Commodification is a subject that came up often in both lecture and our research on John Feodorov. It feels almost silly trying to write about commodification alone since we live in America and, at first glance, it seems there’s nothing I can say that any thinking American is not already acutely aware of. So, let’s start with something especially controversial: the commodification of spirituality. Feodorov magnifies this issue by creating art pieces that take everyday commodities and ‘spiritualizes’ them by adding on elements from the Navajo and Christian religions to create a confusing and slightly (or more if you’re religious) disturbing mesh of commodity and spirituality.
Take for example Feodorov’s Totem Teddy art series, in which he takes normal teddy bears, adds on totem masks, then resells the teddies. What makes these teddies attention-grabbing is the fact that adding the totem masks brings power back to the sacredness of the bear in the Navajo religion, yet at the same time is a slap in the face to that sacredness by turning the bear totem into nothing more than a mass-produced commodity. Feodorov clearly states his intentions when making this art piece:
Something that really comes out in my work, or I hope comes out in my work, is trying to infuse the intimidating back into the spiritual. Spirituality should be intimidating. It really should. Because people have no business being on a buddy-buddy basis with God. I think that's just really stupid.
Personal opinions on gods aside, I believe that Feodorov’s tactic definitely works for scaring people away from commodification of spirituality by showing them the extreme. It gives any audience, religious or not, an uneasy feeling at the realization that something meant to be personally precious and meaningful has been bastardized so artificially. And to the truly religious, I imagine it would repulse and shock them into thinking critically of the issue of commodification of religion, and how to avoid this in their personal lives. Yet, I cannot help but worry that too much poking fun at the concept of commodification of anything we deeply value by doing exactly that runs the risk of actually legitimizing its commodification in the future.
While it is important to think about how to protect the ideas and objects that we value, it is also important to question what we value and why we value it so as to make sure it truly holds the meaning we always thought it had. What makes something precious to us? Let’s start in terms of art. What comes to mind is Gijs Bakker’s art piece in which she took a photo of a diamond and glued a real diamond on that picture. The diamond itself is worth more than a picture of the diamond ever would, but if the art piece itself is made by a famous artist, the piece will be bought by some big spender for way more than the worth of both the diamond and the picture. This is reminiscent of the Colbert Show episode in which Colbert upped the value of his photograph by letting it get completely destroyed aesthetically... by famous artists. What does this tell us about what we value in the art community? I personally would not in a million years buy a mediocre art piece just because a famous artist made it, and I think the fact that some people would is a result of uber-rich people getting bored with their money and caring way too much about status. I believe this really takes away from the true appreciation of art purely in terms of its message, innovation, genius, and most of all its aesthetic beauty. If an art piece would not stand a day on the market without being backed by the label of a famous artist, it is in my opinion likely not good art.
Combine the issue of lack of appreciation for quality art with the issue of commodification of spirituality and it ultimately gives you a capitalistic society to blame. But delve deeper, and it seems that there is another way of looking at it: capitalism, while supported by laws, is a socioeconomic structure, not a completely determined lifestyle that must also control how we calculate value in terms of art. While a long ways from implementing a possibly better socioeconomic structure or countering the adverse effects of capitalism, being simply aware of capitalism's effects can at least grant us as artists one indispensable ability: to use this unique perspective to discuss and influence what the art community considers precious art.
Works Cited
Art 101 Lecture Series (Winter 2011): Anya Kivarkis
Art21: John Feodorov
[http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/feodorov/]
Right click on images for sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment