tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/value-in-artworks-28603/articlesValue in artworks – The Conversation2015-08-17T09:28:19Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/460532015-08-17T09:28:19Z2015-08-17T09:28:19ZNo, Kim Kardashian’s pregnant selfie is not a work of art<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91903/original/image-20150814-2563-1yaym5c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C112%2C702%2C463&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The selfie that (according to Jonathan Jones) would 'turn Titian on'. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Instagram</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Kim Kardashian has made headlines again for a selfie. And this time it’s not in the Daily Mail – no, instead it’s Jonathan Jones, the Guardian’s art critic, whose recent <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/aug/12/kim-kardashian-pregnancy-selfie-titian-art">piece</a> celebrates Kardashian and “the power of the nude”. </p>
<p>This “selfie would turn Titian on”, gawks the headline. Meanwhile an unpeeled Kim stands pregnant and pouting in the halflight, trapped forever in a smudgy kaleidoscope of sloping lines and smartphone angles, peering into a tiny digital reflection. “Ours is the most misogynistic age in history,” decries Jones:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Only in our time does every image of beauty tell women to get thin, thin, thin … Rich, ample, curvy, rampant flesh is, for Rubens, simply and obviously sexy. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>After rhapsodising about how Titian loved a curvy gal and that Kardashian too “really does love her own body” – making her almost the same as Titian, then – he concludes that Kardashian “is raising questions about the nude today”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91918/original/image-20150814-2598-z68uj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91918/original/image-20150814-2598-z68uj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91918/original/image-20150814-2598-z68uj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91918/original/image-20150814-2598-z68uj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91918/original/image-20150814-2598-z68uj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91918/original/image-20150814-2598-z68uj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91918/original/image-20150814-2598-z68uj4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Titian’s Venus of Urbino, 1538, ‘the most beautiful woman in art’ according to Jonathan Jones.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is not obvious why Jones sees the idealisation of thin female bodies as inherently more misogynistic than the idealisation of “fat” female bodies; nor indeed whether the idealisation of any kind of female form can be described as misogyny at all. But then, this is the Guardian, and Jones is an art critic – so we must be in safe hands.</p>
<p>That’s right. Kim Kardashian is an artist now. She has elevated the selfie to an art form. Her new book, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/photography/11577806/kim-kardashian-selfish-selfie-book-review.html">Selfish</a>, is a collection of her selfies. Everything, for Kim, is about the look of things. In <a href="http://time.com/3943053/kim-kardashian-gun-control-feminism/">interviews</a> she recalls a younger Kim Kardashian being drawn to images of “interracial couples” and thinking they were “<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/kim-kardashian-gets-real-11-revelations-from-the-new-cover-story-20150701">cute</a>”: “I’ve always been attracted to a certain kind of look.” Selfies, for Kim, are a vehicle of empowerment: “I have the control to put out what I want, even if I’m objectifying myself.” She demurs from calling herself a feminist. What she says is: “I think you would call me a feminist.” </p>
<p>So ensorcelled is Jones with the ample, rippling flesh of Titian’s golden girls – trying vainly to link the Venus of Urbino to Kardashian by co-factors other than their “plump” sexiness – that he forgets some other depictions of Venus to which Kardashian’s “oeuvre” might usefully be compared. For instance, <a href="http://icarusfilms.com/new99/hottento.html">Sarah “Saartjie” Baartman</a>, the so-called Hottentot Venus, who was brought to Europe from South Africa as a naked zoo exhibit on account of her large buttocks and breasts and whose naked corpse, after her death in 1815, was cast in plaster and remained a museum exhibit until 1974. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91915/original/image-20150814-2595-11bkjwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91915/original/image-20150814-2595-11bkjwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91915/original/image-20150814-2595-11bkjwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91915/original/image-20150814-2595-11bkjwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91915/original/image-20150814-2595-11bkjwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91915/original/image-20150814-2595-11bkjwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91915/original/image-20150814-2595-11bkjwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91915/original/image-20150814-2595-11bkjwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">19th century French print of Baartman,</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Or how about Velazquez’s <a href="http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/diego-velazquez-the-toilet-of-venus-the-rokeby-venus">“Rokeby” Venus</a>, where the model poses, buttocks to the viewer, gazing into a mirror held by Cupid; looking not at her own reflection in the glass, but at the viewer – or rather an endless succession of viewers – who in turn are assumed to be gazing at her body. Which is precisely what Kardashian sees in her viewfinder: not love of her own body, as Jones believes, but of her image; triangulated validation through the imagined unknown eyes of all those who will, now, behold her. Kardashian, like Velazquez’s Venus, exists not in a mirror reflection, nor even in her own conscious gaze; but in the imagined gaze of her viewers.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91914/original/image-20150814-2598-1dcvcjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91914/original/image-20150814-2598-1dcvcjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91914/original/image-20150814-2598-1dcvcjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91914/original/image-20150814-2598-1dcvcjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91914/original/image-20150814-2598-1dcvcjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91914/original/image-20150814-2598-1dcvcjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91914/original/image-20150814-2598-1dcvcjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Diego Velázquez, The Toilet of Venus (</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>More. If Kardashian is an artist, how about a comparison to <a href="http://www.fonthillpress.com/TheJournalsofMarieBashkirtseff/Book_Summary_MarieBashkirtseff.html">Marie Bashkirtseff</a>? Bashkirtseff was a 19th century Russian artist who, like Baartman before her, died at just 25. But unlike Baartman she was committed to the creation and preservation of her own imagined self, presenting her journals to the world with the words: “If I do not die young, I hope to survive as a great artist; but if I do not, I will have my journal published, which cannot fail to be interesting.” She added: “I think myself too admirable for censure.”</p>
<p>Bashkirtseff sought vainly to create herself as her own heroine, but Bashkirtseff wrote and painted. She spoke several languages. She took her craft seriously. She studied. Kim Kardashian, both artist and muse, exists only as an image – an object in the eyes of others, mediated by herself-as-lens. And as for whether she is a feminist, she can only compute this via the imagined perception of others. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91916/original/image-20150814-2582-jqj5zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91916/original/image-20150814-2582-jqj5zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=773&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91916/original/image-20150814-2582-jqj5zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=773&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91916/original/image-20150814-2582-jqj5zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=773&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91916/original/image-20150814-2582-jqj5zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=971&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91916/original/image-20150814-2582-jqj5zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=971&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91916/original/image-20150814-2582-jqj5zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=971&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Marie Bashkirtseff, Self-portrait with Palette, 1880.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nearly 70 years ago, Simone de Beauvoir <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/books/excerpt-introduction-second-sex.html">wrote</a> that women become accustomed far more often than their male counterparts to defining themselves through their mirror image – a fantasy of the self mediated by the visual. “Man’s body does not seem to him an object of desire,” she writes, “while woman, knowing and making herself object, believes she really sees herself in the glass.” For Beauvoir, this is an existential crisis, since: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The narcissist who identifies with her imaginary double destroys herself … Her misfortune is that, despite all her insincerity, she is aware of this nothingness. There can be no real relation between an individual and her double because this double does not exist.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So I can do no more than offer words of caution. Because if Kim Kardashian is being peddled to us as both art and feminism, we are in really dire straits. Self-objectification is a miserable substitute for selfhood: a hall of mirrors with nothingness at its core.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46053/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Victoria Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If Kim Kardashian is being peddled to us as both art and feminism, we – and she – are in really dire straits.Victoria Anderson, Visiting Researcher in Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/392962015-03-25T19:09:24Z2015-03-25T19:09:24ZCan animals ever be artists?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76015/original/image-20150325-14532-le0h5n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Don't give up the day job, Nelly.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/archer10/3729750882">Dennis Jarvis</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In my time I have seen some pretty strange things parading as art – I still vividly remember the sawn-up sharks and cows in Damien Hirst’s <a href="http://www.damienhirst.com/exhibitions/group/1997/sensation">Sensation Exhibition</a>. Beauty and art I guess is in the eye of the beholder. What I consider to be art you may well think of as a pile of rubbish, and indeed it may actually be <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26270260">someone’s junk</a>.</p>
<p>Anthropologists consider <a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/art">art</a> to be a uniquely human activity in which a person produces something for the aesthetic appreciation of others. But human motives are seldom so simple. Modern-day artists are very aware of the commercial value of their product and of the fringe benefits of being successful artists such as fame and attracting members of the opposite or same sex. Art I suspect was never just for aesthetic appreciation.</p>
<p>This anthropologic definition of art seems to exclude the possibility that animals can be artists. For example, we might find male birds of paradise extremely beautiful but this is not art. Bird song is often described as music and the displays of some animals are described as dance. But do they qualify as art?</p>
<p>Although the <a href="http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/studying/birdsongs/">song of many birds</a> is improved by practice during the animal’s lifetime it is largely innate – the animal is not composing on a blank slate. And the same seems to apply to animal dances or constructions. </p>
<p>The intricately designed nests of the weaverbird would seem to be a work of art but is nothing more than an evolutionary pre-programmed design – and, of course, it was designed to hold eggs not for artistic appreciation. </p>
<p>Our descriptions suggest artistic qualities in these animals, but the reality suggests something much simpler. The dulcet tunes of my voice may sound beautiful to some, but they are the result of my environment and not any artistic composition.</p>
<h2>Meet the animal artists</h2>
<p>There are, however, cases of artistic creation in the animal kingdom that may meet the anthropologist’s requirements for something to be considered art. One such case is the song of the male lyrebird from central Australia. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VjE0Kdfos4Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The lyrebird does not learn its song from his father as is the case with most bird species. Instead it samples the song of birds from its habitat and puts these samples together in a continuous sequence, just as a DJ might rearrange snippets and loops of old records into a new song. </p>
<p>The aim of the male lyrebird is to create music that will attract females, which also seems to work for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/molly-mcgreevy/why-are-musicians-more-attractive_b_2916025.html?">human musicians</a>. When in captivity it has even been known for these birds to sample the sounds of human activity such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/lyrebirds-mimicking-chainsaws-fact-or-lie-22529">chainsaws cutting down trees</a> or even human music played by loggers. Thus, the bird is producing non-innate “music” for the appreciation of others, in this case females of the same species.</p>
<p>Studies have shown that most bird song cannot be considered music, innately produced or not, because it <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000334721200214X">does not follow human musical scales</a>. I personally find this a weak argument as there are a great number of musical scales used by humans. What is noise to me maybe music to you.</p>
<p>Male bowerbirds make and decorate what is essentially a twig sculpture – bower – to impress females. Females pass by, inspecting these works of art – and the males stand in front of them hawking their <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/83/9/3042.full.pdf">artistic prowess</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wCzZj21Gs4U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Male bowerbirds use visual illusions that mess with perspective, just like the artist MC Escher. They create a courtyard of objects in front of their bower, the largest objects being placed further away creating a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210010365">forced perspective</a> that they are larger than they really are. If the female is impressed by the male’s artistic talents then she will mate with him. The theory being that great male artists possess good genes, which the female’s offspring will inherit. Once mated, the female will leave the male and head off to make her nest and rear her offspring alone.</p>
<p>There are of course <a href="http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/Zoogoer/2012/4/CreatureCreations.cfm">captive animal artists</a> such as pet cats or zoo-housed <a href="http://langint.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ai/en/album/the_drawings_by_chimpanzees.html">chimpanzees</a> who are provided by humans with an opportunity to express themselves artistically. They may produce works like Jackson Pollock – but this is an induced, not a spontaneous activity and it is not clear if there is any artistic intent. Although the famous sign language chimpanzee Washoe would sometimes describe what her <a href="http://langint.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ai/en/news/30_2005-11-10.html">paintings represented</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76026/original/image-20150325-14507-1fxl4fs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76026/original/image-20150325-14507-1fxl4fs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76026/original/image-20150325-14507-1fxl4fs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76026/original/image-20150325-14507-1fxl4fs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76026/original/image-20150325-14507-1fxl4fs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76026/original/image-20150325-14507-1fxl4fs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76026/original/image-20150325-14507-1fxl4fs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Digit Master by Bakhari, a chimp at Saint Louis Zoo.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/January2012/270112-art-by-animals">Bakhari / Saint Louis Zoo / UCL</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bower and lyrebirds provide just two animal examples from the wild of work that can be considered art in light of the human definition of the subject. Personally, I believe there are many more artists to be discovered in the animal kingdom. </p>
<p>But I, for one, would question this division between things that are beautiful or artistic. Surely what is important is that there is an aesthetic appreciation of them: whether they are a beautiful mountain that has been sculpted by glaciers, a sculpture made by bowerbirds or Michelangelo’s David. Personally, I appreciate the beauty in all three of these examples because they elicit in me the same emotional response of being in awe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39296/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert John Young does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The natural world throws up all kinds of beautiful creations, but many still say art is for humans.Robert John Young, Professor of Wildlife Conservation, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/204082013-11-24T19:02:40Z2013-11-24T19:02:40ZThe tricky notion of ‘value’ in the arts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35764/original/7p7znx5g-1385004845.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How do we decide what art is worth – by the economic benefits it delivers or some notion of intrinsic value?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">fedee P</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There’s plenty of discussion about arts funding in Australia – but are we ready to tackle tough questions around the “value” of the arts? That’s a challenge that will involve scrutinising the “benefits” delivered by arts programs and rethinking some of our ideas about impact.</p>
<p>Recently these questions have been framed in terms of measurement – a phenomenon that has to do with an increased emphasis on what is termed the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/go-on-then-what-are-the-creative-industries-18958">creative</a>” or “cultural” industries.</p>
<h2>Welcome to the arts industry</h2>
<p>Governments and policy makers concerned with the allocation of scarce resources, and with the demise of traditional economic drivers for development, have turned to these sectors as areas of potential growth. The word “industry” nicely moves the whole area away from anything “non-productive”.</p>
<p>This framing of the arts as an industry has fuelled the sometimes strident debate over funding models for the arts, particularly when a funding cut has taken place. </p>
<p>Yet for better or worse, the arts and related cultural phenomena represent activities that now have value and benefits for government – so there will be policy delivered upon art producers regardless of the debate. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35591/original/8kxxrw32-1384845382.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35591/original/8kxxrw32-1384845382.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35591/original/8kxxrw32-1384845382.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35591/original/8kxxrw32-1384845382.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35591/original/8kxxrw32-1384845382.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35591/original/8kxxrw32-1384845382.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35591/original/8kxxrw32-1384845382.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">SebastianDooris</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The key issues for all is defining and measuring all the possible permutations of value.</p>
<h2>Intrinsic and instrumental benefits</h2>
<p>Some clarification is possible if we separate instrumental benefits from intrinsic benefits. </p>
<p>Instrumental benefits are those that pertain to social, economic or policy outcomes. An outcome of a community-based theatre production might be to involve disadvantaged sectors of the community, thereby increasing social inclusion. Similarly, a sculpture trail might be established in an economically-depressed region, with the aim of increasing local employment. </p>
<p>Such benefits are increasingly cited in the conversations surrounding the impact of the arts.</p>
<p>The intrinsic benefits of the arts are less obvious. While not being ignored by arts organisations, and of interest to many artists, the “impact” of art on an individual, a community or on society is a nebulous concept. How did the art resonate with the viewer? Was the community intellectually stimulated? Did the art make a lasting impression? Did it increase social bonding?</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35592/original/995728sx-1384845618.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35592/original/995728sx-1384845618.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35592/original/995728sx-1384845618.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35592/original/995728sx-1384845618.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35592/original/995728sx-1384845618.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35592/original/995728sx-1384845618.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35592/original/995728sx-1384845618.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How do we measure the social benefits of art?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Maxey</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Much of the policy work done on measuring intrinsic impact is done in the performing arts. </p>
<p>Theatre, opera and music companies have a particular interest in measuring intrinsic impact, as their revenue streams rely on a paying audience, and indeed one that returns for future performances. Intrinsic impact factors such as audience engagement and stimulation are part of the concept of “<a href="http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/resources/reports_and_publications/subjects/arts_sector/artisticvibrancy">artistic vibrancy</a>” that the Australia Council uses as a criterion in its <a href="http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/artisticreflectionkit">Artistic Reflection Kit</a> for arts organisations.</p>
<h2>Did the art make a difference?</h2>
<p>There is little to guide us in understanding such issues in a broader arts context. </p>
<p>Certainly museums and galleries, as well as major events such as the <a href="http://www.biennaleofsydney.com.au/">Biennale of Sydney</a> undertake visitor surveys. But their findings are frequently framed in relation to audience development or marketing strategy. Engagement sometimes simply means: how many people went, and where were they from? </p>
<p>While this sort of information is vital in a world where competition for the cultural tourist is fierce, it does not assist us in understanding the basic question of whether the art, in whatever form, made a “difference” to those that viewed it (however that may be defined) and how that might be considered a “value”.</p>
<p>Of course, it can be argued such a question is irrelevant in an artistic sense. </p>
<p>Many see any measurement of artistic value as further evidence of the commodification of art. Art producers frequently reject the materialistic concept of “product” being applied to their creative output, and clearly consumer demand is not generally the primary driving force behind art and other cultural-based production.</p>
<h2>Product-driven artists</h2>
<p>Even so, artists do need to be product-driven. If they are not they risk their artistic integrity, the very thing that challenges their audiences. This means that conventional techniques to “sell” artistic production do not necessarily work. </p>
<p>For any exhibitor of challenging art this is a common problem. Do you keep churning out those room-filling blockbuster exhibitions – or curate something that your audience might potentially not actually like?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35593/original/fxhs2kzw-1384845766.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35593/original/fxhs2kzw-1384845766.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35593/original/fxhs2kzw-1384845766.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35593/original/fxhs2kzw-1384845766.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35593/original/fxhs2kzw-1384845766.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35593/original/fxhs2kzw-1384845766.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/35593/original/fxhs2kzw-1384845766.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is it possible to measure the impact of a work of art on the viewer?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">j-No</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Perhaps splitting value into instrumental benefits and intrinsic benefits is actually unhelpful because it artificially separates the individual/ community/ emotional from the policy/ economic. </p>
<p>By this I mean that if a concert does not engage and resonate with visitors by having some intrinsic value, then any other subsequent instrumental benefit simply does not flow on. In other words, if the audience does not like the art, they will not “consume” it (buy, view, etc.). </p>
<h2>Art for individuals <em>and</em> communities</h2>
<p>For me, taking such an holistic view of artistic endeavours recognises that there is an interconnectedness between individual benefits and societal benefits that is indeed important. What benefits the individual may well benefit that individual’s community – and vice versa.</p>
<p>Does this make impact any easier to measure? Or value any easier to define? Perhaps not immediately. </p>
<p>But it does provide an alternative way of conceptualising value in the arts, one that may be used to reframe a debate that tends to be weighted toward measuring instrumental benefits. </p>
<p>It’s not just that funding bodies find it easier to measure instrumental benefits, it’s that the intrinsic value of art is, by its very nature, difficult to measure. </p>
<p>How do you measure intellectual stimulation? Emotional engagement? Joy? Sure, there is research conducted in these areas, but it is not finding its way into the debate over the value of the arts. </p>
<p>And until it does the arts will continue to be valued more for its role as a driver of economic development than as a cure for the soul – or worse still, not valued at all.</p>
<p><strong>Further reading:</strong><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/youve-got-7-billion-so-how-will-you-fund-the-arts-18839">You’ve got $7 billion – so how will you fund the arts?</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20408/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kim Lehman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There’s plenty of discussion about arts funding in Australia – but are we ready to tackle tough questions around the “value” of the arts? That’s a challenge that will involve scrutinising the “benefits…Kim Lehman, Lecturer in Marketing, Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/86242012-08-27T09:04:48Z2012-08-27T09:04:48ZMonkey Jesus and the Politics of Value<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z4n2TsvMASY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Al Jazeera and the Restortation.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the most controversial installations at Hobart’s <a href="https://mona.net.au/">Museum of New and Old Art</a> is Wim Delvoye’s <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/culture-vulture-skewwhiff-20120217-1tdl3.html">Cloaca</a>: the excrement machine. </p>
<p>When I first stuck my head in during a morning visit, it smelled vaguely of meat. Two o'clock was poop-o’clock; complete with a <em>ta daa</em> dish of the steaming stuff.</p>
<p><em>Cloaca</em> was commissioned. It has its own room. <em>Inside a gallery</em>. Is this enough to make it art?</p>
<p>I was thinking about Delvoye’s work when I was reading about Monkey Jesus; trumping July’s Good Food and Wine Show/simulated oral sex <a href="http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/manu-feildel-seen-lying-on-the-floor-of-night-spot-simulating-oral-sex-on-fellow-tv-chef-george-calombaris/story-e6frfmqi-1226431960524">story</a> to become my favourite news item of 2012.</p>
<p>In case you missed it, a presumably well-meaning parishioner has had a stab at restoring a 19th century church fresco.</p>
<p>We’re talking Spain so the original image, surprise, surprise, was Jesus. Cecilia Gimenez’s take has been described not-so-generously as a pale bearded monkey.</p>
<p>In one corner we have a ruined 120-year-old fresco. In the other we have 10,000 people signing a petition to keep Monkey Jesus.</p>
<p>I’m slightly swayed by 81-year-old Gimenez’s moxie, but I’m loathed to pick sides.</p>
<p>My real interest in the story centres on questions about art. About preservation.</p>
<p>Once upon a time I visited Rome. A decade on and the thing that’s stuck is a single line of graffiti I spied:</p>
<p><em>Rome is not a museum.</em></p>
<p>Open to interpretation, but my reading is a revolt against manic preservation. That by keeping - and honouring - every single cultural artifact, every building, every ruin, a city doesn’t ever get to develop and never becomes anything more than a relic.</p>
<p>As someone who is still sickened that Melbourne’s art deco <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/artdeco-landmark-lonsdale-house-to-be-bulldozed-20090727-dygh.html">Lonsdale House</a> was pulled down to put up a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlNZN94_u-s">parking lot</a>/Apple store, I’m certainly not advocating a slash and burn. But when does it stop?</p>
<p>Elías García Martínez’s original fresco was no masterpiece. I dare say it failed to appear on <em>anybody’s</em> must-eye-before-I-die bucket list.</p>
<p>And yet, Gimenez’s fat-brushed touch-ups have led to words like botched and bungled being bandied around. All of a sudden the art world’s big questions are being thrashed out.</p>
<p>The old fresco vs the postmodern “parody”.</p>
<p>Good art vs bad art.</p>
<p>Established art vs street art.</p>
<p>The professional vs the amateur.</p>
<p>Permanence vs passing.</p>
<p>The very best thing about art - be it a painting, a film, a book - is that two people can look at the very same thing and see something completely different. Different in terms of meaning, sure, but also different in terms of value, about whether it constitutes art and whether it deserves the status of public display.</p>
<p>If Martínez’s fresco was - prior to this fiasco - considered valuable, I dare say it wouldn’t have required Gimenez’s DIY efforts in the first place. Europe is <em>full</em> of old stuff and the money isn’t available to preserve everything. Certainly not in bankrupt Spain.</p>
<p>Now that the fresco has been substantially tinkered with however, suddenly value is ascribed because it’s no longer in original condition. Suddenly, people who never visited it, never spent a cent on its upkeep, never noisily lauded it, are lamenting a lost masterpiece. </p>
<p>Time for a Joni Mitchell interlude:</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tr__rRGWVgI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Joni Mitchell - Big Yellow Taxi</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The original work now has new-found value. Most fascinating however - and perfectly reflecting the fickle nature of worth - so too does the redux.</p>
<p>Millions of people have now been exposed to Monkey Jesus. They’ve seen Gimenez’s work - if, like me, they’ve been thoroughly entertained by it - and 10,000 have gone so far as to sign a petition advocating its retention. Suddenly Monkey Jesus has value too.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most interesting thing to come of this story is that a fresco we never heard of has been elevated to the lofty status of “lost gem”. Highlighting equally our love for old stuff and our obsession with fetishizing the past.</p>
<p>Equally exciting however, Gimenez’s reno puts on our agenda all those juicy questions about what is art, who is the artist and what’s worth valuing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/8624/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
One of the most controversial installations at Hobart’s Museum of New and Old Art is Wim Delvoye’s Cloaca: the excrement machine. When I first stuck my head in during a morning visit, it smelled vaguely…Lauren Rosewarne, Senior Lecturer, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.