The role of art and by extension the role of the artist in society is a controversial topic. Should art reflect the times and no more – whatever the good and the bad may be of contemporaneous times? Should art only serve the cause of beauty, whatever that may be even if ‘beauty’ is mostly divorced from the everyday? Should art serve its own interests – art for art’s sake – but what are those interests? Should art insert itself into social justice movements as an instigator and a catalyst of change? Or are these movements no place for ‘real’ art – ‘high art’?
One thing is certain, while artists and other stakeholders figure out art’s nature and role in society, the capitalist market forces have recognised its potential for astronomical monetary gain and prestige despite their evident occasional confusion about its nature. Thus, a banana duct taped to a wall in the formation of an ‘X’ may flabbergast in its parade as art. Meanwhile, the written instructions for its re-installation (with any other cayenne-looking banana) can comfortably fetch over US$100,000 when sold (as it did just a few years ago). Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opposed to a set of carefully written instructions as the object of transaction in an art sale. I am all for the idea as art.
I am dismayed by the multi-million US dollar figures attached to works from long-gone artists who in their lifetime might not have had the good fortune to sell much of their work. I think of Vincent Van Gogh (1853-1890) who is typically thought to have sold no paintings during his lifetime. In fact, according to one Van Gogh specialist, thus far it is certain that Van Gogh sold one painting while alive – ‘The Red Vineyard’ (1888). I think of the specialist’s report that a different picture of Van Gogh that sold within the year after his death for 300 francs was resold 11 years later for 50,000 francs, and another that was acquired at the same time for the same amount, 99 years later and many changes in ownership fetched US$50million. This was in 1990. What could the work fetch today, 34 years later?
Indeed, looking at a work of art from a formalist orientation (as I attempted to explain in the earliest editions of this column from October to December 2022) is easy and can be fruitful. One need only consider the elements of art and the principles of design. But an equally (and perhaps even more) fruitful way of looking at art is contextually. In other words, consider the context of the work’s emergence: who made the work – the gender, ‘race’, nationality, etc. of the artist, their life story if accessible, and the socio-cultural and political context of the work’s creation. Relative to the latter, what was the socio-cultural and political climate of the space the artist occupied and further afield, as a wider socio-cultural and geo-political context may have a bearing on the work? But just as important, what were the new movements in art as the work was being created? What ideas were galvanizing new art or what technical approaches were new or current and how do these intersect with the work under consideration?
Admittedly, looking at a work of art as a factor of its context requires work on the part of the casual and scholar-viewer. Research is required. Thus, in contextually looking at works of art one can look at the work through multiple theoretical lenses. For instance, raced or gendered politics. After all, art, as with any human production, is created within specific socio-cultural and historical circumstances, and these are likely to impact the artwork. Furthermore, these theoretical approaches may not only inform casual and in-depth looking but can also inform critical approaches to writing about art as well as the production of art.
One such theoretical approach is Marxist art criticism. What does the artwork say about workers in society and their relationship to the means of production and the wealth generated by their labour? What is the relationship of the work of art or the artist to society? For Marxists, art and artists are an integral part of society and the forces of the market alienate the artists from his/her production. Thus, the saleability of the work points to a crisis in art. Through this lens, the artists become the producers of products and their production is determined by the buyer through their willingness to acquire the product of the artist. Therefore, if the market does not respond to the product, the producer eventually changes the nature of the product until a satisfactory relationship is established. The artist in their need to sell work – gain monetarily from the work – thus align their output with the market.
However, an artist guided by this theoretical position would at the very least seek to align their work through the visual language of realism to critiquing the relationship between producers and their products and the circumstances of the toil of the worker. Within our National Collection, the painting ‘Rice Har-vesters’ fits firmly within this remit but so does the full figure sculpture portrait of Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow OBE (1884-1958) found in the compound of Parliament Building, Georgetown. Both are works by the E R Burrowes MBE (1903-1966). In the first of the two works he populates the painting’s composition with wanting-to-be-heroic figures toiling in the fields while the sculpture attempts a likeness of the trade unionist. Neither work celebrates or aggrandizes the rich or the powerful. Instead, Burrowes’s focus is on workers engaged in toil and one who fought on their behalf. Artists guided by this theoretical orientation may also wish to image the life of the working people beyond the toil of work. Therefore, reflecting without sanitising the life and times of regular working folk in place of the luxuries and amusements of the rich and privileged owners of production. Thus, the artist becomes a force of social progress and transformation.
