Besides for the cheesy comparison of a young artist to an "emerging butterfly", I can see how this article would be mind-blowing for some people, in the sense that it comes very forward in saying "Yes, the art market follows the same rules as any other modern consumer market; there are trends, stylistic niches, and certain things that are expected of you if you want to make it big."
One of the most compelling excerpts I read was:
Today the idea of progress has disappeared. The only aspiration presented to a young artist seems to be to fit into an existing social structure governed by the aesthetic mood of the moment; the artworld that he or she enters demands art that, year by year, might be eccentric, DIY, political, nihilistic, or shiny. These moods seem to spring both from larger political conditions as well as in reaction to artworld gambits of the past (no more oversized C-prints, please, just ragged installations). To "emerge," an artist must respond to the climate, and so be recognized for being whatever it is we want today.
Matt Hart commented on the difference between the CommArts students response to this information and that of the Fine Arts class. For some reason, I feel that no one was really surprised or even thought about arguing this point (correct me if I am wrong, but this seemed to be my general impression). This started to make me very curious as to why. I feel that mainly it is a difference in language. Instead of words such as "patron" or "curator", we instead use words like "client", "business", "for profit/non-profit", etc.
Anyways,
I was also interested in Siegel's comparison of the artworld 30-50 years ago to that of the present. She talks about how everyone hung out at the same bars, parties, etc. but how that now the difference in money is so large that mildly successful artists compared to the superstars is an ever increasing gap socially as well as financially. While this isn't totally shocking, I find that it brings issues to the table concerning the formation of strong artistic communities, and in situations such as these it is important to define your own personal terms of success. I feel reassured in knowing that here in Cincinnati, due mainly to its small size, that I can drink at the same bar with an artist more successful than myself, and party with people making good money off their art, and it's not an issue of economic class, or what have you. Cincinnati is in a lot of ways a healthy place for art, socially. I can hang out at a mansion one day and an efficiency the next, I know artists that are twice my age as well as AAC freshman. The chances of becoming directly involved with other artists within our city from a large range of successes is extremely high, and in a lot of ways I feel that people really feed off of each other here, more so than most cities. Getting a show is a piece of cake. Everyone knows all the gallery owners, and if you don't, someone you know does (The two-degrees of Cincinnati! Everyone if a friend of a friend.) Although people aren't getting "discovered" here, or working at crazy awesome firms, I'm excited to think of the possibilities that Cincinnati has to offer, based on everyone's close proximity, the affordableness of the city, and of the abundance of boredom that plagues everyone here. To me it sounds like the perfect formula for a potentially active wake within our little city, and that would be success enough for me. I just want to be in the middle of a giant think-tank of people creating and doing, regardless if any money ever exchanges hands.
Anyways,
I was also interested in Siegel's comparison of the artworld 30-50 years ago to that of the present. She talks about how everyone hung out at the same bars, parties, etc. but how that now the difference in money is so large that mildly successful artists compared to the superstars is an ever increasing gap socially as well as financially. While this isn't totally shocking, I find that it brings issues to the table concerning the formation of strong artistic communities, and in situations such as these it is important to define your own personal terms of success. I feel reassured in knowing that here in Cincinnati, due mainly to its small size, that I can drink at the same bar with an artist more successful than myself, and party with people making good money off their art, and it's not an issue of economic class, or what have you. Cincinnati is in a lot of ways a healthy place for art, socially. I can hang out at a mansion one day and an efficiency the next, I know artists that are twice my age as well as AAC freshman. The chances of becoming directly involved with other artists within our city from a large range of successes is extremely high, and in a lot of ways I feel that people really feed off of each other here, more so than most cities. Getting a show is a piece of cake. Everyone knows all the gallery owners, and if you don't, someone you know does (The two-degrees of Cincinnati! Everyone if a friend of a friend.) Although people aren't getting "discovered" here, or working at crazy awesome firms, I'm excited to think of the possibilities that Cincinnati has to offer, based on everyone's close proximity, the affordableness of the city, and of the abundance of boredom that plagues everyone here. To me it sounds like the perfect formula for a potentially active wake within our little city, and that would be success enough for me. I just want to be in the middle of a giant think-tank of people creating and doing, regardless if any money ever exchanges hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment