THE MONEY OF ART

By Gabriel Thy • Art Theory, Artist, Money In The Arts, Paradox • 16 Feb 2012
Virginia Morning Mist

It's all mist to me...

I FOUND THIS SNIPPET SOMEWHERE now lost to me, but I thought it interesting enough to warrant a few words of my own in response…

Andy Warhol lied, because we also know that just because IT sells doesn’t make IT art but just another commodity.
Q: Let’s briefly sputter along an age old question, but tack on a twist. After all, these are post-modern, post-representative, post-conceptual times in which we supposedly live and operate as art makers and art consumers. Given that politics has been summed up of late as the division of money from its rightful owners, and art is now a division of politics, where does a thinking man stand in a refusal to cower so as not to offend or admonish the powers that be who are bringing us all this post-rational change? And now that all the lines have been effectively blurred between high art and low art, commercial art and psychological art, conversational art and repugnant art, have we finally reached the final frontier of truth when we ask…

Frankly, what is art without money?

GT: We already presume to know what money is without art. But even that line is blurred beyond ordinary recognition nowadays.

They say, that is to say, those who make and break the rules for the rest of us, say one should not bother with art if one is just doing it for the tawdry money at the end of the day. They also say that one should treat one’s art like a business. The venerable idea that if one wholly embraces his own creative impulse, support for that passion will naturally follow is another fine aphorism which is just plain false. Andy Warhol lied, because we also know that just because IT sells doesn’t make IT art but just another commodity.

Tags: , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: