COLLABORATION AND CONSUMER GOODS AS ARTWORKS

(DAMIEN HIRST X SUPREME)

(JAMES JOYCE X SWISS ARMY)

(MURAKAMI X LOUIS VUITTON X SUPREME)

(KAWS X KIEHLS(RXART) X NIKE)

Identifying consumer goods, produced via collaboration between fine artists and creative firms, as art or not is a topic generating some debate in the blogosphere (see these two - one two - posts from Hyperallergic). Given the increasing quantity (Murakami, Koons, Hirst, KAWS, Geoff McFetridge, Fairey) of these projects, it appears to be a topic worth exploring.  The question centers not only on the issue of art or not, but also on the relative benefit that the goods produced provide to creative culture at large.  Do the people who purchase the products have a genuine appreciation for the work of the artist or do they simply covet a limited edition product? Is the experience of wearing a handbag equal to the experience of purchasing or observing a painting or sculpture?  Does the clothing or design firm (as is most often the case) benefit more from the project than the artist? In economics terms, as are often my favorite types to use, on which side of this micro market do the payoffs from the incentives generate greater utility?  

The answers to these questions are variable.  That is, the answers are dependent on the specifics of each project and/or the intentions of the individual buyer.  

• As to the question of a buyer’s appreciation for an artist’s work/vision versus a desire to own a limited edition good, such a test of validity is not dependent on the type of good (painting or handbag), rather, it is a judgment of the consumer. In this context, to impose such a test would be to put the identity of a work, as art or not, purely in terms of the buyer’s character.  That is, if a person purchases a Picasso simply for the prestige gained from having it hang on their living room wall, does the work maintain the same artistic value as if the buyer were an astute connoisseur? Yes. The question of art or not exists outside of the buyer’s motivations.  
• The question of equivalent experience in observing art traditionally versus as a consumer good  is a bit more open ended.  I would submit that these two experiences exist independently. Observing a painting is one way to experience a particular type of artwork.  Wearing a bag or scarf designed by an artist is another experience altogether.  As was the case in the previous question’s answer, the artistic relevance of the experience or act are dependent on the buyer’s motivations; but the purchaser’s purview does not make a work more or less worthy of classification as art.
• The question of which party in a collaboration, artist or firm, benefits more from a particular project is entirely dependent on the project itself.  Case in point, the numerous projects Takashi Murakami has done with Louis Vuitton have substantially rewarded both sides.  They have, in unison with the efforts of Marc Jacobs, reinvigorated an old brand, making Louis Vuitton cool to a younger generation and expanding the breadth of their product line. Simultaneously, the collaborations have exposed the work of Takashi Murakami to a much broader audience and supplied the muse for his largest museum exhibition to date. However, there are also projects that clearly benefit the firm more than the artist. Case in point, the Reebok X Basquiat sneaker project; the relevancy of this project was hurt by the fact that the artist is no longer living, thus a true collaboration was not possible.  Where collaboration is central to so many artistic endeavors, the design of each project becomes important in determining its artistic value and the relative value it generates for each party involved.

At their most successful, both creatively and financially, collaborations between fine artists and producers of consumer goods have the ability to enrich our popular culture by increasing consumer awareness of fine art and the ingenious minds that innovate in the field.  Questions pertaining to the relative success of the projects should be answered by dissecting their collaborative process and by seeking to understand how value was distributed artistically, financially, socially and culturally.  Not all of these projects warrant applause but when they are conceived (and acted upon) from a place of genuine interest in the expansion of our creative cultures, then they most certainly are art.

JNOMICS