I think that its important to note that as a culture - we have more access to art than any time in history. Music, movies, literature is at our reach with unprecedented ease.
This article is not talking about art as a whole, but "The Arts". I'll be playing a tiny violin for them.
True story: I went to the Bangkok Arts and Culture Center in Thailand last year. Showing in prime position was an 'exhibition' about the dangers of counterfeit medicines, sponsored by a major international pharmaceutical syndicate and facilitated by a European consulate. It was mostly composed of art by children in Indonesia on the subject. The whole thing gave me the heeby-jeebies.
This article seems to presuppose that "Art" is some independent entity (from what? All sponsors?) and that corporate sponsorship of art is problematic. Namely, that corporate sponsorship of art either sanitizes the image of morally reprehensible organizations or that the sponsors and the message of the artistic work itself are in conflict.
But, as the article rightfully notices, this is hardly new. It is a partnership that goes back for millenia. So for the author to claim that "the sheer weight of discontent suggests we are reaching a tipping point", it demands fairly convincing evidence. And to this effect, the author is tremendously underwhelming.
The simple truth is that the arts are realized to be important to society (although the specific reasons seem to differ depending on who you talk to) but are incredibly hard justify spending lots of money on "for art's sake". It's similar to the tension that exists in funding very basic science research. Yes, there is the outside possibility that we will generate work (artistic or scientific) that can contribute greatly in a pragmatic sense (i.e. a return on investment) but the great majority of endeavors will probably fall short.
The most convincing arguments for artistic funding are the ones that are being criticized: sending a specific message either indirectly (i.e. Company X supports the arts and is therefore a great humanistic organization) or directly (Company X commissions an artwork about subject Y). And this criticism does seem to stem from the fact, as mentioned in the article, that “Much avant-garde and contemporary art is actively hostile towards capitalism. If an artist who is critiquing corporate power is presented as part of this branded apparatus, the work is being betrayed quite fundamentally.”
But already, this statement suggests a solution. Have the artist retract their work. I suspect this doesn't happen more often both due to the legal complexities in consenting that your art may be shown at an institution, and the fact that it would mean a lot of artists actively shunning exposure on some of the most lucrative stages.
And so ultimately that's the crux of the argument: artists need to be funded to get exposure and survive. If we want them to be truly independent (again, from what? The article seems to cast it in the narrow sense of capitalist influence) then we need to find an alternative way of funding them. FURTHERMORE, and I think this is the truly difficult part, we would have to explicitly prohibit the commissioning of art by these agents.
The reality would be that we would have much less art than we do now, and existing art would be harder to see, too. For example, insurance for masterpieces isn't cheap. That money has to come from somewhere. And if so, you just have a situation where corporations don't commission art - they just ensure it can be displayed.
Lastly, though, and this is what the real logical flaw of the author is, does art truly depend on context? I know that this is the classic post-modern argument, but the emotions that we feel when seeing art are probably quite unique to us. They might be the message the artist is trying to convey, or they may not. Either way, even if the capitalist system wants me to interpret an artwork in a certain way, it doesn't necessarily mean that I will.
I tend to ask this sort of piece to identify clearly "What is your ideal?" (I'd ask the author, but I can't, so asking the piece has to do.) Like so many others, I think that this does a lot of hand wringing but won't answer that question, either because the author hasn't examined it herself, or because on some level they either wouldn't like the answer or wouldn't want it to get out.
Of course the answer will vary from person to person. But rather a lot of artists would, if they answered honestly, seem to want to live in a world in which they are paid string-free money to just Art, and when it comes down to it, that's not realistic, nor is it particularly fair to anybody. I mean, that's great and all. I'd like to be handing string-free money on account of the sheer radiant awesomeness of being me, but that's just not on the agenda here.
It's not as if government money is string-free either... it just so happens that the artists in question like playing the tunes that the artist-funding portion of the government is calling. Which is their right, but makes this whole thing a lot less about the Morality of Artistic Funding and a lot more just grungy money grubbing.
Actually, I think the future is that people are all given string-free money. If you want more money than the baseline, you have to earn it through the market, but I think a decent, livable wage should just be provided to everyone. It would be a net benefit to society as a whole and have very little downside.
"Basic Income" is an entire other problem. No Basic Income proposal I have ever heard will be enough for some of the performance art installations artists will want to build, nor should they be. It is perhaps a solution for musicians (they can burn through dough, sure, but at least equipment tends to last), or artists of more modest goals, but it is not a generic solution to the funding problem.
7 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 25.6 ms ] threadThis article is not talking about art as a whole, but "The Arts". I'll be playing a tiny violin for them.
But, as the article rightfully notices, this is hardly new. It is a partnership that goes back for millenia. So for the author to claim that "the sheer weight of discontent suggests we are reaching a tipping point", it demands fairly convincing evidence. And to this effect, the author is tremendously underwhelming.
The simple truth is that the arts are realized to be important to society (although the specific reasons seem to differ depending on who you talk to) but are incredibly hard justify spending lots of money on "for art's sake". It's similar to the tension that exists in funding very basic science research. Yes, there is the outside possibility that we will generate work (artistic or scientific) that can contribute greatly in a pragmatic sense (i.e. a return on investment) but the great majority of endeavors will probably fall short.
The most convincing arguments for artistic funding are the ones that are being criticized: sending a specific message either indirectly (i.e. Company X supports the arts and is therefore a great humanistic organization) or directly (Company X commissions an artwork about subject Y). And this criticism does seem to stem from the fact, as mentioned in the article, that “Much avant-garde and contemporary art is actively hostile towards capitalism. If an artist who is critiquing corporate power is presented as part of this branded apparatus, the work is being betrayed quite fundamentally.”
But already, this statement suggests a solution. Have the artist retract their work. I suspect this doesn't happen more often both due to the legal complexities in consenting that your art may be shown at an institution, and the fact that it would mean a lot of artists actively shunning exposure on some of the most lucrative stages.
And so ultimately that's the crux of the argument: artists need to be funded to get exposure and survive. If we want them to be truly independent (again, from what? The article seems to cast it in the narrow sense of capitalist influence) then we need to find an alternative way of funding them. FURTHERMORE, and I think this is the truly difficult part, we would have to explicitly prohibit the commissioning of art by these agents.
The reality would be that we would have much less art than we do now, and existing art would be harder to see, too. For example, insurance for masterpieces isn't cheap. That money has to come from somewhere. And if so, you just have a situation where corporations don't commission art - they just ensure it can be displayed.
Lastly, though, and this is what the real logical flaw of the author is, does art truly depend on context? I know that this is the classic post-modern argument, but the emotions that we feel when seeing art are probably quite unique to us. They might be the message the artist is trying to convey, or they may not. Either way, even if the capitalist system wants me to interpret an artwork in a certain way, it doesn't necessarily mean that I will.
Of course the answer will vary from person to person. But rather a lot of artists would, if they answered honestly, seem to want to live in a world in which they are paid string-free money to just Art, and when it comes down to it, that's not realistic, nor is it particularly fair to anybody. I mean, that's great and all. I'd like to be handing string-free money on account of the sheer radiant awesomeness of being me, but that's just not on the agenda here.
It's not as if government money is string-free either... it just so happens that the artists in question like playing the tunes that the artist-funding portion of the government is calling. Which is their right, but makes this whole thing a lot less about the Morality of Artistic Funding and a lot more just grungy money grubbing.
why don't they do their own ice bucket challenge or something to raise their own funds if they're not happy with their current sponsors?