Art And Capitalism Don't Mix

https://nique.net/opinions/2021/03/13/art-under-capitalism/ ^

[cgbg]

This reminds me of the required wedding present from the state for Germans in the late 1930s—Adolph’s book.

There was no saving you if you publicly stated it was poorly written—or if you refused to keep the book in a prominent place on your book shelf.

;-)

[scottiemom]

Reread what I posted. Art as in fine art is separate from performance art. Did I sound resentful? Hope not. My intent was to express gratitude for work that kept me able to feed me,clothed me and sheltered me and allowed me to do art as the desire of my heart. I am surprised you feel all artists are annoyed and unhappy.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I would argue that artists are profoundly exploited.

And you would be full of BS.

[SaxxonWoods]

Good for your friend. There are a lot of pretenders in that business.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "She apparently expects people to buy art that they don't like."

In small part, this explains: New £1.48million taxpayer funded fountain in Vienna revealed and it's hysterical Express UK, 31 October 2023.

But my favorite is in the Tate in London: Piero Manzoni - Artist's Shit - 1961

Wonder how much of her tuition is being paid on a loan she'll expect working class rubes to pay back some day?

[SaxxonWoods]

“I would argue that artists are profoundly exploited.
And you would be full of BS.”

Self-exploited.

[dfwgator]

You want to be an artist? Go paint my fence.

[Flatus I. Maximus]

> The MFA is notorious for being particularly useless.

Actually, I’ve found it tremendously useful. If a job applicant lists having an MFA on their resume, their application goes straight into the trash.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Lacking in talent and drive.

Yes, there were artists who were not appreciated in their time that we now think were brilliant but they were the minority. A very tiny minority.

Most good artists were able to support themselves because they had talent and talent coupled with showing up and doing the job will result in money.

And, here is the little bit they miss, if you are not capable of showing up and doing the job your art will be slapdash and pedestrian at best and mostly nonexistent at worse. Those who cry about how working for money is "betraying my art" do not get that working for money teaches you things that working just when inspired does not. That being, how to plow through the boring bits. And there are a lot of boring bits.

[Billthedrill]

Some of the greatest art worked quite outside the realm of capitalism. Those artists had patrons. The ones who didn't, starved.

What the author is uncomfortable with is that in order to survive on art the artist must sell it, the act of sales being unacceptably capitalistic and worse, that she can't sell hers for enough to suit her. Art being of inestimable value to society, at least according to the artists, the latter should be subsidized by those too undiscriminating to open their pocketbooks for, say, a banana taped to a wall.

But apparently someone is - the one at the link went for a cool $120,000. Clearly success in the field of art consists not of producing beautiful objects, but of being able to convince the wealthy and stupid that what you're producing is art. Beauty got nuttin' to do with it. Warhol got rich selling pictures of soup cans; as far as I know that's a tapped-out market these days, though.

Still, art in a society that is coerced into supporting it has been tried. What happens when artists become kept wards of the state is seen in the great art that came out of the Soviet Union if you can find any. Not even a banana.

[wyokostur]

As an artist, I call BS on her article. Artists think they shouldn’t have to “work” at being an artist. I look at my art career as a job.

I am the creator, marketer, logistics, framer all wrapped up in one. I work hard to put the miles on my brushes. Painting when I don’t feel like it or when there is no inspiration.

Since the advent of the internet, there hasn’t been a better time to be able to produce and sell artwork. I can reach the entire world with social media pages.

Collectors become more intimate with the artists. We don’t have to rely on middle-man galleries for example.

If you work hard and only sell a small $300 painting a day, that’s a good payout at the end of the year.

But it takes hard work and commitment. The most long term, successful artists I follow, are the hardest working of all.

[Chewbarkah]

For an artist to be dead limits the supply.

Without comment on whether I appreciate their work...Rothco, Warhol, Lichtenstein, and many others had works sold for big bucks (not sure about millions) during ther lifetimes. Death does not make work “good” or “important” — it just limits the supply. Lots of artists sell their work for substantial sums, sometimes due to a bandwagon effect, good promotion by dealers, etc., but usually because the work itself appeals to the buyers.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Here’s one where they do mix: Doctor and poet Yuri Zhivago.

[DIRTYSECRET]

*I am surprised you feel all artists are annoyed and unhappy.* come on scottie. They could all be taken down a notch-off their high-horse.

*Yes, there were artists who were not appreciated in their time that we now think were brilliant but they were the minority. A very tiny minority.* Paul Gaugan was a perfect example. Used everyone and died poor. Pervert too. R U listening scottie?

*Artists—like everybody else—are on a normal curve.* Think song and dance. Most of them went into acting as the jobs dried up. Think Dick Van Dyke/Ken Berry/Gomer Pyle.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Artists have a lot more free time on their hands. Their creative gene can’t be interrupted with everyday things to do.

[Svartalfiar]

I would argue that artists are profoundly exploited.

What do most artists produce that has any value to society/individuals? Art is a business, just like any other. You have to produce enough stuff, that people are willing to buy, to cover expenses. Nobody wants to buy a picasso or a braque unless it really is a Picasso or a Braque.

A basic painting or sculpture takes what, 6-12 hours or so of active effort? Ignoring material/equipment costs, just to earn minimum wage that crappy piece of 'art' now needs to sell for $50+. Most people aren't going to spend that much unless you actually make decent-good art, and that likely means a lot more time and effort, days worth. So now your minimum-wage price point is hundreds of dollars. Turning your potential audience into people with plenty of expendable income, and you're competing with thousands of other "artists" they can easily find who are selling the same crappy-decent artwork you are.

Likewise theatre: it's long hours of time, and certainly not capable of sustaining basic bills and beer. A single play is normally several weeks of rehearsals (though only a couple hours a day, almost everyone has real jobs during the day), say 10 hours a week for four weeks. You'll have maybe a month of shows, maybe four shows a weekend (and one during the week). We'll assume two hours of work on showday. Most theatres probably average 200 or less seats, and likely 3/4 full over the course of the show. Say thirty shows, 100 sold, is only 3M tickets. $30M over two months, divided by the, say, 20 cast and crew, is $1500 a person (just assume the house makes their money on snacks and drinks here). So for 100 hours of work (60 show, 40 rehearse), that comes out to $1.50 an hour. So without any big grant funding or something I'm way off here, you certainly are doing this for fun, not for the water bill.

To actually support yourself with "art", you better find a job working as an art teacher at school or something; the people that can actually manage to art full time are gonna be one in a hundred thousand, if even that many. Unless you include graphic design or similar jobs as art, then yea, there's a lot more job opportunities, but that's not what most people think of with the term "art".

[Svartalfiar]

If you work hard and only sell a small $300 painting a day, that’s a good payout at the end of the year.

$80M a year good (weekdays). But where's the target audience for that? How many people are seriously gonna spend that much money on a painting or sculpture that, really, isn't that different from the 100s or 1000s of other artists selling the same stuff, to where even a significant number of artists can sustain themselves at that level (or even half of that)?

And for a painting to be worth that much, how much time and effort is required? Ten hours (netting $30/hr)? Twenty ($15/hr)? More? Yes, internet helps you find a wider audience, but it also helps buyers find a much wider market. If you can manage to develop a relationship with a collector, awesome!, but again, how realistic is that for your generic artist? You have to be actually good enough to make something they want, and have the luck to come across them to even have the opportunity for the sale / start of any potential relationship.

Sure, you, and a couple friends, might be putting in the work and effort required to find that audience and generate enough to sell, but in general most "artists" don't and can't. The sheer number of people with useless art degrees (not to mention those that do it without a degree), simply doesn't have sufficient support to do that, if even a small fraction of artists put in the effort.

[Seruzawa]

I have known 2 guys who make decent livings oil painting desert and mountain scenery. Their agents sold all they could produce. There is a big market for beautiful original oil paintings of such things. But it takes competence and hard work as a painter.

Colleges don’t teach such things. In fact they ruin painters and writers as well. To say that art and capitalism don’t mix is incredibly stupid. Art has always been funded by the wealthy. It only goes away when the govt buys “art”.

[Svartalfiar]

I have known 2 guys who make decent livings oil painting desert and mountain scenery. Their agents sold all they could produce. There is a big market for beautiful original oil paintings of such things. But it takes competence and hard work as a painter.

So they've got talent, and have been around long enough to have agents that do that. Not something most younger artists have. How long does it take them to make each painting? And at what sale price?


To say that art and capitalism don’t mix is incredibly stupid.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying the opposite. There isn't enough of a market to fully support the sheer number of "artists" out there. I know 5-6 people that make a significant amount, and the only one without a real job is the one married to my buddy who can easily support the family by himself. The rest have it simply as their big hobby, but nothing more.

[Seruzawa]

Doug knocked out 2 or three in a weekend. It’s called competence. Actually learning how to paint helps. That means spending years painting, not listening to lectures by failed painters.