Commercialization in the United States: The Escalation of Consumerism in Modern Fine Art
Since the days of Thorstein Veblen’s theories of conspicuous consumption, consumerism in capitalist society has proved itself to be arguably the most powerful social and economic force in the United States. Nowhere is this more evident than in the sprawling stretches of suburbia, where Kinkade prints line écru walls and pairs of stilettos by Isaac Mizrahi™ for Target® rest in every closet on an Ikea shelf. With every housing development built and clothing line unveiled, a new bastardization of a pure art form is revealed. The fine arts expounded upon in the discourses of Aristotle have given way to an assortment of artists who mass-produce their art for the consumption of the general populace, rather than create an intrinsically abstract self-referential piece of art. The line between the art of the masses and fine art, or art created for aesthetics rather than utility, appears to have been blurred beyond recognition in 21st century Americana, with its inevitable conclusion of a homogenized art world looming ominously on the horizon.
A recent article in the New York Times decried the blatant consumerism present at Bryant Park during New York Fashion Week. “Now that the runways are a medium for just about everything – celebrity, marketing, corporations – you can never be sure of the message, if there is one at all,” author Cathy Horyn gripes, adding, “Young designers tend to dress the women around them rather than provide direction of their own.” Her critique is harsh, but deserved. The whimsical, fantastical and thoughtful designs of avant-garde haute couture once inspired a community of artists to analyze, criticize, inspect, and admire works of art concocted from satins and silks, rather than canvas and oils. Today, anyone who entertains the notion may become a fashion designer (note Sarah Jessica Parker’s Bitten line for retailer Steve & Barry’s), and even those who are qualified are more preoccupied with popular consumption than the pioneering of fresh and progressive designs. Designers Isaac Mizrahi and the men behind fashion line Proenza Schouler, Lazaro Hernandez and Jack McCollough, all of whom were educated at Parson’s School of Design and interned at couture houses, prefer to focus energies and capital on Target Corporation’s Go International™ line. Where are the thought-provoking designs that serve to educate or provoke, to promote discussion, like the top hat of human hair created for Gaultier’s surrealism-themed Autumn 2006 line, or Miguel Androver’s surcoat fashioned from a mattress found on the streets of Manhattan? Horyn’s assessment of the fashions displayed at Fashion Week reveal very few. Haute couture has become a farce, played out by designers whose primary goal is to make their designs applicable to the masses, thus losing the individuality and abstraction that earned its status as an art form.
Haute couture is not the only art form to fall for the seduction of mass consumption. The traditional art world, that of painting and printmaking and sculpture, is similarly captivated by the sales figures of mass-produced artwork. This is not the pop art of Lichtenstein or Warhol, which was a response to abstract expressionism and took material from popular culture for contemplation and discussion. Instead, artists like Thomas Kinkade have created a new niche, in which art is produced solely to attract consumers, rather than to inspire introspection or thought. Kinkade’s pastel portrayal of glowing bucolic scenes, replete with fairy-tale cottages and Biblical references, might inspire a regurgatory reflex in some critics, but have also earned Kinkade $53 million between 1997 and 2005 – myth has it that one in twenty American homes possess a Kinkade print. This debasement of one of the very tenets of fine art, that a piece need not communicate with, nor even involve, the public, manages to pervert the art form beyond recognition. Unfortunately, Kinkade’s success serves as a lesson for future artists, the same one young fashion designers learn; that they who possess the technical skills can find more success by applying those skills to products with mass appeal, than by producing intelligent, reflective works.
It is a sad commentary on the state of consumerism in the United States that Kinkade’s paintings and Mizrahi’s apparel fit seamlessly into the American scene. This is not surprising, however, in a country where shopping malls and theme parks are built and remodeled more often than libraries and universities. John Chase, author of The Role of Consumerism in American Culture, writes that a building is consumerist in nature “when [its] design advertises the businesses [it] houses or intensifies the experience offered therein” (211). He also notes that “architecture that responds to consumerism deals in direct, rather than abstract, symbolism” (211). In the place of the pyramids of the Egyptians or the colosseums of the Romans or even the Art Deco skyscrapers of the 1930s, the aesthetic of which all served as cultural and political symbols for spiritual and social systems, modern America erected sprawling strip malls and cookie-cutter developments (which perhaps on some level do function as symbols of American spiritual and social systems).
Some proponents of so-called “art” for the masses would no doubt disagree with the assertions made in this essay. Isaac Mizrahi, of course, would dispute the claim that he is surrendering to corporate America, claiming to simply be making high fashion available to the public at affordable rates. Thomas Kinkade would object that his paintings are not homogenous and empty, rather, they emphasize the simple pleasures of life. John Chase would argue that high art architecture has faltered because modern architects have yet to fully understand the suburban landscape. While these claims are superficially true, and there do exist a few artists today who are committed to creating true fine art, it cannot be denied that the vast majority of modern fine art lacks innovation as well as imagination. The people of the United States desperately need to demand fine art that is intrinsically reflective, art whose essential nature is contributory to society in a way that broadens and expands the minds of the people, stimulating question and discussion, to save society from descending into a quagmire of unseeing thoughtless and limitless apathy.
Works Cited:
Aristotle. “The Poetics.” Republic.< http://www.authorama.com/the-poetics-2.html>
Chase, John. “The Role of Consumerism in American Architecture.” Journal of Architectural Education. Aug. 1991. pp. 211-224. Vol. 44, No. 4. < http://www.jstor.org/pss/1425143>
Horyn, Cathy. "Fashion, but maybe beside the point." NewYorkTimes.com. 8 Sept. 2008.The New York Times.8 Sept. 2008 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/fashion/shows/09review.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=fashion,%20but%20maybe%20beside%20the%20point&st=cse&oref=slogin >
Roulet, Norm. "Art, McDonaldization, and the Globalization of Society." RealNeo. 6 Nov. 2004.Cleveland Institute of Art.38 Sept. 2008 http://realneo.us/blog/norm-roulet/11/05/04-7-8-pm-art-mcdonaldization-and-the-globalization-of-society.
Target Brands, Inc. "Women." Target.com. Target Brands, Inc. 23 Sept. 2008 http://www.target.com/women/b/ref=nav_t_spc_1_1/601-6704314-2507318?ie=utf8&node=1041790.
Whiteley, Nigel. “Pop, Consumerism, and the Design Shift.” Design Issues,, Vol. 2, No. 2 Design Issues. Autumn 1985. pp. 31-45, Vol. 2, No. 2 < http://www.jstor.org/pss/1511416>
Agins, Teri. The End of Fashion : How Marketing Changed the Clothing Business Forever. New York: Harper Paperbacks, 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment