An individual feels the creative impulse and is moved to create, inspired to make something out of nothing.
If he/she is part of some commercial venture, their work is marketed, in whatever media, given wide exposure, and as far as the ordinary person is concerned, this is art. Little or no consideration is given to it's originality or merit. It works, and the commercial artist knows why it works.
Another individual does the same thing, but is not part of a commercial venture, uses limited means to bring his/her work to into the public eye, where it may or may not be recieved, based on the fact that it may not be 'mainstream' or marketable.
And the third individual (such as Mapplethorpe, insert name) gets enough financial backing to market his/her work as "art", where it is sold to the elite no matter how subjective or inaccessible it may be. Which often results in the dismissal of 'art' by the average person as pretentious and irrrelevant.
So, in the long run, is it not money and popular opinion that determine what 'art' is?
If he/she is part of some commercial venture, their work is marketed, in whatever media, given wide exposure, and as far as the ordinary person is concerned, this is art. Little or no consideration is given to it's originality or merit. It works, and the commercial artist knows why it works.
Another individual does the same thing, but is not part of a commercial venture, uses limited means to bring his/her work to into the public eye, where it may or may not be recieved, based on the fact that it may not be 'mainstream' or marketable.
And the third individual (such as Mapplethorpe, insert name) gets enough financial backing to market his/her work as "art", where it is sold to the elite no matter how subjective or inaccessible it may be. Which often results in the dismissal of 'art' by the average person as pretentious and irrrelevant.
So, in the long run, is it not money and popular opinion that determine what 'art' is?
Comment