The author Dave Beech writes in his article Skill in Art that skill is being devalued by society through several means. Once explaining the extent to which skill has ideological value, the author explains several reasons for this to take place. In as far as art is ideological, Beech states that In fact, it would be impossible to imagine significant shift in culture without such a change in the criteria of technical competence (290). Consider the way in which art used to be valued. In previous centuries, art was valued for the extent to which the individual artist was able to recreate what was seen. The camera claimed supreme ability to recreate reality, and accordingly art took different direction. Taking cues from Duchamp and Warhol, the artist Jeffrey Koons developed a style of art that was completely reliant upon personal skill and instead relied upon reproduction and appropriation. Several reasons for the devaluing of skill in art include the rise of such artists as Koons who intentionally create art that is made without skill.
[...] In considering this, we can see how actual skill in art is held at no value. The people with the skill who were involved with the project were not artists. They simply handled the technical aspects of the creation of the pieces. Ideologically speaking, it is not necessary in any way for the artist to be skilled in any way in order to be successful. Perhaps it is because Koons is unskilled that he is has the success to the extent that he does. [...]
[...] On the contrary, the concepts of botched art and amateurish art should be the focus of artists lacking the skill sets to personally realize their designs. This, of course, is the entire point of artists utilizing methods such as appropriation; it is within the artistic vision that these artists must pursue their final goals, and the desire to incorporate skill into their work simply plays to the idea that artistry should remain within the hands of those with skill. While the devaluing of skill has obviously taken place, we must consider the extent to which this should be considered a good or bad thing. [...]
[...] In response to the idea that botched art is not art, the authors Genette and Goshgarian respond by saying that an object to be a work of art, it is necessary and sufficient for it to proceed from an aesthetic intention, however accessory that intention may be when measured against the object's practical function” (219). Botched art and amateurish art can be seen as a reaction to the overproduction and oversupply of talented individuals. If everyone is able to produce skilled works, then artistic talent must differentiate itself by being able to produce art without the use of skill. [...]
[...] A collage or a piece of appropriated art is different from the work that Koons does because he has skilled workers finalizing his ideas; skill is not necessary in appropriating an object. Skilled workers are necessary to the work of both an architect and Koons, and while some architects might be considered to be artistic to an extent, they are not generally considered to be artists. Once again we must go back to the idea that it is not my intention to state that there is no art in what Koons does, but the idea of the devaluing of skills must be considered. [...]
using our reader.