Moving Sites: Labor and Capital

Just as in the fist class discussion which we had on critique and discourse, in which we discussed the question of where the site of artistic production resides, any discussion of labor also immediately asks where the question of labor production resides, and invariably questions what kind of labor produces commodities/capital.

In his essay, “Manufactum on Canvas: On the Widespread Success of Figurative Painting,” Niklas Maak dismissively describes the ways in which a certain type of painting—figurative paintings appealing to the neo-bourgeoisie—have become commoditized. However, it is clear from his tone that he thinks this commoditization is an empty one, because the paintings simply lack value.

I find this analysis interesting in the context of a conversation I had with Marie Lorenz last week during my studio visit with her.  While discussing my paintings, I explained that although one of my large panels might have taken 30 hours of labor, only 3 hours of that labor was actually painting. The rest was in construction. Immediately the conversation turned to discussing the allocation of labor, and what it might mean for a painting’s site of labor to be dislocated in this manner.

Given my conversation with Marie Lorenz, and the essay by Maak, I am interested in what it means to shift the site of labor in a painting from the act of painting to a different sort of production—although I am highly cynical of Maak’s easy dismissal of the entire medium. If the site of labor shifts, does that shift the site of commoditization, and therefore the site of capital production?

Another way to approach this question of labor and capital is to look at the example of the self-taught artist Frank Jones. Frank Jones was an African-American artist imprisoned for murder in Texas until his death in prison in 1969 (he maintained his innocence for the rest of his life). While imprisoned, Jones began making red and blue drawings with material scraps left in the prison office in which he worked. Eventually, his drawings began to attract attention both within and outside of the prison; he had gallery representation and his work sold well, and continues to do so now. However, because he was imprisoned, Jones did not actually reap the benefits of his labor.

If one follows Maak’s opinion, then Jones’s drawings collected capital because of their inherently commoditized nature as figurative drawings—and the site of labor is irrelevant. However, I propose that there is something more to the drawings. The site of the labor is not just in the locus of colored pencil upon paper, but also in the context of the prison, both in his own life and within the imagery he used. The site of the labor therefore was one of the essential elements in the work which accrued capital to his drawings. 

Image courtesy of Carl Hammer Gallery. 

Frank Jones, Untitled, 1964-69,  colored pencil on paper