| Some years ago, talking to a friend, I heard very interesting opinions on the plastic artist and the work conceptualization. On that moment, I requested him a text to publish it in the bulletin of the Union of the Plastic Artists of the State of São Paulo, of which I was a president at that time. The "alive wheel" of São Paulo impeded the materialization of that fact. However, other day, when reading a text about economy, I remembered that story and had the idea of writing the lines that follow. Which professional relationship the plastic artist lives in the capitalist society today in function of the product of his activity? If I am right during the Industrial Revolution, occurred great discussions that, at least, threatened the holders of the means of production at that time. After all, they were accused of enjoying (without a drop of effort) the work executed by others. Inside the discussions there were two controversies: 1) The value of a merchandise depends on its usefulness. 2) The value of a merchandise depends on the work used in its production. Somebody said that the meaning of the word "usefulness" was relative because it depended on the feeling of who would buy. Others said that the feeling of who would buy depended on the need provoked by his way of life and social level. Somebody said that the used work depended on the amount of manufactured merchandise. Others said that the amount of merchandise depended on the law of supply and demand. To complicate still more, it appeared others saying that the law of supply and demand was disfigured by the coming of the advertisement, that has the power to lead the opinion of the potential buyer. From that situation were born the great social conflicts, known by everybody and in all of the cases, culminated with some type of "ism." To worsen everything, ours (Brazilian) "ism" is not clearly defined. Everything is disfigured! The rules are not defined and that created the savage "law of the advantage." We valued more the consumption than the production; the market than the costs; the amount than the quality and, finally, the relative than the absolute. And it is impossible to discuss that with the economists or who makes the rules. It is what it is! They are laws! The whole confusion happens in function of quantified things. What say then about the work of art and about the artist's work? With the using of canvas as support, it became easier to transport the paintings in Renaissance and they changed into own goods of a more accessible market. Parallel to that, the concept of the word "artist" began to be mythicized. No longer it meant "artisan", a mere human being. In the beginning (the artists were few), everything was easy. It was very comfortable for the new "demigods" that deigned themselves to show their divinity through works of art. And, in the end of last century and beginning of this, it was also abandoned the occupation of the workmanship. No longer it was necessary the domain of the "artistic kitchen" and things became more complicated. If in the Medium Age the works were paid in function of the executed work in number of hours and used material, with the mythmaking its value became relative. It depended on the artist's name and his status. No longer was worth the technical quality of the work, especially because a lot of times it was conceptual, which relativized, still more, the relationship work/price. Some said that a work (art) could not be anymore related to absolute subjects (techniques). Others said that the conceptual had to be necessarily linked to the occupation. The discussion continues until today. Maybe the posterity will get some conclusion. I doubt! The fact is that, independently on the philosophical side, the society through the times began to value the matter/merchandise facing a line of production and a consumption need produced artificially. Since then, the artists (now many and many) became characterized as "lazybones", because the majority of them did not produce essential goods to the consumption society. They only wanted to pass the time painting/sculpturing/engraving/drawing. Van Gogh was protagonist of great dramas in function of the dichotomy work/product and his letters show how much that disturbed himself. The people considered him crazy, drunkard, useless to the society (materialistic and mercantile). Most of the artists, with rare exceptions, had already lived that situation, beginning with their own family. The work became related with a supposed financial profit and, no more, with the dedication to an activity. So, the artist who is "unknown" to the art market, even painting/sculpting/engraving/drawing all the day, usually is not classified as professional, while a "famous" artist that sells his work (participant of the market), even if he takes one hour to produce a work and pass the rest of the day wasting time, will be considered professional. Which is less or more worker? Which is less or more professional? How to characterize professionalism inside that activity? In my point of view, the two examples of artists above mentioned, are workers. Each one inside of the specificity of a wide activity where it is difficult to determine the edges, the Art. First of all, art is a concept created by the human being to explain one of the ways used to express their anguishes and longings, their relationship (material, spiritual and philosophical) with the world around. Finally, a mean to express the feelings. In that sense, so much yesterday as today, the larger function of the work of art is not to sale, but the relationship with the spectator, without necessarily to impinge him the author's same intention since nobody get to decipher all the elements, conceptual or material, implicit in a work of art. Specially because the art is a kind of language and, as such, it can give margin to several types of interpretations. So, the professionalism concept comes from the fact that the artist has a frequent production and show this production to public through art exhibitions, salons of art, etc. It is not enough to produce and to leave the work hidden below of the bed or to just show them to the relatives and friends, this does himself an artist but not a professional of the art. Concerning the sale of the work, this is a consequence which does not depends on the action of the creation and that it is related to the capitalist and material mercantilism explained previously. As the plastic artist has the terrible habit of needing to eat, to dress and to have home to live decently, he needed to adapt himself to the rules of the society. Since it is not possible to avoid the fact that the work of art, after being ready, acquire also the concept of a product, we should be careful for not mixing water with wine. There are works that have a receptivity on the market and other that has not. However, that does not decrease one artist nor another artist, they are just faces of the same polygon. The plastic artist, independently of his technique, style and concept, will be professional in the measure in that he produces and take his work to public with certain frequency. If the technical or conceptual level of the work is good or bad, that is another story, after all there are good and bad professional in all of the branches of the human activity. It is good to remind, that art is a human manifestation present in all cultures (one way or another), every time, and that it never depended on strange factors to their essential reasons. Walter L. L. Miranda - May/1991 |
| THE PROFESSIONALISM AND THE PLASTIC ARTIST |
| Published in D.O. Leitura (cultural newspaper of Oficial the State Press) in June 1991 |
 |