I read that once on a wall, somewhere behind a cafe for hipsters. Is it true?
Recently, there's been a post on the blog irevuo regarding marketing and art that led me to think more about this topic.
It's definitely something to ponder about. As children, we are taught to draw, encourage to draw for drawing's sake, told that our creativity is singular and sacred to ourselves and no one else. No one tells their children to draw for money because sacred and singular doesn't pay the bills. And somehow this beautiful, but tragic bohemian rhapsody of the "starving artist" has woven itself into the fabric of society and is embedded into everyone's minds. Artists are meant to make art, not to make money, as is the general sentiment.
In my mind, I understand something is wrong with this picture. But artists make art with their soul. It is very hard to bare your soul to someone and ask it to be weighed in exchange for cash. Because it's equivalent to being judged for your worth, and very few people of the human race are brave enough for that scale.
But what's harder to understand is that the scale is imaginary, and in today's galleries, you are not weighed for your artwork, you're weighed for potential popularity. Because there is no scale for absolutes in art. This is not a math equation. How do you tell a budding artist that it doesn't matter what he or she produces, as long as it catches the right eyes. Skill is irrelevant. Head over to satchi-art.com, I will bet you will find an injustice in the pricing. This person's work exhibit more skill, but sells poorer and for fewer $$$ than that piece of junk. What is the real basis for judging here? I would be hard-pressed to give an answer.
So it is true?
Make money, not art?