While searching The Nature of Art, in an attempt to find different perspectives on art I stumbled upon Pierre Bourdieu. Pierre Bourdieu is a French sociologist and Marxist social critic. In Marxism it is argued that the economic value of any object should be equal to the value of the labor that went into producing it. Using this Marxist theory it can be concluded that art objects are extremely overvalued. Bourdieu seeks to find the missing gap between the value of the labor that went into it and the final value of the object. Pierre claims that there is a vast social network that adds value into the finished product and fits into Marx's theory. There is also value in the struggle to get one's own work noticed, by out competing all of the other artists attempting to do the same thing.
I think that Pierre is on to something with his theory because when I think about the value of art that I see a street artist selling compared to that of a piece of art in a gallery I understand the "social value" that has been added to the latter example. The work of art that has made it into the gallery has beaten out millions of other pieces of art, for whatever reasons, and has thus captured the spot light. The competition to get noticed and have one's art displayed in a well known place gives it an increase in value. Even if the there is art that is not well known, and potentially more captivating than art that is displayed in a gallery, the art in the gallery will always attract more attention and hold higher value because it "made it" into that location. I am interested to hear what other people think holds higher value because of its location/situation in society and if he/she thinks that this is appropriate.
No comments:
Post a Comment