I found this lecture this morning to be exceptionally interesting and relevant to what I've been saying about how art gives back, regardless of the economic value it may or may not bring to individuals. It runs through a series of experiments that reflect the behaviors and response patterns of people in a position of wealth. There is so much focus, in the world of contemporary art, on the market and the inflated rates of works. It's rarely mentioned that only a fraction of that goes to the artist. Most people don't realize that those enormous resale values go to collectors and dealers, of then through auction, and if the artist sees anything from those sales it is in the value of later sales, but this market is so variable that is nothing that can actually be counted on.
I don't know if people have an idea of what it feels like to sell your work as an artist. It's always been a hard thing for me. Most of my favorite sales have been to friends, but that can get weird too. When I am in a situation to sell work to an acquaintance or stranger though, or through a dealer, it feels especially odd, and more about appeasing someone's ego or need for attention than what one would consider a typical consumer transaction. None of the rules we typically apply to buying and selling goods are always present, it is fraught with variables. I do think that some of this rests on the wider concept of our places in society as artists and buyers, where these roles place us on the perceived ladder of wealth and success. I think it is also an outcome of the skewed perspective that this country has of the value of art in general - whether it is a luxury or a necessity, what it says about the status, intelligence and identity of the person who considers and purchases works of art.
I believe that art plays a role in community that is hard to calculate. Like the perceptions that Malcolm Gladwell outlines in Blink and other texts, our understanding of art can change with each viewing. This makes it difficult to measure the specific effects that art has in fostering community, diversity and cultural understanding and respect.
I'm not saying art is completely subjective. That actually bugs the crap out of me, and is where education should come in. What makes art good is not based entirely on what we like. That is offensive. Like any other long-practiced activity, it has a long and deep history. Art practice has specific benchmarks of quality, experience, and knowledge. For instance, I have enormous respect for Cubism: the conventions of looking it introduced, it's place in the trajectory of modern art, the way that this new mode of thinking influenced accepted norms of painting and sculpture and how they intertwine. I also don't care if I look at any of it. It's sad and brown and mostly bores me.
If you are not interested or aware of art and still don't get my argument, maybe you are a sports fan. Baseball, maybe? While much of the history and value of baseball is rooted in historical statistical analysis and win/loss records, anyone that is a fan of this game recognizes the value of both Ty Cobb and Roger Maris, but may favor one over the other. They are both legends of the game but played different roles on the field with enormously different style and temperaments. They played in different times, by different rules. What Maris did was responding to the history Cobb helped to create, and holds value in part due to that response. I like Roger Maris.
Baseball is not a necessity either. That doesn't stop it from being the national pastime. Or a multibillion dollar industry. It has an effect on our national identity that exists outside of being a career for its players, or a job creating industry. The individual players who are rewarded have a system that helps to protect them and gain recognition and financial gain incrementally. It is still incredibly hard to be a baseball player. There are no guarantees, and most take the dramatic risks involved for love of the game.
Welcome to my world.
No comments:
Post a Comment