Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9
I think The System (TM) often neuters "art" to make it palatable to a larger audience. More sweet syrup for the masses, ya know.
|
I've always looked at it the other way around: so-called artists will neuter their art to fit into the system.
I look at art as more than just art vs. trash; I see art as having degrees. Art generally can be considered "something created." I think that's fair in many cases. However, those who seek a market when creating vs. those who create for the sake of the creation will probably yield different results. Let's compare David Foster Wallace with Dan Brown---okay, let's not.
That said, capitalism implies the use of material wealth for ownership and production. A lot of art is generated within that. But what makes the art marketable depends on how demand is generated and how it naturally comes to be. Art industries can be brutal to the artist; they usually are.
It is always viewed as a high-risk venture to say you want to create art for a living. The failure rate could possibly be worse than that of small-business startups. In many ways, they're essentially the same thing...just a different set of perspectives regarding product and markets.
But professional artists are made and spayed by the markets. To be a professional artist, you have to have a strong business sense (or at least pay someone who does). There's no way around it.
However, in more socialized countries, arts may have more public support financially.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slims
Art can easily coexist with Capitalism provided artists produce work worth purchasing.
Unfortunately that rarely happens these days as most of the 'art' I see could be produced by a child.
|
This only seems to work if most of what you see as "art" is expressionist painting. Did you have other things in mind?
Regardless, I haven't found many children's paintings to be that good.