I loved this post—and how you unpick the strange, vague phrase "support the arts" and how it reveals an (assumed) separation between The Arts, as in art that belongs in a museum/gallery/hermetically sealed and separate cultural sphere…and Life, which is the space we inhabit and exist in.
This, in particular, really resonated:
"[T]o look around the world is to notice that most people spend most of their free time and money searching for better art…And if you’re willing to broaden the definition of art just a bit more—which you certainly should do—then you can’t help but notice, too, that nearly everyone wants tables and lamps and gadgets with the most appealing designs, that nearly everyone takes care in the clothes that they select or in the shade they paint their walls, and that all of these decisions aren’t really supplementary to some core, underlying decision that’s empirical and cold, with the aesthetic decision only a secondary, incidental thought. Even the tedious people who state an indifference to architecture end up appreciating when a building or street is organized just right, the invisible figure in the background busy with the art that supports life."
I enjoyed reading this and your words do find a way to captivate me. I'm still growing, trying to figure out my way in the life of "fine arts" and this piece gave me a lot of ponder about. I am one that's too shy to put a price on my art. I have been forcing my way out of that however. Anyways, I enjoyed this and like always, thank you! I'm glad to be one who reads your words.
I often observe the virtue signaling you describe, Charles. People who binge the latest Netflix series, but gripe about their subscription cost. Or folks in a Carmel art gallery who fall in love with a painting, but then haggle over the price. The posers carry "Support the arts" handbags, but authentic art aficionados quietly collect their favorite art, pay for symphony seats, buy literature, and delight daily in aesthetic splendors for their homes, attire, and creative expression.
"Oil companies only advertise .. after some horrific environmental disaster, just as pharmaceutical companies only advertise .. after some ghastly fiasco."
Good news! The horrific disaster and ghastly fiasco already exists: It's day-to-day culture in 2024. Any artistic work that honestly addresses the crapshow of postmodern Western life should sell itself. Big Oil money (or Big Anything money) would make the difference, creating an exciting groundswell of new art.
As I read this, I thought of the art that supports me in my life and the art I try to make when I sit down ever day to work on my next novel. I also remember the difficult and valuable discussions I had with my ex -pharmaceutical executive husband when the publisher for my first novel seemed to be missing opportunities to make sure the book found its readers. Yes,specificity is important. It's essential in creating value.. it would be interesting to see a tote bag printed with "I support (insert name of artist).
I was with you until the end, with the oil and cigarette and whatever executives taking up the marketing campaigns. These people take over things like Hollywood studios and newspapers and 'council for the arts' committees all the time, it's not rare. The results are usually 'test-audience' (back in the day) or algo-derived (these days) written-by-committee safe and inoffensive bullshit that everyone writes off as a artists' general elitist detachment from the concerns of everyday people rather than capital and marketing filing off all the meaningful bits.
It's a difficult ask to expect an artist to be both great at their craft and also great at running a business and marketing themselves. Few thread those three disparate skills well and that is one of many reasons why the art world has a very high and thin Pareto curve. There is something to be said about looking into how to develop a better infrastructure for marketing art, including matching artists to marketers.
Love the rest of the post though. I'm usually in a position of lecturing my artist friends to charge more and stop working for free, while getting exasperated with audiences that consume literal terabytes worth of movies and music and design and craft for next to no money but then ask why anyone would become an artist if it doesn't pay anything. For the most part there's more of a market than people understand, but both artists' and audiences' incentives are almost always sucked into the black hole called convenience that never lets the actual data or pricing mechanisms emit out of the event horizon. It's a very difficult discussion that means many different things to many different people.
I loved this post—and how you unpick the strange, vague phrase "support the arts" and how it reveals an (assumed) separation between The Arts, as in art that belongs in a museum/gallery/hermetically sealed and separate cultural sphere…and Life, which is the space we inhabit and exist in.
This, in particular, really resonated:
"[T]o look around the world is to notice that most people spend most of their free time and money searching for better art…And if you’re willing to broaden the definition of art just a bit more—which you certainly should do—then you can’t help but notice, too, that nearly everyone wants tables and lamps and gadgets with the most appealing designs, that nearly everyone takes care in the clothes that they select or in the shade they paint their walls, and that all of these decisions aren’t really supplementary to some core, underlying decision that’s empirical and cold, with the aesthetic decision only a secondary, incidental thought. Even the tedious people who state an indifference to architecture end up appreciating when a building or street is organized just right, the invisible figure in the background busy with the art that supports life."
I enjoyed reading this and your words do find a way to captivate me. I'm still growing, trying to figure out my way in the life of "fine arts" and this piece gave me a lot of ponder about. I am one that's too shy to put a price on my art. I have been forcing my way out of that however. Anyways, I enjoyed this and like always, thank you! I'm glad to be one who reads your words.
I often observe the virtue signaling you describe, Charles. People who binge the latest Netflix series, but gripe about their subscription cost. Or folks in a Carmel art gallery who fall in love with a painting, but then haggle over the price. The posers carry "Support the arts" handbags, but authentic art aficionados quietly collect their favorite art, pay for symphony seats, buy literature, and delight daily in aesthetic splendors for their homes, attire, and creative expression.
"Oil companies only advertise .. after some horrific environmental disaster, just as pharmaceutical companies only advertise .. after some ghastly fiasco."
Good news! The horrific disaster and ghastly fiasco already exists: It's day-to-day culture in 2024. Any artistic work that honestly addresses the crapshow of postmodern Western life should sell itself. Big Oil money (or Big Anything money) would make the difference, creating an exciting groundswell of new art.
As I read this, I thought of the art that supports me in my life and the art I try to make when I sit down ever day to work on my next novel. I also remember the difficult and valuable discussions I had with my ex -pharmaceutical executive husband when the publisher for my first novel seemed to be missing opportunities to make sure the book found its readers. Yes,specificity is important. It's essential in creating value.. it would be interesting to see a tote bag printed with "I support (insert name of artist).
I was with you until the end, with the oil and cigarette and whatever executives taking up the marketing campaigns. These people take over things like Hollywood studios and newspapers and 'council for the arts' committees all the time, it's not rare. The results are usually 'test-audience' (back in the day) or algo-derived (these days) written-by-committee safe and inoffensive bullshit that everyone writes off as a artists' general elitist detachment from the concerns of everyday people rather than capital and marketing filing off all the meaningful bits.
It's a difficult ask to expect an artist to be both great at their craft and also great at running a business and marketing themselves. Few thread those three disparate skills well and that is one of many reasons why the art world has a very high and thin Pareto curve. There is something to be said about looking into how to develop a better infrastructure for marketing art, including matching artists to marketers.
Love the rest of the post though. I'm usually in a position of lecturing my artist friends to charge more and stop working for free, while getting exasperated with audiences that consume literal terabytes worth of movies and music and design and craft for next to no money but then ask why anyone would become an artist if it doesn't pay anything. For the most part there's more of a market than people understand, but both artists' and audiences' incentives are almost always sucked into the black hole called convenience that never lets the actual data or pricing mechanisms emit out of the event horizon. It's a very difficult discussion that means many different things to many different people.