The Art Market and its Impact on Production Artist.
Currently, everyone knows, the first activity of man is the appropriation of material goods and to a lesser or greater extent, the accumulation of wealth. Is the system that controls the activity of production. No human activity is spared from this need to put a monetary value to the final product, to a profit of it or buy it with some symbolic value, in theory, equivalent to the price.art as human activity, of course, falls into this same set of valuestion of the symbolic element, translated into business language, although in a disproportionate manner as unrealistically, more specifically, modern art not only translates into monetary amounts of manual labor work that Sometimes it may be almost nil, but also an intellectual.
It may be that modern art 'high' is given such high sums of money because it has lost the logic threshold between price and work, perhaps that is another artist who need to give money to a work because there is another artist who purchase. The art, though it has lost its aura of authenticity, est á made for just a few. D'Allonnes mentioned that "the intellectual strata do not produce culture for their own exclusive use, but twice for the use of the ruling elite," it generates to the ruling elite, or ideology, the mix used for conflict inspiracióny figures like the creative genius because it is the vulgar do not know.
Although the art has been desecrated and placed at hand, is at hand who can only approach it, call it, for example, a bourgeois who has no knowledge about it but he has money and naturally acical, is truncated and also produce for the end consumer to obtain money from a blind, is not it a bit detracting from the message of the work, if it contains this?
is clear that the artist has to live in this world where everything requires money capital, something, which makes us think of artistic production as a work and poses a possible dysfunction n in these terms in their process. The, call it obsolete, inspiration is intended largely as opposed to work since she was a sister of leisure. So what artistic production as work limited to arcontractor to work meaningless? Again we return to these ideas of the genius inspiracióny all they do is create an aura of mysticism around the artist to appear inhuman, unreachable and incomprehensible, to get away from the message and to make us believe that intellectual activity is out of reach.
But the question is not really whether art should or should not work, but to what extent can market its line of personal speech to obtain a sum of money perhaps even necessary, not just convenient. Of course the ideal would never do so because, as I said Picasso & ldis by an artist and made another as any other profession, not just qualified as to these guidelines. The artist makes art on things when you want it to be, just take a look at the ready-mades of Duchamp So is art itself, or by the artist's intention?
And if the artist wants to make art for the petit bourgeois who will buy, then you do not understand the petty bourgeois is no noise in the post because that was the intention n, then the artist is not selling because that is his speech.
course that you can afford tothis, no evidence otherwise but art is misused and masked behind the premise that, like everything is done, everything can be done, although it sounds strange, it makes sense that a dynamic like this is not is only part of the dominant ideology that should be rejected.
To close, I think the art market is just an excuse and a consequence of production as the cause generates the expectation of a response and is easiest to put a price to work, at this point, I think, becomes an object of trade and symbolic value for the wealthy appears to be directly proportionalwith the price but probably not. At first the work respondíaa a simple model comunicacióny has finally lost some sense but retains its intrinsic intellectual value.
As I mentioned before, the intention, or 'spin' as I say, is getting the message that you want to deliver, is received with all the strength possible, be it whatever and that, regardless of the media, the artist stands firm to the belief that his personal speech will arise, whether or not to make radical art, or be part of the system, be recognized or not by the institutions of art, grace is ; not to think of art as uNo work is expected to generate money, of course not deny that it could generate a lot, and that this condition is not decisive for the production.
More than a job that paid, is a work of doing and thinking. After all, art is not even a human activity taking place immersed in society, on the contrary, his work is reflected, because the artist is part of this society, but look at that as far as possible from outside, it is your task.
0 comments:
Post a Comment