Do You Have to Be Rich to Make It as an Artist?’ artnet news -- jan 14
An article surveys the background of several fully emerged artists concerning privilege and wealth, something about both opportunities and points of view I think, just scanned it, who cares? It’s the audience who are actually required to be privileged and wealthy, blue-chip art like banknotes up on their walls. What are the aesthetic parameters of well-upholstered living, what insight gained from having things taken care of, little to do in life but compete against other wealthy wankers with your stuff? I’d have no idea, but I can see the art they like. The ‘artnet news’ is devoted to it.
I wouldn’t romanticize being poor, but overly-easy has drawbacks as well, and wealth’s notorious lack of empathy, while certainly understandable, becomes a distinct liability when it comes to appreciating art. Those with everything already instinctively want to buy the thing with the biggest price tag, a tendency recognized and long cherished within the industry. People who have acquired more of life’s skills through diligence and effort have a greater inclination to admire accomplishment, and with just a bit of exposure they can learn to recognize and appreciate it in art, whatever the subject, whatever the price. A taste in art -- a favorite artist, or style, or subject is strictly individual, and we all get to like what we like, but just being super expensive is an unreliable standard for art, a joke, a perversion.
On the ‘artnet news’ it’s all they ever talk about, really. It isn’t actually news, it’s just about money, the racing form with glam gossip tossed in. There are rumored compensatory considerations for favorable reviews, like buying a big fat ad, and this implicit corruption is simply known as ‘the way we do business.’ I suppose if I wanted to be like them I’d try to like their art too, but I don’t. What I do know is that if ten painters of relative proficiency were to paint the same familiar object, the result would not be ten identical copies of something, but ten individual images, each revealing something about the artist who painted it. That’s a place to start, actually a place to start over.
An article surveys the background of several fully emerged artists concerning privilege and wealth, something about both opportunities and points of view I think, just scanned it, who cares? It’s the audience who are actually required to be privileged and wealthy, blue-chip art like banknotes up on their walls. What are the aesthetic parameters of well-upholstered living, what insight gained from having things taken care of, little to do in life but compete against other wealthy wankers with your stuff? I’d have no idea, but I can see the art they like. The ‘artnet news’ is devoted to it.
I wouldn’t romanticize being poor, but overly-easy has drawbacks as well, and wealth’s notorious lack of empathy, while certainly understandable, becomes a distinct liability when it comes to appreciating art. Those with everything already instinctively want to buy the thing with the biggest price tag, a tendency recognized and long cherished within the industry. People who have acquired more of life’s skills through diligence and effort have a greater inclination to admire accomplishment, and with just a bit of exposure they can learn to recognize and appreciate it in art, whatever the subject, whatever the price. A taste in art -- a favorite artist, or style, or subject is strictly individual, and we all get to like what we like, but just being super expensive is an unreliable standard for art, a joke, a perversion.
On the ‘artnet news’ it’s all they ever talk about, really. It isn’t actually news, it’s just about money, the racing form with glam gossip tossed in. There are rumored compensatory considerations for favorable reviews, like buying a big fat ad, and this implicit corruption is simply known as ‘the way we do business.’ I suppose if I wanted to be like them I’d try to like their art too, but I don’t. What I do know is that if ten painters of relative proficiency were to paint the same familiar object, the result would not be ten identical copies of something, but ten individual images, each revealing something about the artist who painted it. That’s a place to start, actually a place to start over.
No comments:
Post a Comment