|
Keith Bond Fine Art
by Keith Bond on 8/4/2009 4:12:11 PM
This post is a request for your input. I am torn between two arguments about the accessibility of art to the general public. Should art be inexpensive enough to be collected by anyone and everyone? Or should art remain scarce and priced so that only the advantaged are able to collect. There are valid arguments on both sides. Where do you stand? Please comment. I hope to write about the topic soon. I would value your insights.
|
9 Responses to Is Art for Everyone
via web
via web
I agree with Jarig above. Art should be for everybody. That doesn't mean I advocate giving it away. But there are instances such as studies and smaller works (as Jarig mentions above)where art can be offered at less expense. In this way, someone who may not be able to afford a high end piece could acquire an original work.
via keithbond.com
If we're talking about original art, I don't think that it's realistic that art can be "be inexpensive enough to be collected by anyone and everyone." At least not in the context of any particular artist. For example, I agree everyone would love to enjoy a Richard Schmid painting, but it would be wrong to somehow tell him he's doing a disservice to mankind because he doesn't keep his prices "accessible to everyone."
Should diamonds be accessible to everyone?
Should expensive wines be accessible to everyone?
Should everyone have a private chef and a private jet?
The fact is that we live in a world where there are things not accessible to everyone.
I do think that art museums should exist and be affordable enough for most people to view masterpieces. Prints serve a need for people who can't afford originals. Even books. As a little boy from a lower-middle-class family, I POURED over art books - a lot can be learned and enjoyed just from books.
I don't even think the question can be "SHOULD" art remain scarce. It doesn't matter. Art is a hand-created one-at-a-time "product." Art WILL remain scarce and we'll just have to live with these realities.
I kind of rambled here, so I sincerely hope this comment makes since after I click the submit button.
via keithbond.com
Interesting discussion.
via keithbond.com
via keithbond.com
I think that fine art originals should remain rare. However, I think that everyone should have access to certain paintings- that is in a reprinted form. (Deciding which works this would apply to is a whole new discussion...) As for my point, for example, everyone should be able to enjoy the Mona Lisa, and for more than a few minutes or hours while passing through the Louvre. You don't have to make reprints of every beautiful piece of work ever created, but let those of us designated as poor serfs just trying to decorate our homes with beautiful works of art have some way to enjoy that spice in life that is fine art.
via keithbond.com
(Everyone can have a watch, but not everyone can have a Rolex)
via keithbond.com
I have one blog post about art collecting you might be interested in: http://dawnblair.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/art-collector-join-the-growing-number/ . I've also just recently posted a blog about how I have children becoming art collectors -- it's a little further up in The Final Frontier entry I believe.
You've certainly provided food for thought here. I can't wait to see what you finally come up with.
via keithbond.com