Wim Delvoye, Cloaca, 2000
Osman Khan’s Art Dispensing Machine, 2004 (ADM) produces unique ‘outputs’ based on information received from a swipe of the viewers credit card. This information is reconfigured by the ADM to produce a unique data-portrait accompanied by text generated from a list of western advertising slogans. Are these outputs considered valuable extensions of the parent apparatus? Are they collectable? In another work of the same year Khan Artist , the artist appropriates the act and system of credit consumption. Registering as a valid merchant with fully operational credit processing machine and account, the artist asks the visitor to make a purchase. The visitors card is charged for the amount entered. No product or service is received in kind at the moment of the transaction, save the receipt displaying the artists name and the acknowledgement of the transaction on the visitors statement. Is the statement an artefact? Does the piece become more precious if a larger amount is charged? Belgian artist, Wim Delvoye’s Cloaca series of work (2000-2004) uses enzymes and bacteria to replicate the process of human digestion. The work accepts food, breaks it down and produces excretions. When exhibited in New York, the machine was fed gourmet meals from the city's celebrity chefs. Is the value of the works output increased by the cost of its input? Do these outputs, attract the value of artefacts? Are they works in their own right?
This case study will look at issues of value surrounding Art as artist, specifically investigating the value of outputs, by-products or productions of the parent apparatus. These outputs are transcripts of the creative event that takes place at the moment of their production. This moment is the work’s raison d’etré. It is a fleeting event - a finite period of gestation. Once detached from the parent apparatus they become documents of that creative event, they are of the work, but not the work itself. They are an echo of that impermanent creative moment, a direct product of it, and for that reason may hold some value in relation to that of the parent apparatus. These works bring to mind many questions: Does the absence of the artist from the process make the output less or more valuable? Is the role of the artist made redundant once the parent apparatus has been set in motion? Once the output is produced and subsequently removed/detached from the parent apparatus, does it retain its connection to the parent? Is there a need for editioning? Would this lead to supply and demand effects on their value? Are they less or more valuable than the parent apparatus? Are there other factors that may influence their value? In asking these questions I will look at the work of Osman Khan, Wim Delvoye and others.
http://dma.ucla.edu/gallery/faculty_gallery.php?ID=152
Osman Khan's "Khan Artist", 2004
http://www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2004/08/02/32247.html
Osman Khan's "Art Dispensing Machine", 2004
http://www.speronewestwater.com/cgi-bin/iowa/articles/record.html?record=259
SURE, IT’S CRAPPY – BUT IS IT ART? The National Post, 27 March 2004
http://www.speronewestwater.com/cgi-bin/iowa/articles/record.html?record=412
"Vim & Vigour; An Interview with Wim Delvoye"
Border Crossings Issue No. 96
1 November 2005
http://reporter.leeds.ac.uk/506/s1.htm
Kieran, M. "Revealing The True Value of Art."
http://www.authorama.com/principles-of-aesthetics-4.html
Parker D. H. "The Principles Of Aesthetics", Chapter III - The Intrinsic Value of Art