October 09, 2003
It's all art...
In response to...Is it Art? and this article.
Interesting indeed and timely. I've been thinking about this on and off for the last two or three years.
However, Reed's notion of Primary Wealth and Secondary wealth seem a bit of a stretch at the very least. You have to take this idea of Primary and Secondary wealth and assume it's true early on to agree with what Reed says.
While I understand these conception of production, those who create to fulfill basic needs vs. those who consume the basic needs and create accessories or human culture. I don't agree with them fully. Reed's depiction of the "Artist" as this Secondary Wealth producing entity, strikes me as half-mad.
I mean who of us do you know that lives off their "art" (the end-product)? Who would and who could? Is that what any of us are aiming to do? In all my discussions with artist friends I have not met a one, that doesn't do these very Primary Wealth producing things. I would venture to say, that most of American artists, and for that matter International artists, breath life into the fabric of our nation by doing and creating simply because they can. I don't believe that art is relegated to those who: paint, sculpt, draw, etc. This is not an oversimplification; it is a return to a clear conception of art. That is where the "art world" is.
Sure, you can look at the miniscule elitist art scene, the ones who are in fact considered "Professional Artists" and see that they have to pull out of the rest of society and let society sustain them while they do their part for humanity, and some will even defend them. And the reality is for me; go ahead defend them if you are out there, because there is a place for them, albeit, that place is getting increasingly smaller. When you look at them you see all these things, even when you look at the work you do yourself. For example the writing on this site, sustained in suspension on stolen energy, stolen, cause who's to say it is contributing to the common good of anyone.
I also think Reed oversimplifies "artists", and tries to relegate them all to this Secondary Wealth mechanism. While in fact the nut of what he is trying to get at is that, it isn't the art that is the problem, it is the disconnect from making a whole world that his conception of an artist confines themselves. This isn't just happening in the art world, it is happening all around us. It is called professionalization of society. The professional artist is by definition one who steps back from society and does her own thing? Well maybe then, but now I see that we are headed in the other direction.
I think there are a phenomenal number of artists that are more aware of their own hypocrisies, i.e. in the environmental impact of their work. Many have had realizations akin to Reed's and dropped out of art "production" entirely (check out Suzi Gablik's "Conversations before the end of time").
Fundamentally I agree with what he is implying we need to think about our impact on the world and then act to reverse it as often as possible. I think many of us are striving to get there. This is thinking holistically. Yes, we should. And some of us are trying.
Posted by wayne at 09:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
