Art and Money
Is it possible to live off art? I cannot. Am I doing something
wrong? I don't not think so. I am rather fit, also as an entrepreneur.
But I do see art as an expression, as an intimate dialogue with
myself, and refuse to obey the public's taste.
This situation is naturally frustrating, especially since in our
society "success" is equivalent with "financial
success". Of course there are artists, who are able to make
a living off their activities, a fact that specially this year
made me ask myself repeatedly if I am doing something wrong...
Art and Money I: Approaches
I am doing free art (1) - and therewith stand in the tradition
of all those artists, who in the past took leave of their direct
clients.
Interesting enough that today many creep back into the warm niches
of "usefulness" and work as (portrait-)painters, art
teachers or - quite newly - develop mainstream-projects in order
to receive public grants.
Art patronage and cultural sponsoring
Art patronage - be it private or public - is very seductive and
it often starts with a call for entries to an exhibition: there
is
a given
subject,
a
socially
(or to the sponsor) interesting context, and one is invited to produce
a work of art in response to the question.
Yes, I also should be able to do that. It is somehow similar to
school when one wrote an essay full of theses one did not really
support, however that proved to be the ones the teacher wanted
to read. The student's gain: an excellent grade, the artist's:
a sponsorship.
During school this system still worked for me, however now, as
an artist, I am less and less capable to follow it. I became
an artist because I wanted absolute freedom, the white piece of
paper
that
I could form exactly to my vision - without any consideration of
third party interests.
Very often in this kind of projects the organizational expense
stands in no relation to the artistic action: while the art work
is achieved in a few afternoons, applications, search for sponsors,
program development require weeks and months. Am I the only one
noting this discrepancy? Sometimes I almost believe... in the emperor's
new dresses...
Nevertheless many a colleagues build their business on exactly
that: writing grants. Nevertheless: who makes an exact calculation
regarding the effort in writing a grant - and upon competition
of the project a report - will find that he/she ends up with a
salary far below minimum wages. This is why, for me at least, it
is not alternative at all. Especially since I did not start
out as an artist to busy myself with subjects that are "en
vogue", however only peripherally of my interest.
Art and Money II: Rejections
"I would rather dislike to have to paint a painting for a
customer, but rather should the customer buy my art."
(from
a web forum)
An interesting question: which artist would continue to make his/her
(artistic) statement, even if he/she risked punishment? Or let
me put it differently: what has he/she actually
to say - and how important is this statement for him/her?
I believe all of a sudden a lot of "art" would disappear.
Nobody will risk his/her neck for hot air. The only test of truthfulness
we have today (in the comparison to p. ex. the work ban because
of "degeneracy" during
the Nazi-regime) is: deprivation of praise and money. Maybe this
is today's veracity audit: will someone remain with his/her
(artistic) statement, also if he/she is ignored for that - possibly
until death?
Art and Money III: Seeing Things More Clearly
Art is: to have something to say. Art is: to say something. I
recall the discussion I once had in the cafeteria of the Art
Students League: about what was the "problem" with
a painting. To paint it, or rather: to sell it? - "To paint
it!" was
my answer - and my argumentation (1994):
"For otherwise the only problem for a brain surgeon would be to
find patients - and the
job itself."
And yet another thing I understood in the meantime: if I
develop my art independently and finance it without any external
aid
- and therefore create truly free art (1) - I cannot give out my
paintings (as the only tangible expression of my art which for
me by itself
is immaterial) out
to the public free of charge - or even worse: at my expense. I
am an artist and
not a cultural sponsor.
This is why, at the moment, I paint directly for the warehouse
and/or for customers who rent or buy. Public exhibitions are fun,
however usually require huge efforts and also cause high costs.
Unfortunately
it
only rarely generates income (read
more).
Art itself is surely no luxury -
artistic self-promotion in form of exhibition however is :-)
(1) When writing this text I used the term "free art" twice.
To my surprise this is an expression defined in Wikipedia
Personally, I find the Creative
Commons concept (http://creativecommons.org) very interesting. This is how I see the content of this web site:
as by-nc-nd.
|
