Hi Isabel;
I'd rather have been a poor Van Gogh than a wealthy collector who never
knew what it felt like to paint like that.
But that's me.
-Joel
On 9/6/2014 6:05 PM, isabel brison wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
