Jump to content

How to experience art in a free society?


Fleshy

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this one has been up for a few days now I might as well share this here too, I've shared it on a different thread before but it may have killed it.  Maybe it will add a little perspective.  http://youtu.be/fcOZoR25Rhk  Basically, I believe that there is an inherent conflict with the nature of art because art has to have acknowledgement to be considered art (on the tinyest scale a single person 'appreciating' it, giving it value/worth).  and the nature of art is one of a constant changing of societal values.  Values, the things you value, say a thumb tack is valued for holding up a note, is valued only as much as there are walls and notes to hang.  (Because art is basically everything ever created by man, see video) Values can only be determined by priority, how much is this worth at this point in time in comparison to everything else, and things change in life.  The cycle of empire, alien influence whatever changes the whole scale by which things are valued.  Artists through creating things give or show these values and these comparisons that provide possible reason for societal change.  Holding up a mirror to culture.  So art has within it this conflict between what was/is valued and what is being neglected, what's about to change.  Art is change or at least documents it in 'art movements'.  So there is always a conflict between real art and art that is bolstered and reinforced and artificially inflated in value by those who are in power or have wealth.  Culture distorts and destroys value systems through force.  Art creates value systems through human effort.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.