Yesterday, I was listening to NPR, National Public Radio. Normally, I don’t listen to it, but my car is in the shop right now and I have a rental, so no satellite radio. 
I was listening to a program called All Things Considered, I believe. The topic was a Brazilian artist, whose name escapes me. This artist, first name Romario, I believe, is becoming more popular because some of his art is being displayed inside of museum; formerly, most of his art was commissioned for use in shopping malls and various outdoor venues. Among this type of artist, he was well known and sought after by shopping mall architects, builders, etc.
When asked about how he felt about his art finally getting displayed in a museum, his simple reply was: “That’s nice, but it’s not necessary. I like for my art to be where people can see it and get something from it.” He went on to say that he used to do all of his work on the sidewalks and that is what gave him joy and that shopping malls, in his opinion, where the perfect venue for his work.
Later in the program, they had some quotes from different art critics who said that finally his work is becoming ‘respectable’, ‘worthwhile’, and ‘serious’ because it is getting accepted in museums. However, there were some dissenters who said that his work was a ‘derivative’ of this person or that person, blah, blah, blah.
It’s interesting how people can attribute the worth of art based on where it is being shown. Same work, different venue, different ‘value’. Critics are such a joke! I’m glad that this guy has his a good head on his shoulders and doesn’t get caught up in those foul winds that are being spawned from the mouth of the critic!
No related posts.
9 Responses to “Serious art?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Paul, you’ve spotlighted the reason we should work at our craft to please ourselves first. If we had our photos in every museum and gallery on earth, it wouldn’t make it more valuable. The satisfaction we get from doing what we do is priceless. Publicity is just icing on the cupcake.
Well, the whole art market, when viewed through the eyes of an artist, is a joke. Viewed by gallery owners and by prestige-seeking rich buyers, it makes much more sense. After all, what’s the intrinsic value of a diamond? That it’s hard? Not really an argument any more. Gold? Well, it’s shiny and durable, but what else? The demand makes the prices, and the same is it with art.
Where would a rich buyer want to buy? On the sidewalk? Through his agent in a prestigious gallery? What do you mean?
Recently I was buying coffee. Nespresso, what else? I mean, I really like their coffee, but do I really need a black liveried guy whose only job it is to open the shop’s door? Thanks, I can open the door myself. But for many people this is prestige. I cringe at the thought that I pay for that with a higher price of the coffee. Many seem to be delighted. That’s how the world is.
It’s my firm believe that in order to be acceptable to the market, you either have to be dead or at least artistically dead. Physically dead is better though. Just imagine a buyer shelling out $100000 for an image by a living artist. And then, the next morning, the artist trumpets out loud that he disagrees with American politics and sympathizes with the 9/11 terrorists. What would you expect the prices of his images to do, at least in the US? They would plummet. Well, probably they would rise in the Middle East, but I guess you understand what I mean. Replace this with sexual harrassment, child molesting or whatever.
No problems with the dead though. Everything they could ever have said has been said. No surprises in the pipeline. And even better: No new works. That’s why the art market loves the dead.
The art market is not about Art, it’s about market. Nothing else. Art is what you make for yourself. Of course there are valuable, active artists that play big in the market, but they are few. Most others have their recognition for a glorious past, or they are simply hyped because they produce something that sells well – for whatever reason. I wouldn’t expect any logic in that. There is none.
@Bonnie: It’s a good thing that we don’t depend on critics for our sense of self-worth! That would be bad news!
@Andreas: LOL! Your point about dead artists is well taken and quite humorous, but certainly true!
You need to read Pete Myers somewhat sarcastic (or is it?) take on The Museum:
http://www.petemyers.com/themuseumfile/themuseum.pdf
From the Devil’s Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce:
CRITIC, n. A person who boasts himself hard to please because nobody tries to please him.
Paul, thanks for turning over this hornet’s nest.
Humans are so curious in that, even if they have perfectly good minds, they are so frequently happy to have someone else do their thinking for them. And, of course, critics are the type of people who love to take on that job. I love Bierce’s definition (courtesy of John S.). Perfect. I usually find critics have not much more than strong opinions and the gall to demand that others agree with them. It’s peculiar that more of us don’t simply consider our own opinions rather than waiting for someone else to express theirs. Oh, well, when we live in a world where some people are going to try to paint three year olds as racists because they say “yuck” to certain foods, what can we expect?
There are so many excellent thoughts expressed here, I have decided to come back after coffee and savor all this again. Like many of us, I am occasionally tempted to give critics too much power and I am continually reminding myself to avoid that trap.
I guess Andreas hit the bulls eye with his comment…
Although I would like to take up the cudgels for critics. At least a bit, as there are certainly also honest, serious critics out there that really might add something (at least to my) “internal discussion” about a photographic piece of work (or a piece of music, a painting, whatever). Guys like Craig for example.
Wow, this is amazing paul.
NPR was great, but now they try to hard to be classy and cultured. But I think they’re over doing it.
I have to agree with you. Even though I dont know this guy, I’m glad that he’s doesn’t care about museums and all that jazz. Art doesn’t have more value because its in a museum, it has more value when other people enjoy it.