What if art school was sabotage? Maybe not a conscious effort to pull up the ladder, to cripple future competition, to strangle a serious voice, an authentic art, the possibility of a self-sustaining career; it would be more like an unseen institutional imperative, an inbuilt self-preservation mechanism, a poisonous coating of goo around the profession of being an artist.
How does anyone expect to learn about becoming an artist from people who have never sold art for a living, never paid for their own studios or art supplies, and have no life experience beyond the insular confines of campus? It’s sorta like going to a priest for marriage counseling. What they know about is keeping their head down and progressing, year by year, toward the department chairmanship – art is their day job.
The awful truth, kids -- Duchamp was pulling a prank, and had the dumb luck to be taken seriously. Art is about finding hidden places in common with others, and it’s not the same thing as just hiding. Everything they told you is wrong.
4 comments:
There is definitely a kernel of truth there. That's what we're hoping to offset.
Art school isn't for learning buisness, its for developing your art.
Business school is for learning how to make it your day job.
The only people that live off their work are good business people.
I think they should make you take half business courses and half art courses. I know when I was in school I would have scoffed at a schedule like that. "I am going to be great and not need to sell my art, people will just buy it because its great art." LMFAO!!!
BTW Duchamp was RICH he didn't have to make money, his friend just threw it at him. Thus creating a market for it.
Read Owning Art, the contemporary art collectors hand book by Louisa Buck and Judith Greer. That book opened my eyes to the real world.
Good luck brother :-)
will look for book, and same back
Post a Comment