Going backwards

[DarnDirtyApe]

As a capitalist society, we discriminate based on monetary values all the time. You cannot stay at the Ritz Carlton unless you can afford the room rate. You cannot eat at Momofuku unless you can afford to pay the bill at the end. You cannot buy a mobile phone unless you can afford the purchase price and monthly plan cost. Do you all think that anyone should have the right to live wherever they wish, regardless of income? Presumably not, so where do we draw the line?

On the "art" front, I have a couple of questions: Who defines what is "art" and a work's value to society? Should anyone be able to self-identify as an "artist" or is that up to the viewers of that "art"? Who decides who is a good enough "artist" to qualify for public support? Presumably there is a line between "bad art" and "good art" but where is that line?

 

[Lenser]

There is no line, Ape... at least, none that all can agree on. That's the difficulty of art. It's not something which can be empirically measured, much as some pretend otherwise. Yes, you can use the yardstick of how much money a given work of art fetches, but there's often a profound difference between what a talented living artist makes and how much his or her works become worth posthumously. In terms of public art, you can have city committees try to judge what is or isn't "good" art, but those groups are often terribly subjective and politically-motivated.

Art is not an easy thing to nail down - part of what makes it special, and what infuriates those who believe its importance in society is artificially elevated.

I just don't get the sneering tone about artists I detect in this thread. It's insulting to lump us all into one cynical, manipulative group, as if we all are somehow trying to cheat society.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

I totally agree, but this is part of the reason people sneer about "artists". Anyone can self-identify as an "artist", throw spaghetti on a wall and then if anyone criticizes their "art" they can simply accuse the critics of not appreciating the subjective value. Then we have public money (like this condo project) allocated by by an otherwise generally incompetent bureaucracy to support "artists and their families", and people are understandably skeptical that the money will be put to the best use.

Maybe the city should have a contest for the 80 spaces - artists submit a portfolio and life story for public display, and people would vote on who they think should get a spot. It is the people's money, after all.

 

[Lenser]

Sure. But that doesn't guarantee that the most provocative, thoughtful or inspirational art will win the day. It could just be the most populist art, dedicated to the most common-denominator themes. Art by committee, either large or small, is not necessarilly a panacea.

As for people calling themselves artists and expecting others to be automaticallyt in thrall of 'em, well - I try to ignore them. They tend to be insecure, or deluded, or both - althought that still doesn't preclude the possibility of being enormously talented. As I said, good luck pinning it all down.

 

[spider]

Where is it written that an artist must work at his craft to the exclusion of all other activities?

I know several people whose hobbies practiced after working at a regular 9 to 5 job every day produce truly beautiful creations. They wouldn't dream of selling their work, they give it away to appreciative friends. They do what they do because it feels good, not to satisfy some one else's criteria.

 

[Lenser]

It's not written anywhere, spider. But ask your friends if they all view their various activities as you do - as "hobbies-" and then ask them if, given their druthers, they wouldn't prefer to work on those things exclusively rather than perform their 9-5 routines. Finally, ask them if they wouldn't mind earning a living - that is, being paid - for their chosen work, the work which actualy makes them feel good.

Well, some artists do that very thing. And most creative types, if they're passionate and honest enough about it, will admit that doing what you most love is the very height. That so many of us settle for doing less, for doing it on the sidelines, is tragic. The same sentiment applies equally to artists and non-artists alike.

On the other hand, everybody must find their own level. Some people are comfortable with their hobbies, sure. Most of us would rather not struggle so hard to improve their abilities, nor sacrifice so much. But that status, of contented hobbyist who putters around in their back shed or basement, nowhere near describes everyone who harbours the need to paint, draw, sculpt, compose, craft.

Anyway, thanks for indulging me in a thread which has precious little to do with artists and misconceptions of same. I still find the poor door notion an abhorrent thing. Were we to see much more of it I'd have to also start expecting the disconted rumblings of the masses agitating for revolution.