Since i write a lot about money, I was particularly interested in your comment ; "There has to be an understanding that money and art come, essentially, from different domains. Money is a very imprecise evaluator of artistic quality..."
In so many aspects of art, however, there is a confusion of those two domains, more so in my opinion wi…
Since i write a lot about money, I was particularly interested in your comment ; "There has to be an understanding that money and art come, essentially, from different domains. Money is a very imprecise evaluator of artistic quality..."
In so many aspects of art, however, there is a confusion of those two domains, more so in my opinion with contemporary painting and sculpture than in any other field. Perhaps time is the ultimate critic.
Agreed David. These things are always going to be highly confused. Interestingly, I think a great deal of one's life as an artist - for anybody being sincere about it - is to work through their relationship to money.
I respect money and find it to be very beautiful and expressive, actually, in a lot of ways. How what people spend their money on is reflective of their genuine needs and desires, as opposed to what they think people want to hear. How money facilitates friction-less and often non-violent social exchange with all kinds of strangers.
But art tends to operate according to different principles. Much of it is based in the idea of communicating with an era that doesn't even exist yet - and is of course not concerned with our money. And then art tends to push into domains of the subconscious, of inchoate inner life, of archetypal structures that very often precede and are deeper than the very adult parts of our brains that are able to grasp how money works. Don't get me wrong! - I am always interested in treatments of money in art, and I am very drawn to writers who do it well (Nathanael West, Richard Yates, Dostoevsky, etc), but I think the "worth" of a work of art belongs to some matrix of criteria that is very different from what money is good at assessing.
Since i write a lot about money, I was particularly interested in your comment ; "There has to be an understanding that money and art come, essentially, from different domains. Money is a very imprecise evaluator of artistic quality..."
In so many aspects of art, however, there is a confusion of those two domains, more so in my opinion with contemporary painting and sculpture than in any other field. Perhaps time is the ultimate critic.
Agreed David. These things are always going to be highly confused. Interestingly, I think a great deal of one's life as an artist - for anybody being sincere about it - is to work through their relationship to money.
I respect money and find it to be very beautiful and expressive, actually, in a lot of ways. How what people spend their money on is reflective of their genuine needs and desires, as opposed to what they think people want to hear. How money facilitates friction-less and often non-violent social exchange with all kinds of strangers.
But art tends to operate according to different principles. Much of it is based in the idea of communicating with an era that doesn't even exist yet - and is of course not concerned with our money. And then art tends to push into domains of the subconscious, of inchoate inner life, of archetypal structures that very often precede and are deeper than the very adult parts of our brains that are able to grasp how money works. Don't get me wrong! - I am always interested in treatments of money in art, and I am very drawn to writers who do it well (Nathanael West, Richard Yates, Dostoevsky, etc), but I think the "worth" of a work of art belongs to some matrix of criteria that is very different from what money is good at assessing.
Cheers!
- Sam