This post originated as an email to my friend Maura Hogan, in response to her email asking my thoughts concerning the Beeple affair. Maura currently serves as the arts critic for the Charleston Post and Courier newspaper.
I'll start by reiterating my general theory of art, which is that all man-made objects are works of art. We currently live in a culture that privileges "art world" objects as the only "art," but this is an anomaly of history. Before the nineteenth century, there was no separate category for "art." "Art" comes from the Latin ars, meaning "skill," and even great masters like Michelangelo and Raphael were considered skilled craftsmen whom you would not have allowed your daughters to marry. The vast preponderance of all artifacts created over the course of human history were created by craftsmen, usually working in large workshops. The twenty-first century equivalent of premodern painting is not modern painting (or "contemporary art" in general) but film and television. The twenty-first century equivalent of a Renaissance altarpiece, for example, is the video screen behind the musicians at a rock concert. The twenty-first century equivalent of a Neoclassical history painting by Jacques-Louis David is not an NFT but a cable news broadcast, a documentary, or even a feature film. The art history textbook of the future will end with painting sometime around 1970 and double back to pick up the history of film and television. It is simply impossible to give a credible history of the visual arts in the twentieth century without acknowledging the significance of The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Jaws, etc.
Beeple's work, and the sale of it, should be regarded within the narrow context of the "contemporary art world." I've seen a few of his images, but I haven't observed them very closely or given them a lot of thought. From a historical perspective, they do not appear to be having any kind of meaningful impact on the culture at large, nowhere near as impactful, for instance, as Donald Trump's performance art and the media outlets that aid and abet him. Beeple is working within the narrative of contemporary art, exploiting the art-world apparatus of trading certain types of artifacts as commodities. Another recent example of this is “Comedian” by Maurizio Cattelan (the banana taped to the wall). Cattelan knew that there was a certain cohort that would gladly play into his cynical ploy, and he made some money off of it. More power to him. The art world can do whatever it wants, of course, but it is high time we stopped considering "contemporary art" as the only example of what art is.
So, I agree with your comment that "the whole enterprise [is] an exercise in cynicism, vis a vis commodification, bidding wars, pandemic vagaries." I'll push back a little on your statement that "it is shining so much light on the art world and inspiring such raging debate that makes art relevant in uneasy times" and that you "welcome any art in Charleston that does a smashy-smashy to the increasingly problematic 'moonlight and magnolias' connotations of Charleston arts." I definitely agree that the whole "moonlight and magnolias" theme has to go. But, as you also note, Beeple's work appears to have very little to do with Charleston. And, again, whenever anybody uses the term "art," I have to ask, "What is art?" As far as I'm concerned, the most prominent artist from Charleston today is Stephen Colbert, whose work is much more relevant and has a much greater impact than Beeple's "art."
Portions of this post have been redacted at Maura's request, for privacy concerns.
