While reading an article by Jonathan Jones I came across the suggestion that modern art is immensely popular but its owners are more exclusive than ever. Mr. Jones suggests that people visiting exhibitions and art galleries are very much indeed part of the population but not the ones which can afford to have a piece at home, these are actually the super rich of today.
The writer makes comparison with others artistic sectors, like the theater where every ticket is as good as anyone’s else. However, he says that inside the art world, the general public, apart from being merely eyewitness; don’t have the opportunity to participate. People do know and recognize names like Tracey Emin or Damien Hirsts yet it would be unimaginable to think the normal men on the streets would ever be able to set any trends.
The definition of what is art is set by a selected group of people, targeting a specific type of buyers, nevertheless what is it that makes a person able to do this work, principally when anyone can visit a gallery or speak with a dealer free of charge? Contacts? Name? Or even further, does that means that art are not made to the public? Therefore it doesn’t have any meaning.
When an artist creates a new piece he probably doesn’t have in mind who is going to like/dislike or even who is going to own it, still the one who select the pieces knows very well its publics. Another suggestion could be that artists of today are becoming ever so worried about its public and how to satisfy them in the most appropriated way that are loosing the ability to create the famous pop art.
No comments:
Post a Comment