Art?

[year_x]

Boab referenced this article and it enraged him because the central idea is that Damien Hirst creates 'art', and Banksy doesn't. My feelings on what is 'art' are fairly well trodden in my mind, as it's something I return to often. However, I'm not sure if I've ever put it out there in it's pure form. I'm normally allying it to my thoughts about

Comments

[llamarines]

Yes, I'm clearly massively inconsistent when it comes to my differing viewpoints on music and art, and I know I'm hugely pretentious when I start talking about stuff I care a lot about. When it comes to music, I love ramshackle noise, I love stuff played with passion by people who don't give a fuck for keeping strongly in time or even in tune (us, prime example) and all that - but when it comes to art, I can't stand stuff made by people made with no technical skill. I realise it's almost doublethink - holding two logically inconsistent views simultaneously and yet believing them both, but what can you do?

As to the modern artist in the small galleries idea - I was asking you if you think the money aspect affects that, because you say it does with music. You know fine well I don't care whether a band are huge or not and whether they make loads of money or not, but you do - so I was asking from your point of view whether you thought not whether his work is art (of course it is, if you accept your viewpoint that the message and not the media is important) but whether it is as valid or not.

Also, wearing clothes you find in the street (as long as you wash them) is the most awesome thing you can do! It's like found art freeganism but with clothes!

[llamarines]

Another thing - you're right, some of my favourite bands are some of the most pretentious ones to have ever existed

I mean honestly... Godspeed You! Black Emperor?

[year_x]

Money weakens the legitimacy of art no matter the medium. It unduly colours the creative process. It does not mean that well paid artists cannot create true, legitimate art. But it means it is less likely.

I'm constantly guilty of doublethink. It's discussions like this that bring it to the surface, and forces me to confront it. Though a lot of the time I come to the same conclusion as you - what can you do?

[year_x]

It's the link of gaining money in return for popular production. If your material wellbeing is linked to your art selling there will be undue pressure on the artist to produce what will sell, as opposed to what is pure creativity. Having or not having money doesn't matter in that regard. But gaining money in exchange for art devalues the art.

I'm of the opinion that poor artists produce better stuff because the emotions they are feeling are heightened by their situation. In the same way that better punk music was produced in America under right-wing presidents than under democratic ones. Thats totally a difficult one to prove though. It's more of a gut feeling/anecdotal observation

[year_x]

money is representative of 'market value'. I don't think it is representative of any other type of value at all. In fact it is often misleading as to something's aesthetic value. I think anything being exchanged for art devalues it, as it sways the producers intention away from producing for it's own sake, and producing to gain something.

talking property and construction: the inevitable place of money in the generation of architecture is one of the unique aspects of the art form which make it so interesting, and places pressures on it not present in other types of art.

I agree with your summation of my views regarding poverty and art.

When I said right-wing I did mean pro-free market. A free market tends to create more extremes of wealth, therefore more people with a sense of unjustness, so willing to express themselves. This creates more artists.

I agree that some freedom and 'comfort' is necessary to be an artist, so yes, absolute lack of freedom and time does not create good art. But surely the intensity of battling and struggle creates fiercer, more powerful emotions than the middle-class suffering used by Virginia Wolf etc

Money and art

[year_x]

Theres three points there, so I'll split the replies, if that is OK.

I don't think that gaining materially in exchange for art changes people's emotions. I think it may change, even subtly, all aspects of the art in order to sell more. And that isn't to be looked down on. But I think it is pretty undeniable. The probability of a human being wanting a more comfortable life is fairly high. It is unfair to expect a person not to change their creative output in order for their children to eat, to pay the rent etc

I think that when we are talking about the selection of the creation of art to get the most people to purchase it, it will invariably centre on the middle ground. You may well find a niche market for those who like to hear songs about rape. You can even become the foremost artist on rape. But you will still sell more songs about a subject more people can relate to and less are scared of. Art becomes market driven and the choice of the artist suffers. Since art exists as self expression, this then weakens the validity of the art.

[year_x]

I mean the Free Market, not 'free market'. To me it means everything being driven by market forces of supply and demand. So if there is no a small supply of health care professionals, and a large demand for them, the price of health care is un-affordable by the common man.

Equally, I suppose I see the free market being combined with the worker being divested of ownership of the means of production.

I agree that complete state ownership is a bad thing. There needs to be a balance. I'd say that more socialist countries have this balance better than the US.

a Free Market without enough restraint tends to come about through governments with less interest in welfare provision, as they see less need for it due to the ability of the free market to provide for all. However this presupposes everyone is similarly able to profit from money driven markets, which I don't believe is true. So some fail to make money through no fault of their own. This combination leads to the wealth gap I outlined.

[year_x]

I see what you say about the passion and struggle producing only one type of expression. I think you discredit the inventiveness of those with nothing left. I think the communication of desperation can be subtle and muted. I think it often is more likely to come about if the artist has had some training. But one of the most magical types of art is that which comes from purely the human need to express oneself. I think some of the best art visual is a scrawl, some of the best art sound a yell. Everything else in the spectrum can be equally valid, provoking and amazing. I suppose it's down to taste.

At this point I think we just get onto our aesthetic tastes, which are harder to prove 'right' or 'wrong'.