New York, October 2013. You’re walking by a street vendor selling art. It’s signed Banksy but is clearly a fake at $60. There’s no way you’re paying that much for a knockoff. You’d maybe pay $15. $30, tops. And then you find out that Banksy has been in town. In fact, crowds are swarming his guerilla pieces right now. As for those prints you saw at the stall? They were real, worth at least $50K. Does that change how you feel about the art?*
*Banksy was indeed in New York last fall with guerilla installations and a one-off sale of his pieces.
Art valuation is BS
Joy: How much would you pay for a Banksy print?
Jia Jia: I don’t believe in buying art. If I love a piece, I love a piece. If the artist needs money, and I have money to give, then sure, I’ll give as much as I can afford. Bidding at an auction’s about wanting to own art. I just want to enjoy it.
Joy: I think a lot of people thought that Banksy sold out, becoming so successful and mainstreamed. He’s a street artist, and they’re supposed to be in it for something other than money.
Jia Jia: I think Banksy was making a point.
People love to say what art is and what it isn’t, what is good and what’s not, but in fact they don’t have a clue.
When they didn’t know it was him, they tried to bargain a $60 print down to $30. When they knew it was him, his art got mobbed.
We judge the hell out of people’s artistic tastes
Joy: We have this obsessive need for social sanctioning of our personal taste in art.
We like to think that the construction of what we “like” and “don’t like” arises from some inner sanctum of Personal Taste, but really it’s so embedded in social expectations—what we’re reacting to and against.
I mean, shit, I totally do this. Why do I like Banksy? I like to think it’s because I appreciate his mix of social critique and street medium. But am I just regurgitating what others have said about him? Probably.
Jia Jia: So, tell me some of your fave artists and why.
Joy: Hm…see what I mean? Take music for instance. I feel like I need to qualify my answer so it’s not “taken the wrong way.” As in, this is my fun-music, this is my nostalgia-music, etc. Basically, I don’t want to be judged. Even if I’m secure in my tastes, on some level, it bothers me that they’ll be judged. Because you can’t help but judge me.
Can’t we just get along and not judge?
Jia Jia: So why do we judge? I think it’s about power games.
Judgment is a weapon and artistic judgment is particularly powerful because art has high social capital, yet judgment is purely subjective.
You can’t dispute a mathematical equation but everyone can give their take on art. If you manage to drum up enough support for your argument, for whatever reason, then you gain respect.
Joy: But that overshadows the personal side of art. The part of you that just wants to express and connect with another. That’s just instinctive, like hunger or love. There should be sacred space around this kind of instinct, free from power games. Is that even possible?
Jia Jia: Well, let’s see. If someone told me, “I love X” I wouldn’t judge them or at least would try not to. If someone said, “I think X is good,” then I’ll definitely judge them.
Joy: So the solution is to never say “I think X is good.” Instead always speak from the place of just “I love X.” Think any of us have that discipline? Nope. Besides, we like our little power games.
What makes “good” art?
Jia Jia: So here’s the ironic thing.
I hate people putting other people down because of art or some other social symbol of sophistication. But I also hate it when people don’t have the guts to say that something is “good” or “bad.” Chalking everything up to personal taste is a copout.
Because sometimes, the art is just shite. The same way that a meal tastes bad or a building’s poorly constructed.
Joy: Ok. So maybe we need to preface a discussion of art with some criteria for what constitutes art. 1. Skill, 2. Insight, 3.?
Jia Jia: Well, that’s the root of the power game I think. How to define art. No one can agree, and frankly, these days, “enlightened” people will judge you for wanting to pin down art because art should be about sharing and enriching each other, not judging and excluding.
Joy: But then if you can’t limit the definition of art, a toilet seat in a Museum of Modern Art qualifies.
Jia Jia: And there’s a lot of completely bullshit performance art out there.
Joy: For me, part of the sharing and enriching is to understand what we value in a piece of art, if we value it at all. That means being explicit about the criteria you’re applying and not being afraid to share value judgments. Sure, we might not agree, but let’s be open about that, instead of dodging around the issue with highfalutin discourse on elevating art above judgment. Because there is always judgment. So let’s play that power game out in the open.
Jia Jia: Ok. So here’s my definition.
Good art is a strong idea that connects with people because it’s presented with skill/expertise in a form that appeals primarily to the senses and imagination (and secondarily to the intellect and logic).
If you don’t have a strong idea, there’s no substance. If you lack skill, you probably can’t get the form right to connect. If you have a strong idea and skill, you still might not create something that connects. And if you go straight to intellect and logic, you’re writing a thesis not creating art.
Art commercialization vs. art snobbery
Joy: Do Renaissance paintings fulfill your criteria? The Mona Lisa for example?
Jia Jia: I’m in awe of Da Vinci’s talent but I don’t emotionally connect with that painting. That said, his skill is insane. And there’s something in skill alone. And beauty. Those are strong ideas in and of themselves because they connect with some deep human instinct to go beyond.
Joy: The Mona Lisa’s got a mysterious smile, sure, but it’s not my thing. It’s gotten so much hegemony/ power/ bullshit wrapped around it that it’s difficult to see the painting itself.
Jia Jia: Often, it’s the story around the art that’s doing the connecting and not the actual work itself. Also, not every piece by a “great” artist is great. Mozart wrote sublime pieces as well as “parlour music” to accompany aristocratic chatter.
Joy: Blanket praise converts the artist into a brand. This is a “Da Vinci” so I like it; this is a “Picasso” so it’s blah blah blah.
Jia Jia: Or you have the opposite. Dismiss art for being too popular.
Joy: Like people who dismiss Banksy now because he’s been mainstreamed.
Jia Jia: Exactly. It happens sometimes with the best of entertainment.
What’s more artistic? Mary Poppins or The Piano Teacher? Michael Jackson or Bach? Equal in my book.
All get to me; I don’t care whether one makes a ton of money and another doesn’t, whether one’s popular and the other’s elite.
Joy: As long as you’re not putting Titanic or Justin Bieber up there, I’m ok with it. But what if I were to disagree with what you like and dislike?
Crusading for authenticity!
Jia Jia: That’s cool as long as you can give me a non-convoluted answer that you believe in. No complex theories and no regurgitations of what others have said. I want to hear what you think, not what you think will make me respect you more.
Joy: And I guess you’ll be the judge of whether someone’s being authentic or not? So, we’re totally fine with power games as long as we’re on top?
Jia Jia: Oh, but we’re doing it not because we want to be on top. But because we love authenticity ;-).
Joy: Oh Lord!
Jia Jia: We’re…er like the Crusaders. Convinced we’re right. And willing to fight for it.
Joy: Hegemonic conquest through moral high ground. Yeah, I’d trust us! If I had all the money in the world, I’d go way old school, get myself an artist-in-residence and commission that shit. “I want you to paint me a dragon fighting a unicorn, Yoshitaka Amano!”
Or rather, just world domination
Jia Jia: Exactly. At least the patronage system was clear about power dynamics. These days, there’s this weird farcical illusion of an “art meritocracy” (i.e. this is more expensive because it’s better or got better reviews). In the old days you just had rich people saying ‘”Fuck it, I like this artist, I’m sponsoring him.”
Joy: Aren’t these the same people who are saying “Fuck it, I have money and power so I’m right”?
Jia Jia: Good point. Ultimately power rules taste. So, how do we get ourselves some power?
—
By Jia Jia and Joy
Tags: art Banksy

2 Comments
hang on… regarding the patronage system.. hell that’s still alive and well!
Visual artists particularly depend on collectors. The relationship between visual artists and their collectors, not to mention their gallerists is both incredibly complex and not much evolved.
Since poets these days don’t get patronage from rich people saying ‘write me a poem about how great and powerful i am, and how dashing my legs look in these fetching french knickerbockers, and i will repay you handsomely with money, food and the occasional party in a palais’, we now depend on artist residencies to prove to the world that we are worthwhile, or ‘good’ because someone has officially judged us to be 😉 _(so it must be true…)_ and also to be able to only make work, rather than having to work for survival as well!
I like that definition of good art because it comprehensively breaks down the word “good.” This post has got me thinking of a related issue: A lot of people say “I don’t get art.”
Is that a judgement of some kind? Do people mean to say “This piece fails to connect with me at some level (sensory or intellectual),” implying that the piece is not good art? Or are they abstaining from judgment altogether? I guess it depends on the person.
Either way, the curator will have a problem: He can show people why Artwork X is good, even though it may appear bad at first glance. His power comes from familiarity with Artwork X on both a sensory and an intellectual level. But if it takes a curator to reveal Artwork X ‘s value, doesn’t that mean that the piece fails to connect to people on its own? Or do people need to put in work, look closely, and let go of preconceived notions? I think the only way to find out is if we’re all authentic in our judgement.