I think commodity is one layer and art another layer of the same thing.
There is art and there is commodity at the same time. there is art and
there is collecting, they exist as separate entities but since they are
so often interlinked it is easy to get confused about that. An artist
makes art. Afterward the art object is commodified. Commodification is a
continuos activity that happens to everything from dirt to ideas. That
artists who are able take that fact into account is merely logical. At a
certain point, if someone like david, as an example, becomes important
to enough people, things of his will become commodities even if he has a
complete disdain for any commercial use of his material and, even if no
commercial value is ever attached to it among interested collectors,
then it will be collected purely for the emotional attachment those
interested in david have in owning a letter or a book or an old shoe of
david's even if it is only his mother! So commodification, no matter
what, is a basic fact of life so long as human beings hold anything as
being important or beloved.
cecil
Jennifer Brunetti wrote:
>
> >
> > DADA ART AND ANTI-ART by Hans Richter--
> > the best book there is on this and the most profound movement concerned
> > with it--
> Thank you David. I'm going to go get this book today.
> > but your are right on the money to use a bizarre turn of phrase--
> > the commodity--
> > versus art--
> > that is so true--
> My question to you is, do you think this is an absolute?
>
> > she had seen works of mine at a mail art show there and wanted to
> > correspond--
> I live in NYC. Is there is a place to see your work here?
>
> > do you do mail art?
> I haven't yet, but am quite interested. I have been lurking in the shadows
> for too long.
>
> Jennifer
