Interpeting a Piece of Modern Art: "Cost of Living", by Josh Cline

 

"Cost of Living", by Josh Cline

DISCLAIMER: The image used from the January 11 volume of "The New Yorker", is used for the educational purposes of analyzing art, and is protected by the legally accepted principle of fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 . I use the specific image because I thought it captured best, in terms of angle, quality, etc., the work.

by Brandon Wainscott

Art is meant to be analyzed, not just the visual, but even literature. For example, what does Madame Defarge represent in comparison to Lucie Manette in A Tale of Two Cities? It is light versus darkness--Lucie means light, and we are told Madame Defarge has a dark cloud that follows her. Sometimes, we may speak more than the author meant to say, or something he did not mean to say--something that was never even in his head. But nevertheless, this is good, as art is not static, but a continuum and should inspire the imagination to think, not just look.

So what does this work say? As one who has worked as a janitor, I believe I can specifically analyze it.

I will start with the camuflauged bottle. The janitor is often not seen, or not really scene--"you see, but do not see", a paraphrase of the words of Christ (Mark 8:18), as well as Sherlock Holmes.  People see him "but do not observe", as Sherlock Holmes exactly put it. The public place where you are is clean. But you do not think how it got clean. This shows a lack of gratitude, albeit not malicious, and therefore not a "sin" per se. All like cleanliness when they go to some venue, and complain if the place is not clean, even complaining about the housekeeping staff--but they don't compliment their work when the place is clean.

The dismembered body is interesting. For me, at least, it is a dehumanization. The janitor is dehumanized by his servatile position. I think the foot is interesting, perhaps speaking of how the janitor works on his feet all day. Also, why are the scrub bushes neatly lined up? I never saw that as janitor. They were, as is natural, here and there, and certainly not even, if laid in a group--the were perhaps stacked at most. But why did the artist do this? It was at least semiconscious. Does it speak of how everything has to be perfect to satisfy the bosses; that everything has to be unnaturally perfect? Scrubbers like that are laid in a manner that someone with OCD would. Is there and obsessive compulsive desire to the management, not born out of neurosis, but greed?

Also, note the face. It is that of someone worn and tired by work--the peasant. Note the woman in Van Gough's painting:

 

Vincent Van Gough, "Head of an Old Peasant Woman with White Cap "

Her face, too, is worn by hard work. It speaks my own laziness to me, and the hard work that wears down the working class--rough hands, weaker health, faster aging, and the whole emotional toil. She seems sad. "Cost of Living", by its very title, speaks of this on a social level--the emotional effects of poverty, and perhaps what are we to do about it? Another thing is that the sophisticated crowd that often visits the art museum are the same crowd that go to charity fundraisers and advocate justice for the poor, but they do not see the suffering of the people who keep that museum clean; and so, in effect, are superficial in their politics. Or at lest not as zealous as they might think themselves.

There is the head...the face...and the shoes, the shoes that have tread so many miles in hard work.

There are likely other things that could be drawn or interpreted from the sculpture, but we will leave it at this. The greatest lesson I take from it: the sin of my own laziness, and the hard work of so many, like my mother. But just as the sculpture should inspire more than a superficial observation of the mind, so the work should inspire more than a superficial admiration of the woman's virtue, like in the painting.