In an attempt to understand what legitimizes art in a modern culture and how social status comes into play within this community, this discourse will attempt to present a collection of theories and ideas from various sources creating a multifaceted view on the subject. With particular reference to Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of social capital (Fensham, 2002) and the work of artist Grayson Perry (“Grayson Perry”, 2014), I will attempt to make an informed and reflexive analysis of what ‘legitimate’ art is, why and if it really exists at all. In conjunction with this, I will use the long debated art and craft dichotomy in relation to my own praxis as an example in an attempt to shed light on this subject and reflexively explore how it affects myself
…show more content…
This win had Adrian Searle - arts critic for The Guardian - debating the legitimacy of Perry’s win, using his pottery as a means to disqualify his artistic license. In his review of the 2003 Turner Prize awards, Searle gives his blunt and honest view on the winning artist, criticising both his work and his intentions. He states “Perry’s art and his double-persona are, you might say, all of a piece, all aspects of his creative drive. I am not certain that this is enough. His pots are offbeat luxury goods”. Searle also suggests that the subject matter displayed though Perry’s pots could just as easily be offered in another form adding that he makes “middling, minor art” (Searle, 2003). In comparison to Searle’s (2003) article, in their own dissertation, Lees-Maffei and Sandino collect a comparison of information by time and region to make informed deductions in regards to interplay of art, craft and design. Lees-Maffei and Sandino believe that everything is subject to historical and cultural changes. That it is vital to “consider not only changes in the ways makers relate to these categories, exemplified by Perry but also changes in the categories themselves as they are applied through various institutions and discourses”(Lees-Maffei & Sandino, 2004). The question now, is …show more content…
However it was around this time that the paintings, sculptures and engravings began to be honoured highly by showing them in separate gallery’s to pottery and a variety of decorative crafts. Its enjoyment bore witness to the taste of the privileged class (1994). Change occurred when artist ceased making their own materials, and when works produced in mediums requiring a high level of technical knowledge like mosaic and fresco fell out of trend (Ioannou, 1989). When this occurred other activities like stone and woodcarving also became more and more uncommon in fine art and a result, the necessity for specialized technical knowledge also decreased (Risatti, 2007). Lees-Maffei and Sandino discuss the shift from craft skills to visual experimentation in a more recent culture and relate this to Bourdieu’s expression of the bid of the artist for autonomy (Lees-Maffei & Sandino, 2004). Suggesting that along with these ever more (and ironically) common ‘elite’ pieces, is brought promises of distinction to the consumer that Bourdieu discusses (Fensham, 2002). Stating “contemporary visual culture displays a continuing concern for spiritual enlightenment through consumption” (Lees-Maffei & Sandino, 2004). This discussion of a seemingly never ending tussle between theoretical distinction and technical value leaves
This win had Adrian Searle - arts critic for The Guardian - debating the legitimacy of Perry’s win, using his pottery as a means to disqualify his artistic license. In his review of the 2003 Turner Prize awards, Searle gives his blunt and honest view on the winning artist, criticising both his work and his intentions. He states “Perry’s art and his double-persona are, you might say, all of a piece, all aspects of his creative drive. I am not certain that this is enough. His pots are offbeat luxury goods”. Searle also suggests that the subject matter displayed though Perry’s pots could just as easily be offered in another form adding that he makes “middling, minor art” (Searle, 2003). In comparison to Searle’s (2003) article, in their own dissertation, Lees-Maffei and Sandino collect a comparison of information by time and region to make informed deductions in regards to interplay of art, craft and design. Lees-Maffei and Sandino believe that everything is subject to historical and cultural changes. That it is vital to “consider not only changes in the ways makers relate to these categories, exemplified by Perry but also changes in the categories themselves as they are applied through various institutions and discourses”(Lees-Maffei & Sandino, 2004). The question now, is …show more content…
However it was around this time that the paintings, sculptures and engravings began to be honoured highly by showing them in separate gallery’s to pottery and a variety of decorative crafts. Its enjoyment bore witness to the taste of the privileged class (1994). Change occurred when artist ceased making their own materials, and when works produced in mediums requiring a high level of technical knowledge like mosaic and fresco fell out of trend (Ioannou, 1989). When this occurred other activities like stone and woodcarving also became more and more uncommon in fine art and a result, the necessity for specialized technical knowledge also decreased (Risatti, 2007). Lees-Maffei and Sandino discuss the shift from craft skills to visual experimentation in a more recent culture and relate this to Bourdieu’s expression of the bid of the artist for autonomy (Lees-Maffei & Sandino, 2004). Suggesting that along with these ever more (and ironically) common ‘elite’ pieces, is brought promises of distinction to the consumer that Bourdieu discusses (Fensham, 2002). Stating “contemporary visual culture displays a continuing concern for spiritual enlightenment through consumption” (Lees-Maffei & Sandino, 2004). This discussion of a seemingly never ending tussle between theoretical distinction and technical value leaves