The value of Art in America today has declined due to increasing quantity of art, innovations in technology, and the declining middle class.  Art for most is a wholly individual experience and one’s own aesthetic interaction to a piece of artwork is a completely subjective experience. The idea that the overall value of Art in America is measurable could be debated tirelessly to no end. The value of any one piece of artwork starts as a solely individual experience, in which a piece of art invokes an aesthetic interaction or mental conversation from the viewer. It could be almost entirely impossible and pointless in intent, to attempt to measure a viewer response from every person, and then survey each viewer for a perceived value of that particular piece of artwork. 

“…The better terms you are on with any particular work of art, the more it feels incommensurable with all others. While you are willing to praise its own special good features, you may not be willing to say that what is a good feature in this work will be a good feature in any work, or that the lack of this feature is always a defect. Perhaps each work cannot be appraised by externally-imposed general principles, but only in its own terms, by its own standards, on its own merits.” [i]

However, we can measure a communal shared aesthetic. If a piece of artwork was replicated thousands of times, with slight variation to each piece, we could survey thousands of viewers within a specific group, and look for a measured aesthetic commonality or value of that work in each variation. If an owner of a photograph sees the same picture they paid money for replicated all over the internet in slight variation, all of the sudden that work has lesser value. There is definite value in the uniqueness of a piece of artwork.  As the means to create and sell art become easier due to the digital age and the internet, the overall number of artists producing art increases. As the amount of art for sale increases, it becomes harder to discern the uniqueness of one piece of work compared to another. Many artists believe that there are no more truly original artistic ideas. Creating original art is a challenge for anyone looking to make money at selling art. In addition to the quantity or supply of art in the United States, the overall economy affects the value of art.  As the economy has slowed in the United States, and unemployment and the cost of goods has increased, the amount of income that one is willing to spend on artwork has declined. It is difficult for any person of any socio economic class to find good reason to invest in artwork when there is uncertainty in the economy.

     Individual art schools are pouring out MFA students in the hundreds per semester. Each is armed with a set of refined skills for selling art in America today. Each student believes that their art is going to sell if they market themselves and their work, according to a prescribed method that the school has taught them. The universities help students develop their art, concepts, skills, portfolios, websites, marketing strategies etc. They help students to get their art into the marketplace, into galleries, into exhibitions and competitions.  With more artists, exponentially comes more art. Today there are so many more acceptable forms of media in the art world. Everything can be art; recycled organic materials, art that destroys itself, flash mobs, menstrual blood paintings, anti-music noise, creating faked historical characters and news events, covering ocean coastlines in fabric, even art that mocks art itself. Anything and everything can be considered art today.  As this country, and the world’s population increases so does the amount of art work that is created. With more work in more galleries, exhibitions, and shows, there will be more work sold and more work not sold. By the laws of supply and demand, the value or demand of art will reduce based on the mass quantity of art available. With every new artist, and every new medium realized, a terrific mass of art is digitally available to every person. A quick glance through any Photobucket or Flickr website will result tens of thousands of similar digital photographs. Many of the pictures will be of the same exact subject or of similar subject matter.  Websites such as Etsy, are a great world marketplace for artists that could not otherwise show and sell their work to the entire world. Many of the arts and crafts sold on Etsy could be considered fine art. Many of them could also be found in common jewelry or craft stores. Nonetheless these works in abundance and in ease of availability lessen the worth of similar pieces in the fine art world. A pair of beetle shell earrings that normally could only be found by visiting a particular gallery where an artist shows their work are now a few simple Google searches away. Obviously one would expect to pay more for an item from an art gallery, than from Etsy, right? Similar artwork available in large available quantity has lessened value to consumers.

     Advances in the digital art world have made it easier more than ever for every person to create. However due to the ease of digitally enhanced and produced art, the value of art which could be created digitally has come into question.  Due to the lessoning price of technology today, it is easier than ever before to become a digital artist, photographer, or a computer graphic designer. Improvements in auto CAD, musical recording and engineering software, digital sculpting techniques, as well as the falling prices of on demand printing and production have all added to the digital art boom.  Any person can easily become a digital musician, published writer, draftsman, textile designer, or even sculptor, without years of on-site training, and access to the expensive tools and studios. Yet, the question is has the ease and speed of producing art cheapened or lessened the value of the end result? Today a smartphone has the capacity to do the same functions that would’ve taken an extremely complex and expensive computer to do. Today a digital photograph on a camera phone, can be edited with a version of Photoshop, and uploaded to Flickr or Photobucket, all in a couple of finger touches to the screen.  In literature, advances in speech recognition and writing software, paired with computerized production techniques, have allowed first time authors to print individual paper bound copies of their work. With very minimal typing or grammar skills, authors can post on demand books to Amazon for pre-purchase and have them shipped to the buyer all within days.  Sculptors and textile designers today are able to design on a computer three dimensional objects using stylus and digital drawing pads and then electronically send these renders to a factory to be robotically produced.   All of these innovations are helping the artist to create in an easier, simpler, and more cost and time effective way. 

     Today a musician doesn’t need to learn to play an instrument. Using audio software anyone can digitally and visually with the click of a mouse, arrange beats and notes on a computer, creating songs. Also, anyone can sing into a microphone and then digitally correct any erroneous notes to get the desired melody or harmony.  This music can be posted to iTunes or other for sale or free download sites and adds to the entire body of music available. Consumers of music have long left the idea that music had monetary value.  Since the days of Napster and peer to peer file sharing began millions of consumers whom used to purchase music have stopped.  Why pay for art or music when you can get it for free? The digital transition from vinyl records with original art printed sleeves to compact discs and then to digital downloads has lessened even more the value of music in our lives.  An album used to be a whole experience with artists such as Pink Floyd creating a concept album taking a listener on a journey with each song a chapter. Today consumers can choose only purchase their favorite tracks to exercise to. Imagine deciding to only purchase the corner of a Picasso painting that particularly inspires you. 

     Similar to producing quick consumable music, a piece of literature can be digitally created, published, and bought all in the same day. What used to be only available in a paper bound book, of which only a few thousand were printed and sold at the local book store, is now fully available digitally, with a click of the finger on your smartphone. Today a piece of literature sells for much less than the past because there isn’t the cost of printing it to paper and distributing it to book stores.  Unfortunately the brick and mortar stores that used to sell art, music, and literature may be forced to reinvent themselves to stay in business.

        Many consumers don’t know or care to find out about the amount of time that would go into the creation of a piece of art, music, or literature.  Therefore, they haven’t a good idea of how to value art.  Art history has shown that the value of art work hinges on the consumers understanding of it.  Museums and the staff at the museums educate the public about art and build an artist’s credentials.  Artists and art historians help to explain to people without a visual arts vocabulary, how a piece of artwork is produced, what is the artist’s intent, and why is it particularly valuable or inspirational. This same concept applies to audio and literature. On-line magazines through critic’s reviews educate the world on the value of art. Educating the consumer on works of creativity adds to the value of the art.   When a listener understands the training needed to create music from different instruments it changes their value of it. Many people might explain that they don’t particularly like classical music, yet they do value it highly.  So, when a trained ear or musician listens to music, and thinks about how much time a musician may spend on writing, creating, and recording a piece work, It may seem unthinkable that a song could be sold for only one dollar.

     Art funding in general in the United States has decreased due to a shift in the American societies understanding of art, its value, and its role in the middle class household.

“The three federal agencies devoted to making arts and cultural grants will take an 11.2% collective hit under the budget deal that institutes the largest spending cut in U.S. history… The NEA and NEH each will take a $12.5-million cut this year, from $167.5 million to $155 million -– a 7.5% reduction. Spending at the IMLS will decrease from $282.2 million to $237.9 million, a drop of 15.7%. “[ii]

 In many middle class homes today it would be common to find a $1000 to $2000 flat screen television hanging on a wall. Yet, it would be much harder to find an original piece of artwork hanging on a wall in the same household. The idea of the worth of a piece of artwork greatly differs in a household that makes under $100,000 a year, as it does in a household that makes more than that. The upper-class which have more disposable income will always be the primary buyers of art.  However, with the recession and the repossession of homes due to the mortgage crisis, many families have been forced to move into smaller rental apartments.  With less wall space in a smaller home, middle class folks will have less space to even contemplate putting artworks even after the economy recovers.  Also, many Americans would say that a television is a necessity. Understandably a television for most, would give a greater amount of entertainment hours.  As a return on investment, a lower or middle class family can’t afford to go out to a movie and dinner or for live entertainment on a regular basis.  Yet they can always plop on the couch and watch syndicated television with a frozen pizza. Even though many people would love to have an original piece of artwork on their walls, the value of artwork for them is low.  Until the economy rebounds and disposable income per household increases, cheap reproduced prints from Ikea, and low resolution camera phone pics on the fridge will be the fine art of the middle class.  

     As the middle class in America is struggling with finding jobs, many are going back to school. However when times get tough, and one goes back to school it’s usually to hone existing skills, or get a degree in a field that will provide a stable income. Unfortunately most students realize that art as a degree will not yield the best return on investment, when it comes to securing employment with benefits and pensions. This is because selling art can be very challenging.  Getting ones work into galleries, and in front of potential buyers can be a daily job in and of itself. Furthermore, even after going to the right schools, getting into the right galleries, and getting a few buyers, how does an artist increase the value of their work?  It’s not a simple business plan that turns to easy profit for the majority of artists.  Therefore, as many go back to school, or send their children to school, Art degrees will be less sought after for the lower and middle class. 

“L.A. Unified officials also instituted a spending freeze, which resulted in the abrupt postponement of the arts program. In a Dec. 12 e-mail, district administrators told arts instructors with the Arts Community Partnership Network to cancel all work immediately and that payments might be delayed, though work could begin again next month if the state resolves its budget crisis.”[iii]

 Instead, most middle class students go into math and science related fields, such as nursing, or computer science.  These fields are growing and have growing federal funding, have a consistent widespread need and better job placement.

     People will always produce art. However, as the economy is struggling, they won’t though go to professional school to become an artist. Less numbers of students enrolled in Arts programs will result in less funding to Art programs that rely on student enrollment fees to stay open. Politicians will adjust budgets to directly correlate to the values of their constituents. Therefore art education programs funded by government revenue will be decreased. 

“At Washington State University the department of theater arts and dance has been eliminated. At Florida State University the undergraduate program in art education and two graduate theater programs are being phased out. The University of Arizona is cutting three-quarters of its funds, more than $500,000, for visiting classical music, dance and theater performers. Wesleyan University’s Center for the Arts, which supports four departments — dance, music, theater and visual arts — is losing 14 percent of its $1.2 million budget over the next two years. The Louisiana State University Museum of Art, one of the largest university-affiliated collections in the South, saw 20 percent of its state financing disappear.”[iv]

In an ideal democracy, the government represents its people’s priorities, viewpoints, and moral objectivity.  Therefore, a correlation could be made between the worsening economy, and ensuing budget cuts in the endowments for the arts, and a funding for arts programs in education.  Americans are questioning their tax monies going to health care, and aid to the poor and elderly let alone funding for art programs in school. Public funding for the arts is not a priority for the majority of Americans today. 

          The idea that we could eventually end up with a society without art seems ridiculous. However, when we think that federal funding for the arts has been steadily reduced yearly, especially in the visual arts, we begin to see how an end to governmental funding of arts could be the near future. Perhaps the reason for a devaluing of art in our society stems from our definition of what Art is and why is it important in any society. So, what is Art? How do we understand it as something that is integral to our quality of life? Are things we do every day by most every person art? Could they be considered art? We call a person who applies make-up to actors and actresses a make-up “artist”. If we apply make-up ourselves are we an artist? Is a hair stylist an artist? Is cooking an art? Is there a level of skill required that elevates one to become an artist in any genre? Does money have to be exchanged for artistic skills before one becomes an artist or for art to have value?

     For all of the art that is being pumped into our new digital reality today, we as consumers will ultimately decide whether or not any, some, or all of it has a value to us. When a culture or society loses the want or value for art a serious question arises about that civilization. Many eastern cultures may not believe that art needs a separate title. They may view art as purely utility based in subject matter. The idea that art has worth has been frowned upon in many American families. Parents may discourage children from following a career in art because they are afraid that it won’t provide a steady income to raise a family or even live upon. Americans share a western understanding of art. Most westerners have an idea of art that stems from schools and museums which tell them what Art is. Many Americans may believe Art as a secondary interest such as a hobby yet caution it as a sole means of pursuit for income. We have separated our innate creativity from a forced creativity in search of a capitalistic product and to find a way to profit from it.

     To simply be creative doesn’t automatically make a person as an artist. Or does it? Many people believe that to be an artist or at least a professional artist means to sell one’s own work. Many artists think about their creations for years before they even begin the process of creation. Most times artists ponder the possibilities of numerous materials, and the many processes available before ever beginning the physical creation process. The thought process of the creation of art is an art all of its own. When we look at certain types of art we see like in the “happenings” of the sixties that the creation of art sometimes is the art. Even a flash mob could be considered an art form even though; it is only a momentary gathering of dance and then only exists in video or memory afterwards. Sculptures and kinetic machines by the artist Jean Tinguely destroy themselves; self-destructing art.   The process of creation becomes art when the artist or even the viewer decides it. Anything can be art, only the artist can decide and the viewer can agree or disagree inconsequently. When we look at children’s art we see an untrained approach to creation. The simplicity of it leaves a lasting impression on us. We look for similarity between what we have been taught is art, and what we think resembles it in the child’s work. We might notice that an abstract work of art itself resembles something that could be done by a child. Is the physical piece of art the final product, or is the art the thought process of an artist that led to the creation itself? The idea of artist’s intent and the purposeful creation process inspired by the artist, and the reproducibility of the art itself all has value. If everyone is an artist there would be no need for money to be related to art. This would change the dynamic of what we perceive as the value of art.  

     The reduction of the amount of paid artists due to devaluation in the monetary value of art could be a positive.  Many times new artist’s movements are born from artists looking to escape the confines and boundaries of the set canons or rules of what or who is an artist in the popular society. Many times these new artist’s movements eventually gain worldwide notoriety and value. Perhaps a Darwinian natural selection process for art and artists could eventually benefit the art world. With a reduction of government funding for the arts, less students would pursue art careers. With fewer jobs available for artists, competition would increase, and more artists would turn to different means to make a living. With fewer “artists”, less art work would be for sale.  People would still be creative, yet not necessarily seek to make money from it. Removing money from the motivation of creation could create noticeably unique and refreshing art. Without deadlines and the constraints of making something sellable, the artist’s true expression could be sought after. With fewer self-titled artists, creating less art for sale, an energized art field not related to selling art could be re-birthed.

Works Cited

[i] Beardsley, Monroe C. The Concept of Economy in Art, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , Vol. 14, No. 3 (Mar., 1956), pp. 370-375 Blackwell Publishing

[ii]  -http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/04/obama-congress-arts-funding.html

[iii] -http://articles.latimes.com/2008/Dec/29/local/me-lausd29

[iv] -http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/arts/10cuts.html

In the time since Nirvana, Foo Fighters drummer Dave Grohl has elaborated on the lost art of rock n roll. Arming himself with members from Sunny Day Real Estate and honestly admitting that though his drumming skills are still up to caliber (though admitting Hawking is better), he took hold of the guitar and microphone to voice his idea of what rock was, and is. When listening to a Foo Fighters song don’t forget that the band is now in their fourties at least, and is looking to summon the great rock n roll sounds of the seventies to the present. Their sound sets it self apart from all of the digital NORD based, over produced bands of the now, and at the same time reminds us that even though rockers may get a little older, they  have wives and kids, they can still rock out with a half stack and a full drum kit (not two) and deliver a punch of inspirational hooks and choruses. All the while this band finds time to play a local small venue in your neighborhood, to remind us that the digital era of backing tracks and arena sounds, may have us enraptured in its song at a time instant rapture, whilst we can still have faith in a complete audio work of art etched into vinyl.

Grohl will not fool you into believing that he has grown older and looks to inspire on every new format and level of digital inspiration as his peers have. Instead, he reminds you that though what we call “Classic Rock” today is actually what he mastered, along with the unduplicated bands such as Sound Garden years ago. The Foo Fighters are gripping tightly to the great rock of the seventies that they grew up upon just as closely as the kids in their teens today will grip upon the Arcade Fires etc. in twenty years from now. Music is about the moment that you experienced it in the moment that made it so perfect in your mind. For many listeners, the Foo Fighters may seem dated, but in the mindset of the band and for many whom grew up on Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Sunny Day Realestate, there is a reality of musicianship, analog, and vinyl, that digital will never recreate or replace. Before throwing out the old with the new, remember that Hendrix, Morrison, or even Styx, Joplin and CCR imprinted upon generation after generation after generation. Only the great songs that take several listens to truly enjoy will become the classics that we enjoy decades from now. While the “Right Said Freds”, and the “Rick Isaac’s” will hold a place for that generation and then be forgotten; waiting for a karaoke singer to relive their gleening minutes in music history.