|
Some
years ago, talking to a friend, I heard very interesting opinions
on the plastic artist and the work conceptualization. On that moment,
I requested him a text to publish it in the bulletin of the Union
of the Plastic Artists of the State of São Paulo, of which I was a
president at that time.
The "alive wheel" of São Paulo impeded the materialization of that
fact. However, other day, when reading a text about economy, I remembered
that story and had the idea of writing the lines that follow.
Which professional relationship the plastic artist lives in the capitalist
society today in function of the product of his activity?
If I am right during the Industrial Revolution, occurred great discussions
that, at least, threatened the holders of the means of production
at that time. After all, they were accused of enjoying (without a
drop of effort) the work executed by others. Inside the discussions
there were two controversies:
1) The value of a merchandise depends on its usefulness.
2) The value of a merchandise depends on the work used in its production.
Somebody said that the meaning of the word "usefulness" was relative
because it depended on the feeling of who would buy. Others said that
the feeling of who would buy depended on the need provoked by his
way of life and social level. Somebody said that the used work depended
on the amount of manufactured merchandise. Others said that the amount
of merchandise depended on the law of supply and demand. To complicate
still more, it appeared others saying that the law of supply and demand
was disfigured by the coming of the advertisement, that has the power
to lead the opinion of the potential buyer.
From that situation were born the great social conflicts, known by
everybody and in all of the cases, culminated with some type of "ism."
To worsen everything, ours (Brazilian) "ism" is not clearly defined.
Everything is disfigured!
The rules are not defined and that created the savage "law of the
advantage." We valued more the consumption than the production; the
market than the costs; the amount than the quality and, finally, the
relative than the absolute. And it is impossible to discuss that with
the economists or who makes the rules. It is what it is! They are
laws! The whole confusion happens in function of quantified things.
What say then about the work of art and about the artist's work?
With the using of canvas as support, it became easier to transport
the paintings in Renaissance and they changed into own goods of a
more accessible market. Parallel to that, the concept of the word
"artist" began to be mythicized. No longer it meant "artisan", a mere
human being. In the beginning (the artists were few), everything was
easy. It was very comfortable for the new "demigods" that deigned
themselves to show their divinity through works of art. And, in the
end of last century and beginning of this, it was also abandoned the
occupation of the workmanship. No longer it was necessary the domain
of the "artistic kitchen" and things became more complicated.
If in the Medium Age the works were paid in function of the executed
work in number of hours and used material, with the mythmaking its
value became relative. It depended on the artist's name and his status.
No longer was worth the technical quality of the work, especially
because a lot of times it was conceptual, which relativized, still
more, the relationship work/price. Some said that a work (art) could
not be anymore related to absolute subjects (techniques). Others said
that the conceptual had to be necessarily linked to the occupation.
The discussion continues until today. Maybe the posterity will get
some conclusion. I doubt!
The fact is that, independently on the philosophical side, the society
through the times began to value the matter/merchandise facing a line
of production and a consumption need produced artificially. Since
then, the artists (now many and many) became characterized as "lazybones",
because the majority of them did not produce essential goods to the
consumption society. They only wanted to pass the time painting/sculpturing/engraving/drawing.
Van Gogh was protagonist of great dramas in function of the dichotomy
work/product and his letters show how much that disturbed himself.
The people considered him crazy, drunkard, useless to the society
(materialistic and mercantile). Most of the artists, with rare exceptions,
had already lived that situation, beginning with their own family.
The work became related with a supposed financial profit and, no more,
with the dedication to an activity. So, the artist who is "unknown"
to the art market, even painting/sculpting/engraving/drawing all the
day, usually is not classified as professional, while a "famous" artist
that sells his work (participant of the market), even if he takes
one hour to produce a work and pass the rest of the day wasting time,
will be considered professional.
Which is less or more worker?
Which is less or more professional?
How to characterize professionalism inside that activity?
In my point of view, the two examples of artists above mentioned,
are workers. Each one inside of the specificity of a wide activity
where it is difficult to determine the edges, the Art. First of all,
art is a concept created by the human being to explain one of the
ways used to express their anguishes and longings, their relationship
(material, spiritual and philosophical) with the world around. Finally,
a mean to express the feelings. In that sense, so much yesterday as
today, the larger function of the work of art is not to sale, but
the relationship with the spectator, without necessarily to impinge
him the author's same intention since nobody get to decipher all the
elements, conceptual or material, implicit in a work of art. Specially
because the art is a kind of language and, as such, it can give margin
to several types of interpretations.
So, the professionalism concept comes from the fact that the artist
has a frequent production and show this production to public through
art exhibitions, salons of art, etc. It is not enough to produce and
to leave the work hidden below of the bed or to just show them to
the relatives and friends, this does himself an artist but not a professional
of the art. Concerning the sale of the work, this is a consequence
which does not depends on the action of the creation and that it is
related to the capitalist and material mercantilism explained previously.
As the plastic artist has the terrible habit of needing to eat, to
dress and to have home to live decently, he needed to adapt himself
to the rules of the society. Since it is not possible to avoid the
fact that the work of art, after being ready, acquire also the concept
of a product, we should be careful for not mixing water with wine.
There are works that have a receptivity on the market and other that
has not. However, that does not decrease one artist nor another artist,
they are just faces of the same polygon.
The plastic artist, independently of his technique, style and concept,
will be professional in the measure in that he produces and take his
work to public with certain frequency. If the technical or conceptual
level of the work is good or bad, that is another story, after all
there are good and bad professional in all of the branches of the
human activity. It is good to remind, that art is a human manifestation
present in all cultures (one way or another), every time, and that
it never depended on strange factors to their essential reasons.
May/1991
Walter Miranda
|
