Lecture 2 - 20,000 Year Non-linear History of the Image

This lecture ran through a sporadic history of the power of the image and it's uses and employment in different years. It was interesting to be made aware of the connections between image making by different people, from different places and at different points in history, and to listen to Richard's thoughts on the authority and substance behind certain works of art.

Going all the way back to cave paintings, the creation of image appears to be a pure human act, a natural and almost spontaneous expression of visual creation. I feel like they are equally documentations of daily life and the world around the creators, as they are mystical communications of magic or the work of a higher plane of consciousness. There is something inherently deeper about image making that goes beyond mere passive documentation, something uniquely human and conscious as to why somebody feels the need to create a mark on a wall. And I don't believe that the same compulsion is anywhere near lost today. As a species we still make images, even more so than 20,000 years ago, and even if the motives and reasons have developed and altered since, that pure necessity for creation still exists. However, an interesting question was posed in the lecture, debating whether this connection was genuine and true, or whether a higher authority had dictated this, making a false link between the earliest uses of images to the present day. Institutions such as art galleries and universities perhaps romanticise this notion for their own benefit, or because they believe it true even if it is not.

Richard Long's 'Red Earth Circle' creates this link between aborigine and modern contemporary art, whether that link fictitious or otherwise. The motives behind this are ambiguous; on one hand, which is probably the most likely, Long is paying tribute to the art practices that have come before him, referencing the traditional sand paintings on the floor with his mud circle on the wall. This creates a dialogue between the two cultures and times in history, uniting the two acts of creation and displaying that concept of human expression still being relevant today as it was thousands of years ago. Another interpretation however is one a little less considerate, that is that this exhibition is commoditising aborigine art and even suggesting that the third world is behind the first world. By displaying the two together, it almost teases the aborigines with a place that they could reach if they developed more, a place accessible and free to the western world. It could show superiority, especially with the placement of the mud circle rising above and looking down on the sand painting of the third world. Although which meaning is true is, in a way, down to the viewer to decide, no matter what the artists and institution claims. 

Authority and hierarchy in the art world is quite a predominant and interesting discussion. Linking back to whether the connections between art from history and art from today are legitimate or institutionally made up, there is a similar argument as to what art is deemed important. It is commonly supposed that the galleries and higher powers have the final say in what work is praised and considered  a higher status that others, and thus changing peoples perceptions and responses to certain work. As questioned in the lecture, take the Mona Lisa for example, arguably the world's most famous painting; is the painting famous for it's technical superiority? or just because someone high up said so, provoking people to make pilgrimages to worship the portrait? A sheep like mentality ensues, to the point where tourists are queuing, elbowing each other aside to get digital proof that they have seen the real thing. Artists since have highlighted this absurdity, such as Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q version, where he has drawn facial hair on a cheap postcard of the Da Vinci portrait.

A similar thing happened with the likes of street artist Banksy, that is the art world deciding something is important and the general public bowing down to this dictated status. He is one of the only artists ever to be praised so highly for illegal graffiti, when other artists often more talented and prolific are put behind bars for the exact same act. So much so that people rip down walls he has painted to sell at auction, where people pay thousands to own, and councils put up plastic panes over his work to preserve it in the streets. This is something that has constantly baffled me and rattled my cage for a long time, the unapologetic hypocrisy of the authorities, in the art world but mostly in the government and those in power of the law. Yes, his work is thought provoking and controversial but he is not the only one making work in that vain, but then maybe it is an argument of accessibility; the general public can more or less understand and read his work. Not that it is watered down per say, but it makes sense to people and even if not the same sheep mentality takes strong hold; the institutions have the power to change people's behaviour.

As the title of Banksy's film suggests, 'Exit Through the Gift Shop', art is made into a commodity by those in power. Through entry fees and merchandise, they use the creations of others to make money, selling postcards, plates, t shirts and everything in between, shepherding you past these commodities before you can exit the gallery or museum. However this could also give the consumer of these items power, degrading the imposed status of the work and making it accessible and usable, even if just as a decorative item. Even if they are not bought, by making this worshipped image into a novelty, almost throw away object, it inherently does this degradation, reducing the value and superior facade of the work. Art as a commodity loses it's power and meaning.