Making ART is a journey of the senses. And [as cliched as it may sound]… it’s the journey that counts [grin]
It requires a BIG HEART.
And the ability to push through in the face of public apathy and a complacent marketplace.
What to do about this into the future is something that artists in the post GFC marketplace will need to consider. We can choose to set out and do what Ben and Kenny did [with questionable success]… by getting out of our comfort zone and looking at new ways to market our art [which btw is way so much more fun to do!]
Any resemblance to sign spinners anywhere is entirely coincidental (((chuckles)))
Or we can keep doing what’s been done before… and see where that leads us into the future.
Either way… artists need to be willing to change.
Life isn’t static. Nor is the market.
And nor is ART.
Historically art has changed to reflect the social economic and environmental events of the times.
As John Crowther observes…
“It’s very modern to think of art as a product that can be swapped for money, but the paleolithic cavemen never thought of their art in terms of what it could be “sold” for (at least, as far as I know)”
Back in the stone age… art served a single purpose to inform… educate… and possibly to entertain.
These days most artists want to inform… educate… entertain… AND get paid for their stuff! [grin]
But never before in the history of art has there been so many artists in the marketplace.
These days everyone’s an artist!
- Is this making it way too difficult?
- Is the appreciation of art being numbed by sheer weight of numbers?
- Is art becoming so commonplace that people no longer see it?
Which [naturally] then begs the question…
- Did people EVER see it? [grin]
And probably more importantly…
- Do they care enough to spend their hard earned cash on it?
Maybe art is just a “nice” idea… as art aficionados mingle champagne in hand in Galleries around the globe?
Or perhaps it is just a commodity as Sharon Himes suggests:
“To most people art is a commodity. The artist who thinks of it as just that and creates what style, subject or medium is currently in fashion often does well in the market. Those who go their own way and paint what inspires them do not often do so well. A friend once told me that 10% of the public likes art and [of those] only 10% can afford it”
[I don't know about you... but I'm not liking the numbers] (((chuckles)))
And perhaps a painting “to go over the sofa” might have helped Ben and Kenny get to the opposite side of the country… but is it enough?
Does art without heart really cut it?
What do you think?
…to be continued…
Part 3 will have a few answers I came up with all by myself [grin]
but you can have your say as well…
BY COMMENTING HERE
[more of your comments with links in Part 3]
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Here I’ve noticed that things are tending more toward the “crafts” side of things. Fine art seems to be having a hard time, as I think a lot of the working artists got commissions from interior decorators, etc. Now that the building of “McMansions” has ground to a halt, so has the demand for larger works, sculpture, etc. that used to go to high-end homes.
In the art fairs, etc. that I’ve attended over the last few years, I’ve seen some beautiful stuff that is very expensive…and I’ve also been looking at the same works for a couple years in a row, so it’s not moving! But the potters, leatherworkers, etc. who can make something utilitarian and sell it for 20 to 50 bucks seem to do OK.
The whole world is changing it would seem. The marketplace for pretty much every commodity has now gone global with the internet and I think this has brought good and bad news for artists worldwide.
There might be way more artists overall… but on the flip side… there has never been a better opportunity to get art under the noses of a very wide audience [as long as artists have the ability to access the market]
It’s early days. And things are changing fast. The old ways will more than likely give way to the new. But change has always been the way of things… and never more so than now.
Strange times aren’t they Harry? But I think it will be very interesting to see how things pan out… how we manage to pull ourselves [collectively speaking] out of the doldrums and back into prosperity.
My thinking is the new prosperity will have a better value base… less about material substance and more about quality of life and family. Where this places art in the big scheme of things… may well be left up to artists to figure out [hopefully soon] LOL
So great to hear from you Harry
thanks your comment!
And I think you’ve struck on something important here as well Harry. Art that DOES something… serves some purpose [other than just hanging around on a wall]… is maybe carrying it’s weight better? Art as a product appearing on other products. Art turning up in unexpected places and used in new ways to inspire and excite. The possibilities are endless… [grin]
… like painting the fuselage of Virgin Galactica’s latest prototype and sending it out into space. Now THERE’S a thought. I’ll ring Richard Branson right away… (((chuckles)))
First of all, Jean, I enjoyed seeing my cartoon here. Thanks for the exposure, [grin]
It seems to me there are two separate issues here. One is Art as a product created to fill a need in the marketplace, which assumes that there is indeed a genuine “need.” The other issue is why Art exists at all in evolutionary terms. I’d suggest that the need for individual humans to make Art is greater than their need (or needs) to trade in or experience Art. This, of course, helps explain why the marketplace can’t come close to supporting the numbers of people who wish to create Art.
As far as evolution, we need to define Art, and determine what purpose it serves alongside more obvious survival mechanisms as language, the “flight or flight” instinct, and emotions. Even a brilliant cognitive scientist such as Stephen Pinker gets it wrong, I believe. Pinker sees Art as “biologically frivolous and vain,” appealing to our innate sense of aesthetics and status. In other words, according to him, it was never a strategy necessary to sustain human life, but rather is something to indulge in once everything else has been taken care of. I’d be happy to debate this if anyone cared to, but for now I’ll just say that if Pinker is correct it means that the impulse to make Art (as opposed to simply enjoying it) developed in human beings sometime after the other mechanisms presumably more critical to survival were already well in place.
I’ve long defined Art as the metaphors we use to share our unique experience of life with others (originally having nothing to do with aesthetics or standards of beauty, which are cultural and subjective phenomena). This raises the question, why is it good or necessary? In this definition Art is a means of communication, and I’d argue that it is in itself a language that predates verbal language on the evolutionary scale. It is the symbols and sounds that pre-linguistic hominids used to exchange increasingly complex feelings.
Granted, Art has come a long way since prehistoric man was painting in caves, and has served changing societal functions through the millennia, but we still must recognize, I think, a basic paradox. Our challenge as artists is to reconcile the primordial impulse to share our experience with others through Art, and our insistence that others pay us for the privilege of giving us their time and attention. We’re in the position of having to convince the marketplace that a leisurely walk over the hills and through the woods has value in a world that would rather race across the landscape at 65 miles an hour on an Interstate.
If we start losing sight of why we create Art and focus inordinately on the marketplace, then we risk relegating Art to nothing more than a commodity to be sold alongside breakfast cereal, electronic equipment, and pharmaceuticals.
Would have to agree John… on all counts
[especially about Pinker who sounds like he seriously needs to get out of New York!] (((chuckles)))
I guess when it comes down to it… there are as many different reasons to make art as there are artists who are making it. Each has his or her own objective in mind when bringing the work to life. And whether or not to sell it… or how much it is worth… is almost as subjective as the art itself.
In asking the question “What’s Your Art Worth?” I was hoping that readers would consider both meanings ["worth" having a double meaning] I was waiting with baited breath… [grin] so I’m glad you caught my meaning.
A smarter question might have been “what’s the VALUE of your art” which would have better represented the [emotional] worth of art; the deeply inspiring creative process [like an itch that can't be scratched] that drives the artist on to make more.
I probably reached the same conclusion as you [although in a far less articulate way] but it’s interesting to put the question out there to see how others are seeing it.
Thanks John for your thorough and thoughtful response. Much appreciated!
As a person who has never considered herself an artist (but who has a sister who is a “fine” aritist), I find this discussion so interesting! Just like with writing, I think, the increased internet access and mass production world has changed the way we engage with our ideas of art. There were times in some cultures when artists of various sorts were supported by patrons, and literally had to sing for their supper. In today’s world, many artists must depend on a broader base of private support. Anyway, this is very interesting, and I appreciate your views as well as those who are commenting.
Hi Galen
Yes it’s the same for writers definitely. The internet has changed everything. With so much online content [both words and pictures] it’s relatively easy to become discouraged.
I read every day where some blogger or other is on the verge of giving up simply because they feel that what they have to say is redundant – chiefly because someone has already said it!
The way I look at it though is that everyone has their own voice [and their own unique perspective] to bring. There’s room enough for everyone… as long as we’re using that voice. Authenticity [I think] is the key.
And staying abreast of change in the online environment. The future for artists probably hasn’t even been invented yet. Now there’s an encouraging thought! LOL
Thanks for commenting Galen
so great to get your perspective.
I think, Jean, the primary question for an artist has to be, “What am I worth?” That pretty much determines what my art is worth, if I am being true to myself, my beliefs, my passions, my honesty, and my willingness to focus my energy.
Very true John
Love this! Art will never go out of style as every single second someone is putting a new feeling, their heart and soul into a new piece. Always fascinating.
Hi Sheila
and welcome to the blog! You’re so right. Art will never go out of style [well it hasn't yet and it's been a couple of billion years so far LOL] Wherever there’s paint there will be people wanting to express an idea or as you say… someone wanting to put a feeling, their heart and soul into a new piece. I kind of like that idea don’t you?
Thanks for stopping by… it’s lovely to meet you. There’s an orange button around here someplace if you’d like subscribe to email updates and stay in touch. I post around once a week [with new art... old favourites... videos and different ideas] I’d love you to join us.