I spend part of each day searching for fresh art. Swimming in a sea of "the usual" it is difficult to be shocked, amused, or impressed by art in today's world. This weekend I was quite impressed by some digital art I stumbled on and spent a little time researching the artist. This artist has almost nothing concerning a social presence on the internet, which is well and fine. I have a love/hate relationship with social media, so I understand if someone chooses to be without it.
Then I found a brief interview and review of the artist's work. The art is good, don't misunderstand me. It's quite good, compared to its peers, however this article made the artist sound like the next Michelangelo or Da Vinci or Pollock. This person is simply a very good digital artist. As I continued to read the article the writer explains to me how amazing, deep, and complex the artist is. How she is a mystery. She is a "true" artist because her relationship with art is unlike any other artist/art relationship ever. She doesn't make art for profit in any way, so she is a true artist.
My gut reaction is to call "bullshit".
Unless an artist is literally starving to death while making art in the middle of nowhere and none of us are hearing about it because witnessing the art is truly irrelevant...an artist is working for profit. Perhaps their profit is enough money to buy more supplies to make more art. Or maybe they make art to see their loved ones smile. Not only that, why is it a sin in the art world to make money from art? Why do I have to go hungry, not pay bills, and bum off people in order to be a true artist? Do I need an art sugar daddy to patron me while I fart around art all day? That sounds irresponsible.
Some people are fortunate enough to earn a living by creating, or have sufficient enough money to make art without fear of poverty. Most of us do not have this blessing. Plus, making art for a living isn't easy, loving it or not. Art is made with blood, sweat, and lots of tears (and copious amounts of a preferred beverage).
Guess what? The article then explained this holy artist is an illustrator by day and hopes to be selling prints of her art soon. You can imagine my expression after reading that was a cross between Dean Winchester dealing with Sam's sh*t again and Kermit the Frog having a cup of tea.
This idea of art + money = sin came once artists did not have to make art for rich people anymore. Once the camera was invented, as technology made it possible for more people to capture images more easily, the world of art changed and grew. Art could finally be pure expression of whatever you want. Hell, you could drop a piece of cheese on the highway and say it's art, if you wish. This is amazing and awesome and makes me happy. There's no reason to put boundaries on art - once you do, it's dead.
However, some artists have taken to turning their backs on artists who want to sell, calling them sell outs. Like the article I mentioned before, they seem convinced that art is only pure when it is mysterious and not for profit. (Followed by the irony that in fact the pure artist does indeed make money from art.)
I make art for money. I make art just because. I make art for friends and family. At the moment, I have several projects going...two are pet portraits for people I love, some are for profit, and some are for my own amusement. I know other artists living out their creative career the same way. Our art isn't less pure. It's true that my pet portraits and purple skulls are not ground-breaking, mind-altering, game-changing creative pieces...but not all art has to be. Does art have to be only personal expression in order to be art? I didn't finish my degree in art, but I remember that the masters made art for other people. I'm certain the Mona Lisa was a paid piece, as well as the Sistine Chapel. Some art is made for religion! The pyramids are art as well as tombs for god-kings.
Instead of trying to cultivate a world of starving, patron-seeking artists, I wish we would encourage the development of skill and the love of craft. Apprenticeships are dying and old crafts are dying. Don't worry about making "pure" art, as if there is such a thing.
Pick a craft, skill, or hobby. Learn it.
Support artists when you can.
Don't feel guilty about supporting yourself.
That's my two cents.
Then I found a brief interview and review of the artist's work. The art is good, don't misunderstand me. It's quite good, compared to its peers, however this article made the artist sound like the next Michelangelo or Da Vinci or Pollock. This person is simply a very good digital artist. As I continued to read the article the writer explains to me how amazing, deep, and complex the artist is. How she is a mystery. She is a "true" artist because her relationship with art is unlike any other artist/art relationship ever. She doesn't make art for profit in any way, so she is a true artist.
My gut reaction is to call "bullshit".
Unless an artist is literally starving to death while making art in the middle of nowhere and none of us are hearing about it because witnessing the art is truly irrelevant...an artist is working for profit. Perhaps their profit is enough money to buy more supplies to make more art. Or maybe they make art to see their loved ones smile. Not only that, why is it a sin in the art world to make money from art? Why do I have to go hungry, not pay bills, and bum off people in order to be a true artist? Do I need an art sugar daddy to patron me while I fart around art all day? That sounds irresponsible.
Some people are fortunate enough to earn a living by creating, or have sufficient enough money to make art without fear of poverty. Most of us do not have this blessing. Plus, making art for a living isn't easy, loving it or not. Art is made with blood, sweat, and lots of tears (and copious amounts of a preferred beverage).
Guess what? The article then explained this holy artist is an illustrator by day and hopes to be selling prints of her art soon. You can imagine my expression after reading that was a cross between Dean Winchester dealing with Sam's sh*t again and Kermit the Frog having a cup of tea.
This idea of art + money = sin came once artists did not have to make art for rich people anymore. Once the camera was invented, as technology made it possible for more people to capture images more easily, the world of art changed and grew. Art could finally be pure expression of whatever you want. Hell, you could drop a piece of cheese on the highway and say it's art, if you wish. This is amazing and awesome and makes me happy. There's no reason to put boundaries on art - once you do, it's dead.
However, some artists have taken to turning their backs on artists who want to sell, calling them sell outs. Like the article I mentioned before, they seem convinced that art is only pure when it is mysterious and not for profit. (Followed by the irony that in fact the pure artist does indeed make money from art.)
I make art for money. I make art just because. I make art for friends and family. At the moment, I have several projects going...two are pet portraits for people I love, some are for profit, and some are for my own amusement. I know other artists living out their creative career the same way. Our art isn't less pure. It's true that my pet portraits and purple skulls are not ground-breaking, mind-altering, game-changing creative pieces...but not all art has to be. Does art have to be only personal expression in order to be art? I didn't finish my degree in art, but I remember that the masters made art for other people. I'm certain the Mona Lisa was a paid piece, as well as the Sistine Chapel. Some art is made for religion! The pyramids are art as well as tombs for god-kings.
Instead of trying to cultivate a world of starving, patron-seeking artists, I wish we would encourage the development of skill and the love of craft. Apprenticeships are dying and old crafts are dying. Don't worry about making "pure" art, as if there is such a thing.
Pick a craft, skill, or hobby. Learn it.
Support artists when you can.
Don't feel guilty about supporting yourself.
That's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment