[!@#$%!]

Yesterday I read this very cool article on the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/ar...gn/15cott.html

It sort of argues that art does better when the art market is fucked. And that artists need to meet the world rather than staring up their own assholes.

Pretty fucking inspiring, I'd say.

Read+Discuss. But don't argue with my silly post-- argue with the article instead. Pretty good shit I'd say.

[pbradley]

I wish I had spectacles.

So I could dawn them as I read this article.

[phoenix]

Absolutely. That isn't to say that there haven't been people making great art in the past 5 yrs or next 5.. History generally says that the best art is often not sellable near its time of creation. Talented artists do work for money, and for commission. If they can't do that because of ecconomic reasons, they are still going to create for themselves, and probably do something much more wonderful.

There is a lot of bullshit pop art around, and I loathe the narcissim and commercialism of everything Hirst&co.
You do need to take into account though that right now there are more artists on this planet than there ever have been, with better acccess to money and media than what they've ever had before. It's going to take time for the good to filter from the bad.. It'll only get worse too, imho.

[phoenix]

I havent picked up artforum for myself since mid to late last year but, have noticed this when looking through the periodicals at the library. It is the same for 90% of art magazines. (design excluded because they are always 90% filler) It is interesting to watch the ebb and flow of gallery and marketing content through the years.

[acousticrock87]

Originally Posted by phoenix

There is a lot of bullshit pop art around, and I loathe the narcissim and commercialism of everything Hirst&co.

In their slight defense, it's mostly just leftover confusion from the postmodern movement and all that Warhol/Duchamp theory--which had merit. But these guys now are totally missing the point.

[phoenix]

Sorry I was more talking about the endless list of illustrative/fine art morphed exhibitions that have existed since the late 90's.

[tw2113]

I find it very hard to imagine where art will go in the future. It seems at times that everything has been done already and usually done a lot better by predecessors

[demonrail666]

I just finished reading the article. It'll be interesting to see if art really is able to negotiate its way through the recession and manages to inspire (albeit out of necessity) artists to re-think their position.

The great thing about a time when all conventional ideas seem inadequate is that unconventional ones have to start coming into play. Comfort zones, by their very nature, never inspire change and art has, for too long I think, been operating within such a zone. As such I really do hope that the arts follow the lead of those leading economists who are now starting to examine new (and often previously ridiculed) ideas. Not (as seems to be the case with the economists) to eventually return things to a status quo similar to the one we were used to, but rather in the hope of finding a new, better and more dynamic way for the arts to function within society.

Exciting times indeed.

[This Is Not Here]

Radio 4 said that the art market enjoys relative stability throughout financial recessions. Apparently because the art market is fairly seperate from the global economic market, people invest in art because of it's inherent worth, much like you'd invest in gold and silver for the same reason. Good art will always be good art I suppose. I dunno, I'm just regurgitating what Radio 4 said, I know very little about the finances behind art.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

Radio 4 said that the art market enjoys relative stability throughout financial recessions. Apparently because the art market is fairly seperate from the global economic market, people invest in art because of it's inherent worth, much like you'd invest in gold and silver for the same reason. Good art will always be good art I suppose. I dunno, I'm just regurgitating what Radio 4 said, I know very little about the finances behind art.

I think it's true that it can sustain itself during quite short term recessions (such as we've had in the past few decades) but a long term one (like this one is predicted to be) will prove far harder. Art is often funded by massive corporations who will be under enormous pressure from shareholders and banks to prioritise spending. It's also sure to force collectors to start selling off works at slashed prices as creditors start demanding some of their money back. It's going to affect every area of the art world if the recession really does get as nasty as economists are predicting.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

I think it depends on the scale..

of course monumental things like architecture, sculpture, huge murals, large performances, etc will fall into decline because these things require $$$ and in many respects are public works projects.

much of the "art" of the western tradition are in fact these things, and this is why during economic problems people fear the "arts" will fall into decline..

however, smaller scale art.. street art.. and the art of individuals such as writing, painting, and music will definitely thrive in this increasingly humanistic environment. This kind of art depends upon sincerity and authenticity, thinks which impoverished conditions tend to foster. Further poverty creates an audience for this kind of art.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

however, smaller scale art.. street art.. and the art of individuals such as writing, painting, and music will definitely thrive in this increasingly humanistic environment. This kind of art depends upon sincerity and authenticity, thinks which impoverished conditions tend to foster. Further poverty creates an audience for this kind of art.

The argument against that of course, at least in part, is found in the crash of the 1930s, when people didn't turn to culture that reflected their situation but rather that which offered them an escape from it: hence the lavish cinema spectacles churned out by Hollywood during that period.

That's cinema of course, which operates by a different set of rules to some of the other arts. Even so, the idea that impoverished conditions might lead to a more 'sincere' art strikes me as being hopeful at best.

On a slightly separate note, I found this passage in that article interesting:

Why not make studio training an interdisciplinary experience, crossing over into sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, poetry and theology?

Although university Art programmes, in the UK at least, have promoted this kind of interdisciplinary approach for some time now (usually under the name 'comparative studies') the idea has become slightly diluted of late into what might best be described simply as 'theory'. (Roughly translated as art theorists who've (mis)read some Deleuze writing about other art theorists who've (mis)read some Deleuze). I think art would benefit enormously from once again re-engaging with ideas from other disciplines (so long as the dialogue isn't just one way - sociologists looking at art would be nice too). I think it's this potential of looking for new paths and new methods in unexpected places that might ultimately see art becoming a beneficiary, rather than a victim, of the next few years.

[Better_Than_You]

As someone who goes to an Art school...

"Art schools can change too. The present goal of studio programs (and of ever more specialized art history programs) seems to be to narrow talent to a sharp point that can push its way aggressively into the competitive arena. But with markets uncertain, possibly nonexistent, why not relax this mode, open up education?"

I have to strongly disagree with this statement. Maybe its just Perpich, but when you walk into the visual arts gallery you see all different types of levels, ethics, and styles and don't see any narrowing of talent for the economic market. When you go to the media gallerys people may be inspired by mainstream concepts, but make them their own. When you go to Theatre shows there's lots of talent, but the people aren't judged on their beauty or how good they would look on screen or in a play, which seems to be a defining factor in box office/broadway hits. When you go to music shows the vibe the ensambles give off can range from 'oh, shit i'm in a garage listening to a really good band practice' to 'holy shit these people are amazing, why don't they have their own CD?'. As a literary arts student, I know for a fact that both readings we do on school grounds and outside of school are to have our voices heard. At this point in time we're still trying to find a stable writing voice, so our work is less for the audience and more for ourselves. Which, in my opinion, is fine. I can safely say that the group of kids I write with are intelligent human beings who can write for themselves about a topic, and if the audience is willing to grasp the meaning and subtext, it can really inspire and change the world in a positive light. The dance department is the only department that really prepares the kids for "real world" experiences, and I think thats okay because dance is a form of visual entertainment where rejection is much more personal and common. But its also important to mention that there are just as many 'fat' girls as their are stick thin ones. And the distribution of roles in the dances aren't based on weight or looks, and really don't matter at all because theyre such powerful dancers.

"Why not make studio training an interdisciplinary experience, crossing over into sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, poetry and theology?"

Thats why you take academic classes while you're at school. It's not strictly art based. Not to mention the fact that Art and the subconcious is so deeply intertwined, to say that sociologic, psychologic, and philosophic factors don't play a key role in the art that is being created is to suggest its strictly being created for the economy. Maybe thats what some artists are beginning to do, but what gets anyone into art is putting emotion or thought into an abstract form and benefiting from it emotionally and/or visually. Any artists who doesn't do this on a concious level is not much of an artist at all.

----

I understand that making a living off of your art is the main focus and goal for most beginning artists, but it's wrong. Which is what I saw the arguement in the article to be, but it was done cynically. Art is not dying and is under no danger of being made more commercial. Especially with the economy the way it is. After the great depression some of the greatest blues artists were born out of their financial trouble which lead to social trouble. Thats just one example.

Call me an optimist, but I think this is going to do nothing but good for art. Making an assembly line of pleasing shit because you need it to be bought is no way to go living. Or creating. Once people realize that this is unrealistic (even if it takes extreme financial hardship to do so) I truly believe that art is going to take a new curve for the BEST.

[DeadDiscoDildo]

^^Exactly, regarding your last paragraph. As a musician (whatever, thats probably all of us here, honestly) I'm baffled by any artist who could be worried right now. It's like the universe saw how spoiled artists had become and was tired of hearing people bitch about the old days and decided to throw us right back in the old days. After all, don't forget the old expression "Your art starts to suck once you're not poor and you're happy". That may not be 100% true, there's nothing wrong with being happy, but true character is born thru suffering and it looks like alot of douchebags are going to have the real world and a whole lotta character shoved up their ass pretty soon. Or at least, enevitabley.

It's like the whole country is experiencing the Pilot of Arrested Developement. Let's see how THIS story unfolds.

anyways, lots of ideas and feelings floating around, lots of new realities being set in place in this country...good things for artists. Simplest answer? The future of art is bright.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The argument against that of course, at least in part, is found in the crash of the 1930s, when people didn't turn to culture that reflected their situation but rather that which offered them an escape from it: hence the lavish cinema spectacles churned out by Hollywood during that period.

That's cinema of course, which operates by a different set of rules to some of the other arts. Even so, the idea that impoverished conditions might lead to a more 'sincere' art strikes me as being hopeful at best.

yes, but literature and even hollywood also represented everyday realities, and this was especially true for music of the period.

[demonrail666]

I don't know about literature from the thirties and while you're right that some very popular films produced during that period did indeed reflect the hardship of the time (gangster movies like Public Enemy, Scarface and Little Ceasar, for example) the overwhelming tendency was towards escapism and optimism, usually in the form of either musicals, epic star vehicles or straight up fantasy. It was the success of these kinds of films during the thirties that led Hollywood to begin thinking of itself as being recession proof (an attitude it still holds to this day).

I think it's true that music reflected the era's hardships far better than cinema did at the time. Even so, for every 'Stormy Weather' there were still a dozen 'Puttin' on the Ritz's.

[pbradley]

Art is one of those things you can spit a million words at and say nothing.

If anything, art catches up and reflects what everyone already knows like an emotional newspaper. To predict future of art, one needs to predict the future of everything else first.

And everything else is confusion.

[pbradley]

 

[davenotdead]

there's a lot of words in this thread.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by davenotdead

there's a lot of words in this thread.

Let me write a paragraph of what I think about that.