How Bananas is This?
A need to know history on how we got to a Banana:
In order from left to right, top to bottom: Marcel Duchamp, Nude Decending Staircase, 1913 - Marcel Duchamp, Fountain, 1917 - Piero Manzoni, Artists Shit, 1961 - Andy Warhol, Campbell Soup, 1962 - Andres Serrano, Piss Christ, 1989
Duchamp set the precedent for our continuing conversation on what art is, can be or shouldn’t be.
The work above which was featured at Armory Show in 1913 caught visitors so off guard that they claimed: “there was no nude figure in-sight”. “ARTnews even issued an invitation to its readers: If anyone could decode the meaning of this inscrutable work, they would be handsomely rewarded with $10.”
“Around 1913, Duchamp started taking widely-available items-- things that were mass-produced, super common, and easily identifiable-- and began presenting them as art. But with this concept of the readymade, suddenly Duchamp turned everything on its head. A bicycle wheel became art simply because he said it was.”
Piero Manzoni exchanged his “Canned Shit” for approximately $37 (in gold) in 1961 to a man named Alberto Lucia. To Manzoni the “intention of the artist” is more important than anything and in 2000 the work sold at auction for $30,000, then 16 years later sold again for $300,000. Legend has it that one of the original 90 “Shit Cans” blew open and revealed nothing but plaster - leaving us with nothing more than a hoax.
Warhol was an advocate and the main attraction for mass-produced art. He was often noted for saying “in the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes”. The public, the media, and the art world seemingly loved it. But over the years this concept of “everyone getting their fraction of fame” has continuously grown out of hand and eventually, “Made for market art” split the art world and allowed the public to exercise its collective arrogant thoughts onto art.
During Warhol's opening of the soup cans, “one art dealer down the street from the Ferus [gallery] crudely lampooned Campbell's Soup Cans by stacking actual soup cans in his gallery. To add insult to injury, the enterprising art troll promoted the event by advertising that at two for 33 cents, his cans were cheaper than Warhol's, which were selling for $100 each.”
“Andres Serrano received his 15 minutes of infamy in 1989 when Senator Jesse Helms, a notorious old-school right-winger, denounced him as indecent and sacrilegious for his controversial photograph Piss Christ.”
“Today, Serrano actually feels a perverse gratitude toward Helms for ‘putting me on the map.’ The question is, on which map? Although he has had 15 major retrospectives and mid-career surveys around the world in the last two decades, only one took place in the United States.… I’m nothing but Andres Serrano, an American artist — and that’s not good enough for America.”
Now that we’re caught up on some Art History lets take a look at Maurizio Cattelans 2019 artwork,“Comedian” and what the networks are saying about it.
Artnet, writer Sarah Cascone who attended the VIP preview of art Miami Basel 2019 reports that “Cattelan has been working on the idea for 'Comedian' for about a year, first creating versions in bronze and resin.”
Whether Cattelan created early versions of the work or not, does an “attempt” (physical or otherwise) equate to a dollar amount? As it stands, Sarah Cascone, Catalan, the French Patron, and Perrotin Gallery appear to believe that some sketches or a maquette is enough to justify 120,000 dollars as a legitimate price tag (to prove a point?).
“Every aspect of the work was carefully considered, from the shape of the fruit to the angle its been affixed with duct tape to the wall, to its placement in the booth - front and center, on a large wall that could have easily fit a much larger painting - he [Perrotin] said .”
If “every aspect was carefully considered” were, in fact, true, then why was there contemplation, followed by hesitation on “creating” a second, then third work? Why wasn’t this work originally presented as a limited edition? Moreover, the first edition of the work was eaten as part of a performance. Was the performance carefully considered before the bananas wall presentation? If not, then why?
“[Cattelan] wouldn't speak to the work's meaning, but he was partially inspired by the large number of paintings he's seen at galleries recently. "I'm not in Miami, but I'm sure it's full of paintings as well," said Cattelan. "I thought maybe a banana could be a good contribution!"
This explanation is vague, thoughtless and not as considered as many of us would like. Cascone continues that, “Cattelan hasn't prescribed rules for how often the banana will be replaced, but Perrotin [galleriest] expects to throw out the one currently on view at the end of the week [which did not happen]- unless, of course, the collector wants it”. This confirms my suspicion that limited thoughts on the works future, after the original presentation was carefully considered.
“to its placement in the booth - front and center, on a large wall that could have easily fit a much larger painting - he [Perrotin] said."
This phrase, unequivocally speaks to the art market, economics as a whole and capitalism. In reality, Money has nothing to do with the value of the art itself, its quality, craftsmanship, or conceptual bravery. Money is money - and people that have it will spend it on all sorts of things like; 100,000 dollars on leggings (Beyonce), or 2.3 million dollars on a photo of Bully the Kid (William Koch of the Koch Brothers) or 4 million dollars for a license plate (Dubai Auction House), just to name a few.
Luck O’neil - A spokesperson for the gallery explained the context of the piece being shown among the most prestigious works at Art Basel – the first time Cattelan has shown at an art fair like it in 15 years – added to the meaning of the work, creating commentary about how we value objects.
So, what does O'neil mean by this? Is he insinuating that the works meaning is tied to its display location and the direct comparatives that exist within said location?
Does this mean that the "Art Fair" is set up and treated like the real estate of Manhattan, San Francisco, Los Angeles or any other desirably overpriced location? This may not be a surprise to professionals in the Artworld but at the same time “Comedian” wasn’t really made for the Artworld, was it?
Perrotin [mentioned that], securing a buyer for the piece completed the artwork. "A work like that," he said, "if you don't sell the work, it's not a work of art."
Here we are, once again back to the idea that a work of art's value is based on how capitalism or "the market" determines its value.
Stick with me here, critics of Duchamp's "Fountain" asked the question - How can one person be in charge of the public perception of an art object? From 1890 to 1914 the United States created laws that curbed and/or prevented the formation of "Monopolies". Duchamp's "Readymades" first appeared in 1913/1914. This is not a coincidence because, in a way, Duchamp Monopolized “art as an idea”. Since 1913, art and the worlds that swirl around it are in a dead sprint toward a single view of art, the Capitalistic Market View. Much like modern monopolies, how can a small group (the artist, a few writers, the buyer, and the gallery staff) collectively make that same decision for the viewers that Duchamp did over 100 years ago?
Still, to many of us, money is not everything, historically infamous works of art like Duchamp's “Fountain” was tossed into the trash shortly after its creation and Manzoni’s “[canned] Artist Shit” was bartered and traded, not sold. It would be difficult to find a scholar today that would debate Duchamp and Manzoni's contribution to cultural history as NOT being art.
“All is not lost for the buyer, who, let’s face it, was going to have to deal with the demise of the banana at some point. The work apparently comes with a certificate of authenticity, and owners can replace the banana. “[Datuna] did not destroy the artwork. The banana is the idea,” Lucien Terras, a director at the gallery, told the Miami Herald.”
This kind of explanation suggests that an object can simultaneously be an idea. Which is a discussion about definitions and meaning, right? If that is the true argument Terras was trying to make, a much more cohesive and thoughtful work that deals with the mentioned types of ideas is a work by Joseph Kosuth, titled “One and Three Chairs”.
Sarah Cascone's writing was one of the first major articles on Maurizio Cattelan's "Comedian" and now that we analyzed what was said let review:
Duchamps 1913 painting was dismissed and considered a laughing stock of the show - even though it sold to Frederic C. Torrey for $1000 (which equates to $2599.45 in 2019 US currency). Duchamp's 1917 “Readymade” never logged a sale and was mysteriously never found after the Armory Show ended. A “fanboy” of Manzoni’s traded $37 worth of gold to obtain the sculpture (which equates to $318.45 in 2019 US currency). Warhols original 32 "Campbells Soup Can" works sold for one bundled price of $1000 or $31.25 a piece, even though Warhol previously had each work for sale at $100 (which equates to $274.81 or $851.68 in 2019 US currency). Finally, Serrano who received a $15,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts in 1986 (which equates to $35,220.71 in 2019 US currency), created his now controversial photograph "Piss Christ" from the aforementioned grant money in 1987. Then two years later received his 15 minutes of fame in 1989 by the smug writing of Jesse Helms.
Below each artist is ordered by their comparative worldwide recognition rank, 100 being the most popular and 0 being the least popular, followed by "date created", and the sold price of each example work (in 2019 currency), plus Cattelan's 2019 "Comedian".
Warhol (49) 1962 $274.81 or $851.68
Duchamp (10) 1913 $2599.45
Duchamp (10) 1917 $0
Manzoni (01) 1961 $318.45
Cattelan (01) 2019 $120,000.00
Serrano (00) 1987 $35,220.71
Reordered by year created:
Duchamp 1913 (10) $2599.45
Duchamp 1917 (10) $0
Manzoni 1961 (01) $318.45
Warhol 1962 (49) $274.81 or $851.68
Serrano 1987 (00) $35,220.71
Cattelan 2019 (01) $120,000.00
So, what is the difference between then and now?
It seems that the more historically popular an artist is, the less they initially sold their work. So, what does that say about a $120,000 fruit, taped to a wall? Well, only Serrano and Cattelan are still living and creating new work and they both are at the ends of their careers (Serrano is 69 years old and Cattelan is 59). Duchamp, Manzoni, Warhol and even Serrano created their historical works before the age of 40 (which is statistically common for visual artists). So, will Cattelan's work hold steady during rigorous academic and historical scrutiny?
I have my doubts, and if you ask me why it's because, Art is cultural currency not Currency in of itself and if a society values Currency and Theatrics more than Culture - we will continue to value miscues like “the comedian” which will intern devalue and overshadow thoughtfully skilled artworks of the past and future.
$$$