Determining Worth: Finding Value in Margaret Kilgallen’s Artwork

by Karina Reyes

In his article, “Revision number five: Quality,” Dave Hickey argues that some art is not only valuable, but better than other art. According to him, there is definitely a difference—based on a list of qualities and series of questions one must ask of each artwork—that makes each work better or worse than others. I found his list of questions he asks himself when approaching a piece extremely helpful in helping determine what exactly is valuable. He makes a fair point in saying that price, or even likability, of a work has no direct implication on its actual worth. As he mentions, art, unlike other things in this world which are held at high value—such as rare gems or gold, which are in themselves intrinsically of value—is exclusively extrinsically valuable. It is because we apply a certain worth to art that it has value at all. And so, it is crucial to set certain standards and criteria for determining worth. Or else, the worth we apply to a certain piece is entirely arbitrary and subjective in relation to its appeal to our pathos, which is based on emotion, not logic, therefore should be used sparingly in making judgments.

Keeping this theory in mind, I would like to argue for the worth of “In the Sweet Bye & Bye,” an exhibition held at Redcat Gallery in 2005 that featured Margaret Kilgallen. Though at first glance her work is undeniably simple, there is much more that underlies her artwork than meets the eye. This is my first reason for believing her work is “good”. To me, artwork that has a full story behind it, though it may not explicitly tell it, is successful as an artwork. To intrigue the viewer enough to make them want to know more because they can sense the meaning in it, yet are not able to grasp it, is what keeps the viewer coming back to it.

Kilgallen draws influences from a wide variety of influences in her life. As a San Franciscan, she cited inspiration from local graffiti artists, finding the spontaneity and purpose behind their works as worthy of note. Being able to actually sense the presence and the touch of the artist’s hand in its own environment, for her, was a thrilling sentiment. She also took interest in and studied historical manuscripts, signs on stores, and immersed herself in history, both ancient and recent past from all different cultures. In an interview, she also mentioned studying drawings in textbooks, such as botanical ones, and adopting the flat style of these drawings.
Implementation of typography in her artwork comes from her background with texts and her background in bookmaking. Upon graduation from college, she even worked for some time at San Francisco Public Library, where she learned to restore books, letterpress and bookbinding. She also mentions in interviews being intrigued by historical works, such as fifteenth and sixteenth-century French manuscripts. She found that the random arrangement of words was a kind of surrealist poetry.

That she draws influence from such a wide variety of aspects makes her artwork valuable, in my opinion. She has a specific purpose in mind when she drafts out plans for he work. Pre-meditation, though not always a requisite to make an artwork “successful,” is in her case indispensible to the success of her work. She also had an interesting perspective on the technique behind her work. She saw anything that evidenced a personal touch as beautiful. In her own work, she used no grids or guides of any kind to make perfectly even lines. She relied only on her own steady hand, even finding the places in which a certain line wavered a little as the most charming part of the work. "Imperfect perfection" was something she craved and indulged in. She believed it the wrongness in things that made them right.

Her subject often has to do with locations. She drew many a scene of neighborhoods in San Francisco, taking pictures when walking if she found a setting that struck her as particularly interesting. This interest rose from the extreme preoccupation with various cultures she fostered. An avid anthropologist, she found the common person within cities inspiring and captivating. The graffiti found on the side of trains or random walls on buildings developed her theory that art was a means by which an artist could take a place and claim it as their own. Place was not something to be portrayed through art, but something to be claimed and transformed by it. Whenever she did a gallery or exhibition, she’d paint directly on walls, taking up huge spaces within the exhibition so that the viewer is immediately immersed and awed by the sheer magnitude of her work.

I also think her work is good because, while she has her own personal reasoning and meaning in each work produced, she also strives to connect her purposes with the audience. As I mentioned previously, graffiti artists were a major influence. This evidences her love of people and artwork not because it was featured in a high-end gallery or sold at an auction for dizzying profits, but for its reality and application in the world. Throughout her career, she steadily produced artwork in galleries, but also maintained her work as a graffiti artist herself. Few artists, I feel, are capable of balancing their values in such a manner. Many artists and art critics feel that artists, who “sell out” by immersing themselves in the capitalist realm of the world, earn demerit to their name. But Kilgallen was able to support herself as an artist while adhering to her values in producing “low” art. This unification of street, “low,” or “people” art and the high-end aspect of art is what made Kilgallen such a respectable artist though, in my opinion.

In an era in which artwork is seen more as an object you can put a price tag on than a thing valuable in itself, I think it’s crucial for an artist to put something more into their artwork than a simple motif or theme. Margaret Kilgallen seems to me an artist in the true sense. There is not a line or imagine created that does not have a purpose, history and meaning behind it. To her, art was not just for the average museum-goer. She considered her audience on a neighborhood street equally valuable. This is not to imply that she shunned typical museum audience, however. On the contrary, she hoped to merge together elements from both art worlds to bridge the gap between both audiences. And it is this that makes her work, “good.”