Some
times, we see published in newspapers and magazines the controversy
about the fragility of some works of art concerning to the use of
materials of uncertain durability and the argument that it is more
important the appropriate preparation for the reception of the works
than its fragility. I think that there is a series of misunderstandings
in the polemic, because it is mixed production, circulation and commercialization
of works of art, and the connection among the three is directly related
with conflicting interests. In that sense, I would like to express
some opinions about it.
In first instance, art is a concept created by human being to explain
the materialization of some forms used by him in the expression of
his anguishes, longings, happiness and hopes or, his relationship
(material, spiritual and philosophical) with the universe around him.
In that sense, the production of a work of art is not directly related
with its sale, but with the relationship, passive or active, established
between it and its spectator. Until the beginning of the twenty century,
the tradition demanded a work of art to be eternal. For so much, it
was implicit that it should be constituted of materials of long durability.
With the possibility to make researches using several materials provided
by the new technologies, the plastic artist begun to create works
of art exploring "new horizons", including conceptual ones. These
factors facilitated the material execution of the works and popularized
the creative processes. Inside of that new reality, the artistic work
got conceptual importance.
Still on behalf of the relationship work/spectator, the production
of a work of art involves a very strong concern with its circulation,
what does that the work is treated as a material product. As the circulation,
in many cases, creates appropriate circumstances for the deterioration
of the works, it appeared, then, one more argument in favor of the
perennial work of art. Closing the circle, this perennial increased
the conscience that it was possible to commercialize that kind of
product, situation that put it under the mercantilism, giving to the
work of art a new characteristic, a merchandise.
So, when a work of art is sold it is having been the reason of a transaction.
This means that the salesperson should be clear about the limitations
and qualities of the negotiated merchandise explaining to the buyer
the technical and environmental conditions appropriated for the preservation
of the merchandise/work of art, in other words, if it is accomplished
with materials that guarantee some durability and under which circumstances.
In compensation, the buyer should also have the minimum knowledge
regarding the product to be bought in order to investigate it or,
at least, he should know where to seek information on the characteristics
of the product that he intends to buy, as usually he does when he
buys an appliance or a canned food.
The used comparison can be apparently unhappy due its material coldness
that, seemingly, nothing has to do with a work of art. But, despite
of the redundancy, it is good to reaffirm that the question is no
longer about only the work of art but also about a commercial
transaction and it is worth to remind that nowadays, a lot of times,
the artists depend on the businessmen's patronage or business institutions
to accomplish their cultural and artistic projects. Therefore, the
relationship between the private sector and the cultural production
is a kind of relationship, as any other one, where the both parts
have specific interests. On a side, there are pertinent concepts to
the economical sector as competitiveness, profit and patrimony (what
the works become after its acquisition, in an businessmen vision),
on the other side are the creation freedom, the circulation of the
work of art (so its accomplishment can be achieved enlarging the definition
of "Art"), besides the commercialization of the work, after all, the
artist needs to survive.
But, in function of the new artistic and contemporary concepts, sometimes
the artist thinks that the contemporary work of art, being conceptual,
is a platonic product, in other words, the production of a work of
art is not related to durability and perennial subjects and despite
of its circulation and commercialization. As who buys the work, no
matter how idealist is, wants the monetary investment guaranteed by
the durability of the work, assuming the valorization of his collection,
the conservation of it for the posterity, or a possible future negotiation,
the nonsense appears and we return to the old commercial subject.
Therefore, if the artist wants to sell his work, maintaining his
creative process which assists to his conceptual needs and maintain
his intellectual dignity, I think it is logical that he tries to captivate
the buyer. In that way, besides the creative integrity and quality,
if he worries with the durability of his work, he will have one more
argument that, probably, will conquer the buyer. It is strange to
me to visualize a commercial transaction, therefore capitalist, where
the seller/producer would not worry about the material qualities of
the sold product because the buyer is who should have the obligation
of taking care of the preservation of this product.
I believe that if the artist does not worry about the durability of
his work he should not also seek its commercialization, but just its
circulation and, nevertheless, in certain conditions. For me this
would be more coherent with the production of a conceptual art, because
it would be above the market subjects that, truth need to be told,
for a lot of times, have been disturbing the production and circulation
of the contemporary art in the world.
On the other hand, if the effects of the deterioration belong to the
concept of the work, as many times happens nowadays, doesn't make
any sense its preservation, because this contradicts the concept,
since in that case, its existence stops being physical and only resists
to the time due its registration through other means, such as, texts,
videos, films, slides, pictures, etc. In fact, usually the contemporary
artists make use of new materials instead of orthodox materials that
do not assist anymore to their longings. This substitution does not
disturb the production and the concept of the work and, if it is justifiable,
it is also justifiable the substitutions which use materials that
guarantee the durability of the work.
January 1997
Walter Miranda |
