Main content
Course: Global cultures 1980–now > Unit 1
Lesson 6: Young British Artists and art as commodity- Jeff Koons, Pink Panther
- The YBAs, The London-based Young British Artists
- Tracey Emin, My Bed
- Chris Ofili, The Holy Virgin Mary
- Damien Hirst, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living
- Marc Quinn, Self
- Hans Haacke, Seurat's 'Les Poseuses' (small version)
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Hans Haacke, Seurat's 'Les Poseuses' (small version)
Beth Harris, Sal Khan and Steven Zucker discuss art and institutional critique in relation to Hans Haacke's Seurat's 'Les Poseuses' (small version), 1884-1975 from 1975. Created by Beth Harris and Steven Zucker.
Want to join the conversation?
- 1:58How do you feel about the notion that the original painting which is the topic of this exhibit is tucked away in a bank vault? Should art belong to us all and be able to be seen by the masses?(9 votes)
- in my opinion it really should be in public property because this is an amazing piece of art very expressionist, and I would love to see the original... it's kinda lost for art friends...
but in terms of economics, it shouldn't it should of course belong to the one who paid for it ;) and it seems this is a good piece of investment...(6 votes)
- Couldn't this also be interpreted to be : The business of art has become an art in itself?(7 votes)
- Yes, I think Sal Khan was trying to get to that point.(3 votes)
- Does anyone else think that this work of art is de-legitimized by the this discussion? Dr. Zucker says at2:37"In fact, the original work is absent." I say, in fact, the entire video is about an original work that references another original work. How is that different from how Titian's Venus of Urbino references reclining nudes by Giorgione?(6 votes)
- I understand what you're saying but that comparison that you make between the Titian's Venus of Urbino and the reclining nudes by Giorigione doesn't quite make sense in this context. Although on the surface level both are referencing some other artwork Titian's Venus of Urbino was direct reference through replication. "The original work is absent" because the artist was not trying to duplicate by rather he was trying to educate. This piece is informative to the viewers. The artist was not trying to distract the viewer's with the original artwork. The artist wasn't trying to replicate the original as it would steer away from his intention. A lot of modern art is not about the art's aesthetic itself but rather the art's context.(2 votes)
- Why is it in a corner? Does it mean something?(4 votes)
- From the author:That may have more to do with the exhibition space than the artwork.(3 votes)
- The video ends with the idea that institutions that invite artists to critique them are viewed in a positive way. Has this kind of institutional critique ever backfired?(2 votes)
- I think the fact that it raises issues about how art is 'handled' far away from the maddening crowds makes it a controversial and important piece. Hans Haake seems to takes issue with the 'authoritative institutional' rules placed on us without dissenting voices being heard. He reminds us not to accept conditions but try and challenge them always. National treasure should be exposed to the masses and those privileged to own 'famous' works could (periodically) circulate them to museums so they may be seen to the general public.(2 votes)
- Are people who have and deal in money able to view a painting at all or is all they see and are excited by, the financial gain they might make from it as an investment ?(1 vote)
- Companies that can afford to purchase famous paintings usually purchase it for the intention of proving to the public that it is a culturally oriented company (promotional stunt), even though the investor would not necessarily understand and appreciate the work of art.
Individuals on the other hand that collect art will have a passion for the work.(1 vote)
- This concept reminds me of the Japanese & Chinese art (usually paintings) that bear red seals that are the insignia of the owners.(1 vote)
- The original work of art is absent. OK, we saw a copy of it, or a screen image of a picture of it. Did we see the original work itself? No, but apart from perhaps appreciating the technique of the form of the paint on the canvas, we did see the image, so we have very nearly seen "the thing itself."
If we were to follow this up, we could go to a library, check out a few art books that we like, have the plates we especially like photocopied (in color) Matte and frame them, and have an exhibition of our own. If we were then to video it (as this was done) we could have a video of an exhibition of copies of art works that we like, and it (the video) would be art. It would also contain the images, which, though the originals are owned by someone, should the originals (or the images they contain) already be in the public domain, would be an art show. I'm tempted to try it myself.(1 vote)
Video transcript
(jazz music) Voiceover: We've been
talking about whether or not the art is contained in the object or the art is contained in
the things that surround it. What's really interesting is
that in the late 20th century, artists started to make art
that was explicitly about the way that society frames a work of art. One of the great examples of
that is by Hans Haacke from 1975, a work of art which takes a small painting by the famous neoimpressionist
painter George Seurat. Everybody knows his painting
The Isle of the Grande Jatte, but what Haacke did is he
centered his work of art on a small sketch by Seurat
and this work of art had gone from the artist's studio
through many, many hands until it ended up partially
owned by an investment firm and actually put in a bank vault. He frames a series of pieces of
paper that says who the owner is. Each framed object on the
wall shows the history of the collecting of this painting. It went from being this
object in the artist's studio to something that was now in a bank vault, whose price had increased
dramatically from something that had no price associated with
it when it was first produced as simply a sketch to
something that was worth in excess of a million dollars by 1975. Voiceover: This is the sketch
that we're looking at, right? Is that this sketch? This looks like a painting. Voiceover: Well, yeah, the sketch
itself is actually a painting. It's the small version in full
color of the painting itself. Voiceover: Okay, so you're
saying a sketch is just a small - Voiceover: Exactly, it's a
model for the large scale. Voiceover: And this was done by Seurat. Voiceover: Exactly. Voiceover: And Haacke, in his
piece of art, or installation, whatever we call it, he took
the original piece of art (crosstalk) it was literally a photocopy. Voiceover: He didn't have
access to the original, because the original
was now in a bank vault. I think that was part of his
issue, that now this was something that was out of circulation
that had become an investment, as opposed to a work of art
that existed in the world. Voiceover: This is interesting. This is something that ... I guess it is ... I struggle a little bit, because
at minimum, I'm willing to say that this is definitely interesting. I think it's interesting
to just even have that ... It feels like something we
would do at Khan Academy, in terms of just look at this piece
of art and look at who's owned it. Isn't this something to think about? Voiceover: It's almost a
graph of its financial value. Voiceover: Exactly, and
the reason why, going back to the art, not art, or
traditional notions of art, and modern notions of art, this is
definitely a very modern notion of art. It's not a 500 years ago. Voiceover: In fact, the
original work of art is absent. Voiceover: Yes, what I
actually really like about it and I feel is, to some
degree, almost more consistent than a lot of what we've looked at,
is that he did not feel the need to do it on oil and
canvas, that he felt that, "Look, that's not a ... I do like the fact that he just said, "Well, look, if we're just going
to go really pushing the envelope, "why am I stuck to this mixing
paint and all the rest?" That general idea is
actually a very good idea. You almost hope that you could
have a whole museum of that, of people documenting what
these pieces of artwork are, where they've been, all these things that
are no longer accessible to the public, and where are they, what's their history. I think that'd be a fascinating thing. Voiceover: But also, it really documents the way the object's meaning has changed. It's not just through the
financial value that's at issue, but it's also the way in which it
began as something that was intimate and that was really a
stepping stone towards another major finished painting and then becomes almost a
simple monetary instrument. Is something gained, is something lost? Voiceover: It goes from beings
something personal to the artist to being a commodity. Voiceover: That's what everyone,
to some degree, cares about. That's their fascination. What is this worth, what is
someone willing to pay for it? I'm conflicted, because I've
asked those same questions when I see that, I've asked
you all those same questions. What is this worth? What's the history of it? I really like the idea of Haacke did. It's both a little sad. It is taking art and a lot of
this art is a very personal thing. It's really just pointing out
irony or hypocrisy or something, but at the same time, I actually
think it's almost really healthy. Maybe every piece of
artwork should have that, where you see it, you
actually see where it's been. Voiceover: It's interesting
that it's an artist doing it, as opposed to an institution. It's not a museum or a
curatorial perspective, but it's actually seen
as the more subjective, radical positioning of an artist. Voiceover: Yeah, and that's interesting. Because it's a one-off
piece, it looks like a ... I know this was the intention
of this work of art, but it does fall into curation
and a really good curation idea. For me it (unintelligible) ... It's just an interesting curation
idea or provocative idea. Can that be considered art? Voiceover: In fact, there's an
entire movement that developed from the 1960s through the 70s
and 80s, up to the present, which is known as institutional critique, where artists have used
art to point out some of the politically more sensitive issues
that surround the exhibition of art. There is this interesting antagonistic
relationship that can exist. Voiceover: This is really art
as a tool for social commentary, which I guess, is what
it always was. (laughing) I said that at the same (unintelligible) This is so different than, you
know, but I was like, "Maybe not." Voiceover: A lot of the
discussion that we've had talks about the complex
relationship between the market, between institutions, and
between art and artists. This institutional critique
really puts the spotlight on that. Voiceover: But it doesn't seem
to be a good strategy overall. I actually really appreciate
it that he's doing that. It's very honest and not hypocritical. Voiceover: What does it
mean even when the market has absorbed the avant-garde
to try to remain outside it? Voiceover: What do you think the lesson has been learned from the art market? Voiceover: Now, artists are
specifically invited to museums to do a kind of institutional critique. Voiceover: (laughing) Really? Voiceover: Yeah, because now we
actually know that there's real value. There's market value in it,
there's other kinds of value in it and so there's an inviting of
artists into the space of a museum to do that kind of - Voiceover: But then it kind of
cheapens it in a strange way. How do the benefactors or
the sponsors view this? Voiceover: That's a really
interesting question. I'm not sure that all corporate
entities are open to that, but I think that the ones that
are take an enlightened position that actually, I think, is
seen in a very positive way. (jazz music)