Consuming Art: One of the Greenest (and Healthiest) Things You Can Do

Lately I've been thinking a lot about consumerism, which is something one must think about when engaging in the popular discourse on environmental sustainability. I, like everyone else in this world, do my fair share of consuming all kinds of goods, and trying my best to limit the amount of refuse I generate that ultimately ends up in a landfill, doing no good for nobody. I recycle, I try to restrain myself from buying things I don't need, I get annoyed at the ridiculous amount of packaging that encases all the goods we buy, I have good days and bad days around all this.

Lately, I've also been thinking a lot about the roles of art and design in this whole discussion, have been to participating by commenting on blogs and mainstream articles, offering my humble 2 cents on a hopelessly big set of global concerns. I won't try to encapsulate everything I am thinking about in this post, but I will offer an epiphany I had a few days ago.

When was the last time you threw away a work of art? Personally, I never have. Ever. Lord knows I've discarded thousands of pounds of crap I've used up in my lifetime (ugh), but never a work of art. Anything I've ever bought from an artist, from a gallery, wherever, that I've considered a precious "work of art" has either been proudly displayed on my walls, or kept safe in storage waiting for a place to live. No art acquisition of mine has ever made it to a landfill. Which begs the question, if art is a consumable like any other consumable, why is it not discarded when its "useful" life is over?

I think the answer is plain and simple - art doesn't have any kind of "useful life" to speak of. (Art is supposed to be "timeless," right?)  If anything, art has no obsolescence, no expiration date. At worst, art can cease to have subjective value to one owner, but the mechanism to change hands is established and straightforward; there is a built-in transferability (or recyclability, if you will) in art in the very established resale market. And art works are the only aesthetically-driven artifacts that I can presently think of (maybe antiques too) that tend to appreciate in value, unlike most consumables (designed or not), which tend to depreciate in value (I'm glad we have ebay and craigslist, that's for sure).

So why is this important to note? You already knew this. So what? Well, there has been a sub-movement in the past few years towards using the Internet as an alternative channel for the distribution of art works that I think is starting to come of age. But part of this trend is another trend in making art "affordable," as evidenced by such websites as artocracy, 20x200,, artflock and minigallery. Unfortunately, "affordable" is vaguely defined in the same way that "affordable housing" is vaguely defined. Let's just say art whose price range is competitive with designer design objects, mid/high-end consumer electronics, computers, nice furniture, etc. This price class is radical in itself since it is really hard to find a brick and mortar gallery that will deal in anything for less than $1000 a pop. And that's bargain basement in the gallery world. But I kind of digress -- there's a larger discussion about today's art economics that I am interested in, and will no doubt touch on in my blog in the future.

The point here is that the trend is toward works of art becoming more affordable, thus stimulating demand from market segments that have never really been consumers of art before. That is a great thing....BUT where there is product, there (probably) will be waste. It must be noted, however, that it is highly unusual for us to be able to see a new product class emerge (because most if not all products we use everyday have been in existence for a long long time already and we are completely inured to the gargantuan scale of it all). Yes, a new product class MIGHT emerge, and it is worth noting what the unique characteristics of this new product class are. So if basic supply and demand economics apply here, then what we will see is increased consumption of art, perhaps even new classifications of art to fit the price points demanded by this category, and lordy - I hope we see new thinking in the academy (like a re-examination of the cultural value of reproductions) and "high-art" circles about the role of art in this category (like a wholesale rethinking of incomprehensible artist statements, one of my all-time biggest pet peeves). It's not the first time product classes have segmented via tiered price points. Most things in our material world are. Art should be no exception.

Anyway, the short of the long is this -- the appreciation (and eventual consumption) of art exists pretty high up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Pyramid. You can't say that art is one of life's basic necessities, because it simply isn't the same as food, water or shelter. The fullfillment of aesthetic needs is several levels higher than "deficiency needs" and just under the famous (and controversial) "Self-Actualization" tip of Maslow's model. And there is something remarkable about this hierarchy -- I am starting to see (at least in the world of consumables) that the higher you move up Maslow's Pyramid, the less you tend to discard. Think about it.

We will always need "stuff". We'd even die if we didn't have certain things (food, water - Maslow's bottom layer). But what separates us from mere animals are all the higher layers, those things unique to sentient beings. I will most likely elaborate on this more in my blog (for example, I think Maslow's Pyramid would be a great way to organize the stock market...yes, the stock market---stay tuned). No one "needs" art, one could argue. But according to Maslow, we do. The "Aesthetic Needs" level sits closest to "self-actualization, " to "spirituality," (and so forth). We as human beings need and really do desire healthy aesthetic experiences in the world. And the existence of a more affordable class of aesthetic consumables is a positive thing for society (yes, I really believe that).

So, back to my original premise. The good news is manifold: more art, more affordable art, good for sentient well-being, good for supporting those artists who have committed themselves to the pursuit of form and meaning, and....GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

Art simply isn't a class of consumable that one THROWS AWAY. How cool is that? 

So, buy more art and feel good in advance that the odds of your acquisition making it into a landfill are very, very low (and hell, 99.9% of consumable art doesn't require any fossil fuels, electricity or batteries to boot).

[NB: I concede that it may sound awfully crass in some circles to label art as a "consumable." I don't mean to demean art in all its aspirational manifestations, not in the least. I'm just comfortable using the language of economics because I understand it better than the languages of art criticism and cultural theory -- that is my own limitation, so apologies to anyone I might be offending or annoying] 

[NB2: I have been purposefully vague about what kinds of art I am talking about...i.e., there are exceptions to my argument - more on that later] 

Comments

[dep]

You might be interested in the following new web service:
http://www.artflock.com/

"ArtFlock is an online marketplace for people to buy and sell artwork. They’ve launched a few moments ago.

With ArtFlock, users can display or sell their art, and visitors can browse through collections, artists, and events. ArtFlock can be used to sell craftwork as well, such as jewelry. Visitors can rate art without having to be a registered member. Full members can save others’ artwork to their own galleries, much like a favorites list. ArtFlock offers both free and premium accounts for sellers, which differ mainly in the ways an artist can leverage the ArtFlock community to earn more money."

[emmy]

gong - such interesting thoughts -- i have to hear your maslow as applies to stock market theory. while i hope that art can be democratized in the ways you mention i hope it will never be so fully commoditized that it really submits itself to the laws of supply and demand. at the market equilibrium there is likely a definitive absence of Maslow higher need fulfillment, no?

[Joshua]

The kind of thoughts you are having about the relationship between sustainability, art, consumerism, and mass-produced items is exactly what I'm tackling right now in grad school. I'm developing an installation that raises many of these questions about disposability and value when it comes to how we relate to items we purchase. Perhaps if we could--if only slightly--begin to view everything we buy in the same way we view art, and consider, as you call it, the "useful life" of these items, we might see a shift in how we approach our comsumer "needs." Thanks for your thoughts.
JM