Monday, 19 August 2013

APPENDIX 3 A break-down of Pop and ‘bad’ art

Quotes taken from ‘Movements of Modern Art: Pop Art’ by Michael Compton

‘(Pop Art’s) history must be to some extent related to the history of (its) subject matter and sensibility and the problem of the relationship of so-called fine art with popular art and imagery.’

‘Inferior art was ruthlessly excommunicated by art critics. But because the tactics of revolution demanded that the sharpest confrontation should be with other forms of ‘high art’, which could be easily designed as bourgeois, ‘low art’ was introduced both as a means of avoiding the traditional concerns of ‘high art’ and of destroying settled notions of the nature of art itself.’

On Dada, Impressionism, Cubism and Primitive art:
‘They are not quite Pop if only because they are, after all, pictures of common objects in a recognised, though somewhat simplified, ‘high art’ style. They are not seen through the eyes of the consumer society nor presented through the visual conventions of its media.’
On Duchamp and Lichtenstein:
‘anything can be a work of art regardless of its aesthetic quality; it is a work of art by virtue of the idea rather than by virtue of its visual qualities .’

-Roy Lichtenstein turned his material into art
-Andy Warhol believed anything the public accepted as art, was art
-Richard Hamilton believed art must find forms for non-art material
-Willem de Kooning sourced adverts and magazines
-Jackson Pollock posed the question of whether it was possible to have art without forms
-Larry Rivers, not a Pop artist, based his work on high art tradition
-From Pop Art to West Coast Surrealist Assemblage and Junk Art, they that were not satirical nor mocked their audiences, were all successful.

Significant banality:
Blake – Popular material
Boshier – Toys and games
Toynton – Narrative figuration
Hockney – Graffiti, children’s paintings and cheap packaging
Peter Philips – Slot machines
Caulfield – Schematic newspapers

‘Sensitiveness to the variables of our life and economy enable the mass arts to accompany the changes in our life far more closely than the fine arts which are a repository of time-binding values.’

‘The reception of Pop pointed the way to the do-it-yourself aesthetic which makes universal art a real possibility. Pop has effectively destroyed the monolithic rule of taste and substituted a guerrilla art for the old iron-clad battleships. Pop was only one expression of a general feeling that was differently expressed by other artists and was part of a widespread cultural change that involved politics as well as art, attitudes to sex, fashion, theatre, psychology, design and almost anything else that makes newspaper headlines.’

Preoccupation with subject matter leads to direct ideas about popularity, publicity, sales and social analyses, not aesthetic ones.


Further reading:

Lawrence Alloway: ‘The Arts and the Mass Media’ in Architectural Design, 1958
-‘It is impossible to see them (the mass media) clearly within a code of aesthetics associated with minorities with pastoral and upper-class ideas because mass art is urban and democratic.’

Clement Greenberg: ‘Avant Garde and Kitsch’ in Horizon, 1940
-‘ersatz culture… destined for those who are insensible to the value of genuine culture …Kitsch using for raw material the debased and academic simulacra of genuine culture welcomes and cultivates this insensibility.’

Ivan C Karp: ‘Anti-Sensibility Painting’ in Art Forum, 1963
-‘What is more beautiful (good) is imbued with the glorious nimbus of revelation. At its best Common Image Art violates various established sentiments of the artist. By rendering visible the despicable without sensibility, it sets aside the precept that the means may justify the subject. The poetry is invisible. It is the fact of the picture itself which is the poetry.’

Quotes from Pop artists:
Roy Lichtenstein: ‘The one thing that everyone hated was commercial art; apparently they didn’t hate that enough either.
How can you like bad art? I have to answer that I accept it as being there, in the world.
I prefer that my work appear so literary that you can’t get to it as a work of art.’

James Rosenquist: ‘Painting is probably more exciting than advertising –so why shouldn’t it be done with that power and gusto, with that impact. My metaphor is my relations to the power of commercial advertising which is in turn related to our free society, the visual inflation which accompanies the money.’


The Abstract Expressionist era lies in the position of parents who are no longer able to communicate with their children. But degrees of contact depend on spectators’ knowledge of original functions and forms.
So the fight goes
Original knowledge – academic opinion
Vs.
No knowledge – original opinion

The fact is that audiences will always affect art with their own demoralisations.

     

APPENDIX 2 Questionnaire results

Every man above thirty years of age said he preferred a visually stimulating to conceptually stimulating image. Most in that age category agreed their taste was an important part of their identity, but either admittedly so, or for reasons of patriotism. All but one stated that ‘good’ design should unite, and that advertising most certainly is a notable art form. Results were completely down the middle when asked if tastelessness is as worthy of cultural status as the tasteful, a few stating they did not understand the question. Answers referring to the future showed only anomalies: though those older than fifty seemed to be more positive about the death of the good idea; those younger seemed more accepting that (good) originality could be finite.
Males under thirty generally analysed the posed situations much more thoroughly. All resoundingly said that yes iconographic imagery should be open to interpretation. Men not in the industry were sure that originality is not finite; those in the industry could not be biased as they pointed out technology as a variable and image sourcing and inspiration as part of the originality process. The younger gentlemen opposed the older by demanding design should be something used to divide not unite like-mindedness. All considered the images in the final section as tasteful, only two being unsure about kitsch and ad campaigns as artistically refined subjects. This time, the more personal questions showed the anomalies; all were confident in their answers, but all had different reasons for being ‘different’ i.e. those in the industry stated the importance of image-knowledge as a social binding tool, and those not talking more about style as something you develop to avoid being the same as everybody else. The under thirties all highlighted both comical and cartoon styles as their favourite ‘looks’ alongside traditional and realist; objective styles which are purely visual rather than the movement-styles which also suggest subject matter.
Women in general showed fewer patterns in answers. Those over thirty were reluctant to make yes or no decisions, but justified this by saying their buying habits are highly dependent on practicality at this stage in their lives and that much of what they like can be divided into groups i.e. what they wouldn’t have in their home. They talked about art as something which doesn’t need money to make work, but beauty as something money can buy.
Younger women (the under thirties) were surprisingly equally rational. Impact was described as something indifferent, possibly a masculine affair; and iconography as nothing media-created, but human-created as we are designed to see with different eyes not one. Neither skill nor concept was favoured more than the other, and only the youngest decided that originality is finite. Technology was agreed not to be a tool which can give creative ability to anyone, and the personal questions saw the majority of girls ambivalent to their style. This could be due to cultural freedom and fashion diversity, or a general artistic insecurity- as most of the younger woman said they did not believe they had creative potential.
To call somebody creative or unique is still a label nonetheless.
Results showed that a very high percentage of people regardless of their personal taste see low art and tastelessness (done with flair) as things completely worthy of fine art status; timelessness was however the theme most referred to as the backbone to ‘good’ ideas: rather than innovation.


APPENDIX 1 A break-down of conceptualism

CLASSIFICATIONS OF IDEAS
Ideology, notion, objects of the mind, experiments, form, innovation, diffusion, reflex and reflection, categories of being, representation, mental impressions or concepts.
Innate ideas- abstract, internal ideas to be learnt. Adventitious- caused by objects or experiences outside the mind.
Plato: Perfect ideas- unchanging, real knowledge; Material ideas- imperfect, transient reflections.

ELEMENTS OF THINKING
Consciousness- Imagination, intelligence, mind, perception.
Types of thought- Awareness, decision making, learning, creativity, critical thinking.
Properties- Accuracy, effectiveness, efficiency, frugality, prudence, scepticism, soundness, validity, value.
Fields- Philosophy, logic, neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology.
Biological effects- Aging, memory, drug enhancing.
Intelligence- Experience, knowledge, wisdom, strategy, structure, system.
Artificial thinking- Artificial creativity, artificial intelligence, programs, the internet.
Personal thinking- Attention, domain knowledge, intuition, self-awareness, situational awareness.
Creative process- Brainstorming, writing, problem solving, lateral thinking, hypotheses, imagination.
Decision making- Choice, goals, judgement, planning, rationality, value judgement.
Emotional intelligence- Acting, attitude, curiosity, emotional contagion, empathy, epiphany, mood, motivation, propositioning, rhetoric, self-control/esteem, will power.
Erroneous thinking- Black and white, catastrophization, exaggeration, fallacy, mistakes, error, bias, fixation/obsession.
Learning- Imitation, inquiry, observation, pattern recognition, question, recall, abstraction, analogy, analysis, calculation, evaluation, explanation, instinct, linguistics, language, semiotics, multitasking.
Classical conditioning- Discipline, mentoring, punishment, reinforcement, education, active learning.

CREATIVITY
A new thing- product, solution, artwork, novel/valuable occurrence to a person, society or domain.
Skills, flexibility and fluency.
Productivity, autonomy, replication, redefinition, forward incrementation, advance forward movement, redirection, re-initiation.
Investments, improvements, integration, transformative action, insight, experience, expression.
Original use and worth.
A new process, product, person, place with detail in response.
Memes.
Positively affects: Psychology, cognitive science, education, philosophy, technology, theology, sociology, linguistics, business, economics, mental health, personality.




REFERENCES

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/21/art
http://www.standard.co.uk/arts/hans-ulrich-obrist--the-god-of-planet-art-6741077.html
Heller, Steven and Chwast, Seymour 2008 Illustration: A Visual History: Abrams
2007 Philosophy Now: Popular Culture and Philosophy Issue 64: Anja Publications Ltd
2012 ARTBOXMagazine Issue 20: James Knight Media
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-reviews/9167537/British-Design-1948-2012-Innovation-in-the-Modern-Age-VandA-review.html
Munari, Bruno 1966 Design as Art: Editori Laterza
2012 Creative Review magazine May Issue: Centaur Media plc
McLuhan, Marshall and Fiore, Quentin 1967 The Medium is the Massage: Bantam Books, Inc.
Lois, George 2012 Damn Good Advice (for people with talent!): Phaidon Press Limited
Griffin, W. Glenn and Morrison, Deborah 2010 The Creative Process Illustrated: HOW Books
Gill, Bob 2011 Bob Gill, so far.: Laurence King Publishing Ltd
Berger, John 1972 Ways of Seeing: Penguin Books Ltd
Ingledew, John 2011 the a-z of visual ideas: Laurence King Publishing Ltd
Crow, David 2003 Visible Signs 2nd edition: AVA Publishing SA
Fiell, Charlotte and Fiell, Peter 1999 Design of the 20th Century: TASCHEN
Compton, Michael 1970 Movement of Modern Art: Pop Art: The Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited


CONCLUSION

In Charlotte and Peter Fiell’s ‘Design of the 20th Century’, the value of ideas in design are rationally, relatively and profoundly explained but not quantified through hierarchy[1].  
The death of the good idea is not a quantifiable thing; taste is far too personal an affair, and money with which to polish an idea, far too impersonal.
The ‘big’ ideas involved in celebrations and events management have led to a British Olympics situation where something like punk, which was invented for the purpose of anti-establishmentarianism, has been used against its original will. Idea manipulation is itself an invisible cultural art form which involves everybody:  no artwork from any field could exist without an art world, and no art world could exist without a world full of artists and non-artists.
Whether one is more culturally valued or not –Damien Hirst selling more London 2012 exhibition tickets than Leonardo Da Vinci’s London 2012 show, hints at a paradigm- modern concepts and traditional skill are two very different idea bases. Simply liking both will not merge the gap; although the good and the bad are a lot easier to merge, particularly in a contemporary, liberal world. Originality and ideas are equally very different, originality coming from many ideas: it is a chicken and egg relationship but of which deliberately ‘bad’ i.e. pop, naïve, kitsch or commercial (see appendices two and three) is the ugly lovechild. We love the underdog and we love to challenge our perceptions of what beautiful really is.

Deliberately overexposed ideas are not for the purpose of passive acceptance; the ‘good’ are fresh, new visual concepts which cleverly deny monopolies of moral purity, and politically but also culturally bond the lesser abundant countries with the more economically powerful.
A good idea reverses ‘hyper-institutionalisation’ so that the uncultured can learn rather than being left behind and the guarantee of formal features as such and such an aesthetic is bent so that an image is relevant to real-life not just made-up modern rules. A great idea is often better the second time around; and really good advertising proves this by being of absolutely no threat to the future. Work which wavers on the border of being art and design is culturally clean because it is socially central not above, and merely sells the idea of new identities to the masses.
The best is as honest and pure as low art gets; it isn’t priceless or worthless because it has an explainable price and unexplainable worth.





[1] Styling is concerned with surface treatment and appearance –the expressive qualities of a product. Design, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with problem solving –it tends to be holistic in its scope and generally seeks simplification and essentiality. During economic downturns, functionalism tends to come to the fore while in periods of economic prosperity, anti-rationalism is apt to flourish.
Design is not only a process linked to mechanised production, it is a means of conveying persuasive ideas, attitudes and values about how things could or should be according to individual, corporate, institutional or national objectives.
Perhaps the most significant reason for diversity in design, is the general belief that, despite the authority and success of particular design solutions, there is always a better way of doing things.

ACADEMIC IGNORANCE IS INNOVATION BLISS?

Illustration’s actions will always have consequences and although a concept can take a year to get permission from an agent, production must be fast and the idea spread quickly. Fine art has no rules in the same way which puts what is high or ‘good’            work in the hands of critics and curators in order to control the chaos. Professionalism is environmental and amateurism anti-environmental. But the beauty of the day is that amateurs can afford to lose.
In George Lois’ book ‘Damn Good Advice’ he explains how as a master communicator he knows ‘(good) advertising is poison gas. It should bring tears to your eyes, unhinge your nervous system, and knock you out’- he believes in insanity, brain-destroying simplicity and words before visuals; iconic images so clever they hurt –and scar- definitely a good type of ‘bad’[1]. As a campaigner, he campaigns that advertising is indeed an art form and a heroic public service[2].




































George Lois Esquire magazine covers, 1969 and 1968


Although designers like Lois reject themselves as scientists, mathematical rules can dictate probability; and design works in a similar way- scale and mass won’t change the fact ideas are either accepted or declined. Working objectively, probability is predictable and you will make a pattern because information in society is pattern based.
In book ‘The Creative Process Illustrated’, Sally Hogshead defends that ‘creative people defend the world from predictability’ and that ‘creativity is the difference between information and genius’. Griffin & Morrison give an outlook which suggests you have to be bad or perhaps scary to be effective[3]. So whether you prefer algorithmic or heuristic solutions, it is the problem not the solution which determines bad-bad work; a formula comes before an equation.
This acceptance-process of ideas is called ‘Sociocultural Validation’ as named by Arthur J Cropley, professor of psychology at the University of Hamburg. In the ‘Handbook of Creativity’, cognitive psychologists Thomas B Ward, Steven M Smith and Ronald A Finke insist ‘the capacity for creative thought is the rule rather than the exception in human cognitive function’ –which suggests a good-bad idea allows us to make it good-good or bad-bad, which is ultimately more pleasurable.
Following J P Guilford’s 1967 Structure of Intellect Model, a miserable conservative thing to say would be that the death of the good idea is relative to the deterioration of intelligence: Contents + Products + Operations = Intellect –But the things he stated as the components then have changed since. We now allow the application of ‘implicit theories’ to people by themselves, as their own methods which work in parallel to others. A sort of parallel universe of idea-ghosts which designers aren’t afraid of, but know they can use to scare or shock their audiences. Many still deem conceptual art an excuse for unintelligent people to express bad ideas, but in a less conservative way, is this really such a bad thing? Intrinsic motivations are the drives of people who crave love as a reward; Extrinsic motivations the drives towards money and power. But either way, motivation is a virtue.

In his book, ‘Bob Gill, So far’, Gill defends recycling in design by blaming fine artists of doing the same[4]. He celebrates the relationship between art and commerce as a healthy one, but which needs the public to tell designers when they’re doing it wrong because it is not an elitist industry[5].
John Berger in ‘Ways of Seeing’ proves that this has been the case since the 70s[6]. Even observation art where information is the subject can never be still in the same way as work based on ‘pure’ observation. Bad taste is no longer obvious banality, but instead work which isn’t obvious and that not everybody can understand.
The ‘good idea’ falls into the cliché trap of ‘no selfless good deed’ and so success becomes the fine balance between controversial and offensive.
According to ‘The A-Z of Visual Ideas’, high culture makes people receptive, is striking, fresh, exciting, engaging and memorable. Ross Cooper says ‘When a viewer understands an idea they feel good about it’. Therefore we can confirm the two types of bad idea:
A comprehendible bad concept = Good-bad
Something incomprehensible = Bad-bad
Because good-bad art is more difficult to analyse and value- it has risen above the simply ‘beautiful’ because it arguably requires a higher intelligence and is aesthetically more difficult to make commonly attractive.
Arthur Koestler in ‘The Act of Creation’ is ambiguous about his stance on recycling; supposedly dependent on whether the recycled is rubbish or has been made rubbish (ready-made).[7]
In a questionnaire aimed at those in and out of creative fields, it was concluded by the majority that styles such as kitsch and pop art are tasteful and culturally worthy because they have been designed to be so (See appendix two for questionnaire results).     
David Crow’s ‘Visible Signs’ explains this modern divorce between meaning and form as ‘duality’. The book explains the difference between signified (image) and signifier (word or meaning): ‘All that is necessary for any language to exist is an agreement amongst a group of people that one thing will stand for another’; thus is global agreement the signifier for the death of the ‘good’ (and innovative) visual idea?

ICON(IC) – Resembles the sign, resembles the thing they represent
INDEX – Direct link between the sign and object i.e. smoke is an index of fire
SYMBOL – No logical connection between sign and meaning i.e. requires learning

The categories of sign could be a strategy for analysing a concept; the type if not the measure of how good it is.






[1] A memorable visual, synergistically blending with memorable words that create imagery which communicates in a nanosecond, immediately results in an intellectual and human response.
The word imagery is too often associated purely with visuals, but it is much more than that: imagery is the conversion of an idea into a theatrical cameo, an indelible symbol, a scene that becomes popular folklore, an iconographic image.
[2] Creativity in advertising and graphic design, as I practice it, is art. My professional practice derives directly from romantic ideas of the superhuman artist. I insist on the inevitability of my graphic work, all created with an ethos of allegiance to art rather than science even though they powerfully serve a commercial purpose.
[3] (ad folks) help us make decisions, form opinions and develop habits with a level of skill and authority commonly associated with parents, priests or police officers
[4] Designers are not the only ones with sticky fingers. Fine artists have been doing this for years.
Stealing is good. There is no such thing as a bad cliché.
[5] If designers had their own way, we’d be living in an even more homogenised environment. Anyone who’s visited an English New Town will confirm that well-meaning designers and architects designed the life out of anything they could get their hands on; they succeeded in eliminating the ‘lows’ in design, but they also eliminated the ‘highs’ and the idiosyncratic designs of non-designers
[6] The art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms
[7] The perquisite of originality is the art of forgetting, at the proper moment, what we know… Without the art of forgetting, the mind clutters with ready-made answers, and never finds occasion to ask the proper questions

FAT AND ILL

Fine art (in this case, fat for short) and illustration (ill for short) have a reputation for falling out, often over ethics. Ideas require justification if they are to be taken seriously, but justification and explanation are not the same thing. Consumer principles are difficult to define in the art world: fine art with money thrown at it for the sake of making a point; and design which sells superficial products for lots of money. At what point does an idea become unethical?
Design-endorsement company D&AD are a board of creative figures who nurture talent from specifically commercial fields. They are hugely important to the survival of artistic advertising and differentiating the good from bad- giving credibility not just a wad of cash to those who truly stand out. Their manifesto pins this absoluteness that anyone can be creative, but the best really have to have something special [1].
Besides money, the debate concerns controversial ideas. Commercial art that uses controversy has huge stigma attached, but that which has survived the ages has a manner of indestructability the British household protects- and in a way the most cctv secure museum just couldn’t.

We don’t like to think about art as something mathematical because it is one of the more irrational things in life we can indulge fantastically in; on the other hand, we subconsciously are drawn to trust something which looks factual or to have some kind of poster-esque or confident typography or colours, regardless of authenticity. It is how designed you want your identity to come across.
The ‘British Design 1948-2012: Innovation in the Modern Age’ show at the V&A in London over the summer of 2012 exhibited art and design from the most potent times in recent British heritage. For the sake of this essay’s argument, it wonderfully showcased the ‘good’ and little of the ‘bad’ which made it biased and mainly incredibly predictable as the Telegraphs reviewer Alastair Sooke complained[2]- posing patriotism as something of bad taste. It did highlight, probably not to many people’s observation, illustrative methods as the backbone to much of the work. From blueprints and prototypes to concept art, experiments in scale and reproduction.

In Bruno Munari’s ‘Design as Art’, the disappearance of old categories of art is discussed: how current work, ‘commercial article(s) stripped of mystery and reasonably priced’ has replaced them. The categories are now the audience- the artist breaks the circle: Artist – dealer – critic – collector – gallery. It is very difficult to put pure subjectivity through the cycle; and so ‘the artist transforms to designer’ he says: ‘when the objects we use every day and the surroundings we live in have become in themselves a work of art, then we shall be able to say that we have achieved a balanced life.’.
GOOD = IDEA
HOW WELL = IMAGE
IDEA + IMAGE = VALUE

There is definitely a changing value system; specs as used to measure product-success are now frequently used in the art world as a measure of fashion i.e. economics, component cost and obsolescence.  When techniques change, new materials are discovered, social problems arise and forms become outdated; the year of the ‘lucky charm’ as Munari describes. The good idea is becoming the unconditional excuse: probability and statistics applied to a gimmick[3].    
In Creative Review magazine of May 2012, George Lois expressed his sadness for the death of human instincts in advertising[4]. In another article, Rob McIntosh of Frog Design in Munich, a speaker at the SEGD symposium’s innovation session refers to data filtration (relevant, pertinent info only) as ‘the art of big data’ in a new approach to ‘augmented reality’. Information (IT in particular) is definitely the spark of ideas interesting to those who are looking to create themselves, although Ross Philips of Frog still believes: ‘start with an idea then use whatever technology is appropriate, not the other way around.’.
An article from the same magazine had a refreshingly positive outlook on narrative in the internet: not e-books, but specifically, Facebook. The new timeline format forces brands to engage and not just sell- brand stories are fun and allow you as a consumer to be the fly on their wall for a change. The danger again, like all online developments, although the premises are incredibly exciting, is the issue of copyrighting and how professional portfolios are now so difficult to get right. In article ‘To Vectorise or Squeegee?’ digital printing is commended, but the way poster art is responded to, described as culturally vague[5].

Cover Photo by Coca-Cola for Facebook, 2012



Cult book The Medium is the Massage, although over forty years old now, still makes very important insights which are still relevant: ‘there is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening’ –we have an obsession with understanding, even if not to like something, which favours low art forms in a big way. ‘Nobody can really imagine what private guilt can be anymore’ when you are encouraged to ‘stumble upon’ a website –tailor made to you- as someone with the same interests as somebody else.



[1] D&AD today is a restless, enquiring, agitating organisation, determined to perpetuate brilliance in commercial creativity. It constantly pushes boundaries, initiating debate and encouraging experimentation, nurturing a tradition of craft skills and celebrating excellence within the creative industries and beyond.
[2] the fact that successful video games such as Tomb Raider and Grand Theft Auto have a British heritage is of limited interest, to me at least.
Moreover, seeing so many commercial products clustered together (a vacuum cleaner by James Dyson; Jonathan Ive’s colourful iMac G3) gives the final gallery the unwelcome air of a state-sponsored pavilion promoting contemporary British design at an overseas trade fair.
In general I could have done with less drum-beating and greater emphasis upon more difficult aspects of the past 60 years, such as the decline of Britain’s fortunes as an imperial power, the impact of successive recessions upon artists and designers, and the lamentable disappearance of the great tradition of British manufacturing, which once earned this country a reputation as the “workshop of the world”.
In fairness, these elegiac subplots do feature in the detail of the show, but you have to look hard to find them. As a result, how much you enjoy British Design 1948-2012 will depend upon the intensity of your patriotism.

[3] When a lot of money comes along before culture arrives, we get the phenomenon of the gold telephone. And when I say culture I don’t mean academic knowledge, I mean information: information about what is happening in the world, about the things that make life interesting.
[4] There isn’t a client who hasn’t taken the marketing courses or business courses in college. They’ve all been taught that advertising is a science. Advertising is not, but how are those colleges going to teach that advertising is an art?
[5] ‘These trends call into question how we frame the cultural value and authenticity of this kind of work, when the very ideas of history and culture have themselves become styles and palette swatches.’ ‘While illustrators borrowing from visual ideologies or transforming historical imagery into faddish style is nothing new, this kind of referencing is important to bear in mind when looking at the cultural value of an artwork.’