Search the Community

Hi everyone! This is my first thread on FDR. Firstly, I hope this is the right place to address the topic of art in a free society. Art is, after all, educational. Many enter a gallery or museum without considering how everything got there. See, I find it difficult to enjoy art if it's acquired through force (or, with tax-payer funds, if you like). Logically, anything within the gallery's walls, or state-funded in its creation anywhere, becomes affiliated with the state: its implication changes and it becomes a political tool. This isn't obvious until the whole state concept is unpacked. It should be remembered that art directors are bought, like teachers. And a fantastic way to silence an artist is to own their work. For example, I find it hideously ironic that a Leon Golub should exist in a government's pocket. Now, some artists today play with these themes, but here I'm addressing the general practice. It seems to me that people criticizing the private galleries and "vanity spaces" forget or simply ignore the hypocrisy in their claims. A state collection, really, is hardly cleaner than a private one. Many artists would kill to have their work purchased by a state gallery. The consensus is that you're not historical or "permanent" otherwise. But think on it: would you want your work, with all of its concepts, to be attached to the oldest platform of evil, however glamorous? I've read literally no essays or crits on these issues (save for this). Any links or books definitely would be welcome! If I've made any mistakes on this subject, please excuse my naivete and do correct me.