The Piracy of Art Jean Jean Baudrillard - Essay Example

The Piracy of Art Jean Jean Baudrillard Student Name: Student Number: Course: 4th April, 2016 In an attempt at offering a widely and properly thought out series of criticism, Jean Buadrillard offers to look into the contemporary art as a compromise of what was originally thought to be more spontaneous. He links contemporary art to a vague or utterly absurd subject that is less structured and meant to portray all that does not link to art in its genuine form. In essence, Baudrillard is saddened the degeneration of art due to reducing creativity so much so that even with art, you could not really quantify the amount of creativity therein.1 In various publications since the 1980s, Baudrillard associates the criticism of contemporary art as similar to a growing faith in a lacklustre way of going about one’s duty since most critics did it to attract attention rather than for its real worth.2 Further, Baudrillard contends that art has been commoditised to an extent that its forms are thought to disappear and diminish in appeal to the eye since the real message is lost in some form of translation. For instance, use of art in advertisement appears to render human thought null since it convinces us about qualities that may not exist in reality. Equally, politics, another field which uses the authenticity of art, dilutes the efficiency of works of art in ways that gives it an angle that is not to be believed as legitimate, at least according to Baudrillard.3 Baudrillard’s acts always seemed more of paranoid attacks than anything else, but according to Guy Debord, he may not have been further from the truth. Debord himself was a little bit more enthusiastic than a person from his time. Debord was actually of the new age: An age that was then yet to be actualized by many an artist. It is largely acceptable to maintain that Baudrillard was a lot into removing the society’s odd characters out of the wider picture of its own fabric. Be that as it may, he may well have been more than enthusiastic since more than once; he exhibited what could well be seen as overbearing opinions.4 In Baudrillard’s contention, “simulation” was not really a thing to be looked at as art. He was of the opinion that simulation would not really provide a basis or even a model of a piece of art that could be considered real and complete. While this is so, it is equally sufficient to claim that his opinion, nonetheless, may have been drawn from the need, by other artists, to seek solid opinions from him. He, in extension, may have been mocking their lack of belief in themselves and their work. Within a period of a decade, Baudrillard’s work, Conspiracy of Art, was vindicated. From paintings to architecture, art suffered a major blow since it was done for a more commercial purpose than for the beauty of it. Paintings were made to be sold. Buildings were brought up with an aesthetic value that did not echo the properness that art deserved.5 Contemporary art, according to a French artist, had suffered a lot because of criticism against its commercialization. On his return from France, Baudrillard had insisted that contemporary art should not be seen as much. He was so persistent in his criticism that at times, he would offer an angle to it while criticizing a work of art, even before he had laid his eyes on it. In 1987, Baudrillard himself went against his own belief: He went to view some works of art, mainly done by artists from the US; something that he had dismissed as more of ridiculous, seeing as he had not even been exposed to the American artists who already knew about him.6 Even Groucho Max, a man of critical acclaim in his own field, had claimed that he would not join any club where he was accepted as a member. “Pataphysician at twenty - situationist at thirty - utopian at forty - viral and metaleptic at sixty - the entire story,” – Lotringer p. 6. is how Baudrillard chose to name his plans. However, in his own feeling, the invitation by artists for him to join them in an exhibition did not occur to him as a scheme to derail him from his goals. It meant that he was joining the very society that he had always sought to demonize. In a very twisted way, this is basically what led to his writing “The Conspiracy of Art”. While this may have not been his ordained role, he always stayed true to the calling he thought was his. It is thus argued that according to him, art may have been null, but this should not be taken as an opinion that cannot change. It should be known that his views offered a wider opinion about art’s anthropological nature than its value to the society in culture. The views held by Baudrillard were more of a way of questioning what we see instead of just appreciating the aesthetics associated with the works of art.7 It is crucial to note that if one went through works of art and questioned what they saw or heard, say Nietzsche’s Laughter, then they would be able to see the inner workings of what Baudrillard was trying to offer.8 These offerings claimed that art in itself should not exactly be sold without understanding the complexities involved or those that surround it. In all, it came up as a zero-sum game since more often than not; it amounted, in an innate way, to what he termed as null. The nature of art, according to Baudrillard, was such as it would not really be made to stumble, nor could it self-destruct since it could well live on its own and ahead of our planning. However, it would have to go through various phases for it to really stay true in the form that is understandable by human. Criticism for and Against Baudrillard, being initially positive in his criticism, did not mind offering constructive advice. In the eighties, while criticizing Warhol’s work, he seemed to deviate from what appeared to be the conventional way of criticism: Offering positive criticism.9 It is important to note that while Baudrillard had been a darling of some artists who would jostle to get his attention, he now appeared keener on setting the record straight as concerns how art was being used for what may have appeared to be wrong motives. These he termed as art without character, or true meaning. He dismissed it as what was really put out there for financial benefit than satisfaction that something worthwhile that could hold a lot of meaning other than having mere financial value. Chris Kraus may have gone against Baudrillard’s sentiments when he in fact lauded the ability of art to have more than one aspect, meaning that the financial aspect was equally alluring. He was indeed right. While it is safe to state that art should be made for the beauty of it, it would beat logic if it cannot get artists something in return besides the feeling of accomplishment.10 Baudrillard offered a side of criticism that jolted the art industry. It did, just until that point when all the sectors he had mentioned, like architecture and politics, were affected. In his opinion, art should not be taken in an impure form, and used in other sectors. But was he right? To a great extent, Baudrillard wanted everyone to understand that art, in its pure form, would be something to draw pleasure from: Something that would be prestigious and that which embodies much more than just financial or political interest. In a more unpredictable turn, Rolland Barthes seemed to support Baudrillard sentiments. He echoed the latter’s words when he likened art with sex, and the consequent fact that neither had elements of each in their respective selves. He said thus; “Sex in America sex was everywhere, except in sex. Now art is everywhere, even in art.” Lotringer. P. 2. This statement meant to point out that while art is really out there and is being utilized in many fields like politics, culture, and so on, it barely was being used for its true purpose. This can only signify that the sole purpose for having art move through all these other areas was for its other benefits that were not initially considered important.11 To strengthen this notion was Guy Debord’s statement that read in part; “Get out, art critics, partial imbeciles, critics of bit parts, you have nothing more to say,” the Situationists threw at “the art of the spectacle.” Lotringer, p. 3. His was a piece to stir more controversy as in wanting to really do away with those imposters of art who would benefit from it financially but not view it in terms of its originality. To a great extent, it is believed that his passion for outing critics surpassed Baudrillard’s assertion of Conspiracy of Art as bad. To him, it was more than bad. It was worse. Having assessed both the positive and negative aspects of the criticism, it is important that a middle ground is established to ascertain that for a fact, the Conspiracy of Art is real. First off, it is true that currently, our art is spread along various sectors for monetary gains. Therefore it is sufficient to claim that there is a Conspiracy of Art. Secondly, while the claim that art can survive within other contemporary forms is true, it is important to look at all the angles to the argument. In culture, art has been submerged in various aspects that bring it out as culturally rich. Insofar as culture is concerned, art may serve more than just the satisfaction to the artists, but it also acquires more than just a sentimental value to a buyer once they acquire it. Be that as it may, the original painter ought to remain with the rights to their piece of work. This does not apply to art as in culture. Architecture, on the other hand, is a very complex area where art is practised. In architecture, art acquires a more aesthetic value than otherwise. It does have a sentimental value here too, though we can, by and large, harness its value for the good of architecture. In assessing the way criticism flowed from both artists and others who had interests in it, it would be critical that the nature of human beings be observed. One true aspect of human beings that they are known for is questioning things and finding out what lays underneath them. Baudrillard appears to be encouraging people to look into more than just the benefits of turning art into an income generating activity. This, he argues, could be only way to have art live for eternity. Debord has already foreseen a future where art is no longer made for its real value, but for its innate nature to have a financial value to it. Andy Warhol’s Mao vs. Benetton’s Unhate Andy Warhol is widely renowned for his pieces of art that embody and stand for more than just the aesthetic value. His painting, Mao, elicited a lot of reaction, both in the art world and other areas alike. The painting itself, standing at 15ft tall, shows the image of Mao, a larger than life character, whose leadership urged people to shun capitalistic tendencies. When looked at plainly, one could only see Mao, but a keener look would rather reveal a celebrated personality just like in pop art. This image was that of a revered figure in the whole of China and abroad. For this single reason, pop art appeared as accomplished in trying to look at more than just vain characters. Benetton’s Unhate is really a collective effort by the Benetton family to encourage people to stop hating others, and start showing them love. There are various images that are associated with this group, topmost being that of the Pope kissing an Imam. (See Appendix for images) Both images; Mao and Unhate, elicit different reactions when looked at. Mao’s image may well elicit a positive reaction since it augers well with the Chinese populace and the wider global community. Unhate, on the other hand, has mostly raised controversy throughout the genuine campaign that the Benetton group intended to use to bring people together. These images have been the subjects of discussions across different sets of people; artists, politicians, religious leaders, and many other people who have developed attachment to or are affected by the respective works of art. Many quarters have castigated the Benetton Group for the images associated with the Unhate Campaign.12 It is, however, very important that we note the capacity of the two works of art to draw various emotions. In The Jean Baudrillard Reader, the contention is that actually, art has taken a turn for the worst with its being used to encourage consumption than critical outlook. Both Mao and Unhate may well be guilty of appearing to be made specifically for consumption, but on a keener look, and as advised by Baudrillard himself, we find that each one of these pieces of art hold a certain value that is more than that which is common with consumerism: They automatically hold the nature to evoke memories of past struggles, for Mao, and hatred, for Unhate.13 Mao reminds Chinese people and enthusiasts of history at large who Mao Ze Dong was, and the struggle he and his people endured to make China what it is today. Therefore, Mao passes the test. Unhate, on the other hand, evokes more passion, in terms of argument, than anything else. It has made all sides to the argument against hate wake up to its reality. Besides eliciting arguments on how to do away with hate, Unhate has caused meaningful discussion to happen between all concerned parties. So yes, Baudrillard’s sentiments actually are met in both the cases of Mao and Hate. A second angle to it would be the monetary benefits attached to Mao and Unhate. Originally, works of art are supposed to have artistic value. Does Mao and Unhate meet these standards? It is open for all to see that actually, Mao meets the standards, and probably surpasses what entails art. The mere fact that Mao’s face is painted and a hint of makeup added to it shows some artistic impression that has deeper meaning, therefore holding a bigger sentimental value.14 It is not so often that a piece of art captures history and helps people have a sentimental attachment to it. On the other hand, Unhate has a nature to evoke both feelings of thoughtfulness, and those of displeasure. The Roman Catholic Church in Rome was first to ask that the Benetton Group withdraw the image that was being used in the Unhate Campaign. Thereafter, various quarters were quick to explain the nature of the work, to no avail since most people felt that it was eliciting controversy than reducing hate. On whether the two pieces meet the standards of pop art, Baudrillard would assume that they have to be more centred on figures that are widely acceptable as celebrities. The two works of art meet the threshold, meaning that they may be part of pop art. But are they? To answer this question, it is critical that an angle to pop art is seen throughout the work of art. Mao is a larger than life figure who was the leader of revolution in China. This is sufficient enough to make Mao, Andy Warhol’s work, to meet the threshold of pop art. However, the inner meaning hidden within the work gives it a more than deeper meaning, leading to the conclusion that it does meet Baudrillard’s standards of not exactly being used to satisfy the message associated with pop art only. Unhate, controversial as it is, holds a similar position since it features two figures that are revered across boundaries, and who evoke a feeling of passion among their followers. For Muslims, Imams are very important people just as much as the Pope is to the Roman Catholics. Benetton’s original goal was to deal with widespread hate in the world. Did it meet the standards required to be seen as more than just pop art according to Baudrillard? By all means, yes. This is so since the work of art evokes more than just reverence for those represented within the work. The Pope and the Imam stand for more than just a sign meant to stop hate. They represent various religions embracing each other and slowing down on the hate. Bibliography Baudrillard, Jean, and Steve Redhead. The Jean Baudrillard reader. Edinburgh University Press, 2008. Kraus, Chris. Video green: Los Angeles art and the triumph of nothingness. Semiotext (e), 2004. Lotringer, Sylvère. "The piracy of art." J. Baudrillard, The Conspiracy of Art. New York: Semiotext (e) (2005). Mail Foreign Service. Benetton withdraws ad campaign image of Pope kissing Egyptian imam after Vatican complains it is disrespectful. Mail Online. (2011). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062423/Benetton-Unhate-advert-Pope-kissing-imam-withdrawn-Vatican-calls-disrespectful.html (Accessed April 13th, 2016) Appendix i. Mao ii. Unhate Read More

Contemporary art, according to a French artist, had suffered a lot because of criticism against its commercialization. On his return from France, Baudrillard had insisted that contemporary art should not be seen as much. He was so persistent in his criticism that at times, he would offer an angle to it while criticizing a work of art, even before he had laid his eyes on it. In 1987, Baudrillard himself went against his own belief: He went to view some works of art, mainly done by artists from the US; something that he had dismissed as more of ridiculous, seeing as he had not even been exposed to the American artists who already knew about him.

6 Even Groucho Max, a man of critical acclaim in his own field, had claimed that he would not join any club where he was accepted as a member. “Pataphysician at twenty - situationist at thirty - utopian at forty - viral and metaleptic at sixty - the entire story,” – Lotringer p. 6. is how Baudrillard chose to name his plans. However, in his own feeling, the invitation by artists for him to join them in an exhibition did not occur to him as a scheme to derail him from his goals. It meant that he was joining the very society that he had always sought to demonize.

In a very twisted way, this is basically what led to his writing “The Conspiracy of Art”. While this may have not been his ordained role, he always stayed true to the calling he thought was his. It is thus argued that according to him, art may have been null, but this should not be taken as an opinion that cannot change. It should be known that his views offered a wider opinion about art’s anthropological nature than its value to the society in culture. The views held by Baudrillard were more of a way of questioning what we see instead of just appreciating the aesthetics associated with the works of art.

7 It is crucial to note that if one went through works of art and questioned what they saw or heard, say Nietzsche’s Laughter, then they would be able to see the inner workings of what Baudrillard was trying to offer.8 These offerings claimed that art in itself should not exactly be sold without understanding the complexities involved or those that surround it. In all, it came up as a zero-sum game since more often than not; it amounted, in an innate way, to what he termed as null. The nature of art, according to Baudrillard, was such as it would not really be made to stumble, nor could it self-destruct since it could well live on its own and ahead of our planning.

However, it would have to go through various phases for it to really stay true in the form that is understandable by human. Criticism for and Against Baudrillard, being initially positive in his criticism, did not mind offering constructive advice. In the eighties, while criticizing Warhol’s work, he seemed to deviate from what appeared to be the conventional way of criticism: Offering positive criticism.9 It is important to note that while Baudrillard had been a darling of some artists who would jostle to get his attention, he now appeared keener on setting the record straight as concerns how art was being used for what may have appeared to be wrong motives.

These he termed as art without character, or true meaning. He dismissed it as what was really put out there for financial benefit than satisfaction that something worthwhile that could hold a lot of meaning other than having mere financial value. Chris Kraus may have gone against Baudrillard’s sentiments when he in fact lauded the ability of art to have more than one aspect, meaning that the financial aspect was equally alluring. He was indeed right. While it is safe to state that art should be made for the beauty of it, it would beat logic if it cannot get artists something in return besides the feeling of accomplishment.

10 Baudrillard offered a side of criticism that jolted the art industry. It did, just until that point when all the sectors he had mentioned, like architecture and politics, were affected.

Read More