26 March 2010

Is making art for kudos or cash cheating?

All purposes of art are equally valid and I don't call anyone a cheat regardless of whether they are doing it for cash, propaganda, popularity, self-counselling, preaching of a message, anthropology or a mixture of several.  I may choose to disassociate myself with them but I don't tell them what they're doing is wrong.  It's just not for me.
But one thing that is almost impossible to get away from is that art and money are intrinsically linked because brushes, paint and canvas do not get given away in shops for free.  Nor do cameras, food, paper, computers, books or any of the numerous necessary items.  At some point along the line materials get paid for and therefore the piece of art will have been funded by some source.  And exhibitions are even more expensive with lighting, heating, maintenance, staffing and everything else to take into consideration.  Marketing is another cost, to publish a website, print a flyer or even use Facebook you are paying with cash or by viewing advertisements.
I'm not sure where this idea of art being pure comes from.  Maybe it's a hangover from the Catholic propaganda that claimed to be straight from God but was of course produced by a Church that owned nearly all the country's gold and therefore controlled most of the nation's wealth.
Every artist has costs. Please show me any example of an artist who's practice involves spending absolutely nothing and selling nothing.  I can only imagine they don't have a studio and they produce art from waste products and then only show it to a few people.  They then must have another source of income to feed, clothe and shelter themselves.  Which is fine but if ALL artists worked like that as Vern Watts seems to be suggesting they should then the art world would be pretty non-existent with no galleries, no educational establishments, no technological advancement and a whole lot else missing too.
Do you really want all artists to strive towards zero costs or do you want a massive variety like we currently have?

I personally believe all purposes of art are equally valid and I don't call anyone a cheat regardless of whether they are doing it for cash, propaganda, popularity, self-counselling, preaching of a message, anthropology or a mixture of several.  I may choose to disassociate myself with them but I don't tell them what they're doing is wrong and that they should change.  I will just say it's not for me.

It's the word Art but with a pound sterling symbol instead of an A - Oh how clever of me

But one thing that is almost impossible to get away from is that art and money are intrinsically linked because brushes, paint and canvas do not get given away in shops for free.  Nor do cameras, food, paper, computers, books or any of the numerous necessary items.  At some point along the line materials get paid for and therefore the piece of art will have been funded by some source.  And exhibitions are even more expensive with lighting, heating, maintenance, staffing and everything else to take into consideration.  Marketing is another cost, to publish a website, print a flyer or even use Facebook you are paying with cash or by viewing advertisements.

I'm not sure where this idea of art being pure comes from.  Maybe it's a hangover from the Catholic propaganda that claimed to be straight from God but was of course produced by a Church that owned nearly all the country's gold and therefore controlled most of the nation's wealth.

Every artist has costs. Please show me any example of an artist who's practice involves spending absolutely nothing and selling nothing.  I can only imagine they don't have a studio and they produce art from waste products and then only show it to a few people.  They then must have another source of income to feed, clothe and shelter themselves.  Which is fine but if ALL artists worked like that, as Vern Watts seems to be suggesting they should, then the art world would be pretty non-existent with no galleries, no educational establishments, no technological advancements.  Just a bunch of introverted wombles.

Do you really want all artists to strive towards zero costs or do you want a massive variety like we currently have?

Please Comment.  (If you are reading this via Facebook please click "View original post" and send comment via blog)