Under a day of rain, in a letter, he wrote:
[...] as soon you think about self-creativity there's the equation of having to work for a living. When you do art, you do it because you like it, not because it's necessary. But as soon as you do it, you can't eat anymore, because nobody wants to buy art. It's a very difficult question.
The book I'm reading has a few interesting passages, not all them. I suspect the artist to masturbate a bit sometimes ... "Ye souiiiii oune artiste" ...
Under a day of grey, fine drizzle drawing dotted lines on dusty windows, I replied:
I think it is because nobody thinks art is really necessary in the modern world. The modern world is about utility and efficiency. There is a point too that 'individual' art only began to exist very late, in the late 18th (19th?) century. Before that, art had a purpose — you have court musicians, you have commissioned art for public spaces. For the peasants, you have bards and storytellers. These occupations don't exist in the same way anymore. Artists these days also want to make money from art — in the past, people live for art.
Do you think television killed art?
Maybe with the growth of the 'individual artist' there also comes a certain elevation of the the cult status of being an artist. The word 'artist' carries a lot more symbolism these days precisely because it is not seen as a real profession with a real purpose. Therefore, maybe saying it comes with a kind of pride.
What is killing art?
Posted by sniffles at November 12, 2003 02:18 PM