Oh, I agree it's sad, especially that Van Gogh didn't get to see any of the bucketloads of money people are making off his work nowadays - but he made his choices, and one can only hope he was happy with them.
I wouldn't ask anyone to sacrifice their health and happiness for the sake of making good art; Van Gogh's poverty certainly did nothing to defeat capitalism. If we go on thinking it's somehow noble to work in miserable conditions, the only thing that's going to happen - that already happens - is the big guys at the top of the art food chain get a lot of really cheap labour, and become filthy rich at our expense. That said, I have a day job to support my art habit, and wouldn't think of giving it up :-) On 7 September 2014 10:22, Joel Weishaus <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Isabel; > > But isn't it sad, in view of the sacrifices past artists were willing to > make, at least when they were young, as with Picasso, and many more. Or to > risk remaining poor all their life, as with Van Gogh, and many more. > I guess I'm still a romantic, having lived through the 60s. But perhaps > artists still need to make some sacrifices to save art from the snarling > beasts of capitalism. After all, artists are given the divine madness of > creativity. I don't expect anyone to live the way I did. But it was a grand > time of friendships and bodhisattvas who appeared from nowhere to lend a > helping hand. No applications needed! > > -Joel > > > On 9/6/2014 4:57 PM, isabel brison wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > It's interesting you give Duchamp as an example, as I think with him the > story could easily be put the other way round: the recognition he achieved > and the ability to ingeniously support himself through his art - using the > Large Glass for rent or paying his dentist with a hand painted cheque - > allowed him to experiment, fool around at his leisure, and eventually come > up with a body of work that is impossible to ingore in the extent of its > influence over subsequent art practice, whether you love it or hate it. > > On the other hand, I expect there will always be artists, as there will > always be businesspeople everywhere, trying to give the market what it > wants in order to make a profit, but that's really up to them - and I don't > think starving them would make them better artists; they'd probably just > give up and get a better paying job elsewhere :-) > > > On 7 September 2014 08:59, Joel Weishaus <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Isabel; >> >> You're right to call me on this. >> >> What I had in mind is that awards (I mean by this "blue ribbons") tend to >> make some artists think that they can get away with whatever they make as >> long as they sign it. (Duchamp). >> I shouldn't have included grants. However, with rising prices, only the >> strongest, or maddest, artists will give the collectors what they don't >> want. >> >> I would agree with you that "good artists don't have to eat," if you add >> "so much, especially Americans." >> >> Smiles to you, >> Joel >> >> >> On 9/6/2014 3:25 PM, isabel brison wrote: >> >> >> > >> > As for the canon, the best work that enters it is only after the artist >> is dead and the dust has settled. So that the artist-at-work isn't tainted >> by rising prices, grants or prizes. >> >> Good job artists don't need to eat, or we'd _really_ be in trouble. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> N >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- http://isabelbrison.com http://tellthemachines.com
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
