Carl Schorske captured the essence of cultural Vienna in his work “Fin-de-Siecle Vienna: Politics and Culture, which won the Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction in 1981.  Dr. Schorske explores the decline of the Habsburg empire and the concepts of psychological man, city planning and its elitism, intellectual questioning of historical certitudes, modern politics, and modern art all flourished in a creative ferment that characterized Viennese intellectual society.  At the heart of the concept of psychological man was Sigmund Freud who had challenged the concept of “rational man” with a more complex analysis of human behavior.  Psychology did not inherently place man above all beings as did Judeo-Christian religion, rather man was subject to impulses and effort, and did not always act rationally.  This was a new concept of man, that some argued questioned man’s dominion over the world, and introduced a concept of man being part of, rather than controlling, his environment.

This time of great intellectual ferment came to an abrupt close with Nazi power in ascendance, but Freud stayed on in Vienna until June, 1938.  Throughout his professional life Freud had collected various figurines, statuary, jars, and carvings, and his famous couch.  When Freud traveled he would take the bulk of his collection with him.  It seemed a compulsion for Freud to collection these pieces of antiquity, and a passion to have them with him. 

When Freud left Vienna in 1938 — Ms. Burke calls it a flight from Vienna — he left with many of his family, his doctor and his doctor’s family, and this departure was organized by Dr. Ernest Jones and Princess Marie Bonaparte of France.  The negotiations with the Nazi’s on his departure were extended and painful as conditions for Jews began to get worse.  The Nazis demanded an assessment of taxable assets before anyone could leave Austria.  The man assigned to value Freud’s collection was a curator of a local museum  who happened to be a friend of Freud.  The value came in at 500 very devalued Reichsmarks — well below the limit allowed for refugees — and thus Freud was able to take his entire collection with him to London.  He escaped just as  the curtain closed for Jewish emigration from Austria.

Freud took up residence at Maresfield Gardens in London.  Freud’s Viennese curator had memorized the arrangement of his statuary on his desk, and set up his desk in London with the same order.  Freud had been ill in his last years in Vienna, and he died in September 1939 in London, having only lived there for a little over a year.  He felt that the house in London was his nicest, and he spent his last year in the company of his beloved possessions.

One can see Freud’s possessions that he so cherished at the Freud Museum in Maresfield Gardens in Hampstead.  Freud’s Vienna consulting room and study have been recontructed here to resemble his arrangements in Vienna. 

Image by boellstiftung via Flickr

I have never been a huge fan of modern art but I think that governments should stay out of the debate is it art or isn’t it?  Especially when there is tax revenue to be made if a decision goes one way or another.  The United States has (I hope) began to learn that lesson with the Brancusi v. United States case in which the artist’s Birds in Flight were pronounced art because (as a judge put it) while some difficulty might be encountered in associating it [the sculpture] with a bird, it is nevertheless pleasing to look at and highly ornamental, and as we hold under the evidence that it is the original production of a professional sculptor and is in fact a piece of sculpture and a work of art according to the authorities above referred to, we sustain the protest and find that it is entitled to free entry.  Europe, however, has yet to learn this lesson as it has rules that works of Flavin and Viola are not art for purpose of taxation.  That is, the galleries displaying the artists will have to pay a 20 percent value added tax rather than the 5 percent associated with artwork.

While both rulings are ridiculous, the European Commission outdid itself when justifying its Flavin decision.  In the discussion accompanying that decision, the Commission stated that Viola’s video-sound installation cannot be considered sculpture as it is not the installation that constitutes a work of art but the result of the operations (the light effect) carried out by it.  Or as Puerre Valentin (an art lawyer) put it somewhat more succinctly, the Commission said that a work by Dan Flavin is a work of art only when switched on. 

And why should we wonder?  Governments are always looking for tax revenue—and it took the United States 61 years after the Brancusi case to fully learn the lesson that all art is to be duty free.  Europe, it seems, has only now begun that same journey.  Let us hope that Europeans, like Americans before them, will laugh at their governments hard enough to make the latter reconsider whether they really ought to be the final arbiters of taste.

Kinkade’s Aesthetic    
Much of modern art can be classified as dark and depressing but not Kinkade.  Instead he focuses on the natural beauty of small town communities.  Orlean describes his works as “smooth and warm and romantic.”  She goes on to mention that his paintings are not quite real and it seems as if he has not been outside in a while.  Surely Kinkade has been outside recently but today the natural world is not as beautiful as it used to be but at the same time he is not painting the past.  Rather Kinkade is painting what customers wish the world could look like.  In some of his works “the cottages look as if they had been built out of cookie dough and roofed with butter cream, more suited to elves or mice than to human beings.  Even big things, like the Golden Gate Bridge and the Yosemite Valley, look tiny and darling, like toys.”  His work is the antithesis of what most artists are producing which is dark and abstract.  People wanted to see hope and optimism in paintings and those are the values Kinkade brings to the canvas. 

At first glance it might seem as though Berger would disagree with Kinkade’s aesthetic because Berger wants the public to use technology to reflect their own reality and as mentioned before Kinkade’s paintings are not quite real.  Deeper inspection into Kinkade’s works show that he is painting a reality that the masses wish existed.  He is not distorting in a way to mystify the art but instead he is filling a need of the general public.  There are values that are missing in modern art and cannot be found in art of the past because that has been lost to wealthy elite.  Therefore Kinkade is fulfilling Berger’s wish of placing the power back in the hands of the majority.

Kinkade’s Market
Unlike most artists who appeal only to the very elite and wealthy, Kinkade’s work is extremely popular with the middle and upper class.  This customer base allows Kinkade to sell in any suburban atmosphere as opposed to very small galleries in upscale urban areas like Manhattan or Los Angeles.  Orlean shows this when she visits one of the three hundred and fifty Thomas Kinkade Signature Galleries in the United States which can be found among stores like Starbucks and The Limited in any suburban mall.  While the elite have the desire to be unique and different and therefore purchase expensive works of art by renowned artists, the middle class only has the feeling of wanting to be like everyone else in their group.  This feeling of conformity is what makes Kinkade so popular.  The middle class can have the privilege of feeling sophisticated for buying a piece of art that is moderately priced and fit in with their neighbors who have a similar piece.  At the same time everyone has the desire to be a little unique and this is the brilliance of Kinkade’s highlighting system.  Even though the entire neighborhood may have the same painting they may all have something different highlighted which makes all their purchases unique in some way.

Kinkade’s physical appearance and his personal information also appeal to his market.  When one imagines what an artist looks like, the vision of a thin and frail, possibly drug addicted individual in dark clothes with an elitist attitude comes to mind.  Kinkade however has “a chest as broad as a beer keg, and a leisurely and booming laugh” which makes he seem like he is part of the community like “the neighborhood butcher.”  Furthermore, Kinkade did not come from money and use his trust fund to open up his first gallery but rather is someone “who rejected the smart-pants liberal establishment to follow his heart, and who is proud of having earned his way into the ultimate American aristocracy of successful entrepreneurs.”  Knowing this the customer does not resent the wealthy artist because he came from nothing and worked hard for everything he earned, which is how most of his customers feel about themselves.

The final reason Kinkade appeals to such a large market is because he wants to make art for them.  He is tired of art only being for the elite to own and discuss.  Kinkade “wants [his] work to be available but not common” and wants “it to be a dignified component of everyday life.”  He recognizes that the middle class has been kept away from art and their history and he feels that it necessary “to have an art of dignity with our culture, an art of relevance to [the middle classes].”  All of these factors have combined to give Kinkade a growing market that is in the tens of millions.

Another one of Berger’s problem with the current state of art is that it is controlled by a small minority of people.  This leads the common man to be disconnected from his history because the controlling group distorts the art.  Instead of having the art arranged in museums in a way that is easy to access they distort so it no longer makes sense in modern times.  Berger argues that “the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to reinvent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes.”  Kinkade however, is removing the power from the “cultured minority” with his reproductions by allowing the majority to collect and appreciate art.

Kinkade’s Market Manipulation
 In her essay Orlean points out that Kinkade’s ability to manipulate his market is what separates himself from other artists as he is “the only artist to be a small-cap equity issue” (Orlean 3).  Kinkade’s manipulation takes place on many levels.  Early on and through out her piece Orlean references a highlighter named Glenda.  During her seven-day workshop on how to highlight Kinkade’s pieces she had to learn such facts about him as “his birthday, the names of his children, where he met his wife, details of his childhood” (3).  This tactic makes the customer feel as though they are receiving a connection with the artist and are getting more for their money.  Another example is when a woman in the store mopes about learning of Kinkade only recently and now many of her favorite pieces are sold out.  Glenda replies with “Oh, yes, that does happen.”  Subtly but effectively, Glenda lets the woman know that she must stay up on his work or she will miss out on collectible pieces.  The best example of how Glenda manipulates the market is at the end of the article after she has just finished highlighting a pointing for a couple.  First she congratulates the couple for purchasing their very first Kinkade.  This seems silly because the couple is not buying an original piece of art at a gallery in Manhattan but a replica that was made by Hispanic workers in a factory type environment in California but is being sold at a suburban shopping mall.  Glenda then goes on to instruct the couple of how to see Kinkade’s art.  She points out the meaning of the time on the clock is his wedding date and that the initials in the painting are those of his wife.  Glenda then goes on to tell the couple that the painting is about changes and that in the piece everything changes: the sky, the clouds and life.

Although many art critics consider Kinkade hack, they do recognize him as a business genius for his ability to manipulate the market.  He created an “editions pyramid” of his prints which as each painting gets a little more exclusive it rises in price.  Some may be highlighted by Master Highlighters and above that is one highlighted by Kinkade himself and to add even more value the piece he signs it with “ink containing DNA from his hair or blood.”  Once an edition sells out he will suspend it s reproduction so it becomes more valuable.  Kinkade is well aware that people see art as an investment.  People want to buy something that will appreciate over time and even though they would probably never re-sell the item for profit they want to know that they made a wise investment and own something valuable.

Berger’s main problem with art historians and critics was their mystification of art and that is what Kinkade is attempting to do to his pieces.  When pieces of art are mystified then their market value goes up and that’s what the viewer begins to see.  Instead of seeing the content of the picture and examining it for what it is, the viewer recognizes that it is valuable and therefore it is art.  Berger would not agree with Kinkade’s tactics because “it is no longer what the image shows that strikes one as unique; its first meaning is no longer to be found in what it says, but in what it is.”  Kinkade is adding to the current problem because instead of having the public purchase a piece of art because of its content they are going to try to get the highest one on the pyramid so they feel that they have the best art available.

Many of these teachers are having to retire and resign because they dare to teach grade school and high school students about the nude art tradition, which is a very ancient tradition.

Sometimes it’s just mentioning nude art in a classroom, sometimes it’s taking children to an art museum where there’s a nude sculpture, sometimes it’s actually posing for nude photographs. But, of course, according to the teachers, artistic nude photographs.

Then, some school board or some parent or some local community group says that these teachers have done such great wrong that we don’t want them in our schools. They shouldn’t be teaching our children.

You can read about all these controversies online.

Let’s call all of these communities “Frisco, Texas.” Except of course “Frisco, Texas” can be anywhere in the world, from India to ancient Persia. Another community is Middletown, New York. Middletown, New York can be anywhere.

There is also the web-based artistic nudes or artistic porn. Artistic photos or artistic porn? This is certainly controversial.

Just because people are artists doesn’t mean they are not also pornographers, of course. Just because they are art teachers doesn’t mean they’re not pornographers. How can we tell what is art? Yes, these are questions that we should consider. Artists must also consider this.

Are nude stage plays art or porn? Are nude rock stars on stage music or porn? Are all these people claiming to be artists truly artists?

Most societies have their taboos when it comes to matters of nudity and sexuality, even artistic.

The erotic can be controversial even in those so-called primitive societies where almost everybody is nude. Even in these nude societies there are sexual and artistic taboos.

Certainly, as several articles detail, communities need to be concerned about “corrupting the morals of youth,” as always, about internet solicitations of minors, of internet pornography, however, they must also be scrupulous to teach children the difference between nudes as high art, as as innovative design, and nudes as pure porn. Is there a difference? And if so, how can we tell the difference?

Is ancient art art and modern art porn? Certainly modern art nudes can resemble pure porn. How do we know the difference? And certainly artists can and have corrupted morals just like the pornographers. And certainly, precisely because they are artists that they can encourage people to think their form of porn is acceptable. These are certainly questions to consider.

Certainly it’s a problem for artists themselves when making use of the artistic nude traditions, because many communities make the assumption that these artists are prurients. Not necessarily so. Because of the great tradition of nude art, certainly most artists when learning art are going to learn that tradition, and that tradition is going to influence many artists. When the great artists do nudes, then of course, artists are going to learn nude art and they are going to imitate nude art. Sometimes they continue the tradition, sometimes they find this is not their art, and they find other subjects, like landscapes or abstracts. These are also traditonal.

But nudist colonies and resorts have their rules, meaning that you can be nude but you can’t think erotic. You can’t even think “exotic.” These are naturals. But even some nudists are “puritanical” in their philosophies of nudism to distinguish nudists who are truly good people from the wicked pornographers. Be nude but don’t have prurient thoughts. Well, we can’t patrol the thoughts of these nudists, but nevertheless their philosophy is accepted in many nations.

But as for these good art teachers, certainly they should understand that even in modern and postmodern societies communities and school boards and parents are not all artists, and they are in a highly sexualized society. There’s enough for them to do battle with the rock stars and rappers leading their children astray with their sexualized art. And certainly this art appeals to the erotic sensibilities of children.

Now the good teachers in their good little puritan communities? These are teachers.

Plus, they have to teach these little kids that these nude sculptures are art not pornography, and to distinguish this from the sexualized art of pop music, and especially when many of their favorite pop stars look like porn kings and queens.

If it’s difficult for the adults to understand the difference between art and pornography certainly it’s difficult for these little children.

Or perhaps these little children understand that art is art and pornography is pornography. Maybe the ‘ho is not even sexual for these little children. It’s pop art.

We could ask the little children if they understand the difference?

We could also ask the little children if they ever become artists, given the nature of so many “Frisco, Texas” and “Middletown, NY” communities around the world, are they going to continue the great tradition of the artistic nude?

Since most of the great artists have participated in the artistic nude tradition from the ancient world, including aboriginal art, to the postmodern world of great art, it’s problematic for any art teacher to teach art without showing these great artistic nudes.

Of course, we can censor all of these great artists. We can even exclude them from all our art books.

Meaning that most of the art of the Western world, the Eastern world, and the Southern world, we’re not going to learn a great deal about, like the schools that don’t let their kids read Mark Twain. As for the Northern world, we assume the Northern world doesn’t have as many nudes. But we’ll have to study Artic Circle and North Pole Inuit (Eskimo) People’s Sculptures and find out if nudes are among their great tradition, along with the bird, bears, and dancing bears. The shamans, the drums dancers, and the hunters.

Artists can encourage people towards high ideals or low ideas just like anybody else. Certainly there are artistic periods in which the artists are purely decadent, pure porn stars, and sometimes they are truly sublime artists making use of high ideals and high ideas of the artistic nude, as some nudists are moral philosophers and others are prurients. But in “clothing optional” environment we’re not supposed to think lewd thoughts. But can we determine who is whom?

When James Joyce wrote Ulysses, the greatest novel of the twentieth century according to many–is this high art or pure porn in many of the chapters? Society determine high art. Yet many imitators of Joyce do not achieve more than pure pornography, because their art has not attained that level, even though their motives might be pure.

All artistic nudes are not high art. Some artistic nudes are low art. Some artistic nudes are not art at all. Yet some are the highest artists with the highest motives and strivings.

Artists and societies must consider these ideas, and have been considering these ideas such ancient times.