I have just read the the most amazing two sentences in a book that describes the high end art market where new work can be over a million dollars, Seven Days in the Art World, by Sarah Thornton: "In a world that has jettisoned craftsmanship as the dominant criterion by which to judge art, a higher premium is put on the character of the artist. If artists are seen to be creating art just to cater to the market, it compromises their integrity and the market loses confidence in their work."
So the "why" matters more than the "what?" How does the "market" know the artists' intentions? Is there anything to this house of mirrors? As a person whose art, as I often describe it, would have been avant-garde (no longer an acceptable phrase apparently) in 1880, I can only wonder at the need of wealthy people to find an activity this way. Bill Gates and his charities are looking very good.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Art as Character?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sarah sounds like she is grasping and guessing for theories about what artists do. Since an artist can only earn a living by catering to existing markets, life becomes a constant striving to fit a seller's pleasure with a buyer's pleasure at a survival wage. I doubt even the artist can separate desire to create from desire to earn some bread. As rationalists, artists can convince themselves that they are doing good, if not doing particularly well. One barrier is the difficulty of doing something new and interesting. Which leads to the junque in the modern sections of art museums. What baffles me is why curators use costly space to display such mundane stuff. For one, I don't care why the inner artist is doing the art.
ReplyDelete