Mais non...there are probably many other artforms, which are aesthetically more pleasing, more beautiful, more sublime or whatever...- we are not stating, all art should be or become transactional. We don't even say, transactional art is great art. All we say is,it's interesting to look at some artworks this way. They may surprise us and surprises may have their beauty...
Yeah, probably. Because all of a sudden you have to craft a deal, appeal to the other's side rationality, desires, goals in life..and convince them. Interaction becomes a transaction. Not necessarily between audience and artist, the audience can also just become a witness of a deal...But that's the point: sharpen the skills of opportunity detection, engineer new audacious deals, invent social contracts, be "strategically creative" meaning, be cool, think cool, act as little as necessary but reach the goals. Sort of, the heritage of the conceptual artist..artistic creativity and creative leadership in any domain of society have a lot in common...
What about all the works, which reflect business topics? Warhol' s Dollar Painting, Sylvie Fleury and all the others...
In a way the category "transactional arts" strictly speaking excludes artworks, which reflect business topics, but are not really transactional. There are many great works works, but they mostly reflect visual aspect of our economic realities, often marketing, biz communication and phenomena of the "society of the spectacle". These works may actually to many be more beautiful and more appealing than merely transactional works. Well, what can we, do, taste is after all subjective. As a thought experiment, however, the idea of transactional art may have its fans.
So, is it worth to have this sub-category? Perhaps yes, because introducing the "transactional component" does add a new quality to the work. All of a sudden, the resources over which we command and the actual negotiation power become a factor for the artowork. It adds an existential dimension...
Not really, or at least not in the sense of the definition here. Since they apply business principles, yes, but not exactly within their artworks, they rather apply it as a management style. however, we could broaden the definition and say, they stylize themselves, this is part of their persona and their work....Starting point for transactional arts were works, were a real transaction is at the core of the piece. Think Duchamp's Monte Carlo Bond... or Etoy's shares, RTMarks rism management strategies, Blank and Jeron's auction bidding to influence an artwork...etc.
Because the exchange of values is only one part of transactional arts. While values are exchanged, forms of capital can also be converted. Adds more dimensions of complexity..:-).
Again, no problem. But it is handy, since it subsumes an increasing number of works...perhaps because since economic resources become more and more scarce in the west - especially for the creatives...
No problem. Was just an offer :-). And if they are too risk averse, they may try the franchise program...:-).
It is only a suggestion...- why not. Art has expanded itself during the 20th century to all sorts of domains. Artists have proven to conquer (or at least reflect) various apparently remote arenas, including high tech disciplines, such as computer science, programming, robotics but also life sciences and other domains. So why not the economic realm and the social interactions, which ubiquitously surround us- such as transactions.
Why finance? Finance is a kind of knowledge of power, so instead of just critisizing capitalism, why not understanding it and trying to contribute with the experimental freedom of the artist to the evolution of our economic systems in general and the financial system in particular? Yes, very questionable, if artists will really be able to contribute on the large scale and have some impact. But - picking up the idea of the avantarge, wouldn't it be nice? And if not, then perhaps we should ask, what are we doing anyways...?
Well, is conceptual art really art? If you do not agree, then perhaps no. But if you accept the beauty of transactional arts lies in the concept, then you may be inclined to see the beauty of transactional arts as kind of witty and potentially valuable contribution to society...
And keep in mind: art became in the 20th century more and more processural. So why not becoming a business- which is over all a process. In fact, a special process, which creates some sort of value....
We may not need a new label. But it seems quiet practical to subsume a set of artworks under this label. And, an increasing number of contemporary works, with or without new media actually have a transactional component, as described.
Daniela Alina Plewe is proposing the category of transactional arts. This theoretical approach was finalist at the International Theory award Transmediale 2010. Daniela A. Plewe holds a PhD from the Sorbonne Paris 1 on transactional uses of interactive media.