Why is money never (or rarely) portrayed, depicted, written or sung about in artistic works?
Granted, money and wealth are implicit in many visual works of art, both in the materials (gold leaf, e.g.) and in the subject matter (fancy furs and jewelry). But why is something so important to human life as the wherewithal to control ones surroundings--which is what money enables and is the *only* purpose of accumulating it--not addressed directly, except in a few incidental works? Berg goes on an on about the corruption of art by money. Many dramas have portrayed the effects and influence of money (and almost all of those effects were deleterious). Why is there not a vast repertoire of "money songs" as there are of "love songs"? There are even more works in the category of martial music than money music. There is sex all over the place and various kinds of human love. There are genres of heroic sacrifice, of perseverance, of relaxation and activity, industry and idleness. There are songs and poems to many things, but very few to money. Let me modify my opening sentence. The painters of the Flemish Renaissance depicted affluent and well-off burghers and their possessions, proudly showing such attributes. Much earlier, Abbot Suger and others extolled the virtue of producing luxurious objects for God's glory. And until the mid-19th century, art was supported by wealthy patrons who often wanted to display their wealth or status with fine paintings, including portraits. But in any event, there is no developed genre of artistic representations in all art forms of wealth, per se. At least, I can't recall enough examples to mind to form the basis of such a genre. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
