Money Isn’t Everything
Not only is this a pictureless post (boooorrring), but it also has the sad misfortune of following a story about “my printies.” Some posts just can’t catch a break.
“The Boom Is Over. Long Live Art!” is an interesting article by Holland Cotter over at the NY Times. It’s kind of a surprising testament to the relevance of contemporary art (maybe only in the minds of NY Times readers) that it happened to be number eight in yesterday’s Most Popular.
The article brings up any number of interesting points about the art world ‘s past, present, and future. Speculation regarding the ramifications of the economic downturn on the recently flourishing art market isat the forefront of the story. Cotter suggests potential that are coming or should come to the market as well the structure of art school as it currently exists.
There are too many worthwhile thoughts to quote them all but here’s a notion that strikes close to home.
…if the example of past crises holds true, artists can also take over the factory, make the art industry their own. Collectively and individually they can customize the machinery, alter the modes of distribution, adjust the rate of production to allow for organic growth, for shifts in purpose and direction.
But before you get too excited about taking over the factory, Cotter throws this idea your way…
Will the art industry continue to cling to art’s traditional analog status, to insist that the material, buyable object is the only truly legitimate form of art, which is what the painting revival of the last few years has really been about? Will contemporary art continue to be, as it is now, a fancyish Fortunoff’s, a party supply shop for the Love Boat crew? Or will artists — and teachers, and critics — jump ship, swim for land that is still hard to locate on existing maps and make it their home and workplace?
Look out, Captain Stubing, your frivolous days are numbered! As the title suggests, the article looks on the bright side of the economic downturn and makes a case for the ways that the art world can be better with less money in the equation. It’s not exactly a new idea (that art would be better without money involved) but the story is overflowing with issues deserving of further consideration. Go read it.
Bookmark / Share / Print
“Critics will need to go back to school, miss a few parties and hit the books and the Internet.”
OK, but I won’t hold my breath. The article has a respectable veneer of self-awareness, but given the premise, it’s remarkable that Cotter’s perspective remains so narrow:
“Night after night critics and collectors scarf down meals paid for by dealers promoting artists, or museums promoting shows, with everyone together at the table, schmoozing, stroking, prodding, weighing the vibes.”
“Students who entered art school a few years ago…will have to consider themselves lucky to get career breaks now taken for granted: the out-of-the-gate solo show, the early sales, the possibility of being able to live on their art…”
Of course, those opportunities never seemed inevitable to folks who live in the Art World’s various parallel universes. Some people might not even want a seat at that table with all the stroking, prodding, and vibe-weighing.
I appreciate the insight into the author’s perspective.
my dentist installed a veneer on my front tooth and it looks better than ever*`’