Art: Paint and Butter
Art today is seen as a form of expression and communication. Its process, whether combining different ideas or objects together leads to multiple interpretations held both by the artist and the viewer. These combinations are not just a sum of their individual parts, but instead create a new result that exceeds the value associated with any of the parts. This process has been experimented with in many media forms, including film. Lev Kuleshov’s experiments in video montage became a widely cited example of this process. The result of his works led to a basic of psychological understanding that the viewer reacted differently to each segment of parts, leading to the understanding of the value of the parts as a whole are greater than their individual value.
In combination, two uniquely common but uncommonly combined objects placed together, in whatever unique fashion implicates a viewer to express emotions reserved for abnormal situations. In the likes of this piece, butter and paint, as uniquely different as they are, each have unique purposes and history similarly to the other, yet rarely associated together.
Butter, as a condiment, spread, and cooking medium, is well established as an primary and crucial ingredient for any culinary application. Along with a long list of spices and oils, butter is one of the most commonly used kitchen ingredients used today, with historical evidence of its use as far back as 9000 BCE. In fact, the average person in the European Union consumed around 4.8 kilograms (10.6 pounds) of butter a year.
Art, as a medium of communication and expression, is created in numerous methods and mediums. The most common form of art is painting, a medium alone that has established itself through centuries of modern application, as well as a record of a millenia of historically important events.
The creation of a piece of art mixing the notions of butter and paint communicates a unique conversation of historical, stereotypical, socially, and metaphorical conversations that is based of the commodity of the two objects. Butter, a condiment and shortening of food, and paint, a medium of process provide themselves as ingredients to a larger whole.
Modern art today has a hard time of shaking the stigma of the starving artist. Time and time again, artist are portrayed as penniless, disturbed people whose crazy fits of expression and protest force them to choice passion over sustenance. At this point, an artist is expected to give up her daily meal for her supplies, even down to the last commodities, paint instead of butter.
To contrast its commonly cheap and general appeal, the classical setting of a stick of butter resting in a porcelain dish with a decorated silver butter knife was important in aristocratic culture, where elaborate decoration and food are indicators of one’s class and wealth. Its quality is important for its overall taste. Fine art, specifically paintings, are another indication of one’s class and wealth. In which a painting may be commissioned for enjoyment of the visual by a renowned painter, butter would be crafted for its quality on the taste. For both, their appeal culturally signified social importance.
Together, butter and paint present themselves to a viewer with a slanted take on each’s history and social roles, and a unique take on their cultural significance and metaphorical interpretations on art and the stereotype of the artist. Separately, these two objects could never communicate on these levels without the aid of their montage.
