Painting From Life vs. From Photos
The satire, “What is Art?” has brought in some intriguing comments. Auspicious commented on public funding of art:
I think that it is also worthwhile remembering the economic drivers. A lot of public money is spent on the arts (yes, I know one can argue whether this is not enough, or too much, but either way it is a lot) and a lot of the big galleries in the major cities are publicly funded.
That means that the average joe is being taxed to allow the purchase and storage of art that is of no interest to them. Worse than that, the art purchased with the money is discussed in terms that seems specifically designed to exclude them.
This could have caused the art elite to direct taste toward the tastes of the average person (to get more money to spend), but it has gone the other way. Art needs to be wacky and not understandable to make it seem special enough to go on taking money from the people who are excluded from the discussion. The art establishment needs to be able to say ‘you will never understand, so trust us, and give us the money anyway.’ If questioned hard enough by the popular press they need to answer in language opaque enough to make people with more interesting things to do give up.
It is a sad fact that the very people who think that art in the Tate is a joke are those who are paying for it.
This comment agrees with the basic premise of the satire, and takes the discussion further. Historically, “public money” has been critical for the arts. Auspicious’ comment shows a potential danger for contemporary art. If art is held in contempt by the ordinary person, then there will be less motivation to support the arts. In a democracy, this suggests that incomprehensible art will dilute support for spending public money on the arts.
I find this argument compelling. However, I’d like to hear some opposing views. Any members of the art elite out there who want to argue either 1) that the “art elite” is a false concept, and hence the satire and the above comment are based on a false premise, or 2) that the “art elite” is in fact essential for art?
Art has always been for the elite, always! The elite is by definition those that have education, money and social power. I don’t see any point in dividing the elite into different elites. Money and power go hand in hand. Most people on the planet don’t have the luxury to concern themselves with something as trivial as art when there are wars to be survived, food to be gathered or jobs to be done with little or no pay.
I don’t think you are right about “What is Art” is being answered by a more concentrated few than before. There has never been so many people involved in Art as there is right now. That is why it is so hard to tell what is Art these days, because so many people have an opinion and so many different kinds of artists make art. That is why you can go into a gallery and view anything from a video installation to a naturalistic romantic painting. The diversity has never been greater.
As for public spending, does it matter? The average Joe is being taxed to build roads, pump oil and make wars that should be of no interest to them either. Industrialized nations of the world allow the destruction of this planet’s climate and eco systems.
Svein-Frode, thanks for this refreshing alternative view. I think you make an excellent point about the wide distribution of art today. This has important implications that I’m going to study further.
Karl, I thank you for placing the issues you do on the map. As you see from my post, I am passionate about art, but at the same time I feel privileged and humble to be able to create and study art. Not many people have that luxury. My love and passion for art is because of its ability to stir the pot, ask questions and create debates “on the bank of the mainstream”. Democracy doesn’t work, capitalism has failed, religion is abused and global warming is melting whatever common sense Humankind share. Art is the last straw, the last arena in which to shock people into coherence. Once can never reach everybody, so why try. What matters is to affect those you can in a positive way through art and action.
Svein-Frode,
Actually, art being spearated by an idea of heirarcy or elite is a very recent modern occurance.
In Europe, art became an upper class, mercantile industry for the very few. Before the Renaissance, art ws the peoples. Byzantine art may actually be the last great art. Art for everyone for people who all agreed and understood the narrative of the art works.
Asian block painting may have been somewhat elite, but more because the people who produced it dedicated so much study…their work was understood as a profession, but again. Every one understood the narrative.
Artists have not always been an elite practice, but rather a different form of historian or storyteller. In all other societies…we see the arts as understood by the community, a basic repetitive language being used that the community understood. Southwester pottery art, Innuit sculpture and Haida animals. All had intricate, but integral narratives for their communities. The artist has been more of a specialized position in a society, like a shaman or medicine healer…rather than elite. Important but equal…and a normal natural part of a community.
I think both Auspiciaous and Svein-frode are correct in articulating where the artt and artist reside within our community in North America and Europe…and this has been moving more and more removed from our society since the Renaissance. Our last great community art was the Byzantine.
I like the Renaissance as much as the next guy…but unfortunately, it was the bigging of the end for the artist as having a narrative that was relevant and enjoyed by the public.
I’d much rather a family take one of my paintings home, than a stuffy boring gallery…but no one wants to take art home anymore.
Art is a series of one-trick wonders…only suited toa museum or gallery setting where after a ten dollar entry fee…the audience might get a feeble bit of laughter or walk away alienated. Artists have turned into really really bad stand-up commedians. It’s like the kings court has the worst jesters…
And very few of us are brave enough to even say or acknowledge this folly.
We are long over due for that hook.
(p.s. please note…I would rather have a family take home a painting, but I haven’t sold anything in years heh heh…just in case you thought I was Kinkade or someone…uh no. And I’m not very popular with other artists or galleries- have been pretty outsoken about what a sham the Art Mafia really is…I almost live in the witness protection program…heh hee hee…)
“Artists have turned into really really bad stand-up commedians. It’s like the kings court has the worst jesters…”
Candy Minx, this is an interesting but disturbing metaphor.
Candy, you might be right about art being more for the people several 100 years ago, but I will still prefer a house made by very skilled builders and carpenters over a cave.
I have never understood why art has to be something that everybody has to understand. If people want to know what the fuzz is about they are free to take up a book, join a club or university to study.
There is still enough art made that can be enjoyed by the average Joe, in fact, most art made is of the simple kind. I have no problem with that, but it doesn’t interest me personally. When I was five years old I thought Boney M was great, no I think Arne Nordheim is great.
To me Art is best described as Berman did it: All that is solid melts into air, and thank goodness for that! There’s something for everyone. Art is just a product from an Artist. It is everything and nothing. The arrogance of the Elite will never be greater than that of the masses craving for popular, enjoyable and easy art and with the little knowledge they posess they claim to understand what is and isn’t art. Leave the quick fixes for the junkies please!