Hearing how it went in and out of style several times, and that it was originally unpopular seems amusing to me.
I always assumed the lamp was a bi-product of the 60s, created by somebody who wanted to stimulate psychedelic situations.
To think it was considered ugly from the time it was actually made is pretty funny.
Similarly, the lava lamp follows a discussion about "kitsch" art.
I can see the reasoning in Clement Greenberg's criticism of kitsch works, because all around us are cheap replications famous artwork, or sloppily designed and mass produced pieces.
What comes to mind for me is the back of Ross or T.J. Max, where they have clumps of cheap artistic decorations.
There is nothing wrong with these decorations (aside from feeling as cheap as they actually are), but I can see how from an artistic viewpoint that that kind of kitsch work and reproduction further deteriorates the value of real art pieces.
As we live in a culture that values appearances of our possessions and home as a representation of ourselves, everyone decorates in some way. These cheap decorations make this goal achievable, and satisfy the demand.
But as a aftermath, I wonder how this affects how people view art and the value of it. I imagine it lowers the general public's view of art's value, with thoughts such as;
"Well it looks nice, but I don't see how it's worth 5 grand when I have something similar for $15."
While the originality of a piece, as well as it being the only one, adds immense worth in the art community, I fear the general public doesn't see the value of the original over the reproduction (and will see it less with the continued flooding of cheap art in stores and homes).
-Thomas Holland
No comments:
Post a Comment