Living in the Limelight: Art, Design and the Search for Authenticity
Wednesday December 10, 2008 - 14 months ago
Posted by Matt Owens / Filed under Design
Art Making and Authenticity
Originality and Authenticity are central components to the creative endeavor. As an artist or designer, one is confronted with the larger challenge of establishing your own creative voice and by extension, cultivating this voice over an entire lifetime. This is a tall order of course and there are many possible approaches. Looking at artwork in general, two primary approaches come to light.
The one path that most artists embrace is the cultivation of a singular stylistic approach. The artist initially explores many different avenues and ultimately arrives at a stylistic “tool kit” that they refine and modulate through time. Examples of contemporary artists that fit this description are the likes of Ed Rusha, Chuck Close, Jim Houser, Barry McGee. All of these artists have a defined “style” in the sense that if you have seen 8 – 10 examples of their artwork you would be able to readily identify other pieces.
An alternative approach is the cultivation of an “evolutionary” approach whereby the artist cultivates a conceptual sensibility as well as broader stylistic toolkit. The artist Damien Hirst is a good example of such an artist. Hirst has several modes within which he works. From animals perserved in formaldehyde, butterflies in stained glass to a human skull covered in diamonds, Hirst does not have a singular artistic “style.” That said, Hirst does have a larger creative vision that is reflected in his work as a whole. An example of a designer that fits this paradigm is Peter Saville.
The singular stylistic and evolutionary approaches to art making are of course both equally valid. Both approaches share an impulse to find a unique voice that one can call their own. As an artist or designer finds their voice, we see how their creativity impacts the outside world. The key ingredient to understanding the power of authenticity and art making is when we place one’s creative output in the context of the larger culture.
Its all about Context
From the ivory tower of the Chelsea gallery to the disposable pulp of an advertising magazine insert, it is the context in which we experience a creative artifact that influences its perceived value. For example, if we look at a piece like Bruce Nauman’s 1987 video installation “Clown Torture” we see four color video monitors and two video projectors with a clown yelling. Without the context of a gallery setting, the average person on the street would find this piece both ridiculous and unwatchable. It is the symbiotic relationship between the perceived “authenticity” of Nauman’s work combined with the legitimizing context of the gallery that makes the work successful and valuable.
Conversely, we see commercial brands that are attempting to provide a similar context for art making. A recent example is the launch of the Scion Easy Ten Filmmaker Series. Scion gathered 10 budding filmmakers who created shorts (about 15-20 minutes each) that are screened together in a multi-room venue. In this context, the video installations are not given the care and attention of fine art but are treated more like window dressing for a marketing initiative. As a result, we see otherwise legitimate artwork as an excuse to a down few free drinks.
The labor required to create Nauman’s torturous clown piece may pale in comparison to time and energy required to create one of the Scion short films. Nonetheless, it is the labor, authenticity and context of the artwork itself that provides a framework for others to understand the artwork and, by extension, give it value as “art” or jettison it into the cultural landfill of advertising.
The Artist as Brand
In the last 10 years or so, we have seen artists and designers working very closely with brands to cross-promote each other. One of the first instances I recall was in 1999 when artists such as Damien Hirst and Nan Goldin used their artwork on boxes of Camel cigarettes. More recently, we have seen the explosion of the “designer shoe” phenomenon where an artist or designer lends their creativity to decorate a limited edition shoe.
Brands like Nike, Adidas and Reebok have all developed limited edition artist shoes. Through these “collaborations” the shoe brands gain artistic legitimacy through the artist’s artwork and the artist gains commercial legitimacy through the shoe brand. The question that arises is what is the authenticity of these artifacts? Are these genuine art objects or merely marketing gimmicks that go no further than being eBay collectibles?
Artist/Brand collaborations have thoroughly permeated our culture. Artists have “decorated” everything from Smart Cars, Coca-Cola cans, bicycles and even My Little Pony. One of the most extreme extensions of the “artist as brand” is exemplified by the licensing of Don Ed Hardy’s tattoo artwork by Christian Audigier.
Within Tattoo culture, Don Ed Hardy is considered a truly “authentic” figure. Ed Hardy was friends with Sailor Jerry Collins, one of America’s tattoo pioneers and to many, Hardy’s artwork is an extension of the classic tattoo style that Sailor Jerry created. With Hardy’s name and “authentic” tattoo pedigree, Audigier has been able to build the Hardy “brand” into a multi-million dollar venture.
From hats, shoes, apparel, perfume, and even an energy drink, the Hardy brand has grown by pornographic proportions into a worldwide phenomenon. As a result the authentic origin of Don Ed Hardy’s artwork has been completely lost to the general consumer. In addition, the artwork itself has become fodder for economic consumption and as a result has become disposable. For Hardy himself, his artwork now has a life of its own and as a result he must accept that his creative life’s work is no longer special and in many ways is no longer his own.
The parasitic relationship between the artist and brand is not new. The “authenticity” of an artist is a very powerful and valuable commodity. Some artist and designers have embraced the notion of the artist as brand. Other artists see the co-opting of their creative energies to merely sell a shoe or a can of soda as antithetical to everything the creative endeavor stands for.
Most artists and designers fall between these two extremes. To many the short term value of an artist/brand collaboration, be it creative or monetary, is worth the exposure it provides. For creative individuals that have a vested interest in their body of work over the long term, the authenticity of one’s own creative perspective must be regarded as their single most powerful commodity.
Art and its parasitic relationship to celebrity
Many artists have used imagery of celebrities and other authentic cultural figures to prop up their own artwork. One of the most common examples is the celebrity photographer. Photographers such as Annie Leibovitz and Dana Lixenberg have made their livings off of the images of celebrities. As an artifact, the photograph is made “legitimate” or “authentic” by the celebrity image. Conversely, the artifact captures a moment in time that can reveal a sensibility or a perspective that the person may not be aware of. Without the celebrity, the photograph is devoid of the power/authenticity of the celebrity and is merely a photograph of a person we do not know.
Within the sphere of art making, artists have also used celebrity imagery to similar effect. Andy Warhol’s work has featured portraits of Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, Elvis Presley and many others. Warhol’s celebrity portraits create a kind of mirror, reflecting back our own popular culture obsessions while in many instances revealing the tragic nature of fame itself.
In contrast, other artists utilize celebrity imagery to build their own myth. An example of this phenomenon can be seen in the use of imagery of celebrities and popular culture icons in the work of Shepard Fairey. Unlike Warhol, Fairey utilizes celebrity imagery in a more transparent manner.
Taking cues from Alexander Rodchenko’s Russian constructivism and Chinese Communist propaganda poster art, Fairey “re-draws” celebrity photographs in an effort bring out the “heroic” or “iconic” nature of the person. The most recently successful example of this is Shepard Fairey’s illustration of president-elect Barack Obama. Like the pervasive commercialization of Don Ed Hardy’s artwork, Fairey’s illustration found its way onto everything from “Vintage Obama T-Shirts” to knock off versions for your pet terrier. I have been told retailer Urban Outfitters has made millions in sales on Obama apparel using Fairey’s illustration.
As the authenticity of the Obama brand works in tandem with Shepard’s Obey brand we see a symbiotic relationship that serves an immediate commercial need. The end result may be the creation of a “Nostalgia for the Present” that sells shirts in the short term but may produce a hollow cultural caricature of the “authentic” person whereby popular culture will dismiss the image like we do so many other brand images that – now that the election is over – fall away after the sales cycle.
Establishing your own model of Cultural Production
In this era of “post-integrity” the former polarizing forces of “selling out” versus “keeping it real” have been replaced by many shades of legitimacy and authenticity. As a cultural producer, whether you consider yourself an artist or designer, the challenge is to take advantage of the variety of contexts that help frame your work.
In this day and age, a graphic on a skateboard that hangs on a gallery wall has a far different meaning and value than the skateboard for sale at the local skate shop. The beauty of our current cultural circumstance is that one has the ability to place one’s work in a variety of contexts and as a result our work grows in meaning and value. Cultural production is no longer mutually exclusive to one setting and as a consequence the artist/designer has a responsibility to forge their own path and to flex the power of their own creative voice in responsible and meaningful ways.
As we move forward, we can not prevent the co-oping of the value of a celebrity image or the gross commercialization of an otherwise authentic creative impulse. All we can do as creative individuals is support the contexts we believe in and actively point out the contexts we feel devalue one’s creative efforts. In the end, creativity and commerce are a balancing act with no real right and wrong.
Questions? Comments? Contact Matt via email - .