That’s quite a leap, Karl. Whom are you speaking for?

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1985049,00.html

I agree, June, we are all missing a piece here. It’s hard to describe what we don’t know, but I think it is something like this: the art world is not something we believe in any more. We make art for ourselves, a valid but minimal purpose. We hope it is accepted into the art world where it might be seen or bought. But beyond making the work for ourselves, there is no idealism, no beauty in the process. The art god is dead and we are left with anomie — personal unrest, alienation, and uncertainty that comes from a lack of purpose or ideals.

I am somewhat (or a lot) outside the “making of the art for people we don’t necessarily understand or even respect.”

I absolutely agree that my ultimate desire is to communicate through my art — which means it has to be seen and therefore exhibited — I can’t say that I imagine, for example, either Lisa or Ed Winkleman looking at it. I do the work, then I think about who might be interested. The process begins internally and moves to the external once I’m satisfied with my product.

I don’t know how that fits with art for art’s sake — it’s something off to one side, I think — but it also doesn’t deal with people whom I don’t know or even necessarily respect. I’m missing a piece here, I suspect.

But Lisa,

There is lots of art around for dealers to deal and curators to curate. I’m sure they could do quite well without artists making new things.

A related question is, what could the artist accomplish without the curator and dealer?

It bothers me so much to see artists feeling “powerless” in the presence of dealers, curators, etc. Without artists, there wouldn’t be any dealers or curators!

I appreciate your description of the steps involved in trying to rise in the art world. There is something inescapably tragic in your comment, something that applies to all artists today, something which will not be fixed even if Lisa explains to us how to “make it.”

I do not subscribe to the notion of “art for the sake of art.” I believe art is for the sake of people, not abstract entities or imaginary “worlds.” As long as we are trying to make art for people we neither understand nor necessarily respect, we will never be making the best art we can. There is an essential disconnect between the artist and the viewer. The art world of galleries and museums as it stands today is an inadequate intermediary. This is not changed by the success of any given individual artist.