held by an amputated hand: this could
represent how life can come from death or how fragile life is. The semiotic
meaning of the flower is left to the viewers’ interpretation.
‘Napalm girl’ is also significant because the
picture does not clearly show what has caused her immense distress. The
photograph is powerful because it captures emotion, and unlike Picasso’s piece
it doesn’t need studying to provoke compassion for the girl. Anyone can easily empathise
and understand the horror of the situation without being aware of the context.
This is not true of Picasso’s piece where it is vital to understand the context
on which the painting is based for there to be any value.
However the interpretations of Guernica’s
semiotic connotations are mixed which causes there to be blurred lines in what
the true meaning Picasso is trying to communicate. Art historian Patricia
Failing said, "The bull and the
horse are important characters in Spanish culture. Picasso himself certainly
used these characters to play many different roles over time. This has made the
task of interpreting the specific meaning of the bull and the horse very tough.
Their relationship is a kind of ballet that was conceived in a variety of ways
throughout Picasso's career."(pablopicasso.org/guernica, 2009) By
using two renowned symbols of the culture he would have been able to relate
certain ideas to them. Though this becomes a problem when more than one meaning
can be denoted from them, especially as Patricia Failing states, they have been
used for different roles. If the meaning is mixed, unclear and even
misunderstood then the value it is given is perhaps not valid.
Does an unclear
or surreal painting really loose value? The point of art isn’t to create an
accurate duplication of an event; if you want an identical image then you take
a photograph. Art is more of an expression that conveys a truth about the
reality without exposing the whole true reality. This can be seen in Picasso’s
work where he has shown the true horror of war without directly linking it to
the war itself. His expression of the horror can be distinguished from the
representation of the war; because of this the context doesn’t necessarily need
to be known as we can value the artwork he has created without valuing the war
he is representing.
It can be seen that fine art will be
subjective and distorted to the artist’s bias and this is certainly true of
Picasso’s art as he was anti-fascism so he had an obvious bias. However, what
is not often realised is that photography can also have a bias: the
photographer chooses the focus of the piece. “clearly archives are not neutral; they embody the power inherent in
accumulation, collection and hoarding as well as that power inherent in the
command of the lexicon and rules of language. Within the bourgeois culture, the
photographic project itself has from the very beginning been identified not
only with the dream of universal language, but also the establishment of global
archives and repositories according to models offered by libraries,
encyclopedias….” (Campany D, 2003, p.217) This quote really emphasizes the point that photography may not be
neutral but have a bias. However it is argued that this perhaps doesn’t matter
as photography can been seen as a way of documentation and even a universal
language that isn’t subjected to one culture. The fact that photography can be
bias can be used to the advantage of the photographer to portray the strongest
message and create the largest response. Surely this is a talent in itself and
carefully selecting powerful images could be classed as an art with great
value. Photographs taken a few seconds later at Trang Bang do not emphasize the
girl’s agony in the same way as she merges more into the general chaotic
background. An objective piece may be given more value as a form of information
but if value is judged by the impact it has on the audience then bias photography
has more value as Nick Ut captured the fear on the girl’s face. Similarly the
girl’s fear would not have as much impact if it were a painting because it
would have lost that immediate shock factor. It could not be proved to be an
actual representation of an event.
‘It didn’t
belong to art; it belonged to everyone and no one, and what little baggage it
had picked up in the hope of becoming a distinctive medium was intriguing but
easy to ignore. It was photography’s lack of specialism that made it so
special. And it still does. In recent art no other medium has been taken up in
such a variety of ways. In what might now have become a post-medium condition
for art, photography is so often the medium of choice.’ (Campany D, 2003, p.17) People can relate
more to photography rather than art because although a photograph from a
certain angle can change ones view, it is actually made up of matter that
people can relate to. Photography in this sense belongs to everyone and as the
quote states ‘is the medium of choice’ because individuals can relate to it and
find emotion immediately unlike fine art pieces such as Guernica. Perhaps then
fine art shouldn’t be given as much value as other forms of communication as a
way of informing or creating impact on the audience.
On the other hand photography does not always
have the most impact nor is it always the best tool for propaganda. Art can
show aspects that other methods of communication cannot, such as the underlying
connotations that can’t be seen physically. Who creates the piece is another
reason why art can have such a higher impact than a photograph. Guernica would
not be as widely remembered if it were not for the art of the famous and
influential artist, Picasso. It should perhaps be given more value because he
has managed to creatively show the situation and raise fundamental questions
without that being his main intention. When he created the work his purpose was
to express his outrage; a brave action in a time where art was highly
controlled.
More value is placed on rare commodities and
in this sense art is more valuable because it is a skill little of us have. Few
of us can create good art, let alone create a piece that has a lasting impact.
This is a rare talent so surely the artwork that arises from it should hold the
most value. “The ‘straight’ photograph –
clear, frontal, centred – is often understood as the least creative and thus
the most artless kind of image. It doesn’t draw attention to itself and often
substitutes for what it depicts” (Campany D, 2003,
p.66) This really does support the argument that rare talents and work that
takes time should be given the most value. However, the same could be said of
Napalm Girl in that it is difficult to capture a fleeting moment: was it luck
or skill that produced this award winning shot?
If it is luck, should it be given as much value as a picture that has
required considerable skill? Arguably, not!
However skill may not even come into
question. Just because something takes longer to do or requires more ability
like the Guernica painting, if fewer people appreciate it then does it really
have any value at all? All the time and money in the world could go into
creating a piece but if no one cares for it then there is no real value in that
piece. It is questionable as to whether this devalues art as it is not
universally appreciated or practiced or whether it in fact increases its value
as it has become more rare.
On the contrary if a photograph taken within
seconds can spread to the four corners of the earth show a powerful message and
be responsible for an uprising action then unquestionably this must have a
significantly higher worth as it has created a immense response. Henri
Cartier-Bresson (1908 – 2004) is known as the leading pioneer in
photojournalism. He would have argued that photography is a type of art and
should be given more value as it is critical to seize that moment. “Memory is very important, the memory of
each photo taken, flowing at the same speed as the event. During the work, you
have to be sure that you haven’t left any holes, that you’ve captured
everything, because afterwards it will be too late.” - Henri
Cartier-Bresson (JOHNPAULCAPONIGRO.COM,
2013) Unlike fine art where things
can be added and assessed constantly whilst creating the piece of artwork,
photography has to be in that split second. If you don’t get the shot that is
needed then it is too late. This can be seen in Nick Ut’s ‘Napalm girl’ where
the photo captured was such a brief second in time. The photos before do not
hold the same value as a form of communicating the war as they do not provoke
sympathy. “Of all the means of
expression, photography is the only one that fixes a precise moment in time.” -
Henri Cartier-Bresson (JOHNPAULCAPONIGRO.COM,
2013) There is so much importance on
showing that moment in time, this is a trait fine art will never have because
it cannot be created in such a quick time. Even if it were to represent and fix
a set moment of time it would have had to be created from a photograph to be
accurate, relying on memory would be imprecise. Surely then photography holds
the most value as it the most reliable way to communicate a moment in time.
It has become
evident that comparing the two different medias of photography and fine art is
not without difficulty. They both convey two very different means of emotional
context. “Over the last three decades or
so art has become increasingly photographic. Why phrase it this way around? Why
not say photography has become art? Because that would suggest a kind of unity
in the medium when in fact photography has ended up in art in diverse ways, for
diverse reasons. This wasn’t the result of a recognition of a singular medium
with singular credentials.” (Campany D, 2003, p.16)
On the one hand photography causes an
immediate, universal reaction to what is being portrayed. Where as fine art, as
seen through Picasso’s painting, can create an equally large and emotional
reaction. Even though everyone may not appreciate fine art, its value is not
lost as it creates a subjective and personable experience for other artists or
those who invest an interest. It’s also possible to see that today, the event
of Guernica and Picasso’s painting of it are seen as one of the most
significant cultural parts of the Spanish civil war. Not even the photos
showing an accurate portrayal are as memorable as the painting. This shows the
true value that fine art can have, as those at Guernica will forever be
remembered in a dignified painting rather than in brutal imagery. For this
reason fine art should be given more value as it is a traditional form of
expression and the time and effort that has been invested in to creating a
piece. However it is hard to value fine art more when photography is
universally accepted and more widely used. One point that is worth noting when
it comes to the comparison of fine art and photography is the fact they have
different purposes. Fine art is subjective, the audience doesn’t matter, in the
sense that the artist is not trying display a message to the audience but
rather express themselves. However, photography if it doesn’t get across a
message to the audience it is rendered useless. Photography being easier to
interpret, appeals to a mass audience. Arguably if more people can appreciate
something and relate to it then it must hold more value as a form of
communication. The debate comes down to whether value is in what is rare or
rather what is more applicable. It is hard to argue whether photography or fine
art should be given the most value because they both have different purposes. If
both purposes are different then the value given to them should reflect how
well they fulfill their purpose. Therefore fine art should be valued more as an
expression of the artists view point rather than a form of direct
communication.
Fig 1
Fig 2
Fig 3
.jpeg)
References:
1. [Marx, K (1986 ). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Middlesex: Penguin Books. 167]
2. [Diederichsen, D (2008). On (Surplus) Value in Art. Germany: Sternburg Press. 22.]
3. [Campany, D (2003). Art and Photography. London: Phaidon Inc Ltd. 217.]
4. [Campany D, (2003). Art and Photography. London: Phaidon Inc Ltd. 17.]
5. [Campany, D (2003). Art and Photography. London: Phaidon Inc Ltd. 66.]
6. JOHNPAULCAPONIGRO.COM. (2013) illuminating creativity.
[Online] Available from: http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/blog/12018/29-quotes-by-photographer-henri-cartier-bresson/
[Accessed: 10th January 2014]
7. [Campany, D (2003). Art and Photography. London: Phaidon Inc Ltd. 16.]
8. pablopicasso.org (2009) Guernica, 1937 by Pablo Picasso
[Online] Available from: http://www.pablopicasso.org/guernica.jsp
[Accessed 11th January 2014]
Bibliography:
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21481381
2.http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/alevelphilosophy/data/AS/ValueofArt/ExpressionResponse.pdf
3.http://www.pablopicasso.org/quotes.jsp
4.http://www.lecouperet.net/hcb/en/index.html
5. Campany, D (2003). Art and Photography. London: Phaidon Inc Ltd.
6. Diederichsen, D (2008). On (Surplus) Value in Art. Germany: Sternburg Press
7. Kelsey R, Stimson B (2008). The Meaning of Photography. Massachusetts: Clark Art Institute.
8. Turner, G (2002). British Culture Studies. 3rd ed. London: Routeledge
9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNC92dP_RRc The Power of Art - Picasso (complete episode) [Accessed 8th January 2014]
10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa9auMart0E [Accessed 8th January 2014]
No comments:
Post a Comment