2. Medina says, "Contemporary art gives our capitalist society a convenient alignment of consumable art, the rich people who finance it and an academy that docilely goes along for the ride," do you agree or disagree?
3. Medina also says, "The only way that contemporary art could possibly redeem itself is by rendering obsolete the narratives that give so much weight to art made in cities steeped in colonialism and imperialism." How do you feel about this?
2) If it was all about capitalism artists wouldn't make art simply for the rich, the money is in the masses. Lisa Frank and the cute kitties in rainbow colors probably as sold more copies and made more money ($10-50 million annually in sales) than most artists today.
ReplyDeleteSo as a product of culture, and the desire to perhaps be part of something unusual, something difficult to be included in, I would say yes it is a alignment of the rich and the artists. But of true blooded, what will make me rich, capitalism, not so much.
2) I'm always leary when someone suggests completely doing away with narratives, because I can argue narrative in a great deal of art: suggested narrative, intentional narrative, unintentional narrative, forced narrative, etc. But perhaps the quote is linked to money? Like, being an artist and selling out by only making art that the rich want to buy? Perhaps then the art becomes tainted with this "only-for-the-money" narrative and is no longer art? Medina's lost me a bit here. It sounds like an angry complaint about selling out to me, but I could be over-analyzing.
ReplyDelete