ART AND COMMERCIALISM THE UNBALANCED SYMBIOSIS
With initiative,Art and commerce are supposed to be dependent on each other for its growth and survival but the reverse is the case .Overtime Art have always depend on commerce and the aftermath of this is what I will coin "creativity blackmail" who are responsible? galleries owner,critics,collectors,curators (market-driven,lacking aesthetics standard).They are the one responsible, probably it is high time we redefined their roles .NO artist I said NO artist can deny that the market trend has not influence his or her work one time or the other.If sales determine the success of an artist where do we class Vincent van Gogh.Let us wake up from our slumber.

Art does not survive by commerce,it survives dispite it.

if you submit your "art" to the market, it becomes a commodity. it is an extra, something to own. it is a painting to hang on someone's wall. it is a pot somebody keeps flowers in. it is a sculpture that compliments someone's garden. sure, it is still art.

of course, people make art for themselves, they make art which they they do not intend to sell. are the people who buy art are required to give this artist money just because he made art, even if they don't like his art?

the art market does not exist because of artists. art exists because of artists; the market exists because of people who want to buy art, for whatever reason. they can love the way a painting speaks to them, or they can love the way it matches their sofa & rug, or they can love the fact that it is popular. in the end, the painting is sold & the painter (gallery owner, agent, etc.) is paid. this is the driving force behind any market. i don't think we can be naive enough to consider the art market holier than the other markets, or holy at all. the commodity being sold is often intensely personal for the artist & for the buyer, sure. but it is still a question of exchanging currency for a product.

blaming the market for bad art is ridiculous (and yes, i realize i am speaking to myself here too). people want what they want...if they want a Basquiat, then it is their right to spend their money on it. when the galleries take notice that Basquiat makes them money, they push more Basquiat, which is also their right. you can't expect a business to drive itself out of, well, business!

art does indeed survive despite commerce. but it exists as a way of making a livelihood because of it. you cannot make someone buy something they don't want. you cannot redefine the role of curators, collectors etc., unless you become wealthy enough to fund all artists so they can just make whatever they want (now that's a recipe for a bunch of crap art).

the market can discourage good artists. it can encourage bad artists. it can encourage good artists to sell out and become bad artists! one fish, two fish, red...oops, sorry. :-P but it can also encourage good artists to become the best they can be, to try a little harder to communicate, to try a little harder to create a masterpiece or a great series.

Alimi,

From your words I am of the impression you think the market is deleterious to art. If such is the case I can’t disagree with you more. I think the market enables art to flourish and thrive.

I think the market drives creativity. It seems to me that the more open an artistic market the more creative and prolific its practitioners, the broader, more receptive and more knowledgeable are the consumers of art. Isn’t this true of any commodity? Some artistic fields are more market oriented than others. This is instructive. The movie industry in the United States is nothing if not commercial and the movie industry produces art that is approachable, fine, powerful, popular, diverse, expressive and invested with creativity. Music and literature are examples of fields that benefit similarly from the same circumstances. The thriving markets in these arts make for more and better art and make for an educated, intelligent and critical audience.

Thomas Kinkaid has done more good for painting than any man alive today. He has people thinking and talking about art. He has people, lots of people, buying art. He is truly a revolutionary. That he is so successful ought to have all other artists questioning their relationship to their audience. It is clear that people like art and want art to be part of their lives. Thomas Kinkaid makes that possible.

Blackmail is extortion via threats of exposing negative information. What is creativity blackmail? If an audience seeks art of a particular kind has the artist been blackmailed? No. Producing work that people want isn’t tribute or capitulation. Art doesn’t stop at the studio door and the process doesn’t end when the brush is cleaned. An artist with disregard for his or her audience deserves disregard in return. Moreover, creativity is not stifled by regard for one’s audience; rather, the audience, the world, the market, demands it. Even Thomas Kinkaid will evolve as his audience gains knowledge and appreciation for art more than the work he currently produces. Thomas Kinkaid will create new and different or his audience will leave him behind. The market drives creativity.

Galleries, critics, collectors and curators are gatekeepers for sure. Nevertheless, there are many gates and the walls to the world are being breached. I suspect that, were Van Gogh alive today, he’d being selling on the Internet.

So ~ is it art if is not sold?

How do we measure the worth of someone's expression?

We have all seen the oddest things sold as art, paintings that seem to require little more skill than the hand of a child ~ while some of the most beautiful and creative works sit lonely without an audience.

I am an artist and I have struggled with this concept for years. Why am I only viewed as an artist if I sell what I make? The first thing people say upon viewing my work is: You should make money doing this.

Why is art only satisfying if it is sold? I produce a piece of art, an extension of my soul, my thoughts, my memories... and then I am to drag it out into the stark light as a commodity? Assign a numerical value to it? Appraise it's worth in definite terms? Like a car, or a house... There is more agony in that than the laboring of creation ~ which always seems to come from another dimension.

Does anyone else ever feel confused by the partnership of art and market?

gnat,

I don’t know if your question was meant to be rhetorical or not.

How do we measure the worth of someone's expression?

I think we don’t measure the worth of someone’s expression. In fact, we don’t even measure the worth of the artifact. Not, at least, in the sense that we can all agree a work has some set value. To the extent an artist is willing to sell his or her work potential buyers make their own measure and respond accordingly. Markets require willing sellers and willing buyers.

I think an aspect of art that makes for a unique market dynamic is the extent to which the artist invests herself in her work. Artists are profoundly interested in their own work. If the artifact she has to offer is unique and the product of significant effort the value she places on her work is understandably high. The value may be too high; at least in terms of finding a willing buyer. Selling art at whatever the market will bear is appalling but I think there is no way around it.

I don’t think art is only satisfying when it is sold. I think I don’t understand your meaning.

As to those who suggest you make money with your art, why not? Why shouldn’t you sell your work to a willing buyer? People will buy your work if they value it. They will value it, not because there was a money transaction, but because your work resonates with them. Where is the bad in that?

No, it was not rhetorical. I agree, I do not think you quite see my meaning, but your response did answer me, that you do not have a personal struggle with art for profit.

I am probably just weird. I personally struggle with the dichotomy and I have for decades... I just thought I would check if anyone else felt it at all...

It took a bit of searching to find this thread again. Gnat, as I have too felt that dichotomy, in response to your questions:

SO ~ IS IT ART IF IS NOT SOLD? Yes, much art is never sold. Some is never known except by artist and close friends, family. Think of music such as blues, rockabilly, flowing out in obscurity, co-opted by some fortunate listeners.

HOW DO WE MEASURE THE WORTH OF SOMEONE'S EXPRESSION? This is subjective. A child's output may have intrinsic value for child, parents, those who know and love the child and never have value beyond this. Ways inwhich we are made aware of someone's valuation of anything is how much is sacrificed for it. Sacrifice may be parting with any number of things conventionally viewed as important: money, life, freedom, health, social acceptance, companionship, stability, pride, dignity, comfort, doritos ...

WHY AM I ONLY VIEWED AS AN ARTIST IF I SELL WHAT I MAKE? THE FIRST THING PEOPLE SAY UPON VIEWING MY WORK IS: YOU SHOULD MAKE MONEY DOING THIS. In a society where many things we universally value are acquired, preserved, by monetary exchange, the highest praise many give is recognition they would part with money (symbolic power) to own what you produce and further they would empower you to continue producing what you produce. This is short-hand praise, a reflexive that doesn't require utterers to express deeper emotive or intellectual reasons why they respond to your art. Next time you might ask what, other than money, is your art worth.

WHY IS ART ONLY SATISFYING IF IT IS SOLD? Oh, no, this is an inversion: only art which is satisfying is sold, also, much that is satisfying is never for sale. Part of the question is who is satisfied by the art - artist, buyer, others extraneous or secondary to a transaction? And who is satisfied by the sale... If the buyer is not satisfied by the art, they do not buy. If the artist is not satisfied by the art, do they sale? Sometimes yes, if they are dependent on the sale to satisfy other needs, and others' need.

DOES ANYONE ELSE EVER FEEL CONFUSED BY THE PARTNERSHIP OF ART AND MARKET? Constantly. Some of the most beautiful and creative work sits lonely without an audience.

No answer I've provided hasn't been said before and better (but you knew that). More often my struggle is not to be rejected for that I strive to produce and value that others don't. That is not to say I have not produced that which would be bought I didn't value. Life is inconsistent that way. Sometimes mockery is more valued than sincerity.

Mea ~

Thank you for taking some time to reflect on this and offer your perceptions. I really enjoyed reading this.