Do all artists struggle with the concept of their art as a commodity? When I started to do art it seemed like I was involved with creating as more of an intellectual struggle – being able to conceptualize a mental image, manifesting a visual idea. It was never with the intention to sell the object created or to please an audience. Yet capitalism and commercialism seem present in many works of art today and most artists are concerned with selling and survival. There are few modern artists who seem pure in concept – Sol Lewitt and Mark Rothko are exceptions that come to mind. I can identify many more artists as brazen commercialists. As a young artist I was obsessed with originality and being able to demonstrate that ideal on paper. However, that idealism was lost with pressures from real life and experience with the art world. Not many gallery owners care about anything except your art as commodity in the art market and how to increase your marketability. These ideals are the antitheses of what my goals were as a young artist. Maybe that points to my failure in life as a working artist. Which by the way I do not regret. It is important to me that my ideals were not compromised by commercialism or viewing my art as a commodity. I have always stood by the rejection of commissions and stubbornness to produce art that are personal pursuits and not those of others. Even allowing for absorbing modern movements and trends without blind adherence to them but only as part of a personal journey in visual art making. I have abandoned visual styles without hesitation when I thought they had exhausted their conceptual stimulus for me without a single thought toward their market viability. I wonder how many artists do that today? How do artists reconcile their visual art struggles with the idea of the things they create as commodities? Is creating art for others a surrender of your credentials as an artist? I would say it is yet many artists today seem perfectly satisfied with that process, their work a commodity in the market of what was once reserved for ideas and ideals.
Category Archives: Art and Society
Artists behaving badly
Why does it seem that the most successful people are the biggest assholes? Latest example being Kehinde Wiley, the portraitist credited with painting Obama in 2018, who is accused by at least three people of sexual abuse and inappropriate touching. In other words, abusing his position as a prominent artist – which doesn’t seem like an isolated story given Chuck Close, Pollock, Rivera, Picasso, Gauguin – the list is long even when limited to famous visual artists. That he is being accused of abuse is not surprising seeing as Wiley is firstly a capitalist taking advantage of others – and a prime follower of today’s unfortunate art world successful artist trend of being mainly an art manager and marketer who seeks to exploit others for personal gain – in this case mainly Chinese artisans, who execute his works a la Koons or Warhol. He is an adherent to the modern principle of the “artist” not showing presence in their work and only being the ‘conceptual’ master behind the images he mass produces, markets and sells. And sure enough his ‘hand’ is invisible because he plagiarizes images from old masters then has his assistant(s) photograph ‘street’ people in the same pose and superimposes this over a decorative pattern also probably appropriated but definitely not executed by him. Kind of like having others manifest a photoshop collage you put together except in boring repetition. But hey it sells, right? Not my idea of art but it is definitely accepted today as legitimate. The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) jumped into the fray to defend the abusive asshole because several museums and galleries cancelled their exhibits of his work over the issue. For their part a group of those abused by the artist put out a joint statement saying that “…artistic merit, while significant, should not take precedence over issues of moral injury and human dignity.” I agree, at least as long as Wiley is alive and continues abusing his position of privilege it is only justice to deny him exhibit space by those professing an aversion to moral turpitude. Once he is gone, history may patiently pass judgement on whether the value of Wiley’s art, in the context of art history, surpasses the stain of his personal conduct. After all, many of the abusive artists mentioned here earlier who have passed away still hang prominently in major museums all over the world in spite of their conduct.