[Previous entry: "Life and Painting"] [Next entry: "Search for the Real"]
05/24/2007: "Whose Art Is It Anyway?" by Barney Davey
I like to read the blog by New York gallerists, Ed Winkelman. He’s been a fixture on the high-end fine art scene for years. He delves into lots of interesting topics and generates substantial comments from many of his posts. His May 10 post grabbed my attention. It is titled, Alternatives to the Commercial Gallery System for Selling One's Art.
The post opens with this sentence: “Ever since I got verbally beat up by a neo-socialist artist on a panel discussion, for having the audacity to associate art with commerce, I've been careful to preface any lectures I give with the belief that having one's art be seen is simply part of being an artist, of having that dialog with the public, and that there is a wide range of channels through which to do so, a commercial gallery being simply one of them. Not only does it seem to effectively silence the sort of attacks I had endured on that panel, but I actually believe it. I personally love the commercial gallery system, but I'm rather fond of many alternatives to it as well.”
While Winkelman offers some excellent insights regarding the alternatives to the commercial gallery, his comments about a neo-socialist who verbally beat him up opened up an interesting discussion about art and politics. I would never attempt to pawn myself off as a deep thinker when it comes to politics. I approach politics about the same way most folks approach art. That is, they don’t study the fine nuances or even know most of the players/artists, but they know it when they find something they like and the confident ones trust their instincts. I suppose it’s the kind of “Blink” siuation Malcolm Gladwell describes in his interesting book by the same title. I don’t need a Master’s degree to know I am not happy with the way George Bush has managed his administration. Given his low approval rating, I’m not alone.
Despite the admitted shallow waters in the political arena, the commentary in Winkelman’s blog did give me reason to think about art and how it gets created and more importantly, how it gets seen and appreciated. If you take the time to read through the many comments on his blog post, you’ll note someone (me) referred to neo-socialists as buffoons. That was perhaps a low blow, but I was a bit exercised over some political guerrilla even thinking attacking Winkelman or anyone else in his opinion made sense. It seemed like a cheap grandstanding shot to me, and I wasn’t even there. I guess I think if someone really wants to implement change, you seek the inflection point where your efforts will pay off and I can’t believe a panel discussion on the arts is the place to make that happen.
Someone named Jason took up the neo-socialist banner in the comments and gave a reasonable explanation of the polictical thinking that he espouses. Essentially, he was saying that art at the level Winkelman sells is something to be bought only by the very rich. And, the rub comes because the only way someone gets rich is if someone else is made poor in the process. Read the post and comments to judge for yourself.
There were, of course, replies to Jason’s comments that defended capitalism and the gallery system, etc. The discussion started me thinking about art history. It seems to me that if the super rich were not always the benefactors of artists, much of what is considered the best of the best would have never seen the light of day. This goes back beyond the Medicis who famously sponsored artists and artisans. What if the Catholic Church hadn’t invested in artists and art? Would we have a Sistine Chapel or a Pieta?
Wouldn’t the world be a much duller place if some super rich throughout the ages hadn’t supported the arts? Would the great museums around the world have been built and continue to be able to operate without the money provided by those with disposable incomes most of us cannot even imagine? I’m not defending getting rich at the expense of the poor, but I am nonetheless gladly willing to take advantage of the arts programs and institutions that wealth has created.
As with a lot of complex things, there is no easy answer here. I love that so much art is available to the public. I recently posted on my blog www.ArtPrintIssue.com about the Rembrandt and the Golden Age of Dutch Art and the concurrent Curves of Steel exhibits at the Phoenix Art Museum. Were it not for grants and donations, such fine shows would not ever be mounted. In that context, it’s easy to give support for the system the way it is.
Still there is a nagging feeling that some of what the neo-socialist argued made sense. That is the wealthy get that way at the expense of others and in general that doesn’t seem right, but where I come to a screeching halt is on what is right and fair and what is not. If one makes money on the backs of third world labor in inhuman Asian sweat shops and then gives generously to the arts community, does that create an unlivable dichotomy for me or most other art lovers? Perhaps somewhat, but not to the extent I want to espouse neo-socialism and attack guys like Ed Winkelman on a panel discussion.
Author Steven Covey says there is no limit on the amount of good one turned on person can achieve. I talked recently with another gallerist, Patty Smith, of the Expressions Galllery in San Diego. She is a perfect blend of catering to those with disposable income and at the same time working hard as a local activist to get children of all income strata exposed to the arts in the San Diego area.
Patty and a small cadre of energetic visionary people created the Arts Bus Express (www.artsbusxpress.org). They figured out that the schools had buses sitting idle during the day and that they could be used to take children to local arts events. It might be a daytime dress rehearsal for Yo Yo Ma, or a stage play or a museum visit. Here is the first paragraph from the organization’s Web site: “ ArtsBusXpress has enjoyed a tremendous growth since its start in October of 2002. Since its inception, ABX has offered over 77,000 students from more than 180 schools throughout San Diego County the opportunity to experience music, theater, dance, museums, science, and technology as part of enriching their school experience.”
This handful of people turned on to doing something useful, worthwhile and genuinely good has managed to move mountains and create wonderful opportunities for local children to gain exposure to the arts. They have done much of the heavy lifting in getting the details of the program ironed out. Patty Smith would love to talk with anyone who would like to explore with her how they could get started with an Arts Bus Xpress in their own community. I told you she was turned on. She is looking to put her considerable energy into replicating the program in other communities. If you have the interest, I encourage you to contact her through the Web site. I promise you won’t be disappointed.
Most importantly, if you are able to get an Arts Bus Xpress started in your community, you will help answer the question posed in the title of this blog. The arts belong to us all. Getting children involved the arts at an early age is a wonderful thing with a great many positive aspects and results arising from doing so. Certainly, Patty Smith and her gang have made the arts belong to everyone through their efforts in San Diego. It would be a wonderful thing if some readers of this post take action to contact her.
Barney Davey
Art Marketing Consultant
www.artprintissues.com
