KVT – Thoughts while riding a motor bike along country roads

Art as Statement / Can Art Change the World?

and that

Artists tend to be the meanest art critics

I’ve heard some derogatory comments recently from some local artists about their artistic colleagues who only make art for ‘the money’. The implication is, I guess, that are selling their souls to the god Mammon.

Well I guess if you’ve got another source of income, or are supported by a wealthy or devoted family or by a working spouse you can make art specifically to supply the world with statements about all sorts of meaningful things… but I’ve yet to meet an artist, anywhere whose primary intent is not to become famous and, thereby, a little – or a lot – richer.

If you’re lucky enough to get a grant from a sponsoring organization then of course you can put the need to make money aside for a while and make art with ‘a purpose’. If you find a patron who believes in your talent and provides you with a working income to produce art, then you can be in purposeful heaven.

And if you can make art that makes a strong, personal statement and sells then you’re one of the lucky ones.

Art as statement always seems a very artistic conceit. I mean, who but those committed to a particular artist’s point of view are going to be impressed by whatever barrow is being pushed? The rest of the viewing populace just says ho hum about the didacticism and appreciates it as good or mediocre or bad art.

Surely good art is good art regardless of what it is supposed to be saying and bad art that makes a really strong statement is still only bad art. So, if an artist makes good art that sells or adds to their future reputation as a saleable artist, then surely only the surly can complain.

Good commercial galleries, of course, have to sell good art to stay in business and they will sometimes promote conceits to make particular artists’ work desirable (art as having a spiritual entity being one that gives me the giggles). The viewing or buying public has to sort the hay from the chaff or be willing to be led by the nose by appointed experts.

Going back to my initial statement that artists make the meanest critics… one of the most fatuous comments heard so far this year was that a particular piece of art was ‘too beautiful to be good art’.

All of the above leads on to the important question… what is GOOD art and who decides?… any takers?… Or is GOOD art like BEAUTY and in the eye of the beholder?