Art and money is a great topic. In a world that runs on money, artists need to be able to make a living! And transactionalism doesn't automatically invalidate artistic merit.
It's a little too precious to think good art is this unblemished expression of nothing but pure creative vision. Many great works have been created in commission. In a way, giving art a monetary value contributes to the importance of art. On top of that, a lot of great art wouldn't have been created if large sums of money were not invested - huge undertakes like painting the Sistine Chapel come to mind. If art would've just remained a hobby, our history would be a lot less interesting.
I like the story of Gork and Grok.
Even if Grok began painting out of some creative drive and an indomitable need to express Grok's vision, you're probably right about what happened next.
I think market dynamics can be somewhat more problematic than one-on-one transactions. There's a reason why some people pay and other people create. To quote someone in the second category:
"Play your own way. Don't play what the public wants. You play what you want and let the public pick up on what you're doing." — Thelonious Monk
It's good to consider an audience, but don't get captured.
Another thing, one I mentioned before: art as investment. Worst case scenario, the art is kept in a climate-controlled storage - it completely takes away the possibility to appreciate it, except as a stand-in for a large sum of money.
There are also other dynamics going on in the art world, the types of stuff you see in any environment that attracts money and power, and all systems that create status and dependencies. Probably a little too heavy a topic to dive into - and obviously not something that's about art per se.
Here's a little clip that the algorithm threw at me today. It's only five minutes, but it's really good.
The Animated Theories of Clement Greenberg
It's a little too precious to think good art is this unblemished expression of nothing but pure creative vision. Many great works have been created in commission. In a way, giving art a monetary value contributes to the importance of art. On top of that, a lot of great art wouldn't have been created if large sums of money were not invested - huge undertakes like painting the Sistine Chapel come to mind. If art would've just remained a hobby, our history would be a lot less interesting.
I like the story of Gork and Grok.
Even if Grok began painting out of some creative drive and an indomitable need to express Grok's vision, you're probably right about what happened next.I think market dynamics can be somewhat more problematic than one-on-one transactions. There's a reason why some people pay and other people create. To quote someone in the second category:
"Play your own way. Don't play what the public wants. You play what you want and let the public pick up on what you're doing." — Thelonious Monk
It's good to consider an audience, but don't get captured.
Another thing, one I mentioned before: art as investment. Worst case scenario, the art is kept in a climate-controlled storage - it completely takes away the possibility to appreciate it, except as a stand-in for a large sum of money.
There are also other dynamics going on in the art world, the types of stuff you see in any environment that attracts money and power, and all systems that create status and dependencies. Probably a little too heavy a topic to dive into - and obviously not something that's about art per se.
Here's a little clip that the algorithm threw at me today. It's only five minutes, but it's really good.
The Animated Theories of Clement Greenberg
I never heard of Clement Greenberg, but now I feel like I know what he was all about. That was an entertaining video. People get really weird about art, don’t they? I kinda feel like I, as commoner, in my ignorance, am better poised to actually enjoy looking at artworks. Mmm, pretty colors, me likey :p Seriously, I can take what I want from art rather than following what some blowhard wants to tell me.
(I really don’t like when people use the phrase “you have to understand…” (This YouTuber said that once.) First, I don’t have to do s**t just because you tell me to and, second, the sheer arrogance—people only say that as a preface to shoving something down your throat. Even though I kinda liked what she was shoving…)
(I really don’t like when people use the phrase “you have to understand…” (This YouTuber said that once.) First, I don’t have to do s**t just because you tell me to and, second, the sheer arrogance—people only say that as a preface to shoving something down your throat. Even though I kinda liked what she was shoving…)
(06-15-2026, 10:08 AM)Piero Wrote: As for money: art is a bit like sport - there are professionals and amateurs; those who do it for a living, and those who do it for the love of it. Both can make great art, but those who do it every day to survive sometimes have to make compromises.
In my native language (greek) an amateur is called eracitechnes (eramai + techne) which etymologically means "he/she who loves art", it perfectly aligns with your definition there.
The etymology of the word in English, which ultimately comes from Latin via French, doesn't refer to art explicitly, but does also mean "one who loves".