1. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
1
The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
Nicola
Stone
09016210
Dissertation
submitted
for
the
Degree
B.A.
(Hons)
in
Art
and
Visual
Culture
(W500)
Tutor:
Debbie
Hillyerd
Module:
Visual
Culture
Dissertation
UA1ABN-‐20-‐3
University
of
the
West
of
England
(Bristol)
Submission:
31.01.2012
2. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
2
Contents
Image
List
_______________________________________________
p3
The
Art
of
the
Author
___________________________________
p4
1.
Art
and
its
Commodification
________________________
p7
2.
The
Creative
Artist
___________________________________
p13
3.
Is
Art
at
the
Peril
of
the
Society?
____________________
p18
Conclusion
_______________________________________________
p26
Images
___________________________________________________
p29
Bibliography
____________________________________________
p40
3. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
3
Image
List
Fig
1.
_____________________________________________________
p29
Fig
2.
_____________________________________________________
p30
Fig
3.
_____________________________________________________
p31
Fig
4.
_____________________________________________________
p32
Fig
5.
_____________________________________________________
p33
Fig
6.
_____________________________________________________
p34
Fig
7.
_____________________________________________________
p35
Fig
8.
_____________________________________________________
p36
Fig
9.
_____________________________________________________
p37
Fig
10.
____________________________________________________
p38
Fig
11.
____________________________________________________
p39
4. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
4
The
Art
of
the
Author
Roland
Barthes
implored
us
to
be
weary
of
authorship:
“to
give
a
text
an
author
is
to
impose
a
limit
on
that
text”
(1977,
p.147).
Interpretation
that
relies
merely
on
the
identity
and
intention
of
the
creator
is
held
back
from
its
full
potential,
as
it
denies
the
individuality
of
the
reader,
the
re-‐appropriation
of
meaning
and
ongoing
relevance
in
shifting
times.
Barthes
welcomed
the
“birth
of
the
reader”
(p.148),
liberating
the
audience
with
their
own
creative
merit,
but
at
what
cost?
If
we
are
to
arm
an
audience
with
the
full
power
of
defining
concept,
and
view
the
author
as
merely
the
“scriptor”
(p.145),
then
are
we
not
essentially
denying
the
creative
integrity
of
the
artist?
More
crucially
are
we
in
danger
of
belittling
the
importance
of
the
creative
act?
Throughout
history
art
has
been
subject
to
oscillating
pressure
on
artistic
integrity,
be
it
political
censorship
or
the
coercion
of
the
funding
patron.
It
could
be
argued
that
the
modern
artist
is
more
free
to
follow
his
or
her
own
creative
impulse
than
ever
before.
However
on
closer
inspection,
does
the
art
of
today
not
fall
prey
to
its
own
pressures?
Taking
a
close
look
at
the
institution
(the
economic
and
cultural
environment
within
which
our
Art
has
and
continues
to
exist
and
evolve)
I
shall
begin
to
explore
this
subject.
I
will
discuss
what
the
institution
consists
of,
the
pressures
that
impact
upon
it
and
consequentially
it’s
impact
on
the
artist.
In
doing
this
it
will
be
essential
for
us
to
accept
that
there
is
no
such
thing
as
non-commercial
art,
and
that
money,
although
possibly
less
obviously
than
in
other
industries,
is
one
of
the
driving
forces
behind
it.
5. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
5
We
shall
be
considering
what
it
is
to
be
an
artist.
Is
it
more
than
merely
being
creative?
Indeed,
does
being
creative
qualify
you
as
an
artist
at
all?
And
in
a
world
of
increasing
standardisation,
where
do
these
idiosyncratic
ideas
fit
in,
and
assuming
they
do,
are
they
encouraged?
Through
a
brief
examination
of
the
understanding
of
creativity,
we
can
perhaps
begin
to
determine
the
motivation
that
fundamentally
underlies
any
creative
act.
In
order
to
establish
parameters
for
an
understanding
of
creativity
Kneller
shall
be
a
key
protagonist,
in
particular
his
text
The
Art
and
Science
of
Creativity
shall
be
paramount,
in
conjunction
with
the
theory
of
JP
Guilford
and
Koestler.
It
shall
become
apparent
that
there
are
rifts
between
the
needs
and
motivation
of
the
artist
and
environmental
pressures
imposed
by
the
institution,
raising
the
question
of
whether
this
is
really
a
bad
thing.
Although
extensive,
this
essay
should
not
be
considered
a
complete
model.
For
the
purpose
of
clarity
and
succinctness
there
are
elements
that
despite
their
relevance
will
be
omitted
from
discussion.
The
question
of
what
should
be
considered
art
will
not
be
altercated
in
much
depth,
as
this
in
itself
is
a
dense
question.
Equally,
when
looking
at
the
connections
within
art
and
economy,
the
subject
of
commissioned
art
will
not
be
broached.
Although
case
studies
of
relational
aesthetics,
The
Guggenheim
Effect
and
the
effect
of
art
in
under
developed
areas
would
all
be
comfortable
within
this
debate,
they
too
shall
be
excluded
as
they
distract
from
the
coherence
of
my
position.
So
it
shall
be
questioned
whether
influences
outside
that
of
the
immediate
creative
individual’s
consciousness
are
productive
or
detrimental;
whether
art
6. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
6
should
be
allowed
to
exist
within
its
own
environment,
remaining
unpolluted
by
the
ugliness
of
the
real
world?
Furthermore,
should
we
be
holding
the
artist
in
much
higher
esteem?
Are
we
awaiting
the
rebirth
of
the
author?
7. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
7
1.
Art
and
its
Commodification
It
is
easy
to
assume
a
status
upon
the
art
object
that
elevates
it
beyond
that
of
a
consumer
product,
however,
this
is
somewhat
optimistic.
The
art
industry,
like
any
other
industry,
is
a
business,
and
operates
as
such
(Shabaka,
1999).
The
art
object,
increasingly
in
modern
times,
operates
as
a
commodity,
in
that
it
requires
a
production
outlay
and
is
intended
to
be
sold
at
a
price
which
exceeds
that
of
the
investment
of
time
and
money
to
create
it.
Equally,
it
is
fallacy
that
high
art
has
any
separation
to
that
of
commercial
art.
Although
the
price
bracket
may
dramatically
differentiate
them,
almost
all
art
that
is
available
to
academic
study
(with
the
exception
of
some
conceptual
art,
of
which
I
will
later
talk
of
in
more
detail)
exists
within
an
environment
subject
to
and
relying
upon
economic
pressures
(Nineham,
1999).
What
is
to
be
determined
is
the
effect
of
these
economic
pressures,
why
they
exist,
and
whether
any
effort
should
be
given
to
avoid
them.
In
one
sense,
art
has
always
existed
as
a
commodity.
Alan
Wood
points
out
in
John
Mitchell’s
conference
paper
Exploration
of
art
as
a
Commodity
(2011),
the
artist
like
every
person
has
mundane
needs
which
incur
living
costs;
as
a
result
he
must
earn
money
through
his
art.
However
in
‘On
the
Principals
of
Political
Economy
and
Taxation’
David
Ricardo
clearly
defines
a
commodity
as
something
that
is
not
only
something
of
stock
value,
but
also
something
that
bears
a
utility
or
usefulness
to
its
buyer
or
consumer
(1821).
Traditionally,
art
has
been
understood
to
be
valued
by
what
the
buyer
is
prepared
to
pay
for
it,
which
is
non-‐reflective
of
the
labour;
Picasso
once
defended
the
price
of
a
painting
that
8. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
8
took
him
an
hour
to
produce
by
commenting
that
he
was
not
paid
by
the
hour
and
that
he
was
paid
for
the
years
of
training
that
allowed
him
to
complete
the
painting
in
an
hour,
thus
indicating
a
value
not
reflective
of
the
stock
investment
(Muheuver,
2011).
But
the
modern
capitalist
society
seems
to
throw
both
these
elemental
facts
into
question.
Firstly,
do
we
not
value
skilled
labour
consistently
more
highly
than
unskilled?
For
instance,
a
plumber
or
electrician
has
a
higher
hourly
rate
than
that
of
a
waiter
due
to
the
training
they
have
undergone;
this
begins
to
unsettle
the
impression
that
art
is
valued
beyond
that
of
its
stock
investment.
The
time
investment
goes
beyond
that
of
the
immediately
obvious
production
time,
but
includes
time
spent
conceiving
of
the
creative
intention
(Kneller,
1965).
This
idea
of
skill
can
be
progressed
further
within
Modern
art,
typically
conceptual
art.
Although
the
matter
becomes
more
complicated
by
an
additional
factor
of
public
misunderstanding
that
some
modern
art
is
unskilled
or
lazy
in
its
production.
Recent
trends
for
fabrication
of
art
of
recent
years
have
created
a
situation
in
which
the
skill
is
not
always
in
the
production
of
the
piece
but
the
conceptualisation
and
the
facilitating
of
its
production
(Petry,
2011).
Martin
Creed
has
often
been
criticised
for
the
seeming
lack
of
labour
within
his
work.
He
commented
in
interview
“People
think
I’m
getting
away
with
something.
They
don’t
realise
I
work
really
hard.”
(Duguid,
2008).
Creed
famously
created
‘Work
227:
The
Lights
Going
On
and
Off’,
the
Turner
prize
winner
of
2000,
a
piece
heavily
criticised
for
not
being
art.
This
consisted
of
an
empty
room
in
which
the
lights
turned
on
and
off
at
regular
interval
on
a
timer.
Although
seemingly
simple
this
secular
piece
came
as
a
result
of
a
practise
developed
by
the
artist
over
a
9. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
9
period
exceeding
ten
years.
Damien
Hirst
can
be
considered
in
a
similar
light;
although
he
rarely
produces
work
himself,
employing
the
help
of
professional
fabricators
and
skilled
specialists,
it
is
still
true
that
the
piece
would
not
be
in
existence
without
the
role
he
plays.
‘The
Physical
Impossibility
of
Death
in
the
Eyes
of
Someone
Living’
(see
Fig
1.)
unquestionably
required
an
enormous
amount
of
skill
to
produce,
however
Hirst’s
role
in
its
creation
was
not
to
make
it
himself
but
to
coordinate
others
to
do
so.
The
effect
of
the
piece
is
not
then
lessened
by
the
omission
of
the
artist’s
own
handy
work,
but
enhanced
as
the
general
effect
and
finish
of
the
work
is
of
a
higher
standard.
This
aside
the
Artist
must
still
be
aware
of
the
fabrication
methods
and
limitations
they
impose
in
order
to
utilise
them
for
his
vision.
He
must
equally
be
aware
of
the
meaning
and
implication
implied
by
the
finished
piece,
and
so
the
overall
workload
or
labour
is
not
reduced.
The
importance
and
worth
of
this
aspect
of
creativity
will
be
discussed
in
section
two
The
Creative
Artist,
through
exploration
of
the
four-‐
phase
understanding
of
the
creative
process.
It
should
now
be
questioned
whether
it
is
a
fair
assessment
that
art
is
without
utility.
As
a
capitalist
economy
grows
it
can
be
seen
to
create
‘pseudo
needs’
(Woods,
2003),
these
are
commodifiable
needs
beyond
those
of
basic
survival
(eating,
shelter,
etc.),
but
which
quench
a
sense
of
desire
within
the
consumer,
by
increasing
their
efficiency
and,
as
a
result,
leisure
time,
or
by
allowing
them
to
express
a
desired
image
of
themselves.
Under
this
model
of
pseudo
needs
the
product
can
freely
increase
its
economic
value
beyond
that
of
its
stock
investment
as
its
conceived
utility,
due
to
its
desirability
being
increased.
The
purchase
of
a
piece
of
art
instills
an
image
of
wealth,
success
and
taste
upon
the
10. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
10
buyer,
and
so
it
is
now
perhaps
considerable
as
a
mere
commodity
(Muheuver,
2011).
This
is
a
difficult
paradox
for
an
artist
to
escape,
as
they
indeed
need
to
sell
their
work,
however
this
need
in
return
seems
to
undermine
the
work’s
purpose.
Andy
Warhol
played
off
this
absurdity
throughout
his
career,
but
perhaps
most
obviously
with
his
screen
prints
(see
Fig3.).
Semi
mechanical
production
techniques
allowed
identical
additions
to
be
made
of
each
image,
facilitating
a
growing
popularity
and
demand
for
the
work.
Commonly
the
prints
were
not
only
not
produced
by
Warhol
but
also
not
designed
or
conceived
by
him,
but
instead
by
a
member
of
his
factory.
The
factory
was
the
name
given
to
Warhol’s
New
York
studio
which
was
famously
frequented
by
young
and
aspiring
members
of
the
art
scene
of
the
time,
and
who
often
played
major
rolls
in
the
conception
and
production
Warhol’s
art.
This
lack
of
involvement
in
the
work
on
Warhol’s
behalf
clearly
exposed
the
role
of
art
in
a
consumer
market,
in
which
the
value
came
not
from
the
art
object
itself,
but
from
its
status
as
art.
Similarly
Damien
Hirst’s
For
The
Love
of
God
(see
Fig
3.)
blatantly
draws
attention
to
the
absurdity
of
art
valuation
and
the
operation
of
the
art
market
within
a
materialised
world.
A
Marxist
assumption
is
that
the
precondition
for
authentic
art
is
the
freedom
of
expression
of
the
artist
(Ninehame,
1999).
A
reasonable
stipulation,
yet
this
is
jeopardised
by
its
commodification;
if
the
‘need
to
trade’
negated
by
fetishist
possessional
requirements
overrides
the
importance
of
understanding
and
intellect,
then
the
art
object
ceases
to
bestow
any
importance
to
artistic
integrity
(Muheuver
2011).
In
this
circumstance,
art
can
be
seen
as
a
product
of
alienated
labour
instead
of
creative
inspiration
(Shabaka,
1999).
Some
conceptual
art
has
11. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
11
sought
to
escape
the
limitations
imposed
by
this
commodification.
Lawrence
Weiner
attempted
to
remove
the
possibility
of
ownership
and
commercial
viability
of
his
work
by
creating
gestures
that
were
described
by
short
statements
of
intention
but
never
physically
created
or
brought
into
existence
(Guggenheim,
2011).
In
doing
this,
he
raised
the
question
of
whether
the
defining
nature
of
an
artwork
was
in
the
conception
of
the
idea,
or
the
realisation.
Martin
Creed
later
expanded
on
this
consideration
in
1995
with
‘Work
no.88:
A
Sheet
of
A4
Paper
Crumpled
into
a
Ball’
(see
Fig
4).
Here
the
claim
was
that
despite
the
obvious
lack
of
technical
skill
needed
in
creation,
the
intention
was
the
defining
element.
However
despite
attempting
to
exist
outside
an
economic
environment,
it
is
worth
noting
that
in
1968
Wiener’s
gestures
formed
a
purchasable
publication
titled
‘Statements’.
So,
seemingly
it
is
unlikely
that
art
can
fall
outside
that
of
a
commodity
structure.
But
what
is
it
that
amplifies
the
value
of
the
art
object
beyond
that
of
another
if
we
are
to
believe
that
under
a
capitalist
system
freedom
of
expression
is
comprised?
Alan
Wood
raises
the
concern
of
self-‐promotion
and
the
celebrity
status
of
an
artist.
When
the
notoriousity
of
the
artist
becomes
of
more
attention
than
that
of
the
meaning
of
the
work,
to
the
point
of
escalating
the
price,
the
integrity
is
again
compromised
(2003).
From
the
discussion
at
this
point
it
is
plausible
to
say
that
art
seems
to
be
at
risk
due
to
its
high
exchange
rate
and
success
of
the
artists,
as
much
as
a
result
of
its
increasing
commerciality,
perhaps
to
the
point
of
creating
its
own
downfall.
12. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
12
John
Molyneux
in
his
article
The
Legitimacy
of
Modern
Art,
argues
that
the
legitimacy
crisis
of
art
in
modern
society
is
not
the
fault
of
the
artist
but
is
a
phenomenon
brought
about
by
a
conditioned
economy.
Going
on
to
say
that
the
capitalist
structure
of
the
art
institute
is
to
be
revealed
while
holding
the
artist
in
esteem
for
their
innate
verocity
and
anti-‐establishmentism
(1998).
If
art
is
to
be
celebrated
entirely
as
a
product
of
humanistic
rebelliousness
as
Molyneux
suggests,
then
does
it
not
leave
art
in
uncomfortable
opposition
to
that
of
society?
Chris
Nineham
points
out
that
‘recognising
that
art
as
a
privileged
sphere
of
these
qualities
is
the
other
side
to
the
coin
of
a
society
which
denies
the
vast
majority
creativity’
(Molyneux,
1998)
separates
it
from
the
concerns
of
the
majority,
in
which
case
art
seems
to
alienate
itself
by
its
own
nature
(1999).
In
order
to
incorporate
art
within
the
comprehendable
and
known
environment
so
as
not
to
leave
it
alienated,
it
seems
to
me
that
it
should
remain
un-‐elevated
beyond
the
means
of
mass
culture.
Consequently,
it
must
then
be
tolerant,
accepting
and
co-‐operative
of
a
capitalist
society.
13. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
13
2.
The
Creative
Artist
In
the
previous
section,
the
idea
of
artistic
integrity
being
inhibited
was
introduced.
Commercial
fetishism
and
celebrity
notoriousity
were
both
seen
as
potential
threats
to
the
Marxist
opinion
that
genuine
art
is
defined
by
complete
freedom
of
expression.
However
in
order
to
support
this,
it
is
necessary
to
define
what
freedom
of
expression
entails,
assuming
that
what
is
actually
meant
by
‘expression’
is
in
fact
creative
expression,
and
in
conjunction
whether
this
is
enough
of
a
criteria
for
successful
art.
A
politician
or
public
speaker
may
express
themselves
both
freely
and
eloquently
but
his
speech,
or
the
delivery
of
it,
would
not
widely
be
considered
as
a
piece
of
art.
Equally
it
should
be
considered
how,
within
modern
art,
we
could
begin
to
structure
a
consistent
critique
in
order
to
assess
the
success
of
a
piece
of
art.
For
the
purpose
of
this
discussion,
it
will
be
useful
for
us
to
first
determine
how
we
define
the
subject
that
we
classify
as
art.
Whether
it
be
an
object,
performance
or
concept
(the
medium
is
somewhat
irrelevant
in
this
circumstance).
I
think
a
practical
supposition
is
that
if
something
is
made
with
the
aspiration
of
being
art
then
we
must
take
it
as
intended.
It
seems
somewhat
unintelligent
and
provincial
to
deny
it’s
art
status
in
any
case.
Subsequently
the
success
of
its
existence
within
an
art
context
can
then
be
deliberated.
Having
set
these
parameters
it
is
possible
to
consider
what
drives
the
artist
in
his
creation,
and
how
this
results
as
artistic
integrity.
14. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
14
Creativity
has
been
interpreted
in
a
variety
of
ways
throughout
history;
from
divine
inspiration,
to
madness
in
ancient
western
philosophy,
to
more
credible
psychological
theory.
According
to
Kneller
generally,
‘Reliable
definitions
of
creativity
seem
to
fall
into
four
categories’
(1965,
p3)
which
are
differentiable
by
their
approach.
The
first
is
in
terms
of
the
person
who
creates;
by
which
the
psychology,
attitudes,
habits
and
values
of
the
individual
are
examined.
Secondly,
creativity
can
be
studied
as
a
result
of
mental
processes;
for
example
as
a
result
of
motivation,
perception,
learning
and
communication.
In
short,
it
is
the
action
of
creating
that
is
the
focus
here.
A
third
approach
centres
on
the
influences
of
the
surrounding
environment
and
cultures
of
the
creative
person.
Finally,
the
fourth
approach
to
creative
theory
places
an
understanding
in
terms
of
the
result
of
the
creative
activity
(Kneller,
1965).
This
approach
has
possibly
played
a
leading
role
in
the
study
of
creativity
as
it
requires
attention
to
easy
to
grasp
ideas
that
involve
definable
and
readily
available
things,
rather
than
vague
or
approximated
concepts.
Still
this
methodology
throws
up
many
limitations
as
it
neglects
the
importance
of
the
mental
and
emotional
process
that
has
induced
the
creative
action
in
the
first
place,
and
the
importance
of
the
individuality
of
the
creative
person.
A
psychological
approach
to
creativity
is
needed
in
order
to
truly
accommodate
the
individuality
of
creativity,
and
this
in
itself
has
several
approaches.
By
far
the
most
convincing
and
inclusive
theory,
I
believe,
is
that
of
Factor
Analysis,
developed
by
JP
Guilford
(1959).
Here
we
understand
that
intellect
and
the
abilities
of
the
mind
can
be
recognised
as
a
hundred
and
twenty
factors
(not
all
of
which
can
currently
be
identified).
They
can
then
be
separated
into
categories
15. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
15
and
subcategories.
The
primary
categories
are
memory
and
thinking.
Thinking
then
subdivides
into
cognitive
(the
recognition
of
information),
productive
(application
of
information),
and
evaluative
(the
ability
to
make
relevant
judgements).
Lastly
productive
ability
can
be
separated
into
convergent
and
divergent
thinking.
Convergent
thinking,
put
simply,
involves
working
towards
a
predetermined
or
clearly
definable
outcome,
for
instance
where
something
can
easily
be
explained
by
convention
employing
correct
and
incorrect
answers.
An
example
of
someone
applying
convergent
thought
would
be
when
working
out
a
simple
mathematical
equation;
you
can
apply
pre-‐learnt
rules
to
work
towards
one
correct
solution.
Divergent
thinking,
on
the
other
hand,
concerns
a
much
more
fluid
approach,
where
thought
may
travel
in
many
different
directions,
toward
no
fixed
outcome
(Guilford,
1959).
Divergent
thought
process
is
implemented
when
facing
a
problem
that
has
not
previously
been
solved,
and
so
in
approaching
it
you
must
think
of
multiple
possible
outcomes,
applying
a
variety
of
rules
or
tactics
in
order
to
judge
the
best
suited.
The
idea
of
divergent
and
convergent
thinking
could
be
seen
to
go
some
way
to
re-‐explaining
previously
discredited
ideas
of
the
divided
brain
(Rob,
2011),
although
this
is
something
that
will
be
introduced
in
section
three
Is
Art
at
the
Peril
of
the
Society?
In
The
Act
of
Creation
A.H.
Koestler
forms
an
integrated
view
of
creativity
based
on
a
conclusive
range
of
research
disciplines
(1964):
‘Koestler
seeks
to
synthesise
his
own
theory
of
the
nature
of
creativity,
as
manifested
in
humour,
art,
and
science,
with
the
latest
conclusions
of
psychology,
neurology,
genetics,
and
a
number
of
other
sciences’
(Kneller,
1965,
p41).
He
concludes,
as
many
16. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
16
have
before,
that
creativity
can
be
expressed
through
many
activities
beyond
that
of
obviously
creative
pursuits,
such
as
painting,
writing
or
sculpting.
Vast
creative
ability
is
often
shown
through
mathematics
or
science;
for
example,
where
innovation,
or
what
we
can
now
describe
as
divergent
thinking,
is
employed.
The
key
deduction
of
Koestler’s
thesis
was
however,
that
the
central
element
of
creativity
across
disciplines
was
bisociation.
By
this
Koestler
was
referring
to
the
linking
of
two
previously
unrelated
realms
of
understanding,
and
as
a
result
creating
new
routes
of
association
(1964).
This
can
also
be
seen
as
originality.
A
distinction
should
be
made
here;
bisociation
involves
the
fusion
of
previously
unlinked
realms
of
understanding,
however
these
realms
may
already
exist
in
independence
of
each
other.
Therefore
art,
or
any
form
of
creative
action
should
not
be
deemed
unoriginal
based
on
the
presence
of
previously
recognised
elements.
For
instance
Duchamp’s
‘Fountain’
(see
Fig
5.)
connects
the
idea
of
a
urinal
with
that
of
a
water
feature,
although
these
two
concepts
are
not
original
in
isolation,
connected
and
placed
within
a
gallery
context
it
becomes
entirely
novel.
As
I
will
go
on
to
explain
in
section
three,
this
can
indeed
increase
the
success
of
an
artwork
in
its
own
time.
Although
the
act
of
creativity
is
a
highly
individual
and
unique
process,
and
should
be
valued
in
respect
of
this,
it
is
widely
recognised
that
there
are
distinguishable
phases
which
commonly
occur.
Four
Phases
were
first
classified
by
Graham
Wallas,
later
popularised
by
Catharine
Patrick,
and
are
still
generally
accepted
to
be:
preparation,
incubation,
illumination
and
verification
(Patrick,
1955).
Preparation
refers
to
a
state
in
which
the
person
in
question
first
recognises,
investigates
and
contemplates
an
identified
problem
or
area
of
17. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
17
interest.
During
this
time
a
person
will
familiarise
themselves
with
the
subjects
in
hand
in
their
entirety.
Incubation
is
the
more
abstract
of
the
phases,
and
equally
the
phase
that
poses
the
most
trouble
within
the
education
and
instruction
of
the
creative
process;
Here
the
unconscious
mind
comes
into
play.
The
knowledge
acquired
through
the
preparation
period
is
left
to
reflection
and
consideration.
Despite
the
obvious
distinctions
of
preparation
and
incubation,
chronologically
there
may
not
necessarily
be
distinction
as
the
two
quite
comfortably
complement
each
other.
Preceding
preparation
and
incubation
the
person
will
usually
find
a
solution
to
the
initially
identified
quandary:
a
meeting
or
conjoining
of
all
the
elements,
and
this
is
known
as
the
illumination
phase.
Finally
however
this
must
in
someway
be
communicated,
be
it
through
paint,
language
or
other
medium.
Realisation
of
this
fundamental
element
of
the
creative
process
is
the
verification
phase.
As
discussed
in
section
one
Art
and
its
Commodification,
verification
within
modern
art
may
often
involve
the
artist
employing
skilled
and
specialised
fabricators
to
create
work
on
their
behalf,
and
so
in
this
situation
verification
would
be
considered
as
the
coordination
or
facilitation
of
production.
This
four-‐phase
process
is
notable
as
it
becomes
very
evident
that
the
question
of
artist
creativity
and
integrity
goes
far
beyond
that
of
the
object
or
product,
as
this
merely
stipulates
the
verification
process.
Secondly,
it
can
be
seen
that
the
entire
creative
process
involves
both
convergent
and
divergent
thinking
and
so
traditional
views
of
academic
or
creative
pursuits
are
brought
into
question.
18. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
18
3.
Is
Art
at
the
Peril
of
the
Society?
Through
section
one
and
two,
the
parameters
of
economic
pressure
upon
art
have
been
delineated,
while
a
concept
of
creative
process
and
motivation
has
been
set.
What
is
left
to
discuss
is
the
matter
of
what
defines
successful
art
and
a
successful
artist.
This
really
implements
the
question
of
what
art
should
do.
Obviously,
the
subjectivity
of
art
and
the
inference
of
aesthetic
taste
along
side
the
basic
variance
of
opinion
make
this
a
hugely
complex
problem.
In
section
two,
it
was
argued
that
the
Marxist
definition
of
successful
art
might
not
be
sufficient
due
to
art
combining
more
elements
than
mere
creativity.
However
the
successfulness
of
creativity
concerns
a
combination
of
originality
(or
rudiments
that
are
found
as
novel
yet
relevant)
and
bisociation,
where
previously
unrelated
ideas
are
conjoined.
In
order
for
an
intended
art
object
to
be
considered
within
an
art
context
however,
it
must
be
shown
or
displayed,
and
by
the
nature
of
its
audiences
it
will
be
read
or
interpreted.
In
fact,
it
is
a
requirement
of
the
art
object
that
it
should
be
read;
it
forms
a
means
of
communication.
If
it
did
not,
then
it
would
satisfy
the
artist
purely
in
conception
without
realisation
(see
section
two
The
Creative
Artist
for
verification).
A
contradiction
can
be
noticed
here.
Irving
Kolodin,
a
music
critic,
once
confessed
his
inability
to
access
and
judge
the
success
of
a
composition
by
Lukas
Foss
(Kneller,
1965).
Foss
had
abandoned
traditional
techniques
of
composition
and
created
a
new
type
of
music.
Consequently,
Kolodin
did
not
possess
the
tools
or
standards
by
which
to
ascertain
the
success
of
the
piece;
the
rules
did
not
exist
yet.
So,
too
much
originality
can
affect
the
ease
with
which
a
creation
or
art
19. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
19
object
can
be
interpreted.
Conversely
the
less
original
something
is,
the
easier
it
is
to
understand.
The
ease
with
which
a
piece
of
art
can
be
interpreted
(i.e.
the
more
accessible
it
is)
is
a
contributing
factor
to
its
successfulness.
This
can
clearly
be
demonstrated
through
the
rise
of
abstract
painting
in
western
culture
through
the
19th
century.
In
1878
John
Ruskin,
an
art
critic,
denounced
James
Abbott
McNeill
Whister’s
‘Nocturne
in
Black
and
Gold
–The
Falling
Rocket’
(see
Fig
6.)
as
ill-‐educated
and
conceited,
dismissing
it
as
‘paint
thrown
at
a
canvas’
(Wallace,
1999).
In
retrospect,
armed
with
an
understanding
of
the
wish
to
express
more
than
the
mere
visually
apparent,
we
can
appreciate
this
painting.
However
on
its
original
display
at
the
Grosvenor
Gallery
in
London,
Ruskin
could
not
comprehend
its
worth
in
the
absence
of
an
attempt
at
realism.
Edouard
Manet
equally
created
controversy
with
his
paintings
due
to
the
confrontational
nature
of
the
subjects
(see
Fig
7.),
which
in
turn
enforced
Manet’s
confrontation
of
conventional
etiquette,
and
generally
accepted
ideas
of
social
acceptability
(MacDonald,
1999).
There
is
often
a
rift
between
how
a
piece
of
art
may
be
received
within
an
art
context,
by
the
art
society,
and
by
the
general
public
and
media.
It
can
be
noted
that
while
an
art
society
may
be
equipped
with
the
appropriate
language
and
skills
to
read
art,
the
general
public
may
not
always
be
familiar
with
the
techniques
needed
to
understand
the
work.
Although
I
consider
this
an
accurate
evaluation,
I
think
it
should
equally
be
considered
that
this
may
be
the
result
of
the
society
that
houses
the
general
public
as
a
collective
identity
rather
than
an
ignorance
of
individuals.
The
media
on
its’
entrance
into
the
Turner
exhibition
20. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
20
reviewed
My
Bed
by
Tracey
Emin
(see
Fig
8.)
harshly,
and
its’
status
as
art
has
frequently
been
questioned.
Emin’s
attempt
to
portray
her
feelings
of
suicidal
depression,
despair
and
hopelessness,
following
the
breakup
of
a
relationship,
seemingly
went
unread
by
the
general
public,
many
of
wom
should
theoretically
have
been
able
to
relate
to
such
feelings.
The
reason
for
this
misreading
of
the
piece
can
be
attributed
to
a
number
of
factors:
the
shock
factor
of
the
work
provoking
a
very
narrow
window
of
interpretation
by
the
viewer,
the
debatable
success
of
the
artist
in
her
visual
portrayal
of
the
subject
matter,
or
a
combination
of
conventional
restraints
under
which
the
viewer
is
unable
or
unwilling
to
attribute
such
a
reading
into
the
piece
within
the
gallery
context;
its
positioning
as
an
art
object
elevates
its
expectation
beyond
the
intended
purpose.
In
the
1950’s,
split
brain
theory
was
developed,
pioneered
by
Michael
Gazzaniga
and
Roger
Sperry
(Gazzaniga,
2005).
They
noticed
that
the
severing
of
the
corpus
callosum,
(the
structure
within
the
brain
which
was
found
to
facilitate
the
communication
between
the
two
halves
of
the
cerebral
cortex),
in
a
procedure
known
as
corpus
callosotomy,
inhibited
interhemispheric
transfer
of
neural
information
such
as
sensory,
perceptual
and
motor
functions.
Thus
allowing
them
to
investigate
the
hemispheric
differences.
Initially
it
was
thought
that
while
the
left
hemisphere
was
analytical
and
logical,
dealing
with
language
for
instance,
the
right
hemisphere
was
intuitive
and
holistic,
typically
being
more
active
in
spatial
tasks
(McGilchrist,
2009).
Investigation
into
theories
of
the
divided
brain
enjoyed
popularity
throughout
the
60’s
and
70’s
until
many
of
the
initial
findings
became
discredited
(Rob,
2011).
It
became
apparent
that
both
21. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
21
hemispheres
were
involved
in
language,
reason,
emotion
and
many
other
functions.
Iain
McGilchrist
has
since
suggested
that
the
difference
lies
not
in
what
the
two
hemispheres
do
but
how
they
do
it.
In
The
Master
and
his
Emissary
McGilchrist
observes
that
despite
the
apparent
abandonment
of
split
brain
theory,
it
is
nevertheless
a
valuable
pursuit
as
not
only
is
it
still
blatently
apparent
that
the
opposing
halves
of
the
cerebral
cortex
are
distinguishable
in
their
operation
but
that
they
have
become
more
so
throughout
evolution.
Furthermore
he
proposes
that
it
is
this
difference
that
has
shaped
the
man
made
world
(2009).
McGilchrist’s
conception
of
the
divided
brain
links
back
to
JP
Guilford’s
factor
analysis
theory
of
creativity,
suggesting
that
while
both
hemispheres
are
involved
in
all
aspects
of
activity,
the
left
interprets
the
world
through
a
convergent
approach,
dealing
with
denotative
language,
the
static,
abstractions
and
things
that
appear
general
but
essentially
lifeless.
Conversely,
the
right
hemisphere
is
divergent
in
its
ability
to
deal
with
non-‐consistency,
individuality,
implicitly
and
the
incarnate;
the
things
that
are
by
nature
organic
and
living
but
never
fully
graspable.
While
the
cerebral
cortex
is
not
only
responsible
for
allowing
communication
between
the
hemispheres,
it
also
plays
a
part
in
inhibiting
the
opposing
sides
(McGilchrist,
2009).
This
idea
supports
a
view
that
creativity
exists
within
every
person’s
capability,
how
apparent
it
is
through
his
or
her
actions
depends
only
upon
the
level
to
which
it
is
repressed
or
exercised.
It
is
Freudian
belief
that
the
repression
of
the
creative
impulse
would
result
in
neuroses
and
mental
illness.
Freud
theorised
that
all
human
impulse
derives
22. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
22
from
an
inherit
need
to
simultaneously
increase
and
decrease
the
stimuli
we
experience.
This
was
known
as
the
Life
and
Death
Drive
(Freud,
1965).
It
can
be
understood
that
these
needs
are
founded
in
the
desire
to
understand
ourselves,
both
as
an
individual
and
as
a
dispensable
member
of
a
society
and
race.
In
this
case
we
see
another
purpose
to
the
art
object,
one
that
perhaps
seems
very
obvious,
that
is
to
fulfil
the
desire
of
the
artist
to
be
creative.
Andy
Warhol
once
replied
in
interview
when
questioned
whether
his
lack
of
originality
was
in
some
way
a
trick
played
on
the
public
“No,
it
keeps
me
busy”
(Tsukitoso,
2008).
So
we
can
understand
the
creative
process
as
something
of
a
therapeutic
activity
to
the
artist,
an
attempt
to
ease
or
understand
a
personal
conflict
they
hold
within
themselves.
Examples
of
this
can
clearly
be
seen
through
autobiographical
art
such
as
Everyone
I
have
ever
Slept
With
1963-1995
(see
Fig
9.)
which
details
every
person
Tracey
Emin
had
every
shared
a
bed
with
both
in
a
sexual
or
platonic
sense.
The
opposing
intimate
and
public
aspects
of
this
piece
demonstrate
an
attempt
of
cleansing
or
exorcism
of
memory
on
Emin’s
part.
Here
the
only
purpose
the
viewer
can
play
is
that
of
observer
of
the
artist’s
egocentric
need
to
get
something
off
their
back.
However
solace
can
be
found
in
the
recognition
of
feeling,
and
perhaps
a
beauty
can
be
observed
in
the
trusting
disposition
of
the
work.
A
similar
purging
of
emotion
can
be
found
in
the
work
of
Louise
Bourgeois,
from
the
textile
pictures
(see
Fig
10.)
created
from
the
clothes
she
resented
her
father
for
making
her
wear
to
her
Crouching
Spider
(see
Fig
11.),
in
it
complex
and
confused
symbolism
of
feminine
strength
and
fragility.
McGilchrist
states
that
society
has
been
formed
to
favour
the
left
hemisphere,
which,
increasingly
in
modernity,
has
become
problematic
(2009).
We
have
built
23. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
23
a
world
that
seems
progressively
paradoxical.
Where
we
have
pursued
happiness,
we
live
in
a
time
of
explosion
in
levels
of
mental
illness,
depression,
and
resentment.
While
seeking
freedom,
we
live
under
surveillance
and
rules.
Despite
the
infinite
banks
of
knowledge
we
now
possess
as
a
race,
we
seem
less
and
less
able
to
use
and
process
it.
Throughout
psychoanalysis,
these
paradoxical
relationships
can
be
noticed
(Rob,
2011),
further
supporting
the
belief
that
society
is
a
realisation
of
the
ability
of
our
cerebral
cortex.
It
is
perhaps
worth
revisiting
at
this
point
that
the
Freudian
thought
was
that
suppression
on
the
unconscious
mind
(the
part
that
was
then
held
responsible
for
creativity)
lead
to
neurosis
and
mental
illness
(Kneller,
1965).
I
suggest
that
if
this
notion
is
extended
to
that
of
the
collective
identity
then
it
explains
this
paradoxical
complexity.
Ken
Robinson
addresses
the
notion
of
divergent
repression
within
society,
his
focus
being
on
education.
His
concern
is
that
our
current
education
system
was
conceived
at
the
paradigm
shift
of
modernity,
within
the
intellectual
culture
of
the
enlightenment,
and
built
on
the
economic
circumstances
of
the
Industrial
Revolution;
fundamentally
it
favours
the
academic
(knowledge
based
on
reason
and
recognition
of
the
classics)(The
RSA,
2011).
However
according
to
Robinson
we
are
now
facing
a
new
paradigm
shift
under
which
this
approach
can
no
longer
be
found
fit
for
purpose.
Current
remodelling
of
education
systems
is
equally
economically
motivated;
Training
our
children
so
that
they
are
best
equipped
to
produce
revenue
and
aid
economy,
but
Robinson
argues
that
trends
of
standardisation
are
counterproductive
(2011).
Starting
in
the
late
1960’s,
George
Land
conducted
a
longitudinal
study
looking
at
general
levels
of
24. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
24
divergent
and
creative
ability
(Jarman,
Land,
1992).
1,600
participants
repeatedly
underwent
eight
tests
of
divergent
thinking.
The
first
test
was
taken
between
the
ages
of
three
and
five.
The
second
testing
took
place
when
the
same
children
were
between
the
ages
of
eight
and
ten,
and
the
third
testing
when
they
were
between
thirteen
and
fifteen.
The
tests
employed
were
developed
for
use
by
N.A.S.A.
to
assess
potential
astronaut’s
problem
solving
ability
and
were
based
on
the
findings
of
JP
Guilford’s
study
of
creative
theory.
They
simply
looked
at
the
person’s
capability
to
generate
multiple
solutions
to
problems
by
utilizing
various
approaches.
The
results
of
this
study
were
that
on
first
testing
(aged
three
to
five)
98%
of
children
scored
as
creative
genius.
On
second
testing
(aged
eight
to
ten)
this
percentage
had
reduced
to
only
32%.
By
the
third
testing,
when
the
participants
were
aged
thirteen
to
fifteen,
a
mere
10%
rated
as
creative
genius’.
Although
throughout
the
study
each
of
the
child
participants
would
have
been
exposed
to
countless
new
experiences
and
influences,
the
one
they
all
had
in
common
was
that
of
standardised
education.
Robinson’s
issue
with
this
apparent
trend
of
education
decreasing
the
capabilities
of
divergence,
is
that
we
are
facing
a
revolution
during
which
creativity
will
become
increasingly
vital
to
our
progression
as
a
civilisation.
He
suggests
that
we
are
on
the
brink
of
a
new
paradigm
shift
(2011).
New
technologies,
and
the
exponential
progression
of
these
technologies
have
irreversibly
changed
our
race.
They
have
changed
the
way
we
work,
play,
interact
and
the
way
we
think.
Increasing
globalisation
and
a
population
larger
than
at
any
point
in
history
is
putting
more
and
more
of
a
strain
on
the
resources
we
have,
and
it
seems
ever
more
evident
that
new
approaches
on
multiple
fronts
25. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
25
are
needed
in
order
to
solve
the
mounting
problems
that
are
arising
out
of
the
old
systems.
Robinson
believes
that
the
only
way
around
this
is
to
create
a
society
more
inclined
to
divergent
thought,
(starting
with
the
next
generation
through
education
systems),
a
society
more
capable
of
adaptation,
problem
solving
and
looking
beyond
the
obvious;
in
increasingly
difficult
circumstances
more
flexibility
will
be
crucial
(Robinson,
2011).
So
it
would
seem
that
currently
society
seems
in
its
essence
to
oppose
divergent
process,
but
this
does
not
mean
that
the
art
industry
should
be
further
segregated
from
it.
As
Robinson
points
out,
it
may
well
facilitate
further
evolution
of
society,
to
allow
more
integration
of
these
oppositions.
Returning
to
the
question
of
what
art
should
do;
Is
it
not,
and
has
it
not
always
been,
to
point
out
the
faults
of
society,
or
at
least
to
draw
attention
to
that
which
has
been
overlooked
or
left
unevaluated?
In
its
simplest
form,
it
reminds
us
of
the
individual
elements
that
make
up
our
increasingly
complicated
society.
In
this
case
it
seems
redundantly
trivial
to
argue
that
art
should
be
removed
from
an
institution
that
implements
restrictions
upon
it,
as
these
restrictions
and
the
rebellion
against
them
can
form
the
very
basis
of
what
makes
art
astounding,
relevant
and
successful.
Furthermore
it
is
not
that
art
is
at
the
peril
of
society
but
humanity.
26. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
26
Conclusion
The
Art
Institution
consists
of
the
industry
in
which
art
is
produced,
exhibited
and
sold.
Although
it
can
be
argued
that
the
institution
could
do
more
to
accommodate
art
as
a
creative
activity,
there
is
additionally
a
convincing
argument
as
to
why
these
restrictions
are
necessary.
Artists
and
their
art
exist
within
the
same
social
order
as
everyone
else,
and
must
earn
a
living
in
order
to
live.
As
a
result,
art
must
in
some
way
be
economically
viable
and
accessible
in
a
capitalist
society.
The
institution
therefore
operates
like
an
interpreter
or
middleman
to
accommodate
art
within
capitalism,
allowing
art
to
benefit
economically.
The
issues
that
this
can
raise,
mainly
consumer
fetishism,
can
be
claimed
to
be
problems
non-‐specific
to
art
and
indeed
issues
that
concern
all
industries.
The
institution
could
also
be
seen
as
an
extended
system
of
how
artists
are
trained
and
educated
within
this
profession;
the
study
of
George
Land
and
the
work
of
Ken
Robinson
provide
a
convincing
stance
on
this.
Here
we
clearly
saw
that
the
current
education
systems
discourage
divergent
development
in
children.
In
fact
as
McGilchrist
discusses,
the
man
made
world
(in
which
economic
systems
are
clearly
included)
can
be
seen
with
increasing
standardisation
to
accommodate
convergencey
much
more
readily
than
that
which
is
implicit,
evolvable
and
essentially
alive
–
the
divergent.
So
the
only
rift
between
art
and
its
institution
seems
to
be
that
while
art
operates
in
an
implicitly
creative
way,
the
institute
on
the
other
hand
is
much
more
structured
27. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
27
and
tries
to
standardise
the
produce
of
the
artist.
This
is
a
necessary
compromise
in
the
evasion
of
completely
isolating
art
from
society.
Keostler
stated
that
creativity
can
be
shown
through
a
wide
range
of
activities
and
so
a
consideration
of
the
art
object
to
be
merely
a
product
of
creativity
is
not
satisfactory.
However,
I
established
at
the
beginning
of
this
essay
that
I
would
not
be
entering
into
the
debate
of
what
constitutes
art
(assuming
for
this
purpose
that
the
intention
of
something
as
an
art
object
and
art
context
be
enough)
but
instead
I
have
tried
only
to
look
at
what
makes
art
successful.
Despite
the
obviously
subjective
nature
of
this
subject,
I
think
that
one
possible
satisfactory
solution
is
that
successful
art
is
remembered
within
the
context
of
history
beyond
its
own
time;
the
art
that
is
seen
to
be
intuitive,
insightful,
reflective
of
a
population
and
expressive
of
a
collective
sentiment.
Consequently
further
separation
of
art
and
the
artist
from
the
greater
society
can
only
result
in
irrelevant
art.
The
starving
artist
may
no
longer
exist
as
in
the
times
of
Vincent
Van
Gogh,
however
artists
as
a
creative
personalities
may
still
feel
ostracized
as
the
man
made
world
does
not
seem
built
to
accommodate
them.
Yet
the
art
industry
exists
at
the
forefront
in
encouraging
and
promoting
creative
and
divergent
thought
process,
and
should
be
celebrated
as
such,
as
innovation
and
prospect
of
an
alternative.
Perhaps
the
question
of
what
art
should
do
is
less
pertinent
currently
than
what
society
should
do.
28. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
28
I
began
this
essay
by
asking
if
we
were
awaiting
the
rebirth
of
the
author.
The
author
as
the
creator
seems
an
appropriate
standing,
not
merely
a
“scripter”
but
the
conceptionist.
More
important
still
though
is
a
reassessment
of
the
reader.
Art
created
and
viewed
by
an
art
audience
is
ok,
but
greater
integration
of
the
artist
within
society
makes
for
more
interesting
art.
We
“are
caught
up
in
a
global
revolution”
(Robinson,
2011,
p5),
old
systems
are
seen
to
be
failing
all
around
us,
intuitive
and
creative
solutions
are
sorely
needed.
Conceivably,
it
is
not
the
rebirth
of
the
author
that
is
required
but
an
awakening
of
the
author
within
each
individual.
29. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
29
Images
Fig
1.
Damien
Hirst,
The
Physical
Impossibility
of
Death
in
the
Mind
of
Someone
Living,
1992.
Tiger
Shark,
Glass,
Steel,
5%
Formaldehyde
solution,
213
x
518
x
213
cm.
30. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
30
Fig
2.
Andy
Warhol,
Campbell’s
Soup
Cans,
1962.
Synthetic
Polymer
paint
on
canvas,
each
canvas
50.8
x
40.6
cm
(32
additions).
31. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
31
Fig
3.
Damien
Hirst,
For
the
Love
of
God,
2007.
Platinum,
Diamond,
Human
Teeth,
Size
of
Human
Skull.
32. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
32
Fig
4.
Martin
Creed,
Work
no.
88:
A
Sheet
of
A4
Paper
Crumpled
into
a
Ball,
1995.
A4
Paper,
approximately
5.1
x
5.1
x
5.1
cm.
33. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
33
Fig
5.
Marcel
Duchamp,
Fountain,
1917.
Porcelain,
360
x
480
x
610
cm.
34. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
34
Fig
6.
James
Abbott
McNeil
Whistler,
Nocturne
in
Black
and
Gold
–The
Falling
Rocket,
1872-‐77.
Oil
on
canvas,
60.3
x
46.6
cm
35. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
35
Fig
7.
Edouard
Manet,
Bar
at
the
Folies
Bergeres,
1882.
Oil
on
canvas,
96
x
130
cm.
36. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
36
Fig
8.
Tracey
Emin,
My
Bed,
1998.
Mattress,
Linens,
Pillows,
Objects,
79
x
211
x
234
cm.
37. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
37
Fig
9.
Tracey
Emin,
Everyone
I
have
Ever
Slept
With
1963-1995,
1995.
Appliquéd
Tent,
Mattress,
Light,
122
x
245
x
215
cm.
38. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
38
Fig
10.
Louise
Bourgeois,
Untitled,
2008.
Fabric,
Fabric
Collage,
94.6
x
60.9
x
5
cm.
39. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
39
Fig
11.
Louise
Bourgeois,
Crouching
Spider,
2003.
Steel,
220.5
x
835.6
x
627.3
cm.
40. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
40
Bibliography
Books
Barthes,
R.
(1977)
Image-Music-Text.
London:
Fontana.
Creed,
M.
(2011)
Works.
London:
Thames
and
Hudson
Ltd.
Emin,
T.
(2011)
Love
is
What
You
Want.
London:
Hayward
Publishing.
Emin,
T.
(2005)
Strangeland.
London:
Hodder
and
Stoughts
Ltd.
Freud,
S.
(1965)
The
Interpretation
of
Dreams.
New
York:
Avon
Books.
Geulen,
E.
(2002)
The
End
of
Art:
Readings
in
a
Humour
After
Hegel.
Germany:
Suhrkamp
Verlag
Frankfurt
am
Main.
Graw,
I.
(2002)
High
Price:
Art
between
the
Market
and
Celebrity
Culture.
Berlin:
Sternberg
Press.
Guilford,
J.
P.
(1959)
Personality.
New
York:
McGraw-‐Hill.
Jarman,
B.,
Land,
G.
(1992)
Breakpoint
and
Beyond:
Mastering
the
Future
Today.
New
York:
Harper/Collins
publishing.
Kneller,
G.F.
(1965)
The
Art
and
Science
of
Creativity.
USA:
Holt,
Rinehart
and
Winston,
Inc.
Koestler,
A.
(1964)
The
Act
of
Creation.
London:
Penguin
Books.
Kuri,
G.,
Leckey,
M.,
Mellor,
D.
(2010)
New
Contemporaries.
London:
New
Contemporaries
Ltd.
Kuspit,
D.
(2004)
The
End
of
Art.
New
York:
Cambridge
University
Press.
McEvilley,
T.
(1991)
Art
and
Discontent:
Theory
at
the
Millennium.
New
York:
Mcpherson
and
Company.
McGilchrist,
I.
(2009)
The
Master
and
his
Emissary:
The
Divided
Brain
and
the
Making
of
the
Western
World.
London:
Yale
University
Press.
O’Doherty,
B.
(1999)
Inside
the
White
Cube:
The
Ideology
of
the
Gallery
Space.
London:
University
of
California
Press
Ltd.
Patrick,
C.
(1955)
What
is
Creative
Thinking?
New
York:
Philosophical
Library
Inc.
41. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
41
Richardo,
D.
(1821)
On
the
Principles
of
Political
Economy
and
Taxation.
3rd
ed.
London:
John
Murray.
Robinson,
K.
(2011)
Out
of
Our
Minds:
Learning
to
be
Creative.
2nd
ed.
Sussex:
Capstone
Publishing
Ltd.
Robinson,
K.
(1982)
The
Arts
in
Schools:
Principles,
Practice
and
Provision.
London:
BPCC
Oyez
Press
Ltd.
Schwabsky,
B.
(2002)
Vitamin
P:
New
Perspectives
in
Painting.
London:
Phaidon
Press
Limited.
Wallas,
G.
(1946)
The
Art
of
Thought.
London:
C.A.
Watts.
Warhol,
A.
(1975)
The
Philosophy
of
Andy
Warhol:
From
A
to
B
and
back
again.
London:
Penguin
Books
Ltd
Newspaper
Articles
Barkham,
P.
(2011)
Kieron
Williamson:
Boy
Wonder.
The
Guardian.
11
November.
Brown,
M.
(2011)
When
Elizabeth
met
Emin:
Smiles
all
round
as
Royals
visit
Margate.
The
Guardian.
12
November,
p5.
Duguid,
H.
(2008)
Martin
Creed:
I
tray
to
be
true
and
honest.
The
truth
is
often
ridiculous.
The
Independent.
01
November.
Jones,
A.
(2011)
Art
Attack:
Why
this
year’s
Frieze
week
will
be
the
biggest
and
best
yet.
The
Independent.
07
October.
Mclean-‐Ferris,
L.
(2011)
A
Moving
Tribute
to
the
Beauty
of
a
Dying
Art.
The
Independent.
11
October,
pp
20-‐21.
Petry,
M.
(2011)
Artisans
who
turn
Ideas
into
art:
Who
pickled
Damien
Hirst’s
shark
and
painted
Ai
Weiwei’s
seeds?
The
Independent.
29
April.
Ross,
S.
(2006)
The
Guggenheim
Effect.
The
Guardian.
10
July.
Sharp,
R.
(2011)
Out
with
the
New:
Turbine
Hall’s
latest
work
is
Tribute
to
old
movies.
The
Independent.
11
October,
p20.
Journals
Gazzaniga,
M.
S.
(2005)
Forty
Five
Years
and
Still
Going
Strong.
Nature
Reviews
Neuroscience.
6.
653-‐659.
42. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
42
Manuel
Martinez
Monje,
P.,
Vicario,
L.
(2003).
Another
‘Guggenheim
Effect’?
The
Generation
of
a
potentially
Gentrifiable
Neighbourhood
in
Bilbao.
Urban
Studies.
40
(12),
pp
2383-‐2400.
Molyneux,
J.
(1998)
The
Lagitimacy
of
Modern
Art.
International
Socialism.
80.
Nineham,
C.
(1999)
Art
and
Alienation:
a
reply
to
John
Molyneux.
International
Socialism.
82.
Websites
Bar-‐Yam,
Y.
(2002)
New
England
Complex
Systems
Institute:
Solving
the
Problems
of
Science
and
Society.
Available
from:
http://www.necsi.edu/civilization.html
[Accessed
15
October
2011]
Bergquist,
C.
(1999)
A
Comparative
View
of
Creativity
Theories:
Psychoanalytic,
Behaviorist,
and
Humanist.
Available
from:
http://www.vantagequest.org/trees/comparative.htm
[Accessed
05
January
2012]
Hauser&Wirth.
(2010)
Louise
Bourgeois:
The
Fabric
Works.
Available
from:
http://www.hauserwirth.com/exhibitions/743/louise-‐bourgeois-‐the-‐fabric-‐
works/view/
[Accessed
05
January
2012]
Guggenheim.
(2011)
Lawrence
Wiener.
Available
from:
http://www.guggenheim.org/new-‐york/collections/collection-‐online/show-‐
full/bio/?artist_name=Lawrence%20Weiner
[Accessed
28
October
2011]
The
Warhol
Foundation
for
Visual
Arts.
(2011)
Andy
Warhol
Biography:
Pop
Artist
and
Cultural
Icon.
Available
from:
http://www.warholfoundation.org/legacy/biography.html
[Accessed
05
January
2012]
MacDonald,
L.
(1999)
Edourd
Manet.
Available
from:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/M/manet.html
[Accessed
05
January
2012]
Wallace,
N.
(1999)
Whistler’s
Nocturne
in
Black
and
Gold
–The
Falling
Rocket.
Available
from:
http://jssgallery.org/other_artists/whistler/Nocturne_in_Black_and_Gold_The_F
alling_Rocket.htm
[Accessed
05
January
2012]
43. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
43
Woods,
A.
(2003)
Capitalist
Fetishism
and
the
Decay
of
Art.
Available
from:
http://www.marxist.com/capitalist-‐fetishism-‐decay-‐art.htm
[Accessed
17
October
2011]
Video
Sharing
Muheuver.
(2011)
Exploration
of
Art
as
a
Commodity,
Conference
paper
by
John
Mitchell.
YouTube
[video]
23
April.
Available
from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBfs4mVhpcU
Rob.
(2011)
RSA
Animate
–The
Divided
Brain.
Cognitive
Media
[video]
20
October.
Available
from:
http://www.cognitivemedia.co.uk/index.php/blog/2011/10/the-‐divided-‐brain-‐
and-‐the-‐making-‐of-‐the-‐western-‐world
The
RSA.
(2010)
RSA
Animate
–Changing
Education
Paradigms.
RSA
[video]
14
October.
Available
from:
http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/10/14/rsa-‐animate-‐changing-‐education-‐
paradigms/
TED.
(2010)
Sir
Ken
Robinson
–Bring
on
the
Learning
Revolution!
TED
[video]
May.
Available
from:
http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html
TED.
(2006)
Ken
Robinson
says
schools
kill
creativity.
TED
[video]
June.
Available
from:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Tsukitoso.
(2008)
Andy
Warhol
Interview.
YouTube
[video]
14
August.
Available
From:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA4aBvnaTpo
Images
Bourgeois,
L.
(2003)
Crouching
Spider
[Steel].
At:
Washington
DC:
Hirshorn
Museum
and
Sculpture
Garden
[online].
Available
from:
http://www.hauserwirth.com/exhibitions/list-‐of-‐
works/view?exhibition_id=743&p=22
[Accessed
27
January
2012]
Bourgeois,
L.
(2008)
Untitled
[Fabric,
Fabric
Collage].
At:
Unknown:
Louise
Bourgeois
Trust
[online].
Available
from:
http://www.hauserwirth.com/exhibitions/list-‐of-‐
works/view?exhibition_id=743&p=2
[Accessed
27
January
2012].
Creed,
M.
(1995)
Work
no.
88:
A
Sheet
of
A4
Paper
Crumpled
into
a
Ball
[A4
Paper].
At:
Unknown:
Limitless
Multiples
[online].
Available
at:
http://www.martincreed.com/site/works/work-‐no-‐88
[Accessed
27
January
2012].
44. The
Art
of
the
Author:
Protecting
Art
from
the
Institution
44
Duchamp,
M.
(1917)
Fountain
[Porcelain].
At:
Original
lost,
multiple
replicas
exist
in
a
number
of
different
museums
[online].
Available
from:
http://simplistic-‐reflection.blogspot.com/2011/05/fountain-‐marcel-‐duchamp-‐
1917_273.html
[Accessed
27
January
2012].
Emin,
T.
(1995)
Everyone
I
Have
Ever
Slept
With
1963-1995
[Appliquéd
Tent,
Mattress,
Light].
At:
Destroyed
by
fire
2004
[online].
Available
from:
http://www.artdesigncafe.com/Tracey-‐Emin-‐Everyone-‐I-‐have-‐ever-‐slept-‐with-‐
1963-‐1995
[Accessed
27
January
2012].
Emin,
T.
(1998)
My
Bed
[Mattress,
Linens,
Pillows,
Objects].
At:
London:
Saatchi
Gallery
[online].
Available
from:
http://ahholeahhole.blogspot.com/2012/01/my-‐bed-‐tracy-‐emin.html
[Accessed
27
January
2012].
Hirst,
D.
(2007)
For
The
Love
of
God
[Platinum,
Diamond,
Human
teeth].
At:
London:
White
Cube
Gallery
[online].
Available
from:
http://sculptureresearch.wordpress.com/damien-‐hirst/
[Accessed
27
January
2012].
Hirst,
D.
(1992)
The
Impossibility
of
Death
in
the
Mind
of
Someone
Living
[Tiger
Shark,
Glass,
Steel,
5%
formaldehyde
solution]
At:
Unknown:
Steven
A.
Cohen,
private
collection
[online].
Available
from:
http://wideeyeddreaming.blogspot.com/2010/05/damien-‐hirst.html
[Accessed
27
January
2012].
Manet,
E.
(1882)
Bar
at
the
Folies
Bergeres
[Oil
on
canvas].
At:
London:
Courtauld
Institute
of
Art
[online].
Available
from:
http://www.ski.org/CWTyler_lab/CWTyler/Art%20Investigations/Manet.Folies
Bergeres/Manet.FoliesBergeres.html
[Accessed
27
January
2012].
Warhol,
A.
(1962)
Campbell’s
Soup
Cans
[Synthetic
Polymer
paint
on
canvas].
At:
New
York:
Museum
of
Modern
Art
[online].
Available
From:
http://reachwca.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/andy-‐warhol-‐campbells-‐soup-‐
cans-‐1962-‐letter-‐from-‐campbells/
[Accessed
27
January
2012].
Whistler,
J.
A.
M.
(1872-‐77)
Nocturne
in
Black
and
Gold
–The
Falling
Rocket
[Oil
on
canvas].
At:
Detroit:
Detroit
Institute
of
the
Arts
[online].
Available
from:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/artsreview/cgi-‐bin/wordpress/?p=2463
[Accessed
27
January
2012].
