Not that most of us even care. Being an artist, no a real artist not like Britiney Spears whose marketers call her an artist, I am the real deal...I care. I care big time. My choice. My problem, ha ha.
The following thoughts are made up of a comment I left here at this artist's blog: Deborah Fisher too is a real artist. It has come up at another blog, Edward Winkleman. God forbid some gallery folk drops by here...I am also aware there are fantastic galleries out there, but they are few and far between. So don't take this too personally if you happen to be a really cool gallery owner okay? It's not one persons fault, we've all been suckered into this system at one point or another.
These thoughts are my response to the idea that art now has to either compete with popular culture or attempt to beat the game by appealing to a different sensibilty. That different sensibilty as I see it is maintaining the elitism existing within the art world anyway.
I don't really have a problem with pop culture. I think it's a bit of a red herring to even worry about it. Easier said though when someone is making a perfectly incredible living by partying going. yes, Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton, Barney, MacDonalds and t-shirts are the bane of todays struggling artist. How do we compete with special affects, iPods and cell phones?
I think art and artists will always do something "wacky' to step outside the common, I mean thats what has been going on for about 600 years at any rate since the Renaissance.
Now it's not like I don't like the Renaissance, I like many paintings from that time, sure. But somewhere between the time we started farming and the Byzantine in our culture...of totalitarian agriculture...
(I mean this to separate us and our economy and relationship to art from aboriginal art and culture of hunters and gatherers okay)
....somewhere in that time, the last real community based and inter related art was the Byzantine. made by the people for the people. For everybody.
Almost NO ONE thinks art should be for the people by the people any more. Most art work is ridiculously priced, over priced I think. It's an embarrassment to me.
If art was by the people for the people it would threaten the very few lucky bastards that are living well by art these days. And the rich. And those who believe culture and intelligence can be bought.
First off, if we want the public to be interested in art...why not let them be able to afford it.
Most artists tend to make a few a year with some silly artists statement justifying the importance of the work and hope to win the lottery.
The lottery is a mafia style run bs operation called the art world where curators and artists have been pumping out "punchline" artwork for at least forty years. The art world is a small group of people who make sure grants and galleries are elitist only by supporting art that is often based on a oneliner mentality, and it helps if it's literal too, like political.
I don't mean to say I haven't seen art I love all this time, I have and maybe even some of it has been that punchline variety.
But most people now think art is a joke. They can't relate to the content, the materials or the elitism.
We don't have to make paintings of Bradgelina or Barbie to be for the people....but what about making SOMETHING that has passion for all of us?
Isn't that what great poetry and literature and art has always been? The voice and heart of the people and for a million years it was a natural and community enjoyed practice. We can still see evidence of this community enjoyment in other economies within the hunter-gather cultures.
In modern faming cultures like ours, which includes, Asia, North America, Europe and Russia we have long lost art for the people and by the people. And when it has been for the people it was mandated through communism or politically correct agendas.
As long as artists are buying into the elitism and snobbery and "high concept" "low punchline" objects of art theory then the people are going to be laughing their asses off at them.
And cancelling school art programs.
Its time for artists to get real and get ancient.
Why can't artists start knocking out artwork, several per week rather than per year?
Start having galleries that function like a circus or a tribal economy? Have racks and racks of artwork for people instead of just pretentiously positioned stale gallery spaces?
I don't know exactly what should or could occur but if artists want to be part of a vibrant relationship with an audience they have to start to take art back from the suits and the rich.
2 comments:
I love art. Who doesn't? But you're totally right: it's no longer for the masses. And what fun is that. Look at van Gogh. He couldn't pay his fucking rent. He gave his landlord paintings. He would have sold them for next to nothing in order to buy some booze or a meal. He was struggling. He was an artist. Artists today seem not to want to struggle. They want that one piece they might sell this year to keep them in rent for the whole year. It's ridiculous. Grrr.
By the way, you might be interested in a discussion on some of the posts over the past few days at this blog. Scroll down to the post called "Evil Tits", then work your way up to follow the debate between the blogger and the artist in question.
I have to agree with your thoughts here Candy. When I do my next show I'm going to offer my paintings at more reasonable rates. Maybe that way I'll sell one!
Post a Comment