Prostituting art?
Craig Pearson
Hello,
My name is Craig Pearson. I'm a reporter for Express magazine, the weekly
arts publication of the Windsor Star, a daily newspaper in Windsor,
Ontario, Canada.
I'm writing a cover story on the marketing of art. Some artists believe
the whole idea is a form of prostitution, others say it's only natural --
like anything else, a buck has to be made.
I'm interested in any thoughts people might have on the subject. When
someone intends first of all to make a sale from a piece of art, does it
no longer become art? Do artists have to want to make art first, and a
sale only second? Does any of it matter? Are there any particularly
effective art-marketing strategies? Are there any worthwhile references I
might check?
I intend to use the most thought-provoking responses in my feature. If
you'd like, inlcude your snailmail address and I'll send you a copy of
the article if your contribution is used.
Sincerely,
Craig Pearson
Vance Maverick
> I'm writing a cover story on the marketing of art. Some artists believe
> the whole idea is a form of prostitution, others say it's only natural --
> like anything else, a buck has to be made.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Naturally this
would be easy to falsify, even using examples known to Johnson. (How
much did Marvell make from his poetry?) But perhaps it would be
closer to the tradition if you were just as arbitrary. You'll need,
of course, a definition of art, one that makes it clear either that
art is always for an audience or that art is always a welling up of
That Which Must Be Expressed from the artist's interior (pick one).
Vance
Francis Muir
Craig Pearson writes:
I'm writing a cover story on the marketing of art.
Some artists believe the whole idea is a form of
prostitution, others say it's only natural --
like anything else, a buck has to be made.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Naturally
this would be easy to falsify, even using examples known to Johnson.
(How much did Marvell make from his poetry?) But perhaps it would be
closer to the tradition if you were just as arbitrary. You'll need,
of course, a definition of art, one that makes it clear either that
art is always for an audience or that art is always a welling up of
That Which Must Be Expressed from the artist's interior (pick one).
if there are any artists that believe that "the whole idea is a form of
prostitution" then i submit they either know nothing about art or nothing
about prostitution or a helluva lot about both.
Philomath
Donald A. Hosek
Vance Maverick <mave...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <4l0p66$a...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com> UGU...@prodigy.com (Craig Pearson) writes:
>> I'm writing a cover story on the marketing of art. Some artists believe
>> the whole idea is a form of prostitution, others say it's only natural --
>> like anything else, a buck has to be made.
>"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Naturally this
>would be easy to falsify, even using examples known to Johnson. (How
>much did Marvell make from his poetry?)
You've missed the obvious conclusion, Vance: Marvell was a blockhead!
-dh
--
Don Hosek dho...@quixote.com Quixote Digital Typography
909-621-1291 fax: 909-625-1342 orders: 800-810-3311
For information about SERIF: THE MAGAZINE OF TYPE & TYPOGRAPHY,
http://www.quixote.com/serif/ or mail serif...@quixote.com
Jordi Sod
>
> Hello,
>
> My name is Craig Pearson. I'm a reporter for Express magazine, the weekly
> arts publication of the Windsor Star, a daily newspaper in Windsor,
> Ontario, Canada.
>
> the whole idea is a form of prostitution, others say it's only natural --
> like anything else, a buck has to be made.
>
> someone intends first of all to make a sale from a piece of art, does it
> no longer become art? Do artists have to want to make art first, and a
> sale only second? Does any of it matter? Are there any particularly
> effective art-marketing strategies? Are there any worthwhile references I
> might check?
Art has been a commodity since its birth. Take pottery; it was meant to be
USED, in most cases. The artist-artisan made his living by making useful
objects. Ancient art had a purpose. This could be religious, political, or
just decorative. The artist brought a needed product into the marketplace,
and expected to get paid for it.
During the Renaissance, art was a commodity too. Beyond any artistic need,
Michaelangelo didn't mind getting all the money and prestige that creating
monumental works gave him. He was a salesman with a product: beautiful
things.
Bach? I remember reading somewhere that at some point he was complaining no
people were dying! No rich dead guy, no commission for a mass. Ina ny case,
please remember that many of the world's greatest masterpieces were
commissioned works. Does that diminish their power?
Certainly the impulse of creating art goes much deeper than any financial
gain, but money helps artists create. Just as scientific curiosity does not
die if one does not have a grant, similarly artistic impulses don't die
either. This does not diminish the fact that getting paid for one's work
will enable one to work harder.
>
> I intend to use the most thought-provoking responses in my feature. If
> you'd like, inlcude your snailmail address and I'll send you a copy of
> the article if your contribution is used.
Not thought provoking, but here is my tiny contribution. Now, where's my pay?
;-)
Regards,
Jordi Sod.
David J. Loftus
Craig Pearson (UGU...@prodigy.com) wrote:
: I'm writing a cover story on the marketing of art. Some artists believe
: the whole idea is a form of prostitution, others say it's only natural --
: like anything else, a buck has to be made.
The few posts I've seen refer to whether one creates for money, or
whether substantial money is either offered for the creation of art or
paid for it once it has been made.
Your question makes me wonder whether you are trying to focus in on
MARKETING -- that is, calling public attention to art that has already
been created, or to an artist who is looking for commissions -- which is
a slightly different matter. These are all interesting questions.
I've been having a debate with a fellow on the Camille Paglia list re:
whether a person can be a genius without having been seen and
acknowledged by others. In other words, if the genius falls in the
forest and there's no one there to see it, was it a genius -- or
something like that. My answer is no; genius is a human-defined,
human-valued quality and therefore cannot exist in isolation. (This
means Emily Dickinson's writings were not works of genius until long
after she was dead.)
I don't mean to transfer that increasingly-tiring discussion to this
newsgroup, but I mention it because marketing -- though not essential --
has played, and will continue to play, a significant role in the survival
and dissemination of art. Not knowing much about art history, I have
heard that Picasso was a tireless self-promoter. Marketing seems to be
an essential element of Christo's art itself, not just of its dissemination.
Sure it's prostitution of a sort, and why not? Some people seem to think
prostitution is a dirty word!
: I'm interested in any thoughts people might have on the subject. When
: someone intends first of all to make a sale from a piece of art, does it
: no longer become art?
You mean, creation with a future sale in mind? I don't think that
disqualifies the work as art. Someone else made the very good point that
many masterpieces were commissioned. I might add that it is not only the
artist's intent that makes art; like genius, art is a social product --
it ultimately results from public consensus. If people like, appreciate,
buy it, then it is art, no matter what the creator thought. It may be
"bad art" but it's still art.
: Do artists have to want to make art first, and a sale only second?
Artists don't have to do anything. That's part of what makes them
artists: that they are engaged in activity that is not necessary. How
they do it is kind of up to them. I wish I had a copy of a news story I
read many years ago about a New England artist who got so fed up with not
selling that he took a black spray paint can and a knife to a bunch of
his canvases at a gallery; the resulting publicity led to their sale
and a demand for similar pieces! Did he intend to make art, let alone a
sale, when he destroyed his paintings in a rage? I don't think so. Yet
the result was "art."
: Does any of it matter?
Not really. What matters is what the community -- or certain parts of it
-- think and value, not any one member (even the artist).
: Are there any particularly effective art-marketing strategies?
Kind of depends on the art form and style, I would think. If your art
product is a rock music album or potboiler novel, you want to appeal to
as broad an audience as possible, so noise, notoriety, anything that gets
headlines, is apt to suit. But if you want to sell individual, finished
pieces of, say, sculpture or oil paintings, that's too risky an approach,
because your market is wealthy (read: conservative) individuals,
government agencies and corporations (which also tend to be conservative).
David Loftus