[NetBehaviour] [spectre] post-doc grant programme (blocked postings)
joelweishaus at gmail.com
Sun Sep 7 02:22:10 CEST 2014
But isn't it sad, in view of the sacrifices past artists were willing to
make, at least when they were young, as with Picasso, and many more. Or
to risk remaining poor all their life, as with Van Gogh, and many more.
I guess I'm still a romantic, having lived through the 60s. But perhaps
artists still need to make some sacrifices to save art from the snarling
beasts of capitalism. After all, artists are given the divine madness of
creativity. I don't expect anyone to live the way I did. But it was a
grand time of friendships and bodhisattvas who appeared from nowhere to
lend a helping hand. No applications needed!
On 9/6/2014 4:57 PM, isabel brison wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> It's interesting you give Duchamp as an example, as I think with him
> the story could easily be put the other way round: the recognition he
> achieved and the ability to ingeniously support himself through his
> art - using the Large Glass for rent or paying his dentist with a hand
> painted cheque - allowed him to experiment, fool around at his
> leisure, and eventually come up with a body of work that is impossible
> to ingore in the extent of its influence over subsequent art practice,
> whether you love it or hate it.
> On the other hand, I expect there will always be artists, as there
> will always be businesspeople everywhere, trying to give the market
> what it wants in order to make a profit, but that's really up to them
> - and I don't think starving them would make them better artists;
> they'd probably just give up and get a better paying job elsewhere :-)
> On 7 September 2014 08:59, Joel Weishaus <joelweishaus at gmail.com
> <mailto:joelweishaus at gmail.com>> wrote:
> You're right to call me on this.
> What I had in mind is that awards (I mean by this "blue ribbons")
> tend to make some artists think that they can get away with
> whatever they make as long as they sign it. (Duchamp).
> I shouldn't have included grants. However, with rising prices,
> only the strongest, or maddest, artists will give the collectors
> what they don't want.
> I would agree with you that "good artists don't have to eat," if
> you add "so much, especially Americans."
> Smiles to you,
> On 9/6/2014 3:25 PM, isabel brison wrote:
>> > As for the canon, the best work that enters it is only after
>> the artist is dead and the dust has settled. So that the
>> artist-at-work isn't tainted by rising prices, grants or prizes.
>> Good job artists don't need to eat, or we'd _really_ be in trouble.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NetBehaviour