+5 for TANSSAAFL

Given her handle, her position is clear.

;)

We have a very fine manual on the subject: The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand. At its best, art shows us values we can admire and aspire to, as seen through the artist’s unique relationship with existence.

Culture defines art, Person 1, not the other way around, if by culture we mean the ambient population who reward with their dollars the values being embodied by the artist's work. Art is mind made visible. A transaction between artist and patron reveals the sense of life of each.

What constitutes art? A painting, a sonnet, a symphony, a movie, an evening gown, a necklace, a sculpture? All these and more. From the earliest ages, humans have created images, whether carvings or cave drawings, weavings and embroidery, embodiments of their imaginings. Human brains have this app that lesser animals don’t. Created images give a look into the artist’s psycho-epistemology. And the urge to create, the search for novelty and invention, and the instinct to mimic and imitate, are another mind function that has lifted mankind beyond the limits of the animal kingdom and made civilization possible. (Never mind that we keep breaking it.)

Like anything else produced by individuals, art is a commodity and an object to trade. However, it is not the first tier of need. Food and shelter, warmth and safety come first. Then come self-adornment, decoration, representation. Each step evolves, grows, embeds into the social structure. If art is a selective recreation of perceived reality, its forms and meanings change with every human filter through which perceptions pass, and each observer imbues it with additional subjective nuances.

Art becomes a meme delivery device in a constant state of transformation. It’s how we program our societal software, or it programs us. That’s also how propaganda subverts pure art to manipulate people emotionally to accept the rulers’ orders. It’s hard to find honest art that is not pushing some agenda, that exists only to provide pleasure. Government may subsidize art as a tool of public control. Injected into foreign markets, art can even be used to subvert those populations. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...

The question is, should government use taxpayer money to subsidize some artists or art organizations when the private market does not bring them enough return? Does the prevalence of this practice render it acceptable or, for want of a better word, moral? Natural selection is indifferent about winning by fraud or privilege or by superior merit. All survivors are winners, and that makes chicanery a survival tool. The Universe is neither benevolent nor malevolent. It just is.

What is merit? When others vote with their money in an open market, rewarding individual talent. When they are willing to trade a piece of themselves to acquire a part of the artist’s essence because it adds value to their lives. I know artists who are fully pragmatic about pandering to customers’ tastes because that’s what sells. Is that art? Artists who create from the deepest well of their being and find no buyers, or few, can switch and go the pragmatic route or persevere until they find their clientele. Or rethink their purpose. Some things go “viral”, some never appeal. The climate of the culture, its entire accompanying meme ecology, the atmosphere created by the interactions of each individual element, analogous to quantum fluctuations, is the survival medium of an artist’s strivings.

Why bother creating art? It is the individual’s drive to leave a footprint on the sands of time, to wrest for one’s existence a moment of permanence, to carve one’s meaning from one’s earthly years, and most of all to transfer to other consciousnesses the vision held within the artist’s mind.

The same is true of any ideas, political and philosophical. The confluences of nature may experiment with even the most bizarre creations. That is not to say that government should step in with force to give all of them equal success. For who is the government? Just certain individuals with enough power to make decisions about who should live and die. And that is a system that the U.S. Constitution was instituted to remove from human society. And now we can see the process of one set of ideas seeking to annihilate another: coercion versus freedom.

So the short answer is: No. Keep government from dispensing favoritisms. Keep government out of the arts.

Nepotism -- In-bred cronyism. Attraction is always strongest at the center. It's the dirty side of Darwinism.

Government support for the Arts, through taxation, is a form of ObamaCare for the Arts - you pay for it regardless of having or liking it. Since many artists are very happy with the government's support and have no moral compunctions about it, I propose, in the name of fairness and in the spirit of ObamaCare for the Arts, that government not only set a minimum price for the artists and their work (which they do set through taxation and redistribution), but also the maximum price. Thus, no artwork shall bring the artist anymore than he or she has been earning in the past or, let's say $137 per item. If anyone is willing to pay more for it, it shall be taxed at 99% and the money redistributed to other artists, environmentalists and other people with good intentions. All in the name of fairness!

Guess I pretty much revealed myself, but I gave my digital camera away to a relative back around 2005 when selling art on eBay quickly revealed itself to be a big fat nada. Sold two "acrylic paintings I can recall: "The Wind Witch" and "Acid Palmettos".
Last time I looked at eBaby a lot of nice original art was not moving at all.
Had better luck there getting rid of most of my VHS movies. Like DVDs a lot better.
I wound up steady pay working security guard jobs until my Department of Corrections retirement plan cranked up at age 60 nine years ago. Three years ago I stopped working altogether.
I've inherited some money but haven't given any thought to buying another digital camera.
My best work was sold a long time ago anyway.
Now I'm trying to be a fiction writer in my spare time. Deep into the last century I made an "A" in creative writing.
Stephen King is the same age I am. Sigh!

Art is that which graces both sides of my one ounce silver dollars.

My paintings are not for society. They are for me. I paint for enjoyment and as an outlet for my creative side. I raised three kids and worked as an accountant for 40 some years. Now I am retired and I love to paint. I don't sell any of my paintings because my husband could not part with any of them. I will leave them to my kids and grandkids when I die.

When considering a way to capitalize on my artwork, I thought of the traditional booth at an art and crafts show. Paying to display random creations and guessing what value it might be to a passer-by seemed like a crap shoot.
I wanted to find a market to target. Build up interest and work on a commission basis. I am also pricing low in regards to time spent and supplies.
I am planning on building demand and having the supply potential shrink anticipating a compensation more commensurate for my effort.

It certainly is disturbing to see the behavior you describe. Manners, civility, social etiquette are not valued to the benifit they offer a community. Bullying low life ignorant louts are glorified by the entertainment media and a gentleman is not a character trait admired or portrayed very often.

I would like see some of your work
"Alabama Dino".

there are the life essentials -- food, shelter, sometimes
clothing ... and what do you do when those are satisfied?

art.

we are involved in interpersonal prose art, here.
I treated my wife to food art in bed this morning.
I gave the dog a form of rubdown art just after.
there's musical art playing in my head right now.
papa possum gives us poetry once in a while.

we work our asses off;;; what's it all for? . art, of
some sort, IMHO.

just my two cents. -- j
.

Whenever I see something advertised as "a starving artists sale," I think of how they are ripped off supply-wise in the first place.
Then there's the know-nothing customer who comes along, sees likes something they like and starts belly-aching about the price.
Not to mention lowlife louts who puff themselves up by verbally abusing the sight of an artist they see painting outside.
You never see that in movies. Painting something outside on canvas only looks cool then.

You are correct art supplies have inflated substantially. For example I had some canvas pads that I purchased years ago ,when I went to resupply them the new product from the same company was paper thin almost unusable. The quality was inferior at twice the cost..

How about, I'm tired of paying taxes for art, PERIOD.

https://www.facebook.com/Dans-Artwork...

I am tired of paying taxes for art that is childish, insulting, and obscene or art for the pleasure of those who want art without investing. Art should always be a product of the market. In my town we have an expensive object, ( I don't care to call it art), bought with city funds and created by a friend or relative of our mayor.

Bullseye, Herb

DrZ +++++++++'s and thank you for "horizontal filer" ........I now know how to define that part of myself.........even though accounting was the bedrock of my business consulting practice................BT

Free Market is not an oxymoron, but a lot of so-called free markets aren't really free.

+100

I'm sure a lot of artists agree with Person 1, and that's why they spend time creating art even though they know it won't pay very well. They're getting an intangible, subjective reward for their own efforts.

I have no problem with somebody doing that if he wants to, but I have a big problem with government making us subsidize it.

+1 for the highly appropriate Heinlein quote

I married an artist. She created and sold oil, acrylic, and water color works of art (realistic school, not abstract), teaching art as a side venture. She also made stained glass windows, wood carving, and designed the remodeling of five different houses. Once she found quilting, she abandoned everything else. She's made quilts for all of our relatives, for wounded veterans and the homeless, and even has a small quilt in the Smithsonian. Needless to say, I have an appreciation for art after 35 years with this talented lady. The funny thing is, she's the extremely organized one, and I'm the eccentric "horizontal filer," even though I'm the engineer.

For what it's worth, I think the government needs to stay out of the art market. The appeal is subjective, and there's a healthy audience willing to pay for what they like.

Robert Heinlein once wrote "...a government-subsidized artist is an incompetent whore."

I really can't add anything to that.

Art is a product. As such it has a value wich is determined by the demand for it. It requires a specialized talent to create and it is a product that not only reveals the artist, but also the buyers sense of life.

dobrien:
I'm adding you to my list of everyday heroes.