ART
Brand theory
MEENAKSHI THIRUKODE
|
In the context of growing economies, the branding and marketing of art as an indication of a financially content lifestyle through the shaping of perceptions is a part of globalisation and development.
|
‘To blur the boundaries between merchandising and art making has become an essential part of my work.’ Farhad Moshiri
Photo: Reuters
Blurring distinctions between art and commodity: One of Takashi Murakami’s creations at an auction in Tokyo.
The auction room, as anyone knows, is an excellent medium for sustaining fictional price levels, because the public imagines that auction prices are necessarily real prices.
Robert Hughes
“Perception” is the single most powerful aspect, intangible and abstract a concept as it sounds, that manipulates and moulds every component within the art industry. Perceptions by nature are never trapped within the cordons of the individual. Human nature is such that it allows and necessitates the flow of perceived notions to infiltrate the collective. Art critic Robert Hughes’ statement aptly reflects the current, mass collective understanding of the Indian subcontinent in terms of the Indian art market. To a large majority of the population, record prices directly correlate to great art and artists. That is an equation that is fuelled by media hype creating the nation’s idea of itself — one that has been generated by the global art scene and was kick-started at the auctions.
With industrialisation, perceptions changed within the art world. Artists, for instance, took on the role of self promotion, as was the case with James Whistler. Be it an act of sensationalism or a genuine case of eccentricity, he created a persona that defined him to the outside world. Whistler’s feat has mutated into a powerful force within the current art world — one that forms the very pulse of contemporary society — building Brand Identity.
An indication of power
The concept of Branding, while looked upon negatively because it implies that art is then a commodity, is critical in laying down frameworks that give a historical context to contemporary art in India. These frameworks start with perceptions. As uncomforting as it is, Indian art, like that of other growing economic nations such as China, is perceived as a commodity. Brand theory is a critical framework I propose in which all art being produced by markets that have been recognised “globally”, based on their economic growth, is subject to the concept of branding. It is conceived right at the point when a country’s economy starts to show positive growth, thereby making it “globalised”. As income generation increases, a nation’s society metamorphoses into a consumerist State. A “globalised” nation growing in economic power constantly seeks to necessitate the search for transforming if not creating new commodities that can generate, sustain and confer the perception of a financially content, privileged lifestyle to its people and the outside world. Branding starts with terms such as “Globalisation” and “Emerging” that are associated with non-Western countries — words that are as negative as “other” and “exotic”. It is based on the assumption that the country never really had an artistic dialogue that was worthy of world standards, typically based on Western artistic perceptions.
Brand Theory, thereby, involves marketing art based on the perception that art eventually becomes a means of financial gain because of its inherent association to power, status and wealth. Just as any product has its unique selling point, art is also marketed on these lines. This is why, to date, the majority of the public in India, including those who seek to be collectors and other players within the industry, perceive and project auction prices as the benchmark for calculating the success of Indian Art globally. Media that targets the mass audience, focus more on record sales at a Christies or Sothebys, creating sensationalism around prices set at the secondary market level, as if that were the only means of legitimising the success of Indian art. Indian art today is not an expression of such commoditisation. Rather it is the commodity itself.
The central ideology of Brand theory lies in packaging, encompassing both art as well as the creator himself — the artist. A point in case is artist Takashi Murakami. His brand value is so high that his latest venture was a tie-up with the fashion house, Louis Vuitton. He designed a limited edition of $5000 women’s handbags that carried his artwork. Quintessentially, you might not be able to afford Murakami’s art but you can own something close enough which actually becomes a lifestyle statement. A $5000 handbag satisfies our “want” to display status and wealth. It is as good as owning a million dollar painting for some people.
This is a perfect example of brand theory defining current historical frameworks of art. The show exhibits a unique amalgamation of what is traditionally termed as High and Low art with an unforgiving directness. In fact, the theory of High and Low art has become redundant. The act of creating an exhibition that incorporates promoting commoditised art is a significant turning point in the way we understand contemporary art. Murakami is not just an artist — he is a celebrated brand that promises a lifestyle that satiates the individual’s need for a status quo and be perceived as being privileged and significant. So are artist brands such as Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons and even a Subodh Gupta. Being a young art market, India is more susceptible to the push and pull of brand theory, to the extent that it’s the only theoretical framework that will define it for a long time to come.
Art as merchandising
A lot of art is perceived as being a brand, an image, a certain idea that is very perceivable yet packaged such that you think you have an intellectual engagement with it (point in case being Delhi’s Art Mall — a one stop shop for all your artistic needs). There is no encouragement to engage with an art work by methods that involve “seeing” or “questioning”. Therefore, parameters to judge quality are beginning to fade. The July catalog for Sotheby’s contemporary evening sale carried an interesting statement by Iranian artist Farhad Moshiri. He said, “To blur the boundaries between merchandising and art making has become an essential part of my work. Growing up in L.A., I was constantly forced to compare ‘High Art’ and ‘Hollywood-style commoditisation’. At one point, I gave up. Let’s be real. As object makers, we’re all packaging our ideas. I just laugh when people criticise me for commodifying exoticism!”
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
