Post on 26-Mar-2015
description
Takashi Murakami: Business Art Flattener
by JNOMICS
! ! “Within the art scheme, oneʼs work must have a critical component to be ! ! popular. The general pubic, however, is attracted to very silly paintings. I ! ! donʼt see why contemporary works have to appeal to one audience or ! ! another.”1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Takashi Murakami
Introduction
! In 1961 sculptor Claes Oldenburg became a storekeeper, opening “The Store” in
New York City as a location where people could purchase his works just as they would
household products. In 1968 Andy Warhol moved from his eminent Silver Factory to a
new location at 33 Union Square West, New York City, intending to transition from the
colorful prints that had made him famous, to a business-centric model focused on the
production of movies and the development of “business art.” In 1986 Keith Haring
opened the Pop Shop at 292 Lafeyette Street, New York City, a store that sold
merchandise bearing his playful characters and images. In 1996 a burgeoning 34-year
-old Japanese artist, Takashi Murakami, established the Hiropon Factory (later to
become the KaiKai Kiki organization) as a corporate entity to oversee the production,
sale, and business administration of his artworks and “art products.”2 He would become
one of the worldʼs wealthiest, most lauded fine artists, articulating a prescient,
conceptual understanding of the relationship between Japanese subculture, popular
culture, and artʼs westernized “high” culture, called Superflat. The theory provided
Murakami the foundation to realize a series of innovations in the business practices of
modern art. Without contemporary counterpart, the “business art” innovations of Takashi
Murakami represent the most important evolutions to the business sector of the art
economy by an artist since Andy Warhol. !
2
! University of Chicago Economics Professor David Galenson, Ph.D., has, over the
last 15 years, developed an analytical framework for understanding and identifying two
distinct types of innovators: conceptual and experimental. Using empirical methods,
such as the development of age-price profiles that depict an artistʼs creative lifecycle, he
has demonstrated a clear distinction between the production behaviors and goals of
these two types of creators. As defined by him, conceptual innovators “have been
motivated by the desire to communicate specific ideas and emotions. Their goals for a
particular work can usually be stated precisely, before its production, either as a desired
image or as a desired process for the workʼs execution.”3 This definition can be used as
a means to understand the nature of Murakamiʼs approach, and as a contrasting lens to
understand how his career, still in progress, will be historically understood. Using the
framework of what it means to be a conceptual artist, comparisons can be made to
other creative innovators, such as Pablo Picasso, Marcel Duchamp, Jackson Pollock
(experimental artist), Jasper Johns, Andy Warhol, Damien Hirst, and Jeff Koons, all
western artists identified as having influenced Murakamiʼs work. A review of auction
records provides the necessary empirical data for an age-price regression analysis of
Murakami, one that will label him a conceptualist.
! Once the conceptual identification is established, the task becomes qualifying
Murakami as an innovator in the realm of “business art.” An examination of the
organization and purpose of his company KaiKai KiKi, including its production process,
merchandising output, and product collaborations, asserts Murakami as the most
significant innovator in the business of art since Andy Warhol. He is a visionary who has
evolved the business ideas of Pop Art to a place not previously considered.
3
! A measure of the importance of an innovation is the extent of its influence on
future artists and on the art market at large. Where it is challenging to measure the
relative influence of a living artist, a different metric must be determined. Measuring the
influence of Murakamiʼs innovations can be done by surveying the market for “art
products” that have been created in his wake, and by noting the proliferation of
collaborations between artists and commercial producers since his groundbreaking
2003 Louis Vuitton project that made him internationally famous. While these
corollaries are worth discussing, there is not enough empirical data to assert their long-
term historical import to the measurement of Murakamiʼs influence. The influence, and
therefore long-term impact of his innovations, will be rendered in decades to come.
However, by contrasting the ideologically and empirically conceptual nature of his
contributions against a thorough survey of his business practices and professional
accomplishments, a clear image of Takashi Murakami as a “business art” innovator will
emerge.
Conceptual v. Experimental
! “When he paints a picture, he knows what he wants to say and what kind of ! picture will in fact say it; his forms and colors are judiciously chosen to achieve ! the desired end, and he uses them like the words of a vocabulary.”4! ! ! ! ! ! ! Amedee Ozenfant on Pablo Picasso
! Dr. Galenson has explained that, “artists who have produced experimental
innovations have been motivated by aesthetic criteria; they have aimed at presenting
visual perceptions. Their goals are imprecise, so their procedure is tentative and
incremental. The imprecision of their goals means that these artists rarely feel they
4
have succeeded, and their careers are consequently often dominated by the pursuit of a
single objective.”5 Given this definition, experimental innovators often make their most
important contributions later in life. The most significant paintings of Paul Cezanneʼs
career were produced at the age of 67. In contrast, Pablo Picasso, a conceptual
innovator, reached his pinnacle at the age of 26.6 In his 2001 book, Painting Outside
the Lines, Dr. Galenson described conceptual innovators:
" “Because their goals are precise, conceptual artists are often satisfied that they " have produced one or more works that achieve a specific purpose. Unlike " experimental artists, whose inability to achieve their goals often ties them into a " single problem for a whole career, the conceptual artistʼs ability to be satisfied " that a problem has been solved can free him to pursue new goals. The careers " of some important conceptual artists have consequently been marked by a series " of innovations, each very different from the others.”7
While Takashi Murakami seeks a specific set of “aesthetic criteria” in his work, purely
visual elements are not his primary focus. Rather, he has built the first period of his
career around a set of ideological objectives aimed at expressing to the western world a
uniquely Japanese art movement, Superflat. The theoretical underpinnings of the
movement center on the cultural response of Japan to the United Statesʼ nuclear
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the 6th and 9th of August, 1945. Catalyzed by
his cultural surveying, Murakami developed the conceptual framework for Superflat. At
the outset, he explained “super flatness” to be “the sensibility that has contributed to
and continues to contribute to the construction of Japanese culture, as a worldview, and
show that it is an original concept that links the past with present and future.” He
questioned, “During the modern period, as Japan has been Westernized [sic], how has
the “super flat” sensibility metamorphosed? If that can be grasped clearly, then our
stance today will come into focus.”8
5
Superflat is the layering of ideas or visual elements on top of one another to
create a single two-dimensional image without vocal center. Murakami recently
compared his approach to that of Jackson Pollockʼs “all-over” style. In an Artforum
article from 1967, William Rubin explained that the influence of “all-over” “consisted in
the establishing of the ʻsingle imageʼ... ʻAll-overʼ refers to a generalized patterning of the
surface of canvas,” both aesthetic tenets of Superflat.9 With regard to Pollock,
Murakami commented about the proliferation of his “jelly-fish eyes” (an iconic Superflat
image) in an interview conducted for his 2010 Versaille retrospective:
# “I place this eye motif in places where I want the spectatorsʼ gaze to pass and, # eventually stop. These works apply the principle used by Jackson Pollock. His # works are designed so that our gaze follows the trails of colours left on the flat # surface. His works invite us to shift our gaze by following the same colour, black # marks, spurs, etc...The rule that is followed by these types of works, Pollockʼs # and mine, is designed to make the spectatorʼs gaze wander over the flat surface. # Pollock was perfectly aware of this ʻdesignʼ principle.”10
Murakami, a conceptualist, is speaking to a similarity between his work and that of an
experimentalist, Pollock. Where the “all-over” principle centers on the creation of an
image generated for singular consumption by the viewer, and the concept of the gaze
discussed above explains the functionality of the flat surface, a clearer understanding of
Superflat is revealed. To reconcile the inherent clash of a conceptualist strongly
identifying with an experimentalist, it must be remembered that Murakami is focused on
the use of Pollockʼs gaze and the “all-over” techniques only insofar as they most
effectively communicate the idea of Superflat. Whereas the technique was primary to
Pollockʼs artistic goals, for Murakami the technique is employed in a supporting role for
his larger, ideological ambitions.
6
! This fundamentally conceptual element of Murakamiʼs work is further portrayed in
statements made by the artist upon the completion of his “Superflat Trilogy.” He
explained, “The whole project began with a simple question: ʻWhat is art?ʼ What
concepts or viewpoints would truly guide an inquiry into the meaning of art in Japan?
The search for answers to this question was the underlying mission of the Superflat
project.”11 While the project generated tremendous output including three successive
international museum exhibitions, the compiling of an art history textbook (Little Boy:
The Arts of Japanʼs Exploding Subculture, Yale University Press) outlining the principles
of Superflat, merchandise (all designed explicitly for the project by Murakami), and
numerous, valuable, original artworks created by Murakami and others of his KaiKai
KiKi artists, the aim of the project was to answer a series of philosophical questions
about art in Japan and its relationship to the western world. The output was a
byproduct of the push to answer these questions. This concomitance to an idea, to a
“specific purpose,” as emphasized by Dr. Galenson, along with the clear delineation of a
finishing point for the project, the publication of the Little Boy text and curated exhibition,
is fundamentally conceptual.
! Another central component of the conceptual versus experimental framework is
the creation of age-price profiles as a means to classify an artistʼs innovation type. A
finding of Dr. Galensonʼs work is that conceptual artists generally have profiles that peak
at an early age, followed by a significant decline in the production of important works
over the remainder of their career. That is, the work a conceptual artist produces early
in his career will constitute the most important, influential, and therefore, innovative
7
contribution. Comparatively, an experimentalist will progress across a lifetime,
producing his most innovative work in later years, often after the age of 50.
! Constructing an age-price profile for Murakami is useful in solidifying his status
as a conceptualist. To do so, all of his auction records were reviewed from Artnetʼs
auction database. Given the total quantity of works sold (not bought in), numbering
more than 1400, only works that achieved prices of more than $50,000 were considered
in the analysis, as works below this number were heavily proportioned to prints and
lithographs. More than 98% of Murakamiʼs total sales are accounted for by the 127
items sold for more than $50,000. The ages for the profile indicate Murakamiʼs age at
the point of creation for each work.
! The profile of the raw data commences in 1990, at age 28, when he made
Polyrythum, which sold in April 2008 for a price slightly below estimate: $155,970.00.
This work constitutes the single highest price received for a work produced prior to
Murakami completing his Ph.D. at Tokyo National University of Fine Arts and Music.
The profile peaks at age 36 with auction sales of $19,720,933.00, over 22 total works
sold (also the highest number of works sold from a single year). Table 1 (p. 10) depicts
the rankings and auction totals from each year in which at least a single Murakami piece
sold at auction for a sum greater than $50,000. Notably, 4 of the top 5 years took place
when Murakami was in his thirties, with the earliest happening at 35, just 4 years
following graduation. Rapid ascent like this is common to conceptualists. A graph
depicting the raw data for the age-price analysis (Table 2, p. 11) clearly illustrates the
greater success of Murakamiʼs early work over his later pieces, while also highlighting
peaks at the ages of 41 and 42 (years 2003 and 2004), where 27 total works were sold
8
for a combined $14,169,136.00. Calculating the raw, age-price data allows for the age-
price regression, which depicts a single, peaked curve of the age to price profile for an
artist over his lifecycle. Murakamiʼs auction records generated a curve (Table 3, p. 12)
that rises steeply to age 36 before beginning a sharp decline in price for more recent
work. This curve is emblematic of other conceptual artists studied by Dr. Galenson, such
as Pablo Picasso, Jasper Johns, and Andy Warhol. That the auction records and
regression analysis point to a peak period of productivity just five years into his
professional career signifies a strong correlation to other conceptual artists. Murakami
“judiciously” chooses the layers of his artworks to operate as “words of a vocabulary”
that convey his meticulously developed ideas, Superflat being the prime example thus
far. When the “precise” nature of his process is contrasted against an age-price profile
that indicates his most important works to have been made early in his career, a clear
image of Takashi Murakami as a conceptual artist is revealed.
9
Table 1: Murakami Annual Auction Sale Rankings
Year of Work Total Auction Sales Rank Total Works Age at Year Produced
1998 $19,720,933.00 1 22 36
2003 $8,436,791.00 2 18 41
1997 $8,119,780.00 3 7 35
2000 $6,626,216.00 4 17 38
1999 $6,340,769.00 5 8 37
2004 $5,732,345.00 6 9 42
1996 $4,403,606.00 7 6 34
2005 $3,375,506.00 8 3 43
2007 $3,347,172.00 9 7 45
2001 $3,151,804.00 10 8 39
2002 $2,153,670.00 11 7 40
2008 $1,041,113.00 12 2 46
1994 $1,007,675.00 13 3 32
1993 $977,252.00 14 2 31
2006 $630,405.00 15 3 44
1995 $443,610.00 16 2 33
1990 $155,970.00 17 1 28
1992 $55,643.00 18 1 30
Source: All data collected from Artnet auction database.
10
Table 2: Takashi Murakami Single Auction Prices Over Time
Source: All prices collected from Artnet auction database.
11
$0
$5,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
28 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Auction Prices
Age
Table 3: Takashi Murakami Age-Price Profile (Regression)
Source: All prices collected from Artnet auction database.
$0
$15,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$45,000,000.00
$60,000,000.00
10 100
y = -382068x2 + 2.417E+7x - 3.305E+8
Age
12
Aggregate Annual Auction Price Sales Totals
Murakami the Innovator
! “In addition to churning out finely crafted artworks, he is busy producing related ! merchandise; running an art fair; managing the careers of seven Japanese ! artists; planning exhibitions and their accompanying catalogues; hosting a radio ! show and penning a newspaper column; pursuing commercial “collaborations” in ! the form of product tie-ins, advertising commissions, and corporate branding ! projects; and establishing an independent animation studio with an eye toward ! the eventual release of a feature-length film - all under the auspices of KaiKai ! Kiki...If Andy Warhol provided the model, Murakami has broken the mold.”12! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Scott Rothkopf
! Claes Oldenburgʼs 1961 store opening was the first attempt by an artist to
appropriate works traditionally reserved for the clever, intellectualized atmosphere of
galleries and museums to a space where consumer products would be sold. The
venture had little to do with the business of art. Critic Arthur Danto said of Oldenburgʼs
project, “It was a critique of that air of precocity art galleries and museums created to
reflect on the precociousness of the art they showed. It too was a way of overcoming
the gap between art and life.”13 While Oldenburgʼs contribution was important, the first
effective, contemporary changes to the artistʼs business model were made by Andy
Warhol in 1968, when he instituted a shift in his workʼs priority, choosing to focus on
what he termed “business art.”
! For Warhol, “business art” was “the step that comes after Art,” one that would
become the goal of his later career. He explained, “I started as a commercial artist, and
I want to finish as a business artist. Being good in business is the most fascinating kind
of art...making money is art and working is art, and good business is the best art.”14 This
mindset has influenced the career trajectories of Jean-Michel Basquiat, Keith Haring,
Damien Hirst, and Jeff Koons, all artists that demonstrated more adept business
acumen than their predecessors (Pablo Picasso being a possible exception). The
13
influence of this latter contribution by Warhol was based largely on the strength of his
innovations from the early 1960s. In reality, his transition to a business model built
around the production of feature films, which was financially reliant on portrait
commissions by wealthy collectors, was not successful. Perhaps the most important
result of this period was the creation of Interview magazine, which is still in circulation.
Of this time Danto remarked, “The ʻbusiness artʼ of the 1970s and the 1980s...was
touch-and-go, sometimes selling out, sometimes falling flat, though little of it had the
overwhelming conceptual depth of the work he had done in the 1960s, when he wrought
the changes that transfigured art history.”15 While Warholʼs work from this era failed to
achieve the predominance of his earlier successes, the “business art” philosophy would
be a lasting contribution of his later career.#
# By 1985 Keith Haring had begun considering the idea for a shop that sold
merchandise bearing his iconic, colorful figures, and images. He commented, “Around
1983 I became aware that imitations of my work were springing up all over the world...In
Europe I saw graffiti of the baby and of the dog. My things had entered into the popular
culture whether I wanted it or not.”16 While these findings were indicative of his rising
success in the art world, the cultural proliferation of his work made Haring
uncomfortable. He observed:
# “The more people want it, the more they alone can understand and have the # power to disseminate it, the more special it is. And thatʼs the game youʼre # supposed to play. From the beginning I was against this game. Although I had a # foot in the art world, I wasnʼt going to compromise and let the art world # manipulate the work and make it become something it wasnʼt.”17
The tension of the “game” became a driving force behind his career. He called the
choice to open the Pop Shop a “real tightrope” that was “dangerous on either side,”
14
inferring the challenge associated with maintaining the art worldʼs respect while
endeavoring to create a new popular reach for his work.18 Warhol, a confidant of
Haringʼs, regularly discussed the idea with him, emphasizing the importance of “not
caring what people thought.”19
" At this time Haring ceased work on the subway drawings that had brought him
early notoriety, replacing this “network of information” with an “international network of
distribution by producing Swatches, designing record covers, and exhibiting in galleries
and museums all over the world.”20 The Pop Shop became another way to perpetuate
the ethic of the subway drawings by providing “a place where collectors could go, but
also where kids from the Bronx, visitors from out of town, and whoever could go.”21 The
concept that supported the creation of the shop was as important as the physical
location and goods sold, an indicator of Haringʼs conceptual nature. Of comparisons to
Oldenburgʼs “Store,” Haring commented, “It didnʼt matter that [he] had done a store in
the 1960s. This was certainly a very different kind of store. It was trying to deal with
things on a whole different level than what Oldenburg did, by working with mass
production in a way that was much closer to what Andy had done.”22 The Pop Shop
evolved Warholʼs ideas one step further, but was not indicative of Haringʼs most
influential contributions, his “public art” projects. In 1988 he opened a second Pop Shop
location in Tokyo. Unbeknownst to Haring, a 26-year-old graduate student at the Tokyo
National University of Fine Arts and Music would appropriate the ideas of Warhol by
walking Haringʼs “tightrope” in a more audacious manner than had previously been
attempted.
15
! As Takashi Murakami approached the completion of his Ph.D. studies in 1993, he
began considering a radical departure in his work from the traditional Nihonga to an
embrace of contemporary art. He expressed an unadulterated admiration for otakuʼs
anime and manga sub-genres, even drawing inspiration directly from the work of famed
animator Yoshinori Kanada. He began studying the work of Japanʼs influential
animators, learning their craft well enough to discern parallels in particular scenes to
popular western movies such as “Terminator 2.” While he has expounded on the
influence of Jackson Pollockʼs technique on his work, Murakami was similarly affected
by the work of animators, Kanada, Ichiro Itano, Hideaki Anno, Masami Obari, and Yasuo
Otsuka. Murakami emphasized the singularly Japanese nature of their work, “with
single-perspective painting never crossing their minds. Instead they constructed their
images along vertical and horizontal lines. Rather than balancing the main picture, they
establish a minimum balance that reaches out toward each of the four corners of the
square,” creating the illusion of a single image without vocal center.23 Murakami further
explained, “That extreme planarity and distribution of power allow the viewer to
assemble an image in their minds from the fragments they gathered scanning the
image. This movement of the gaze over an image is a key concept in my theory of the
“super flat.”24 These comments are striking in their resemblance to his remarks about
Pollockʼs influence on the aesthetic of Superflat. However, what is most telling is
something entirely different: Murakami was not only interested in integrating elements
of the animatorʼs approach to imagery into his artworks, he was interested from the
outset in actively contributing works directly to this market, pieces that would not be
considered fine art, but rather “art products.” He was interested in becoming an active
16
participant in otaku. This interest would first manifest in the creation of the “Superflat
Museum” editions in 2003.
! The underlying motivation is similar to Warholʼs, as Scott Rothkopf has noted that
Murakami, too, was creating work that “pushes that word [work] closer to the common
end of its connotative spectrum.”25 Yet, Alexandra Munroe, Senior Curator of Asian Art
at the Guggenheim (New York), noted a central distinction, commenting:
“Murakamiʼs Superflat program aims to explode the enduring Western-art boundaries between art and the mass media of comics and cartoons. His is a stronger assault than Andy Warholʼs Pop Art, which lifted commercial products like Brillo boxes and advertising mediums like silkscreen from the supermarket and street billboard to the gallery and museum. Murakamiʼs thrust goes the other way, extending the concept of “fine arts” into the gigantic, global marketplace of TV, comic books, videogames, fashion, and the Internet.”26!
Both artists share a common interest in the identification of work as art or not, but their
methods of execution and perspectives on artʼs cultural location vary by significant
degree.
! Murakamiʼs corporate identity is built to promote the dispersion of his artworks
into the “gigantic, global marketplace.” First established in 1996, the “Hiropon
Factory” (an homage to Warhol) was a location for the production of Murakamiʼs
artworks and merchandise. Five years later in 2001, KaiKai KiKi was incorporated as a
fully functioning creative and administrative operation to oversee the conception,
production, and sale of his work across all product categories. Scott Rothkopf
recognized an interesting dichotomy, noting, “For perhaps even more antithetical to the
cause of art than mass cultureʼs endless stream of trinkets and divertissements are the
multinational corporations that produce them. And here Murakami has turned the tables
- if not the knife - by co-opting their structures as seamlessly as they have been
17
accused of co-opting artʼs.”27 All of this has been done without apology from the artist
for the scope of his ambition or the rules he breaks, each hallmarks of conceptual
innovation."
" It is not enough for an analysis of his corporate structure to be contained within
the realm of theoretical discussion. An inquiry into the technical nature of his production
methods is revealing as to the role technology plays in enabling Murakami to transition
seamlessly between product categories. Stanford University Art History Professor
Pamela Lee, Ph.D., noted the use of Bezier curve applications within Adobe Illustrator,
explaining that, “In contrast with raster graphics programs like Photoshop, vector
graphics programs like Adobe Illustrator are not organized around bitmaps but by the
geometry of points, lines, and curves.”28 This technical distinction enables a kind of
image and resolution independence in files generated with Bezier programs, resulting in
an “infinite scalability” for Murakamiʼs sketches.29 Dr. Lee further articulates the
importance of this ability:
" “For the data contained in a template based on vector graphics can be used to " cover any surface: It can be scaled way up or way down to conform to the " contours of any medium; it can be stretched to the thinnest and tautest " proportions, or it can be radically compressed to produce the type of roly-poly " forms identified with the Japanese cult of cuteness (kawai-i), as is evident in the " elastic morphologies of the many characters that populate his canvases; it can " be repeated and repurposed and customized to meet the needs of disparate " markets, whether hedge-fund collectors or the tween set.”30
Murakami begins production on a work by creating a pencil sketch of the image, then
hands it to his assistants who are highly skilled Macintosh users and graphic designers,
to be scanned into the Adobe Illustrator software. Next, decisions are made as to the
material application of the image and color choices with each phase overseen by
Murakami himself. As a work nears completion, he is meticulous in reviewing it and
18
does not hesitate to start over, if the piece does not meet standards.31 “Infinite
scalability” enables Murakami to generate works across many product categories with
very little transition time. While technology has created this opportunity, it could be said
that what Murakami has achieved in integrating Macintosh computers into his work is
similar to the print innovations Andy Warhol made in the 60s. Warhol was always
concerned with the rapidity of the production process, desiring an almost industrial
efficiency behind the creation of his work. What Murakami has done with the utilization
of technology and the employment of assistants at KaiKai Kiki is equally
groundbreaking. Moreover, he has pioneered a more diverse product line than Warhol,
using speed of production to move quickly between development of fine art pieces and
merchandise, or “art products,” his term for these derivative items, pieces that Warhol
would have termed “business art.”
! While both Warhol and Murakami value(d) speed of production, and while the
creation of the Hiropon Factory was inspired by Warhol, the culture of KaiKai KiKi is
exceptionally different. Katy Siegel, Professor of Art History at Hunter College said,
“...while Warholʼs workers were frolicking scenesters - drug addicts, transvestites,
society girls - Murakamiʼs workers in Saitama (a Tokyo suburb) and Brooklyn punch in
and out with time clocks and work extremely hard.” Additionally, she boasted that,
“Murakami not only credits the assistants who work on each piece, in a recent catalogue
he even published their sometimes less-than-glowing perspectives on the working
process...Murakamiʼs studio resembles that of a fashion designer or filmmaker.”32 This
difference in culture illustrates another important piece of how Murakami has altered the
landscape of the art business. Prior to his arrival, the idea that any artist would run a
19
corporate entity as disciplined and commercial as KaiKai KiKi was unimaginable. In
August 2010 Murakami commented in Interview magazine: “Iʼm very sad to be
compared with Warhol and the Factory, because I have no drugs, you know. We have
no drug culture in Japan! Maybe itʼs because our attitude toward labor is totally
different.”33 This cultural divide creates for Murakami a fundamental point of delineation
between his professional approach and that of the western Pop artists with whom he is
so commonly associated. It therefore cannot be expected that he would pursue the
same types of projects or have the same artistic outlook as his western comrades.
" In 2003, two years after forming KaiKai KiKi, two projects were launched that
epitomize the cultural merging after which Murakami lusts. The first project, a
collaboration for a Murakami designed line of limited edition handbags and accessories
requested by Louis Vuitton Creative Director Marc Jacobs, made him internationally
famous. Upon introduction to Murakamiʼs work at the 2002 Coloriage exhibition at the
Fondation Cartier in Paris, the second show in the “Superflat Triology,” Jacobs
commented, “When I first saw Takashiʼs work I smiled and I wondered: Where did this
explosion come from?”34 The 2003 project “called for a multicolored Monogram canvas,
for which the artist created 33 colors, printed through 33 silk screens, on a black or
white background. In addition, he created the Cherry Blossoms bags, the Eye Love
bags, a watch and three pendants for his fine jewelry collection.”35 This collaboration
generated more than $300 million in revenues for Louis Vuittonʼs parent company
LVMH, of which the profits were evenly split with Murakami.36 In conjunction with the
projectʼs release, Murakami produced gallery paintings bearing images of his take on
the Louis Vuitton monogram; these works created critical tumult. To his critics
20
Murakami responded, “the only difference between making a painting and making a
handbag is the ratio of personal control that must be compromised in light of the
practical realities of committees and production schedules.”37 Production cycle
differences are the points around which he differentiated between the Louis Vuitton
project and creation of his traditional artworks. For Murakami, the intention of the work
is focused on the larger theoretical schema as opposed to questions of material,
location, and audience.!
! The 2003 project was followed by the 2008 collaboration with Louis Vuitton in
conjunction with Murakamiʼs retrospective at MOCA in Los Angeles (subsequently
moving to Brooklyn Museum in New York, and alternative locations in Germany and
Spain). Most notable was the request by Murakami to include a Louis Vuitton boutique
inside the exhibition that sold exclusive LV wares of his personal design. In another
attempt to blur the line between consumer goods and fine art, he created a “Panda”
character that was emblazoned on LV products, created as a plush stuffed toy, and
produced as a fiberglass sculpture. The LV items sold for between $600 and $1,000,
the plush doll can currently be purchased on Ebay for $25,000, and the Panda sculpture
was sold in 2008 for $2.7 million. This delineation exemplifies the artistʼs determination
to continually push his audience to question what it considers to be art. Katy Siegel
astutely observed, “While even Murakami draws the classical distinction between
commercial work and the liberated work of the artist, he places them on a continuum,
and not as absolute opposites.”38 By inserting a luxury retail boutique into the center of
a curated exhibition and creating editions of items void of distinction as art or fashion
(and so they were both), Murakami performed a magic trick. He dared the art world to
21
dispute his merging of the cultural hierarchy, as he sold them the goods that were
making his argument.
! In late 2003, following the Louis Vuitton release, Murakami moved to the opposite
end of the price point spectrum for consumer goods. He introduced the “Superflat
Museum,” an exclusively Japanese project in which miniatures of Murakamiʼs sculptures
and characters were packed in convenience store gum, shokugan (think Bazooka Joe),
along with a series of figures placed at higher price points that were sold by otaku
focused merchants. Of the project the artist said:
! “This fall, I will start selling chewing gum under the brand “Superflat Museum,” ! which will include a little gift figure inside each package, priced at only three ! hundred yen. My Miss Ko2 was bid at five hundred thousand dollars at ! Christieʼs. And you can obtain a miniature of Miss Ko2, the same shape but in a ! smaller size (about five centimeters high), for free if you buy the gum.”39
Each gift toy, or figurine, came with a biographical explanation of the original artwork.
Murakami saw the project as an opportunity to educate younger people about his work
and to develop their interest in collecting art. Where Keith Haring envisioned the Pop
Shop to be a “really fun place, like an information center to find out about my work,” it
was limited by geographic location. Murakami scaled the size of the information center
down to a portable form, increasing the reach of his ideas, and creating a distribution
network that could span all economic classes.40 He collaborated with the Kaiyodo, the
same firm that produces his life size sculptures, in the production of the miniature
figures. They were created in five distinct (30,000 edition) series, with serial numbered
certificates of authenticity. As for the theoretical value of the project, Murakami said,
“when comparing half a million dollars to ʻfree,ʼ thereʼs an overwhelmingly different
sense of values, almost a confusion of values. This confusion is the purpose of creating
22
the shokugan figures.”41 This “confusion” is the intention of the artist, is the intention of
Superflat, is a profoundly conceptual objective, and is a cornerstone of his
innovation.!
! To better understand Murakamiʼs contributions, it is helpful to contrast them
against two of his contemporaries: Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons. Both artists were
influenced by Warhol and have sought to create work of equal prominence. Hirst, who
is younger than Murakami, and Koons, his elder, have generated substantially larger
auction house receipts than has Murakami. Hirstʼs primary innovation was the 2008
auction Beautiful Inside My Head Forever, a pioneering event wherein the artist sold a
new collection of works directly through Sothebyʼs auction house in London, bypassing
his dealers in a show of irreverence for established market structure. Most auctions
consist solely of transactions between collectors, and an artistʼs dealer typically offers
the first point of sale for a new collection. In 48 hours, Hirst sold more than $200 million
of his own art. Koonsʻs central innovation has been to turn kitsch into art. Katy Siegel
remarked when comparing Koons to Murakami that: “Much as Cezanne made
something solid out of Impressionism, Koons made something solid out of kitsch.”42
Koonsʼs kitsch arguably prepared the art world for Murakamiʼs playfulness. Additionally,
Murakamiʼs 2010 Versaille retrospective owes its existence to the success Koonsʼs
2008 show at the historic location.
! The critical distinction of Murakamiʼs innovation is the role that merchandising
(“art products”) plays in his oeuvre. Both Hirst and Koons source the design and
production of their merchandise to outside firm Other Criteria, which assists artists in the
creation of derivative products, while giving them final say in what is manufactured.
23
Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons do not oversee the manufacture of their merchandise as
they would their gallery pieces. Takashi Murakami is directly responsible for the
appropriation of images from his traditional artworks into “art products.” Additionally,
while both Koons and Hirst (conceptualists) have “factory-like” organizations that
oversee the production of their work, corporate structure is not integral to their artistic
vision. Compared to Murakami, Hirst and Koons have been unsuccessful in merging
cultural hierarchies to create broad, popular distribution networks for their ideas. They
are committed to “business art” as was conceived by Warhol, but have failed to
appropriate their ideas to consumer products and popular culture at Murakamiʼs
penetrating level.
Conclusion
" “It would be wonderful if I could build a structure similar to Disneyʼs...Disney can " survive economic dangers, changing executive positions, the outbreak of internal " corporate conflicts. I want my work to continue to live even after my body dies.”43" " " " " " " " " " Takashi Murakami
" Where the early years of Murakamiʼs professional career were spent producing
artworks and conducting a cultural study of Japan that culminated in the creation of an
art movement, Superflat, the period since 2003 has witnessed the redirection of his
ambition towards other creative disciplines: Such as fashion, animation, music, and
advertising. The Louis Vuitton collaboration and “Superflat Museum” propelled the
development of many new projects which included well publicized productions of anime
shorts as advertisements for Louis Vuitton, album art and music video collaborations
with musician Kanye West, and the development of KaiKai KiKiʼs first full length anime
24
movie. This trajectory represents an expansion of his global presence into outlets that
service an increasingly economically diverse audience. Murakami is growing beyond
the confines of fine artʼs market. During these advances his auction prices have also
grown significantly, achieving his first million dollar sale in 2006 and a $15 million sale in
2008. The latter price places him sixth on a list of highest auction prices received for
the work of a living artist.44
" He is building his own universe, his own “Disney.” Of the role the iconic brand
has played in his development, Murakami has said:
" “My way is to establish Walt Disney style. I believe Walt Disney is a super " artist...Some people say he is artist or not. I think much more than Marcel " Duchamp is Walt Disney concept piece, really hardcore. Because he can get " what people desire.”45
Whether differentiating his fashion collaborations from his artworks by production cycle
incongruences, equating the longevity of his work with the development of a sound
corporate structure, or comparing Walt Disney to Marcel Duchamp, Takashi Murakami is
forging a new model for the business of art and the role it plays in expressing creative
vision.
" Determining the influence of an artist in mid-career is challenging, even when
their contributions are as disruptive, and wide-reaching as Murakamiʼs. Where an artist
displays consummate focus around that which they are trying to communicate, moves
seamlessly between a diverse range of projects, and is continually seeking a new
direction or outlet for the projection of their ideas into artistic forms, it is right to label
them a conceptualist. Where a conceptualist possesses the ambition to impact an
ideological shift on an industry or creative discipline, demonstrates an irreverence for
25
prior convention, and brings an undoubtedly new idea to market, they are a conceptual
innovator. Takashi Murakami is this.
! Building on the “business art” principles of Andy Warhol, and evolving the ideas
that Keith Haring could not in his short life, Murakami has created a new epoch in the
business of art. He developed Superflat to provide the theoretical basis for his cultural
explorations, and connect his business ambition to his artistic vision. In his quest to
eliminate the boundaries between “high” and “low” art he embraced the creation of “art
products” and collaborations across creative disciplines, forcing the art world to question
their preconceived notions about artʼs boundaries. Andy Warhol said that he “started as
a commercial artist,” and wanted, “to finish as a business artist.” He thought “making
money” to be art, “working” to be art, and “good business” to be the highest art.46
Through the development of an art movement, the construction of a corporation, and
the production of art without categorical bound, Takashi Murakami has merged Warholʼs
three precepts. He has conceptually flattened “business art,” and innovated a new idea
about the purpose business has in art and art has in business.
!
26
End Notes
27
1 Pagel, “Takashi Murakami,” 190.2 Kelmachter, “Interview with Takashi Murakami,” 93.3 Galenson, Old Masters and Young Geniuses, 4-5.4 Galenson, Old Master and Young Geniuses, 10.5 Galenson, Old Masters and Young Geniuses, 4.6 Galenson, “Understanding Creativity,” 8.7 Galenson, Painting Outside the Lines, 51.8 Murakami, “Superflat Manifesto,” 5.9 Rubin, “Jackson Pollock and the Modern Tradition,” 127.10 Murakami, “All My Works are Made Up of Special Effects,” 26.11 Murakami, “Superflat Triology,” 151. 12 Rothkopf, “Company Man,” 132.13 Danto, Andy Warhol, 32.14 Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, 92. 15 Danto, Andy Warhol, 123.16 Gruen, Keith Haring, 127.17 Gruen, Keith Haring, 128. 18 Gruen, Keith Haring, 128.19 Gruen, Keith Haring, 129.20 Haring, Keith Haring, 384.21 Haring, Keith Haring, 384.22 Haring, Keith Haring, 384.23 Murakami, A Theory of Super Flat Japanese Art, 15.24 Murakami, A Theory of Super Flat Japanese Art, 15.25 Rothkopf, “Company Man,” 132.26 Munroe, “Introducing Little Boy,” 245.
28
27 Rothkopf, “Company Man,” 133.28 Lee, “Economies of Scale.” 29 Lee, “Economies of Scale.”30 Lee, “Economies of Scale.”31 Rothkopf, “Company Man,” 129.32 Siegel, “In the Air,” 278-279. 33 Gingeras, “Takashi Murakami,” 101.34 Mead, “Murakami, Takashi,” 291.35 Saillard, “The Empire of Signs,” 71. 36 Matlack, “The Vuitton Money Machine.” 37 Siegel, “In the Air,” 277.38 Siegel, “In the Air,” 277.39 Siegel, “In the Air,” 277.40 Haring, “The Pop Shop,” 384.41 Rothkopf, “Company Man,” 137.42 Siegel, “In the Air,” 285.43 Mean, “Murakami, Takashi,” 291.44 Art Economist, “The List,” 2145 Hall, “Warm, Kind of Melting,” no. 8. 46 Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, 92.
Bibliography
Danto, Arthur C. Andy Warhol. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Deitch, Jeffrey, Suzanne Geiss, Julia Gruen. Keith Haring. New York: Rizzoli, 2008.
Eccles, Tom. “Murakamiʼs Manhattan Project.” In Little Boy: The Arts of Japans ! Exploding Subculture, edited by Takashi Murakami, p. 262-267. New Haven: " Yale University Press, 2005.
Galenson, David W. Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic! Creativity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Galenson, David W. Painting Outside the Lines: Patterns of Creativity in Modern Art.! Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. !Galenson, David W. “Understand Creativity,” NBER Working Paper Series Working " Paper No. 16024 (May 2010): JEL No. Z11.
Gingeras, Alison. “Takashi Murakami.” Interview, August, 2010.
Gruen, John. Keith Haring: The Authorized Biography. New York: Fireside: Simon and " Schuster, 1991.
Hall, Emily. “Warm, Kind of Melting.” The Stranger.com 11, no. 8, November, 2008.
Kelmachter, Helene, “Interview with Takashi Murakami.” In Takashi Murakami: KaiKai ! KiKi, edited by Takashi Murakami, 75-93. Paris: Actes Sud, 2002.
Lee, Pamela M. “Economies of scale: Pamela M. Lee on Takashi Murakami's Technics.”" ArtForum, October, 2007.
Matlack, Carol. “The Vuitton Money Machine.” Businessweek, March, 2004.
Mead, Rebecca. “Murakami, Takashi.” In Louis Vuitton: Art, Fashion, and Architecture, ! p. 290-307. New York: Rizzoli, 2009.
Munroe, Alexandara. “Introducing Little Boy.” In Little Boy: The Arts of Japans ! Exploding Subculture, edited by Takashi Murakami, p. 240-261. New Haven: " Yale University Press, 2005. Murakami, Takashi, Philipe Dagen. “All My Works are Made Up of Special Effects.”" In Murakami Versaille, p. 19-27. Paris: Editions Xavier Barral, 2010.
29
Murakami, Takashi. “Superflat Trilogy: Greetings, You are Alive.” In Little Boy: The Arts ! of Japans Exploding Subculture, edited by Takashi Murakami, p. 150-163. New ! Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.
Murakami, Takashi. “A Theory of Super Flat Japanese Art.” In Superflat, edited by ! Takashi Murakami, p. 8-26. New York: Madra Publishing, 2000. Murakami, Takashi. “The Superflat Manifesto.” In Superflat, edited by Takashi ! Murakami, p. 5. New York: Madra Publishing, 2000. Rosenblum, Robert. “Month in Review.” Arts, January, 1955.
Rothkopf, Scott. “Takashi Murakami: Company Man.” In C Murakami, edited by Paul! Schimmel, p. 128-159. New York: Rizzoli, 2008.
Rubin, William. “Jackson Pollock and the Modern Tradition.” In Jackson Pollock: ! Interviews, Articles, and Reviews, edited by Pepe Karmel, p. 118-170.! New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1999.
Saillard, Olivier. “The Empire of Signs.” In Louis Vuitton: Art, Fashion, and Architecture, ! p. 65-71. New York: Rizzoli, 2009.
Siegel, Katy. “In the Air.” In Little Boy: The Arts of Japans Exploding Subculture, edited ! by Takashi Murakami, p. 268-289. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.
Warhol, Andy. The Philosophy of Andy Warhol : (From A to B and Back Again). ! New York: Mariner Books, 1977.
“The List,” Art Economist Vol 1, no. 3, 2011.
30