Fugitive Pigments: The Value of Not Functioning

Welcome to a quarterly newsletter of art-related musings and updates on my practice. You are receiving this because you’ve either signed up, bought work with me in the past, or we have met in an art-related context. Feel free to opt-out at the bottom of this page. 

One of my favorite recent exhibitions was “The Way I See It,” KAWS’s show of his own collection at the Drawing Center. It brought to mind the range of value put on drawing and works on paper versus painting, especially in this context that includes everything from comic strips (R. Crumb), commercial illustration and graffiti (FUTURA 2000 etc). Painting’s value does understandably benefit from its own history and material worth, but it’s interesting how much the distinction still persists (enough to necessitate fairs like Art on Paper, or the Drawing Center itself).

Which leads me to pondering fine art. “Fine,” to me, has always seemed like an over-articulated use of a trite word. Like food promoting real cheese or a hotel that advertises clean rooms. (Maybe protesting too much). I didn’t realize the term came from Charles Batteux’s 1746 The Fine Arts Reduced to a Single Principle. He hints at the Hierarchy of Needs, in describing three categories of arts: those of necessity, pleasure and a final, high-level group, a combination of the two. At first he called this roster “the polite arts,” for “those whose first object is to please”. Although I would extrapolate that to contemporary times—while the main objective of art is certainly not to please (I would say challenge (a beloved art word) or imbue emotion)—the distinction between functionality and theoretical value persists. Somehow, the more physically useful something is, the lower its inclusion in the contemporary art market. I made a (perhaps deeply imperfect) graph to explore my point:

Accurate? I don’t have the decades of experience to know for sure, but it’s a quick take on how it feels from the outside. I would assume there is a premium price on ceramics that would offend the artist if used as a vessel for flowers. Similarly, photography with a marketing angle is obviously devalued. I’m curious if commercialization is the genesis of our distrust. The less “useful” something is, the more we can trust that it was created and purchased (acquired?) with pure intentions.

There is one more invisible axis—that of time. A distinction between things that have been used and things that are displayed as they have always been (i.e. a suit of armor versus a 19th century painting). One is a decommissioned tool. Interestingly, this graph would shift with each century added; functional ceramics certainly have gravitas at the Met, but their median time period is centuries ago. As their daily use declines, the value increases, if they can remain intact for long enough to be rediscovered.

In any case, the true use of art is unquestionably intangible, regardless of medium — squiggly and deep and life changing.

/

Updates

• I’m thrilled to be opening my first solo show February 16th with Simchowitz Gallery at Hill House in LA

• I will be staying for the LA fairs, let me know if you’re in town!

• In November 2025 I’ll be showing with two wonderful friends from NYAA (Tina Dion and Andrea Olivia) at Gallery Poulsen in Copenhagen

• I am in my final jaunt of academia and graduate from the Academy this April, it’s been an incredible two years

• Feel free to forward or share this post https://hollylowennewsletter.beehiiv.com/subscribe