Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Blog

Art for all. Free for all?

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this post

I used to complain that no one bought my art work, and that if I sold it, it was never to anyone from my immediate area. I no longer fret about the non-sale in the same way, since I assume that if someone wants it they'll buy it, and that there's no reason anyone should or should not want to buy it. And, of course, if I do sell it, it's never to anyone in my immediate area. That hasn't changed.

It took a few years past college to understand that people weren't obligated to buy my work or support me if they didn't want to. Now, at this point, few things irritate me more than a pity buy, which is when I think people are buying stuff from me because they want to help me out and not because they want to buy what they're buying. My general take is as follows: "Do you want the painting? Then buy it. No? Then don't."

In a shortened way of saying so, rather than continue on with paragraphs on the personal and financial complexities of trying to make money while still being creative and honest, I'll sum it up and say: being an artist can be a challenge.

How nice, then, that government help gets involved. Right?

The patron system of the Renaissance would have been something to behold in its day, although it was necessary that you were a very good artist in order to get a patron. It was necessarily biased towards artists that excelled in their craft. For me, the idea of having a patron like that is both a Utopia as well as a burden. With the convenience of having a ready-made "buyer" of my art, I'd also have to create somewhat according to their tastes or wishes.

The other model would be the Northern Renaissance which, to some degree, made it possible for a broader base of people to have art in their homes. Since there weren't piles of images available as posters, faux canvas paintings, and mass produced framed photos for sale at the local discount store, purchasing an image or book or other item from an artist was the only way to spice up the home. However, this being a demand-based market system, the art that sold was the art that the people wanted, which seems obvious.

Not so today. For either system. For any aspect of either system.

In an age of discount, the price of a mass-produced image from a large store makes it impossible for an original artist to compete for the attention of a public that generally hasn't learned the value of originals and handmade and instead, knows the value of numbers on price tags. That discussion I'll save for another day. Let's talk about today's patron and leveler of the buying field, instead.

The patron of today is the government.

Government grants, programs, and other funding are basically what keeps most art programs and art councils going. There are some private grants sources, but government grants and programs are a larger share. Though I have benefited from such "patronage" by being a teacher and being involved in programs and competitions through local art councils, I've often wondered what it says about us that it takes government involvement to stir up interest and support for the arts.

A friend pointed me to an article which highlighted a county that was providing low-interest loans so that people could buy art. The county is looking at it as an aid to economic development which, in my mind, is still an Americanization of art. It's not about the art. It's about economic development.

"The main beneficiary is the working people of Lucas County, who now have a more affordable opportunity to purchase art."

This quote rings untrue. Art can be expensive, and it can also be cheap. There's no shortage of artists, nor artists selling art cheaply. I have a number of pieces that were/are around the $50 and under mark. If "the working people" wanted art, they would get it. In America, if we want something, we generally get it. If people want to drop a bunch of money on NASCAR merchandise or at a restaurant or on art, they will. I question whether the problem was about affordable opportunity rather than a general disinterest in purchasing art.

This, however, was the reason, along with economic development, used to get a local government involved in art. It made me think about what happens when the government gets involved in anything, and what happens when it gets involved in art, such as the sales and livelihood of a specific artist, or in choosing art in a competition-based setting:

1. It creates a "market" for art that isn't being supported otherwise.
2. The squeaky wheel definitely gets the oil, i.e. a traditional plein air painter probably won't get a grant when up against a minority painter, a shock artist, or an artist doing something very unusual.
3. Since the money is coming from all taxpayers, the same restrictions that get muddled into everything the government is involved in applies, such as in regards to religion, affirmative action, etc.
4. Talent isn't always rewarded, while forceful personality and the gift of B.S. is.

Some of the explanations I've heard for the necessity of government involvement in art have valid points, and I've mentioned the main one earlier: in American culture, we aren't taught to really appreciate the arts, or things handmade and original. It is an anomaly to find people that have this appreciation, it truly is. Having a booth at an art or craft fair and hearing the comments people make while browsing is very educational; I would say that 70 percent of the comments I've heard bear this theory out. We are a kind of bottom-line, no-nonsense society where making the best buy makes it more logical to purchase a print at a discount store than spend four times that much money on an original painting. Why buy a $30 necklace when you can get the same thing at Target for $8? I understand that thinking. I do it myself in some areas, though not in regards to art.

It's that thinking, though, that has led to the call for government involvement in the arts. So let's look at those four points.

1. Art that isn't supported on its own. It could be that the hoi polloi are all idiots and just don't know good art when they see it. There are people that bear this out, and you simply don't want to get me started on the topic of "deer/antlered animal art." However, generally speaking, if people aren't interested -- not just in buying, but in even viewing or acknowledging or admiring -- there might be a reason. I grant that people in my general geographic area aren't interested in my art. I do sell to people in other places. If you are making art that you absolutely can't find anyone to buy...maybe you're making bad art, maybe you're just ahead of your time, maybe you're a misunderstood and tortured genius. This could lead to an interesting discussion on what makes "good art" and whether or not the general population is able to understand what that is. My take, after years and many, many incidents where people seemed like idiots, is that people know what is good and what isn't. I would also say the general public knows better than the critics and those immersed in some stratospheric "art world." It's hard to admit that I've made my share of bad art and that's why it didn't sell. The general public might not agree with each other and have different tastes, but taken across a broad sample...yes.

2. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Government involvement means forced fairness. Which isn't fair at all. If there was ever an assurance that crackpot art without any general public interest would get the money, it's in this way. In looking at the photos in the article I linked to, I see a bunch of bad art. Granted, the article outlines a loan plan, which means it isn't technically "free" money and that if some fool wanted to buy a pink spray-painted sad face and then pay back the loan, that is their prerogative. The specific loan program outlined here seems to be an attempt to encourage people to value originality, though I don't know if that really happens when it occurs through government prodding and incentive. My bigger gripe is the money given out in grants to artists of dubious talent and focus rather than this odd loan program. Grant programs are famous for having less to do with the quality of the art and more about the validity or status of the artist.

3. Government programs have to be "fair." This very much ties into what I've said above, and very much ends up not being about supporting art that is good and valid and beautiful, but about who the artist instead. There has to be X number of minorities, X number of genres of art, X number from a certain geographical area based on population, and so on.

4. Talent and hard work aren't rewarded. Studying art in college brought to light the sad truth that many artists graduate an art program and never learn to draw. It may sound silly or unimportant to belabor the issue, but my point is that many artists were "rewarded" with a diploma that says they are "officially artists" while never having learned or bothered to work through the skills that it takes to accomplish the most basic of foundations. You don't have to be a good drawer, or sculptor, or even great at basic art theory in order to make waves in the art world. Set a toilet in the middle of a gallery floor and put up an artist statement full of BS about the state of the environment and modern convenience, and you could probably get yourself a government art grant. That is wrong.

What I find most interesting in all of this is that there seems to be, in my mind, a redundancy in government involvement in art. Millions of dollars are used to help educate youth and adults in after school and summer and evening art classes all around the country, and to fund art competitions, shows, and gallery events. Then, the same entity (the government) helps pay for or support art that isn't always of good quality in the name of being fair and because they are using everyone's money. Essentially, while trying to teach people about making good art and therefore give art a place of value, they are also teaching them about art in a way that has nothing to do with the quality of the art but instead rewards outside factors that really have nothing to do with the art itself.

And, in the process, they still have not addressed the bottom line: our American culture has a mindset that is corrosive to original, higher-priced, unique, time-consuming, low-key, non-electronic, skill-acquired, personally-created art. And frankly, I don't see how government intervention and forced involvement could ever make a serious dent in that.

Discussion: For more discussion or thoughts on this topic, visit this post.
Art, Writing and Books Blog: If there's no audience, does the show go on?

Labels: art

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>: <$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

2 Comments:

Julie…darn it…if I buy a painting now, you'll think it's a pity buy.

Last night I was looking at the one of the guy with the guitar because I used to play classical guitar. I never liked PIcasso's Man With the Guitar, or whatever it was. Just too heavy for me. All that blue.

By deniro, at 29/6/07 17:58