OUAN 401 : Context of practice : lecture 5 : Print culture and distribution

The battle between fine art and popular art - this was the focal topic, around which today's lecture revolved. It's one of the myth, or should I say traits of the art industry that I can't deny have had a major impact on my personal view of art, and those of the people around me. But before we get to that, here's a quick recap on the process that formed this conflict : Print and industrialisation

So according to theorist Marshall Mcluhan , the age of print started from 1450. With the rise of the industrial revolution where everything was moving faster, an emphasis was placed on efficiency and mass production in all corners of businesses, which includes the art world as well. The printing press made way for new forms of reproduction of art, which in turn made it more widely available to the general public : art was not limited to the nobility and aristocrats anymore. At the same time, the rise of the middle class and the ever widening gap between them and the working class , created clashes between cultures, where the middle class favours the "pure" culture and aesthetic value of fine art ( much like those of the nobility ), while the working class , having no access to such luxury began to produce their own "popular" culture , made possible by the industrialisation of art. The idea of print capitalism : art to make a profit began to spread as waves of new, independent artists appeared , making money from reproducing art and making new art for things such as books and newspaper, while schools of design , which focuses on training these individuals rose up across the country, even occupying the location of the former Royal academy in  London , which was the principle venue of practice for the forms of "fine art" before. On that note , new technologies created new practices that, for all purposes makes the new "popular" art more interesting and generally better than what fine art can provide, as demonstrated by Eidophusikon in 1781 and the invention of the camera.

 

Eidophusikon is considered one of the earliest form of moving images

People were getting better picture, at faster speed and with better price, and fine art was losing ground from a business standpoint, and of course the middle who were in favour of enjoying the new exclusivity of the fine art that was once limited to only royals and nobility did not appreciate that fact. Criticism arises from "purists" , stating that technological reproductions removes the aura of art , that is the creativity , the genius , the value , authority and so on ... and later counter-movements to industrial art returns to a more natural approach to art , which focused on nature and humanity instead of the industrial landscape, which is still happening right now.

This was the source of the modern battle you see between fine art students and "industrial" art students ( animation , typography , graphic design,... and most prominently Illustraition ) . From my own personal view, I'm a realist , a practical artist, therefore I favours the industrial art , it was one the main reason that actually convinced my parents to let me actually pursue a career in here because before that , in my culture , artist, especially fine artist are considered a retirement's profession, having little income and need in a modern society, especially now with the advent of the so-called "modern art" , that stereotypical view only gets reinforced. While I can certainly appreciate fine art for it's cultural and technical values, and would certainly encourages new-coming artist to study it to gain base knowledge and techniques, ultimately we need and we want to get a decent paying job. And on that point , I think one the major impact made by print culture for art , besides creating a more available forms of art and knowledge for the public , was creating a whole new industry, new professions and new opportunities for people to do art that serve and adapt the needs of an ever changing world.