The General Equivalent I

Broke = money – money - money + making art.

Here’s a penny for a thought:

Marc Shell delves into the relationship between art and money, how money may actually be a work of art or how it engages with it intrinsically. This differs from a study of the political economy of art (which explores the market economy of art) and is inherent in Frank Lloyd stating “I collect money, not art”. The effect that money has on an artist in relation to their artwork, whether or not they are aware of it (rich parents), affects the meaning of their work. The meaning of an artwork is further modified by the subsequent price placed on it by the market economy. With the Mona Lisa, one can’t help but be overawed by the concept of an object that has been rendered priceless (Damien Hirst’s skull chews on this for a moment, spits it out. what’s more valuable, being living or dead?).

Historically, coins functioned as a valuable object (gold etc.) with a political engraving that attested to their value. While the object itself equals value (based on the historical significance of the material), so does the inscription, which accords a value that isn’t material but intellectual. Coins, therefore, have for a long time functioned like other representational artworks, albeit that the engravings occurred on objects more valuable than canvas or paper, and often denoted the value of the material. In both instances, following the actual object being imprinted upon, value changes into the realms of the spiritual, aesthetic, emotional, conceptual and/or intellectual (aha!).

Shell therefore proposes that the relationship between art and money has hardly ever been diametric (duh), as in addition to the above, coins also had some of the representational qualities associated with icons. Coins, like images, were attacked during the Byzantine Empire for being iconic. When the ingot’s value was overthrown (i.e. the value or importance of the physical, or material), some claim by numismatic engraving, it was gradually replaced with more intellectual value, i.e. paper and coins, which were used to buy gold (which in turn used to serve as ingot, and function as currency). Inscription, or engraving, or printing, are the value in money. The symbol of a number replaced the actual object, and hence the idea of the value of that number or inscription supplanted the material embodiment of value.

It is ironic that the same ‘inscribed’ materials used in painting are now valued more than the gold ingots used to purchase them in the past. The value of canvas hasn’t risen, but that of its intellectual/conceptual/representational content, has. Seemingly, the idea of what a canvas is worth is in keeping with the behind-the-scenes value accorded to a bank note.

(Hmmmm ….come to think of it, Damien Hirst’s skull is quite nifty.)

To be continued…

References

Shell, M. 1995. Art and money. London: University of Chicago press, ltd