Art, For Arts Sake??

I don't know about you, but I'm TIRED of the glamour. I'm telling you, if I have one more piece of sensationalized bulls*** hurled at my face, I'll be as sick as a blog. The power of image, under the flattering guise of "art", has not lost it's fervor nor it's insistince on constructing some sort of false reality.


In Greuze's "The Beloved Mother", there is a strong sense of idealism being portrayed. It doesn't take a seasoned historian to see the ample emphasis being placed on the Mother in this picture, and to know that that sort of thing isn't the norm. Even now, the majority of people(especially in the U.S.) generally retain a patriarchal model of "family". The role of the Father being the head of household is considered a 'normal' one. Children who've grown up in families that are lead by single-mothers are still subject to the ideal of having the traditional "Mommy/Daddy" roles, where the Dad is the boss and Mom is the submissive counterpart. I know-- I've lived it. And while these roles have shifted slightly throughout previous generations, and women within the home now have a tighter grip on it, the template is still the same! What then is the perpetuate of such an ideal?


Back in the day, art was pretty limited to the form(s) and medium(s) of painting, sculpture, and drawing. There was no television, no printing, no internet. There were no giant billboards lining the cobblestone streets and certainly no form of airbrushing in order to perfect the images that the billboard might contain. Fine art for the masses is now seen through advertising and the level of its consumption is now at an all time high. While meticulous paintings were done to portray the importance of certain values within society such as: aristocracy, wealth, patriotism, and in this case the value of a woman; art NOW comes a lot easier and its messages are able to be mass produced at a higher rate. This means an image is able to influence A LOT more people! And we've all fallen subject to consuming it, allowing it to influence us, and then regurgitating it back up into our own lives as semi-digested, idealized cud that we continue to chew on in hopes of creating/sustaining some sort of "reality".


The first thing I thought of when this subject came up in class, were the overly exemplified "housewife" advertisements of the fifties. While Greuze's painting seemed to place value on the Mother as the bearer and keeper of children, adverts from the fifties and sixties not only emphasized her role as the rearer of her children, but also her husband, and her immaculate household. This is not to go without saying that she should perform all said 'rearing' whilst wearing a girdle, pantyhose, high heels, and a string of pearls. To me this sounds downright masochistic! There is nothing more unrealistic to me than vacuuming in a girdle and a pair of heels. I can barely traipse down Market in a pair of stilletos without tripping, let alone perform daily household duties! Whether this means a decline in society, or an increase in laziness, it's hard for me to imagine any woman enjoying this lifestyle. I mean, what woman (or man, for that matter) would find it satisfying to struggle in the confines of her kitchen all day on stilts and wrapped in spandex, just so her husband can have dinner on the table--piping hot, no less-- right when he gets home from his "strenuous" workday?? I don't know, but they did. And it's sad, but so, so true. And it's all thanks to the ubiquitous images of this 'model housewife' in the very pages of her leisure reading.


Another example of this is comic books. Seriously, how many females do you see walking down the street with the 'perfect' proportions of Wonder Woman? I mean, it's no wonder men can be so critical of the female body, and cultivate obsessions with butts and boobs, when they are being fed these images at the impressionable age of 13! Has anyone seriously analyzed a comic book hero? With females, their breasts are often much larger than their heads, and their butts are as big as their breasts! Their limbs--needed to hold up such extraordinary assets-- are infinitely long and slender, as are their waists. Is this normal? Is this attainable? Is this healthy? I think NOT! If that was real life, that woman would hardly be able to walk down the street without falling over. We would think she looked more like an alien than a woman. Same with the men! If I saw some super-hero strutting down the street with all those bulging muscles and bulging nether-regions, I would fear for my life rather then assume he was there to save it! These images that are being put out by some very talented artists, are being consumed by some very vulnerable teenagers. The concept of body image is so skewed when looking at these cartoons. The way people feel about their own bodies, as well as their interpretation of others, at this stage in life, are still being formed. So what are unrealistic images such as these impressing upon individuals realities? (Ugh, and don't even get me started on the waif like models in magazines!!)

Finally, the most current constructor (or commentator, I should say) of culture, through image, that I can think of is none other than Mr. Shepard Fairey. Fairey's philosophy on art is focused on the phenomenon of the perpetuated image. More specifically, the masses response to an image that is mass produced. He started with a very generic image of Andre the Giant, and posted it up on every wall, street sign, billboard, and bathroom stall. Without any explanation, only the image of a face, people became intrigued and immediately adopted the image without any real cause or reason. While Shepard's artwork is not necessarily idealizing a certain society, it IS bringing to light the downfalls of our current one. There is a danger in the consumer mentality, and I think his art is commenting on that. His constant over-reproduction of images is sort of a throw back to Warhols work, and like Warhol there is a satirical element involved in the effect that an image has on people. Obama's face has never looked so cool, since it went through Fairey's wheat-paste ringer, and no doubt has it called more political attention to the community than before.

There is something very powerful about art and image. Its power to seep into the human brain, run through its crevices and conduct it to think accordingly. Art is, now-a-days, fueled by some sort of agenda. It's been said that there exists no longer the idea of "Art, for Arts Sake." That is to say that the common consumer will not consume art because it is beautiful, but because the image is multiplied several times and engrained into the mind, along with its corresponding values and ideas. Society is often looking outward for cues on how to live, and when these values/ideas are wrapped up in a pretty package (read: picture), they become a lot easier to consume. And that's freakin' scary!