How do artists make a living?
Besides the selected few who actually make a living from their work, how can an artist afford to be an artist?
The bottom line is: should art pay for itself? Should it be efficient in an economic sense?
Most practicing artists either have money from their day jobs, or from their families.
The funny thing is: the first group seem heroic, and the second – fakes.
Why? Why is there so much resentment towards people who decide to spend the money they have on doing something they love?
Is it because we, as the public, feel betrayed, as if they stopped playing the game with their audience? After all, if they don’t care about (our, or government – which comes out to the same) money, aren’t we left aside?
(What’s wrong with being left aside? Hm. Of course, this modernist idea can come in handy. But I’ve been writing about it elsewhere.)
Come think of it – would we feel it wrong for a rich person to buy an expensive car? A big house? So why do we want him to feel guilty for spending the money into something we might actually appreciate? It turns art into a hobby, you say? So what?

Below, completely unrelated (at least not that I know), is the work of Paulo Ventura.

From Chicago’s pride, the Millenium Park, comes a cruel, yet fascinating, story of public art gone wrong.
BOTH of the public sculptures it opened recently, one by the Van Berkel atelier, and the other by Zaha Hadid, got damaged by the all-too-loving public.
Looks quite nice from above, doesn’t it? If you go to ground level, it’s even more inspiring. Here’s a look at Hadid’s work:

The entire structure, made of aluminum, is covered with cloth. Now let’s take a look inside this spaceship.

Get the picture?
One of the key statements of the manifesto of a group of artists presenting the exhibition Unusually Rare Events is that the artist does not need to think about the spectator when creating the work. Agreed. However, when creating a public work of art (mind you, to some extent any work of art is public), he might want to consider that his work will possibly not only be appreciated like this:

but also like this:

And those, of course, are the “nice” visitors.
The question arises: should we stay with “public-proof” solutions? Hire teams of guards to keep the aura going? Or maybe consider every mark and hole as part of the (pardon the pun) holistic concept of the work of art?

Now I wonder how these marvellously designed shoes by Zaha Hadid feel:
Not to mention the London Aquatics Centre, to be one of the main venues of the 2012 Summer Olympics.
(via)

ArtPrize has created some debate among artists recently. The Grand Rapids, Michigan based art prize is offering the winning artist $250,000, 2nd place $100,000, 3rd place $50,000 and $7000 for the next 7 artists.

That much money on offer gets a lot of attention from artists and the media, but the thing that artists are discussing most is the judging process; there is none. OK, not none, but the public vote for the winner. This has made many artist afraid, especially conceptual artists, and I think they have good reason to be afraid as most people have no reason to be in a gallery. I know that I wouldn’t be a very good judge of hairy footed pheasants at a cock show as I don’t know anything about them, which is the same reason that people who wouldn’t know a poster from an oil painting wouldn’t be very good at judging art.

It seems to be an experimental art prize though, which hopes to involve the public and get them looking at art, so it’s all good. It will be interesting to see the winning work. The choices of art experts often have me scratching my head, so the public can’t do much worse in choosing a winner.

ArtPrize is open to artists worldwide and judging is open to anyone that attends an exhibition space throughout Grand Rapids, Michigan. See the ArtPrize website for more information on entering the art competition. They also have a blog discussing the prize.

Thanks to Susan and those that let me know of the art prize.

I was invited to curate a digital art show at the Islip Art Museum in Sayville, New York (Long Island). I named the show “A Passion for Pixels.” Fifty-two artists are on display June 18 to September 7th.

The main thing that has struck me about digital over the last 10 years is that most people understand nothing about it. Sadly, the local media do a dreadful job of explaining. So, one of my concerns about this show is that it be educational.

Instead of Realism, Abstract and such, I tried to group the works according to how much digital they contained and the methods used. For example, the biggest room is titled “The Altered Image” and contains, as a note explains, only works that started with a digital photograph which was then altered in a program such as Photoshop. I’m betting that even a simple device like this pulls visitors into the digital process. I like to imagine they go home talking like connoisseurs.

The main thing to report about the show is that digital has moved quickly from being an exotic new medium to being another option that adventurous artists toss into the mix. A big percentage of the work was digital IN SOME SENSE. I and the two people helping me would often stare at a piece asking, “Wait, is that part digital??” Boundaries have become a blur.

Also interesting, a number of pieces referenced pixels but were done in traditional media. Didn’t expect that!!

Mary Lou Cohalan, the Director of the Islip Art Museum, commented: “This show is a crash course in digital art. Bruce Price, our insightful curator, is also a noted educator. He has put together a wonderful exhibition that is strong on aesthetics and long on digital education. There have already been tours and people respond well.”

Created by Bruce Price On 07/13/08 At 06:49 PM