Heard an interview on an XM station with a country artist and songwriter a few minutes ago. Sadly, I have no idea who it was because I didn't stick around that long and jumped in during the middle, but the lady had a nice way of putting the struggle that artists face when trying to make a living at art. Three simple words: Art versus commerce.What she was referring to was the fact that artists must often try to decide between doing something they find rewarding and doing something they think others will find rewarding enough to purchase. Fortunately for me I have no artistic ability so I don't have any such struggles, but I can sympathize with those that do.
But this leads me to a small rant, and that is the association here between art versus commerce and government spending on art. Government spending on art? That's right, the government buys art, and in increasingly large dollar amounts. Many cities now have ordinances requiring all large building projects include some percentage in their budgets for art. Like in Charlotte, NC, they apparently had to spend some percentage of the money that went to the new light rail system on art. That system cost quite a bit of money, so they had to spend quite a bit on art. Problem here is there's no process for how to find good art. But what's worse than that is that even if there is a process, it's likely to never be met with much popular appeal. Why? Because while most people like spending some amount of money on art they like, most people also don't like being forced to spend money on art even if it DID happen to be something they like. And I think most people see government spending on art as forced spending of THEIR hard earned tax dollars on something they probably wouldn't ever buy themselves.
So what is one to do? Not allow the government to spend money on art? Seems like a bit of a stretch there since one could consider any architecture style past "brutally basic" to be a form of art. Plus we need to be able to decorate our governor's mansions and have some pictures on the wall in our government buildings. But at the same time, I wonder about policies that force artwork into places where it probably just isn't going to be very welcome, like along a rail line. Nice landscaping is one thing, but trying to please most people with a big expensive piece of artwork is a recipe for disaster, I think.
Outside of the rant, I just found the art versus commerce line to be a very interesting one. Artists are obviously welcome to just do what they like and worry about money in some other way. And many artists not only choose but quite enjoy trying to find something that the masses will love enough to buy. There's nothing inherently wrong about either tact. It is fun to try to decode particular artists motives sometimes, however. The term "sell out" comes to mind...
7 comments:
If the government wants art along a rail line, they should just do what I do and open their minds. Graffiti is art!
Good point! NCSU has what they've always called the "free expression tunnel." There are three or four tunnels under the train tracks that go through campus, and they figured out a long time ago that the best way to discourage graffiti everywhere was to allow it somewhere. So one of those tunnels has it allowed.
Unfortunately, most of what's there is advertising for various student groups, but occasionally someone would do something pretty awesome. Then a few days later it was something else. That was part of what was cool about it, though...it was something different VERY regularly.
Ouch! Are we sell outs? Most states have a "1% for art program" that does indeed set aside $ for public art. I get a list of "calls for artists" online as such needs for government supported art arises. Basically, the call tells you what the budjet is, what the scope of the project is, and when they need it. You then, submit a proposal, resume, and portfolio of work to the committee. Usually 2 or 3 artists are selected to then make their more detailed proposals available for the public to view and then a decision is made. Most of the art in the public was purchased this way, unless it was a gift from a donor or the artist himself. I personally love random art sightings. It makes bus stops, light rails, and parks just a little more interesting.
Well, I definitely shouldn't have said "there's no process." I'm sure there is. The problem is there's no process that's likely to satisfy everyone. And the really bad situation is when a project is budgeted for $200M and ends up $2B. And then because of the ordinance they have to spend 1% of $2B instead of $200M. Yes, that's the scale we're talking about with my light rail example in Charlotte.
The plan had very little room for a lot of art, so they ended up just buying VERY expensive art. That not many people seem to like. And it looks very out of place where it is. So it ended up being a very poorly thought out setup that was insanely expensive. People get ill over that pretty quick.
I don't think anyone would claim the work or the price for what Beechwood does is in any way analogous to my example, so no, I wasn't ranting about YOU guys. :-) And I certainly wasn't calling ANYONE a "sell out" in that last part...but we've all seen some artists (usually music types) we'd consider some kind of "sell out." Why? They did one type of music until they got known and then switched to something totally different to appeal to the masses. That's the kind of thing I was referring to. And just generally stimulating discussion. :-)
I do agree that the government should spend money on art, too. The how and whys need to be done well, however, and that's not the case in all places...
ok, forgiven! Besides any good blog needs some solid back and forth discussions in the comment section. Just trying to help you out ;)
Don't you have something to go paint?
;-)
watch it buddy...
Post a Comment