Alex Stursberg
How do we define value when an artwork is not for sale? Is it possible for artists to circumvent the marketplace? If so, what would the social implications of this act be? Hosting, trading, and gifting are key methods that artists have used to challenge modern exchange-based value systems. Rather than produce a sellable object, artists have highlighted the social and cultural values that exists within these acts. In contrast to the alienating nature of monetary exchange, these alternative forms of exchange offer artists an effective method for redefining value outside of the marketplace. Through an analysis of theories by Max Weber, Karl Marx, Georg Simmel, Marcel Mauss, and Jacques Derrida and an examination of artworks by David Hammons, Jimmie Durham, Marcel Duchamp, Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Rikrit Tiravanija, and Del Hillier, I will discuss the relationship between art, value, and exchange. Through my research, I examine the nature of monetary value and how capital-based exchange impacts on social relations while considering value in terms of the art market. I illustrate alternative exchange practices in contemporary art, including trading, hosting, and gifting. These case studies provide examples of how through the facilitation of artworks based on alternative modes of exchange, we can reorient ourselves towards value and resist the alienating nature of commodification.
How the Nature of Capital Transformed Value in Society
The value of an artwork is often defined through its relationship to capital and the marketplace. To examine how we define value when an artwork is not for sale, we must first examine how we understand value itself, and the system under which the art market operates. Capitalism is a system through which impersonal relations and objects replace personal relations of dependence. Under this system, the acquisition of capital becomes the end goal, overturning other social aspirations (Lowy, 2002: 77). In comparing the theories of Marx and Weber, Michael Lowy identifies two key elements within this economic system: first, capitalism inverts “means and ends” whereby the acquisition of more money, rather than the satisfaction of our actual needs, becomes our ultimate objective. Second, capitalism requires that we submit our lives to an “all powerful” economic mechanism through which we accept production and gains as the key factors that shape our lives. In a sense, capitalism “imprisons” us as it determines what we are able to do. By placing exchange value above human relations, capitalism places money at the center of social interactions (Lowy, 2002: 83-86). Thus, while capital allows for a clear-cut and calculable method of transaction, in accepting its primacy we become disconnected from the value of others and the objects they create.
Simmel (2004, 76-79) explains that by determining value through comparison with other objects, monetary exchange removes objects from the context of their creation and allows their value to be determined independent of their possessors. Monetary exchange, and the social relationships that develop from it are just a one-time interaction. These interactions are considered alienating in the sense that they don’t oblige the participants to develop their relationship any further than the transaction itself (Carrier, 1991: 130). Exchange through gift or trade, on the other hand, can enhance social relationships, as it involves an element of obligatory reciprocity. One is morally obliged to repay what they have received. They are expected by society to reciprocate with an object of mutual value (Carrier, 1991: 129). As described by Mauss, the objects that are exchanged are “inalienable” as they are an extension of the self, representing the person who is giving them and connecting them directly to the recipient (Carrier, 1991: 125). Through the act of gift exchange participants become further interconnected.
Exchange practice in pre-state societies established value through a complex and “inalienable” web of social interaction that employed various forms of trade and gift. For example, much research has been invested into dissecting the Aboriginal “Potlatch”, a ceremonial feast in which gifts are exchanged through the redistribution of resources. Mauss explains that this activity created an “interlocking whole” whereby gifting cemented social dependency and interaction, while obligating participants to reciprocate gifts in an appropriate manner (Carrier, 1991: 129). The “Potlatch” is often pointed to as evidence of our natural tendency to pursue harmonious forms of exchange. The loss of this fundamental element of our human nature has transformed how we understand value.
How Value and the Art Market Intersect
The art market itself is also a key player in shaping how we understand value in relation to artworks. A particularly complex and hysterical market dealing in a particularly unique commodity, the art market requires its own economic considerations. Marxist theory argues that artists living under capitalism are beholden to commodification, which determines what they will create. The art object possesses the same qualities as any commodity that can be bought or sold and has both a “use value” and an “exchange value” (Wilette, 2010). While the art objects “use value” may not be as clear as with many other objects, it has the capability to satisfy a variety of personal motivations, from pure pleasure to social status. On the other hand, the “exchange value” of the art object is clearer and can often take precedence. For many, an artwork’s primary value lies in what it can be exchanged for, or what amount of money can be obtained from it. However, the art object is a special kind of commodity: the exchange value of artworks operates differently than the more comparable and utilitarian objects exchanged within everyday economics. The art market is perhaps most similar to the stock market, with its tendency to fluctuate, its coded languages, and its highly speculative nature (Carter, 2006: 105). For the outsider, it is a more veiled and complex market than most.
David Hammons’ 1983 performance piece, Bliz-aard Ball Sale parodies the often times absurd nature of value within the art market. Portraying himself as an anonymous peddler, Hammons situated himself alongside other street vendors in downtown Manhattan and offered snowballs for sale to the public. He arranged and priced the snowballs according to size from small to large (Stern, 2009). Through attaching a price to a commonplace and short-lived object, Hammons questions how we determine value. It is a commentary on the capitalist and often arbitrary nature of the art world, as well as a critique on the nature of class in America. Like the snowballs, many American citizens are subjected to the same arbitrary evaluations. In the case of the snowballs, it is their size that matters and in America it is ethnicity and class (Busch, 2014). Hammons, whose work is largely about how he functions in the world, has stated: “The less I do the more of an artist I am” (Stern, 2009). For him, true art lies in the act of removing oneself. When his sale is over, Hammons and his snowballs melt away.
Simmel (2004: 70) contends that aesthetic value is often difficult to quantify, as its use value is often unclear. We find may find utility in how the object makes us feel, or if it provides us with an enjoyable sensation. However, the art object is unique in the sense that it has an independent existence that cannot be replaced by that of another. Economic exchange demands that objects be evaluated in comparison to one another and this makes the independent art object particularly difficult to quantify. Under capitalism, the sellable object must have value independent of the person possessing it whereas artworks are intrinsically linked to their creators, and at times their possessors (Simmel, 2004: 70-79). Perhaps it is these factors that make the relationship between art and capital seem so insidious at times. With no alternative, we force artworks to fit within this system, which disconnects us from the motivations for their creation. With monetary gain as the ultimate calculation of value, there is no need for a relationship between the producer and consumer.
Jimmie Durham’s artworks often make a consideration around what our relationship to art objects and materials has become under capitalism. Anti-monumental and in defiance of the elevated art object, Durham’s works such as Stone as Stone remind us of the value of an object, free from economic consideration. In these works, Durham employs large stones to smash traditional objects used in art preservation such as a vitrine. In doing so, he highlights the utility of the stone itself. For Durham, the stone tool is an example of human genius as it’s utility is always present. It is a fantastic hammer. There is clear use value in a stone (Durham, 2010). Yet a more recent work by Durham may defy commodification completely. In 2010, in collaboration with Cujo Magazine, Durham amassed 1000 separate objects, described as “magic items that hold the world together”. These objects were then photographed and reproduced in a 1000 page publication and were then gifted to 1000 different people along with one of the objects. The recipient is given one part of a whole that they must keep and care for, knowing that alongside 999 other people, they are helping to hold the world together (Durham, 2010). Through a simple act of generosity, Durham challenges our understanding of value, while reminding us of our interdependence as humans.
A Guest + A Host = A Ghost
The desire to counteract capitals’ monopoly over our value systems and redefine our relationship to the commodified art object has offered fertile grounds for artistic exploration. Hospitality, in a variety of forms, has emerged as a preferred method employed by different artists to circumvent the art market. In 1953, at artist Bill Copley’s Parisian vernissage, Marcel Duchamp offered small candies as gifts to visitors. Each candy wrapper was inscribed with the Duchampian pun: A Guest + A Host = A Ghost. While various levels of interpretation can be drawn from his wordplay, Duchamp is referring to what remains after an act of hospitality. Through gift exchange we break down social barriers; the guest (the visitors) and the host (Duchamp) form a new entity (the ghost), which is an amalgamation of these two players and hints at the bonds that are formed through this act. Through the gift, the hosting artist finds their individuality removed from their work. What remains is the spirit of the act of exchange itself, or the ghost of a human relationship (Gould, 2000).
Felix Gonzalez-Torres employed a similar methodology to Duchamp with his candy-pile artworks of the early 90’s. His work, Untitled (Portrait of Marcel Brient) consisted of 198.5 pounds of candies wrapped in light blue cellophane piled in the corner of a gallery that was offered to visitors to eat. By inviting participants to consume his artwork, Gonzalez-Torres was questioning the relationship between value, exchange, and art. Where did the artwork lie? Was it within the candy pile itself? Or was it in the hospitable act of exchange between Gonzalez-Torres and his visitors? It posed an important question around value. With no object for sale, we are forced to reorient ourselves around where the value lies within the work (Foster, 2011: 654). But the art market has an incredible ability to reassert an artworks exchange value as its primary value. Gonzalez-Torres, who died in 1996, might not have anticipated that in 2010 his certified specifications for Untitled (Portrait of Marcel Brient) would sell for over 4.5 million dollars (Phillips, 1992).
Rikrit Tiravanija’s artworks seek to take hospitality a step further than candy through the act of serving meals. He is best known for his performances in which he sets up a kitchen in a gallery and remains for the duration of the exhibition, acting as both cook and host (Heartney, 2013: 402). In his 1992 exhibit, Untitled (Free) Tiravanija moved all the unseen rooms of the gallery into public spaces, placing the gallery workers in the main space, while in the back gallery he set up his kitchen and served Thai curry with rice. In reversing the space, he sought to dislocate the conventional positions of the artist and gallery worker and created a social consideration that can’t be quantified by capital (Foster, 2011: 665). Food reminds us of our basic human needs. Through this hospitable gesture Tiravanija reconnects us to the objects that shape our lives.
Derrida (2000: 25) argues that true hospitality should be “unconditional” or “absolute”. In the traditional hospitality scenario, the host offers gifts with expectations of a return or benefit. Therefore the host is in a position of power, whereby they allow the guest to be hosted so long as the guest meets their conditions. Derrida employs the example of immigration and the expectations that the host country places on immigrants. For example, many countries expect that immigrants will succumb to a certain degree of cultural assimilation before they are fully welcome (Derrida, 2000:15). Unconditional hosting seeks to remove power dynamics from hosting completely through an “unquestioning welcome”. To achieve absolute hospitality we must open up our homes to the “anonymous other” without the expectation of a return. This can create what Derrida calls “generative hospitality”, whereby the actions of the host will produce more of the same (Derrida, 2000: 25). True hospitality requires that we allow ourselves to become ghosts within the act, both parties anonymous, and without debt. It breaks down social barriers between public and private, foreigner and resident, and challenges our orientations towards value. It requires that we recognize social value ahead of monetary gain.
Canadian artist, Del Hillier is conscious of the importance of unconditional hospitality. His ongoing project The Trading Post picks up on these themes by creating a self-sustaining “space of exchange” (Rake, 2014: 12). Hillier began his project by finding an abandoned and run down cabin near a main highway in Canada’s Yukon Territory. Hillier repaired the cabin and filled it with a variety of items, including books, t-shirts, games, and various other objects. He then hung a “Trading Post” sign on the cabin, along with a list of guidelines for using the space, requesting that items be replaced by something else of the traders choosing, and that all trades were written down as documentation of the activity. Returning once a year since its inception, Hillier has discovered that The Trading Post has taken on a life of its own. New items appear and disappear, documentation of the trading continues, and participants have even begun performing their own repairs on the space (Rake, 2014: 12-14). His project is a strong example of effective unconditional hosting and demonstrates how artists can facilitate rather than create, ceding control over their artworks ultimate outcome. The Trading Post no longer needs Hillier to survive. Instead it has developed into a self-sustainable community project, dependent on all its players to become whole. The relationship between Hillier and the traders is unknown and Hillier is simply the host that initiated the exchange. Like Duchamp’s pun, together they become ghosts. Through “generative hospitality”, Hillier’s act results in more of the same and is paid forward by the other traders. Hillier has created an invisible relationship between strangers, who become accountable not only to the act of exchange, but also to each other (Rake, 2014: 14). Indeed, The Trading Post is a good example of how when we free objects and artworks from monetary evaluation, we can truly appreciate their cultural and social value.
Generating Hospitality
Capitalism demands that all objects, artworks included, are beholden to evaluations that disconnect us from each other in myriad ways. It causes us to place monetary value ahead of cultural and social value, while alienating us from objects and each other. How can we challenge this dilemma? Can the non-commodified artwork alter our understanding of value? Artists have employed a variety of strategies to investigate these questions, including gifting, trading, and hosting. But as the example of Gonzalez-Torres’ candy piles displays, it is often difficult for artworks to completely resist commodification. Thus, unconditional hospitality is an important methodology as it resists commodification by seeking to completely remove power dynamics from the act of exchange. Through a variety of humble methods we can see how small gestures can effectively challenge capitals’ dominance over our lives, alter our orientations towards value and exchange, and reconnect us to our basic human nature. Through increasing, encouraging, and nurturing the act of unconditional hospitality we may find these methods become even more potent and generate more of the same.
References
Busch, Thomas (2014) ‘Can You Remove the Rainbow From Happening? I EnArt, December.
Carrier, James (1991) ‘Gifts, Commodities, and Social Relations: A Maussian View of Exchange,’ Sociological Forum, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 1991, pp. 119-136.
Carter, Michael (2006) Reframing Art, Berg Publishers: Oxford.
Derrida, Jacques (2000) Of Hospitality Cultural Memory in the Present, Stanford: California.
Durham, Jimmie (2010) The Usual Song and Dance Routine With a Few Minor Interruptions, Glasgow School of Art, Lecture Series, Video, http://www.gsa.ac.uk/life/gsa-events/events/j/jimmie durham/#Jimmie%20Durham%20Video).
Durham, Jimmie (2011) ‘1000 Magic items Hold The World Together,’ CUJO, Issue 3, November, http://www.cujoguide.com/en/issues/3/
Foster, Hal et al. (2011) Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism, Vol 2, Thames & Hudson: New York.
Gould, Stephen Jay (2000) The Substantial Ghost: Towards a General Exegesis of Duchamp’s Artful Wordplays Tout-Fait, Vol. 1, Issue 2, May, http://www.toutfait.com/issues/issue_2/Articles/gould.html.
Heartney, Eleanor (2013) Art & Today, Phaidon, London.
Lowy, Michael (2002) ‘Marx, Weber and the Critique of Capitalism,’ Logos 1.3, Summer, pp. 77-86.
Phillips Art Auctions (1992) Untitled (Portrait of Marcel Brient) Felix Gonzalez-Torres, https://www.phillips.com/detail/FELIX-GONZALEZ-TORRES/NY010710/4
Rake, Peta (2014) ‘Trading Hosts: Del Hillier’s The Trading Post,’ C Magazine, Vol. 124, Winter, pp. 10-14.
Simmel, Georg (2004) The Philosophy of Money, Routledge: New York.
Stern, Steven (2009) ‘A Fraction of the Whole’, Frieze, No. 121, March, http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/a_fraction_of_the_whole/
Willette, Jeanne (2010) Marxism, Art and the Artist Art History Unstuffed, June, http://www.arthistoryunstuffed.com/marxism-art-artist/