#art is for money
After a series of condescending, unhelpful and disrespectful emails exchanged with a gallery curator, I have been reassessing my view of art. The result is, that this view is valid.
I believe the following: Art has a purpose, which is often tuned to fit the market’s demands, needs and interests. Society then, is the market for art - and all artists market their art to it (whether consciously intentional or not). This has been going on for centuries - the idea of patronage. It began with the rich as a status symbol (the church, the aristocrats and royalty, the nobility) and it continues today in many areas which have art galleries or collections when - by all standards - they are superfluous (corporations, law firms and universities which do not teach Fine Art). This falls into Erving Goffman’s idea of the spectacle and goes right along with McLuhan’s ideas on consumerism. These are institutions which root their social dominance and cultural/political legitimacy in the ideas of power of the past - art accompanies and is essential to this idea of power.
Art is and always has been a symbol of status as it is the oldest PR trick in the book - it emulates stories through symbolism and increases marketshare. This is a fundamental element that many art scholars and gallery curators now refuse to admit - reason being, it threatens the “meaning” of their roles - and their validity in society a.k.a. their marketshare. It’s all about hierarchy (conforming to the ideas of the academy or gallery standards) or your refusal to accept or “visual rejection” of hierarchy and where you fall on that “rejection/opposition” hierarchal scale is important too. That is why I don’t believe in artists who produce art for the “hell of it” nor to “stand against” something yet are famous and use their fame for more “exhibitions.” This is a total contradiction - if you wanted to stand up for your beliefs, would you not want your argument to stand alone - to get the full attention? To not share the spotlight with its adversary?
This a very important distinction - standing up versus standing against. One is universal in itself and the other relies on a contradictory force. When you rely on an opponent, you unknowingly acknowledge their argument as valid. You empower that argument. If a true artist wanted to “change” or “draw attention to” would it not be more successful to drive home your point and not acknowledge or empower a potential adversary? Humm… When we think of the idea of censorship - and artists being “censored” what is there to say that they are only censored because they are playing the game set out by their opponents? What if there are no opponents (i.e. acknowledged opponents)?
Just as in everyday society in the Americas - we pay to play. Meaning: We recognize to survive we cannot depend wholly onto ourselves and must then compromise with our surroundings/publics in order to prosper. Artists need attention - they need an audience - anyone who creates solely for themselves are almost always unnoticed. Therefore, the audience (noble or not) is the new consumer or patron of art. Look at Banksy - the street artist “of the people.” He was alleged to stand for the exposure and end of political/social/economical strife, a cultural whistleblower if you will, but once he became famous and his original artworks commodified (a feature film, T-shirts), he’s been placed atop another hierarchy or “opposition” which ultimately conforms and contributes to the machine of capitalism. He’s currently taken up an “unofficial residency” in New York City - that sentence itself points to the notion of art as partly motivated and influenced by a patron - in this case “the people of New York.” With a residency comes traditional expectations of production of content which can be shared and enjoyed. By having the elusive Banksy as their “unofficial artist in residence” - just by even mentioning the statement - increases the marketshare of NYC even further on the cultural, artistic and political stage globally. The same could be said for Maria Abrmovic - I saw her performance at the MoMA - but again - this is a performance in an institution… the location and intentional decision of the location impact the value and meaning of her art.
BOTTOM LINE: No artist can survive on their art alone unless they are the child of wealth and privilege. Again bringing back the notion that art is intrinsically linked with money, status and power and patronage.
Hyperlinks in progress - the system is acting up
