[NetBehaviour] [spectre] post-doc grant programme (blocked postings)
joelweishaus at gmail.com
Sun Sep 7 03:33:02 CEST 2014
I'd rather have been a poor Van Gogh than a wealthy collector who never
knew what it felt like to paint like that.
But that's me.
On 9/6/2014 6:05 PM, isabel brison wrote:
> Oh, I agree it's sad, especially that Van Gogh didn't get to see any
> of the bucketloads of money people are making off his work nowadays -
> but he made his choices, and one can only hope he was happy with them.
> I wouldn't ask anyone to sacrifice their health and happiness for the
> sake of making good art; Van Gogh's poverty certainly did nothing to
> defeat capitalism. If we go on thinking it's somehow noble to work in
> miserable conditions, the only thing that's going to happen - that
> already happens - is the big guys at the top of the art food chain get
> a lot of really cheap labour, and become filthy rich at our expense.
> That said, I have a day job to support my art habit, and wouldn't
> think of giving it up :-)
> On 7 September 2014 10:22, Joel Weishaus <joelweishaus at gmail.com
> <mailto:joelweishaus at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Isabel;
> 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
>>> Good job artists don't need to eat, or we'd _really_ be in
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org <mailto:NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NetBehaviour