-W.Head-

THE PICASSO MANIFESTO Instagram:#W.Head2016 Email:w.head2016@outlook.com
Manifesto - a public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives.

WHAT IS ART TODAY?

Art is many things to many people and continues to change. In this day of technology and social media, the question I pose is: What is Art today?

I have a proposal that makes a statement, a commentary on contemporary culture and society today. My idea rests on the work of many artists that have gone before, and particular pieces of their artwork. These artists attempted to answer the very question of what was the art of their time. While I cannot presume to compare myself to these artists, I will discuss them not from an academic position, but rather from a subjective view of their work, and how it has inspired my own. I also want to discuss their work as the inspiration for my concept and my project.

I call my concept: “The Picasso Manifesto”.

As voyeur you are already participating in this art

PICASSO & POLLOCK

The Value of an Idea

I have often marveled at Art and how it can make you think, how it can change your perceptions. When I was younger, I thought the best artists were those who could make the most realistic art, those who could make their artwork look most like the real world. When I was young, I was amazed that people respected Picasso's art - I saw it as childlike; something anyone could have done. However, his style intrigued me and I wanted to understand why his art was so highly praised, so valuable. With study, I began to appreciate his works in a way that challenged me, both intellectually and emotionally.

I have titled my concept "The Picasso Manifesto" because he was the artist who opened my mind to how art could make me feel and think - and how it could involve me.

Pablo Picasso 1881-1973

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. A single still image, so says the common wisdom, conveys the meaning or essence more easily than a written description of a subject. Pablo Picasso's famous work, Guernica, is a dramatic example of this.

With this example, we can see that Picasso has discarded realism. While truly understanding the work requires a little study, even at a casual glance, it is obvious Picasso is representing, through abstraction, the grotesque nature of war and its effect on society at that time.

The mural Guernica depicts the suffering of the people of Guernica, a Basque Country village in northern Spain. The town was bombed heavily by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italian warplanes at the request of the Spanish Nationalists.

With symbolism scattered through the image there are a number of emotionally evocative figures prominent in the Mural, the slain soldier and the figure surrounded by flame all demonstrate despair and violence. For me, though, the utter anguish on the mother's face as she clutches her dead child is the most harrowing, capturing an image of pain that words cannot convey.

As I was standing before Picasso's work, I felt a closeness to the artist. The only thing separating us was time: I was standing in the exact same location relative to the piece as Picasso had when he worked on this painting. I was in awe. I started to wonder what it was that makes this painting so important. Is it the composition? Is it the color? No - it was none of those things for me. It was the idea. It was the artist's investigation and exploration of the unique time in space that made this so special. It was not just the art itself but the mind it came from, with provenance of the artists signature.

Jackson Pollock 1912-1956

Jackson Pollack's "Blue Poles" is another piece that fascinates me.

The first time I saw this piece, I thought it was rubbish: a drop sheet for a house painter! Without comprehending the piece, I did what I had done with Picasso and began to look at why Pollock did what he did.

Pollock's technique and palette were very different from earlier artists. His technique of dripping, splashing and pouring paint onto the un-stretched canvas, along with the scale of the painting itself, could be regarded as a performance. Pollock didn't use traditional tools or colours, moving away from the palette of nature, and using sticks and cooking basters, or just pouring paint directly from the can. He believed his abandonment of traditional painting tools reflected the realms of unconscious experience but also responded to contemporary life. As he stated: "The modern painter cannot express this age, the airplane, the atom bomb, the radio, in the old forms of the Renaissance or of any past culture."

It is this quote that interests me in this work. Pollock is clearly intending to express and respond to contemporary life through his art, even though this art is abstract. This statement, for me, associates the art with the unique period of time when the radio, the airplane and the atom bomb were cutting edge technology, and deepens my experience of viewing the painting.

Both these artists, made art which was unique to their own time, place and experience: the signature on the art not only represents the artist but the place in time to which it belongs. These pieces of art would not have been relevant at any other time, the ideas and influences that are conveyed through the artist, elevates the art beyond simply the most realistic reflection of the world.

THE READYMADES

The Value of an Idea

'Readymade' is a term coined in 1915. It denotes a common, mass-produced or pre-made object which an artist removes from its function and deems art. There are two pieces that are highly influential in this style of work. The first is by the most influential artist of the 20th century, Marcel Duchamp (possibly the most important artist to this body of work), and the second is by Piero Manzoni.

Marcel Duchamp 1887-1968

In 1917 in New York, Duchamp made his most notorious readymade, "Fountain": a urinal signed by the artist with a false name and exhibited placed on its back.

In the May 1917 issue of 'The Blind Man', an avant-garde magazine run by Duchamp and two friends, an article was published which explained the theory behind the readymade. Though the article was anonymous, it was almost certainly written by Duchamp himself. An excerpt read: 'Whether Mr Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life, and placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view - created a new thought for that object.'

There are three important points here: first, that the choice of object is itself a creative act. Secondly, that by cancelling the 'useful' function of an object it becomes art. Thirdly, that the presentation and addition of a title to the object have given it 'a new thought', a new meaning. Duchamp's Readymades also asserted the principle that what is art is defined by the artist.

In 1917, 'The Fountain' was rejected by the Society of Independent Artists, and the original urinal has been lost. There exists a replica of the original, but a replica is not as significant as the original artwork. As a work voted one of the most influential art pieces of the 20th century, what has been lost?

Piero Manzoni 1933-1963

Manzoni's father, who owned a cannery, is said to have once told his artist son, "Your work is shit."

In May 1961, while he was living in Milan, Piero Manzoni produced ninety cans, each numbered on the lid from 001 to 090. A label on each can, printed in Italian, English, French and German, identified the contents as '"Artist's Shit", contents 30gr net freshly preserved, produced and tinned in May 1961.' In December 1961, Manzoni wrote in a letter to the artist Ben Vautier: 'I should like all artists to sell their fingerprints, or else stage competitions to see who can draw the longest line or sell their shit in tins. The fingerprint is the only sign of the personality that can be accepted: if collectors want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own shit, that is really his.

In 1964, Manzoni was said to have sold a can to Alberto Lucia for 30 grams of 18 carat gold. In the same way that Duchamp took an everyday item and turned it into art, Manzoni took his excrement and priced it on par with gold. He attached a value to what would otherwise have no value. The art world obviously assented to this act: Sotheby sold a can in 2007 for €124,000, and on October 16, 2015, tin 54 was sold at Christies for £182,500. The tins were originally to be valued according to their equivalent weight in gold - $37 each in 1961 - with the price fluctuating according to the market. However, these recent sales indicate that Manzoni's cans of shit are outperforming gold 70 times over.

OTHER INFLUENTIAL'S

Andy Warhol 1928-1987

The Campbell's Soup Cans series consisted of thirty two paintings by artist Andy Warhol. Warhol's art provides a snap shot of the culture of the 1960s. This was a time, particularly in America, where consumers were increasingly exposed to the advertising machine and mass consumption. Warhol provides a time capsule of this culture of mass consumption by producing art that appears to be mass produced. The canvasses are hand painted with the exception of the Fleur-de-lis across the bottom of the can, which was stamped. The only thing distinguishing the paintings is the name of the soup on each can: Warhol painted one picture for each of the 32 varieties of soup Campbell's produced in 1962.

In my mind, the success of Andy Warhol as an artist can be partly attributed to the art dealer and gallery owner Irving Blum. It is thanks to Blum that the paintings were preserved as a set. In July 1962, Blum held his first gallery show of the 32 Campbell's Soup paintings in the ferus Gallery of Los Angeles, California. Irving had already sold four or five, but they were still in the gallery. However, before the gallery show, Blum decided to keep them together as a set, called the clients, and was able to buy them back. Blum contacted Warhol and asked how much for the whole series. Warhol quoted him $1000, which Blum paid in ten installations over ten months. The last time the paintings were purchased, it was in 1996, when the Museum of Modern for $15 million (partially purchased, partially as a gift).

It only took one person believing in the work's success. Before Irving Blum, Warhol's series had only received a lukewarm response at best. Some responses at the time: "The exhibition caused a mild sensation in Los Angeles. The more daring members of the youthful art and film community were intrigued by their novelty. Most people, however, treated them with indifference or outright disdain. A nearby art dealer parodied the show by displaying a stack of soup cans, advertising that you could get them cheaper in his gallery."

"His pop art work differed from serial works by artists such as Monet who used series to represent discriminating perception and show that a painter could recreate shifts in time, light, season, and weather with hand and eye. Warhol is now understood to represent the modern era of commercialization and indiscriminate "sameness". "His variations of multiple soup cans, for example, made the process of repetition an appreciated technique: "If you take a Campbell's Soup can and repeat it fifty times, you are not interested in the retinal image. According to Marcel Duchamp, what interests you is the concept that wants to put fifty Campbell's Soup cans on a canvas."

The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid

What is Sacrifice?

When we hear the word sacrifice, we often think of completely selfless acts in which someone does something for another entirely for the other person's benefit. The image of a soldier sacrificing his life for his comrades frequently comes to mind. But sacrifice isn't purely altruistic. The best definition of sacrifice is this: "To forfeit something for something else considered to have a greater value." (American Heritage Dictionary, emphasis mine). Sacrifice does not mean giving up something for nothing; it means giving up one thing for something else we believe is worth more. This does not at all take away from the virtue of sacrificial acts. Instead of locating the merit of sacrifice in unselfishness, we can find it in a man's chosen value system. The man who lays down his life for his family or for his comrades has chosen to place more value on their lives than on his own. What is more praiseworthy than that? The law of sacrifice says that you cannot get something you want, without giving up something in return. In order to attain something you believe is of greater value, you must give up something you believe is of lesser value."

The next artists are able to define the exact amount they believe the value of a genuine idea is worth. On the 23rd August, 1994, Bill Drummond & Jimmy Cauty, both members of the Musical Group KLF, burned £1,000,000 pounds sterling in cash in a disused boathouse on the Ardfin Estate.At the time the K Foundation were criticized as some in the public incredulous and angry responded that they could have done so much for the starving if they hadn't burnt their money. To which they replied that they hadn't destroyed bread or oranges or something that could be eaten - they destroyed pieces of paper.

A piece in The Times on 5 November 1995, coinciding with the Glasgow screenings, reported that the K Foundation had no solid answers about why they had burnt the money and what, if anything, the act represented, but concluded: "The K Foundation may not have changed or challenged much but they have certainly provoked thousands to question and analyse the power of money and the responsibilities of those who possess it. And what could be more artistic than that? In the same issue, the newspaper's K Foundation art award. witness, Robert Sandall, wrote that the Foundation's award, million pounds artwork and the burning were all "entertaining, and satirically quite sharp", but "the art world has chosen not to think [of it as art]...."

I think of it as one of the great art pieces of all time, as it redefined my view of community and the standards we set ourselves.

One Red Paperclip

This piece was extremely influential to the Picasso Manifesto, as it not only describes a format of trade, but more importantly to me, it shows the social implications of what one person's idea has achieved. "One Red Paperclip" is a simple idea developed by a Canadian man named Kyle MacDonald. On the 12th of July 2005 he began using the Internet to advertise on Craigslist and his own blog that he would trade one red paperclip for a house. Nearly one year to the day and 14 trades later, that is exactly what he did. On July 12, 2006 he traded with the Town of Kipling, Saskatchewan for a house located at 503 Main Street

He started by trading his one red paperclip for a fish pen. Each trade very gradually improved the value of the object he owned. As his idea took hold and began to flourish, it developed international attention. When I first heard about his idea, I was instantly interested. It became a voyeuristic experience, hoping that he would indeed trade up to a house, watching each trade to see when his idea would be realised. The idea coalesced and connected to those watching all around the world into a single team of people cheering him on. As someone looking on, I wanted him to succeed: I wanted him to beat the system because of a brilliant idea. The realisation of a single idea that began with one red paperclip and became a house, and that as observers we could participate indirectly. That with each person who logged in to watch the progression of his idea actually validated the process.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "Life is a journey, not a destination." The same is implied in Kyle's idea for us as the voyeur. For those of us that watched, it was a fascinating social journey that we could participate in through the modern day communication tool: the Internet.

Redesigned Table

Many years ago now, we needed a coffee table. As we were not wealthy, I decided that I would make the table, but we could not afford the wood either. So, in the backyard of the shared house we were renting was an old work shed. Over the years, it had become just a place of refuse, and the shed itself had rusted and had severe water damage. Most of the contents had rotted. Underneath this junk was an old work bench that had been eaten away over the years by termites. The vast majority of the work bench was destroyed, however there was enough salvageable wood to build the coffee table. So I set about preparing the wood, including treating the wood with mineral turpentine so that no more termite damage would occur. Apart from this treatment and cutting the wood to size, I left the wood as it was found, displaying all the marks and paint from its days as a work bench. That which was once a tree, than a work bench, is now table. In saying that it is now a table, who knows what it may become next? A museum piece? Firewood? Is it art? Could it be art?

ART & COMMODIFICATION

Artist; aged two?

Can a child's playful paintings be called "abstract" art?

In January 2009, Mark Jamieson, director of the Brunswick St gallery, was displaying photos by a Russian born photographer, Nikka Kalashnikova. Kalashnikova asked Mark if he would also include work from a promising abstract artist named Aelita Andre. Mark liked what he saw, so he agreed to include a group show alongside Kalashnikova's work. It wasn't until later he found out that Aelita Andre was in fact Kalashnikova's daughter, aged 22 months.

The value of an idea for me, as Edgar Degas said, "Art is not what you see, but what others make you see". Well, in this case I was certainly shown the value of an idea. It is clearly the lack of an idea here that made to be seen. This example shows a snapshot of today's art world - one that pimps out art without any ideological value, and passes it off to the masses without deeper thought. Andre's art is labeled abstract, but what was it abstracted from? What is the idea supporting the abstraction? Without those, can it really be art? Yes, to her parents it has value, but to the art world, what makes this work valuable?

Consumer of the image and the iconography

These images what do they mean to you? What is the difference between them? Has one got a greater meaning and does anyone care? We have become fashion billboards displaying the commercial image of the garments producer on our clothes. The style of that designer is sufficient any longer, we now need to let people know through the image that we are wearing a Ralph Lauren shirt or carrying a Louis Vuitton bag, otherwise what is the point of spending extra money on these products? Do we even ask if these clothes are warmer or more comfortable, what are the motives?

Cycling home, I heard a woman on the radio talk about Apple products. She said: "I don't care what it is or how it works, if it is Apple, I have to have it. I just love Apple stuff!" This is the very heart of commodification, Valuing the icon with no regard to the functionality and performance of the product. I don't know how many times I have watched people camping out, talking on their perfectly functional phone, to get the next and newest iPhone. Then punch the air in victory when they have purchased one. Why?

Consider the near-ubiquitous image of Che Guevara, for example. People wearing Che's face - do they know exactly what he was or what he stood for? For many, it is just an image with some vague assumptions thrown in as to a meaning. Author Michael Casey notes how Ches's image has become a logo as recognizable as the Nike swoosh or golden arches.

This is a quote from an art investment Nanda\Hobbs "Over the past decade, art investment has seen a new class of investor emerge. Spectacular results have been achieved at auction and records set for numerous artists and genres."Art fairs, auctions and galleries have produced a veritable marketplace for hot commodities and much of the art world has become the playground of the rich, The selling of prestige and status to the emerging wealthy peoples of the world..

At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe art is neither a product to be sold nor a commodity to be gambled on. The artists, arts administrators and activists who define art as an experience by which one is transformed for the benefit of a community believe the only product of this type of engagement is human capital and spirit. Commodification is often criticised on the grounds that some things should not be treated as commodities, like the education and the health of our young, or publicly funded scientific knowledge. When art is commodified - sold as an investment, rather than as the expression of an idea, does it then become more about how valuable the object is rather than the ideas that the art conveys? When we look at news articles informing that another record has been set do we even wonder why? Do we even consider what the art represents?

The "Messiah" Stradivari Violin

The Hill family donated the legendary 'Messiah' violin to the British Nation, in order to see it permanently preserved in pristine condition. It is housed at the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, in the Hill Room. Access to the instrument is strictly limited. It is remarkably unused, and was given to the museum on the understanding it would not be played again.

It is hard to understand that something designed specifically to be played; to produce art in the form of music, is denied and will never be heard again. It sits in a dichotomous limbo, of being held up as the greatest of all violins with the finest sound and the highest price tag to match. But the reason that it is held with such honor is the exact reason it will never be heard again. It is a self-defeating commodification of art. The true value of the art is lost, in order to preserve its value as a commodity - its price tag. This is a true tragedy.

A Sign of the Times?

Jonas Salk Martin Shkreli

Around the same time as Jackson Pollack was producing his body of work, a medical researcher and virologist Jonas Salk released results on the Salk vaccine from a field trial that proved to be effective in the immunization against Polio. The Vaccine was licensed in 1955. After a huge immunization campaign, the annual number of polio cases in the US fell from 35,000 in 1953 to 5,600 by 1957. By 1961 only 161 cases were recorded in the United States. Salk never patented the vaccine, though, on principle. He is quoted as saying, "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?

We move forward 60 years, and in September 2015, Martin Shkreli, founder and former CEO of Turning Pharmacuticals , bought the license for Daraprim, a drug used to treat toxoplasmosis, and more famously, HIV/AIDS and raised its price by a factor of 56 (from USD$13.5 to USD$750 per pill). In other words, he commodified life giving drugs. In response to criticism on this issue, Shkreli said this: "If you see someone selling a Aston Martin for the price of a bicycle, and you buy that company and put the prices up to a Toyota, I don't see a problem with that". To me this is as striking a commentary of our world, as much as Jackson Pollack's "the atomic bomb, the airplane or the radio". This is a snapshot of a society where the wealthy equate the necessary expense of drugs to aid in serious illness with the luxury expense of an Aston Martin.

This is the society that we live in. Where those who ask moral questions, such as Edward Snowden are treated as criminals for informing the people, while Kim Kardashian becomes immortalized for absolutely nothing, and those who convince us we should be afraid become President.

Evolution of Art

The value of evolutionary art was demonstrated to me after watching both Kill Bill 1 & 2. During one particularly graphic scene I understood the relevance of two lead women fighting to the death using samurai swords, that being, the glass ceiling of cinematic violence was broken. For me the scene is a critic of modern social issues, that of a woman's role in today's world. The lead role for a woman is no longer that of a wall flower, they are now kick ass martial artists that answer to no one. It is important to comprehend that Tarantino has evolved from master film makers such as Sergio Leone, and has produced a neoclassic modern western. Tarantino is literally borrowing dialogue and music scores to create a visceral assault on the senses, however by modernising the characters and plot, make it relevant to a contemporary audience.

THE PICASSO PROPOSITION

My Art!

I have given you a tour of artists who have helped shape me as an artist; who made me think and ponder what art could be, what art should be to me.

I don't know who first said it but I have heard many times that we don't design in vacuum. I realise that the works and artists that I have discussed in this paper are revolutionary, and the work that I am proposing is more evolutionary. I don't suggest that I am in their equal, but I do believe that I am exploring the same questions as them, but in a modern setting: What is art today? I have also been equally influenced by the pervasive influence of social media and commercialism that we are continually bombarded with at every turn.

The question I intend to ask with the Picasso Manifesto is more specific than just "what is Art today?". I will ask "Is art the intent of the piece and the value of the idea, or is it just commercialism - an investment based only on the status one gains from owning art?

I will explore this idea through a series of transactions that will encourage public participation through voyeurism, using the Internet to connect with people directly. It will also engage people across classes and socio-economic groups: Initially it will be priced to be accessible to the lower economic groups, eventually accessible only by the wealthiest in society.

My proposition is to begin by selling a piece of art that is to me inherently priceless. That is, a drawing done by my son. In the same vein as Piero Manzoni defining the value of his art and referencing Warhol's Campbell's series selling for ten installments of $100, I will sell the first piece for no less than $100 to anyone who will pay it. However, unlike Warhol's Campbell's series or Manzoni's Merda d'Artiste, I will increase the value of each piece - doubling the sale price with each sale. I will reinvest the total sale price to acquire the next piece in the process, effectively improving the commercial viability of each transaction. It is essential to understand with the exception of the first trade all subsequent trades will only risk half the value of purchase price. This is due the entirety of the previous trade being reinvested to purchase the next piece. It is only the first trade that will risk the entire dollar value, because they will be investing in a piece that holds no current commercial value.

Before each piece is placed for sale, I will sign the newly acquired art work, I will sign it under the pseudonym W. Head, using the signature to claim not the artwork itself, but the idea of the value of the artwork. The only common trait of these pieces will be my signature on them.The end goal of this process is to, by buying art and doubling the price each time, to eventually purchase and sign a Picasso painting. The signature is my art and the canvass is reused in the same way that canvases have been reused by artists over millennia. With the exception, that where they have hidden the previous work with another image, I chose to celebrate both my art and theirs.

Allow me to say that I do not intend to do this to offend and shock, like the Chapman brothers. I don't see that what I am doing as defacing art work but rather giving it a new lease on life: bringing back into relevance. When I made a table out of a work bench, that was once a tree, none of those past states ceased to exist. The knots in the wood are still clear and show the life of the wood as a tree, and the center of the table still displays paint stains and the many nicks that a work bench receives over its life time. Just the same way, the fact that I may sign a Picasso work does not mean it wasn't Picasso who painted it, nor that some basic research could not identify it as a Picasso piece. His thought process through his symbolism is so plain in the work that no signature by anyone else could ever erase that origin.

I am asking what it is about our culture at this time that is important. We do everything through Facebook and Twitter: how does the internet play a part in what is art today? I take my cue here from the One Red Paperclip project, which needed the Internet and its following. If I tried to do this without the Internet, it would be impossible, as I need the voyeurism to validate my position. Just like the Merde d'Artiste was not validated as art until it was purchased, those watching me sell my art and buying the pieces I sign will prove that my undertaking is art.

Critic versus Consumer

I am not focused on the retinal image, brush work or composition; the art focuses on the idea, Like Duchamp, the act of signing becomes a component of the art, however it is what the signature represents that differs from Duchamp. The art itself is represented as the voyeuristic and intense nature of globalization the age of Tinder, Twitter, Snapchat and Facebook. Participation legitimizes my position, as each individual that logs on becomes a part of the performance and the commercialization of the art. I am endeavoring to get people to question the world of art, by using the internet as the medium. The manifesto aims to directly engage with commodification and becomes about the process with those who participate, both voyeuristically and commercially become part of the art. The voyeur and consumer influence the success of the art as much as cellist in an orchestra, or the muse that inspires the painter. This is Art that is accessible to the masses. This is Art that is influenced by the masses.

This piece intends to appeal to critics of art, and those who invest in art. Put simply: if you are a critic and see the value of an idea and the artistic merit, then this work appeals to your artistic nature. However, if you are a consumer and can’t see the value in the idea but see it as a fetishized commodity and want to make a shrewd investment, understand that only 22 or so people can partake out of 7.5 billion people, and that each piece will be associated with the value of a Picasso!

Sangre Del Artista

Finally, I would like to say that, just as Piero Manzoni wanted to give something personal of himself to those who see the value in his work, I too want to pass something that is uniquely personal. Therefore, my art will be signed with a substance that is unquestionably mine: a literal combination of blood, sweat and tears. I say this not to be dramatic, but because no other person can forge my DNA. In this era of science and technology, where people are found innocent or guilty through DNA evidence, my blood, sweat and tears is a personal as it gets. In the film Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? the authenticity of recently discovered art work by the Artist Jackson Pollack painting is investigated. A forensic art expert is engaged, and identifies a partial fingerprint that is matched to Jackson Pollack. By signing the work with DNA based media, there can be no doubt of the art's true provenance.