Art as Commodity
Jack White has an article titled "What Is Selling These Days?" in the January issue of Art Calendar magazine. In it he advises artists who want to sell their work to pay attention to the market and create art that people will want to buy. It makes sense, doesn't it? If you want to sell something, you have to have a product that people want to buy. But there's something about it that bothers me.
It bothers me when art is treated like any other commodity. I would like to think that art is more than that -- more than something to be bought and sold. Most art is very personal -- one person's unique view of the world. How can that be altered to suit the market?
And who goes into art thinking that they're going to make a lot of money, anyway? Yes, it's nice to be able to make a living from sales of your work, but it's not the best method of making money. Most artists are artists because it's a calling. They have a need to create. Of course they also have a need to eat, and it would be great if they could make a living doing what they love to do.
I know I definitely pay attention to trends, and modify my work accordingly. If a gallery tells me that red and green are hot right now, I put more red and green in my paintings. Is this a form of prostitution? Perhaps, but like everyone else, I have to make a living.
Maybe there should be a separation between art created to make money and art created with no other purpose than to express something. What do you think?
It bothers me when art is treated like any other commodity. I would like to think that art is more than that -- more than something to be bought and sold. Most art is very personal -- one person's unique view of the world. How can that be altered to suit the market?
And who goes into art thinking that they're going to make a lot of money, anyway? Yes, it's nice to be able to make a living from sales of your work, but it's not the best method of making money. Most artists are artists because it's a calling. They have a need to create. Of course they also have a need to eat, and it would be great if they could make a living doing what they love to do.
I know I definitely pay attention to trends, and modify my work accordingly. If a gallery tells me that red and green are hot right now, I put more red and green in my paintings. Is this a form of prostitution? Perhaps, but like everyone else, I have to make a living.
Maybe there should be a separation between art created to make money and art created with no other purpose than to express something. What do you think?
posted by Cassandra at 8:18 AM
3 Comments:
Hi Cassandra,
Interesting topic. I don't believe that you are selling out, unless, of course, your soul is crying out to be expressed in yellow and purple and you only paint in red and green to suit the marketplace. I believe that ultimnately every transaction must benefit every person involved and that in the long term people are interested in artwork that is an authentic expression. Yesterdays hot trends simply fall to the wayside.
Hi Katherine! Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Yes, I think you're right about the long term. The work that survives for hundreds of years is probably the work that is the most authentic. But in the short term, one has to make a living (or not, as the case may be), and people are buying reds and greens, or whatever the current trends are. The only way I've found to deal with it is to have two bodies of work going simultaneuosly -- one to sell, and one for myself. It's like having three full-time jobs: making the body of work to sell, marketing the body of work to sell, and making the body of work just for myself! And when time gets tight, guess which one falls by the wayside!
Hi Cassandra,
I hear you. I think a lot of artists have more than one body of work going on at a time. I imagine that you'll find a market for the work you want to make the most and then you can quit one of those pesky full time jobs. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home