Blog

Hello Keith,

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.

In my comment earlier I was talking about art in general. In first instance art should be available for everyone. You can't exclude a group of people. Cars, for instance, should be available for everyone. I know, I couldn't afford the latest BMW, but that doesn't matter. I can affford a car. As well as I can afford a piece of art. Not Richard Schmid's art, but from another, maybe unknown, artist which work I love. I can afford a Karen Jurick. So Clint's words as Should expensive wines be accessible to everyone? and Should everyone have a private chef and a private jet? are not correct. That is not in general. That is for the happy few. I can afford a housekeeper for a few hours a month, though. But than again I know that when I sell my work at a local art market, people are willing to give me $25 for a 8 x 6 painting. That is not realistic. I gladly want to own a Rembrandt, even if it is a small one. But I know I can't. All I want to say that everybody can, once or more than once, buy a piece of art starting let's say from $150. And that is good. It is up to the buyer if he/she wants to spent that kind of money or not.

Interesting discussion.

Re: Is art for everyone?

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.

In your comment, you ask if diamonds should be accessible to everyone, or if expensive wines should be accessible to everyone. There's one rule I've found to be true: people will afford what they want to afford. If someone wants a diamond, they will find a way to buy a diamond. If people want that 6 pack of beer even though they are on food stamps, they will find a way to buy the 6 pack. I get the opportunity to see a lot of people in various income levels and they are always affording what they want to afford.

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.

Art is only necessary to evoke emotions. And, notice, not by its price. There are rich people who can't "talk" with the piece and there are the poor who feel every bit of emotion meant to be evoked in them by its author. And coming from the middle class I want to be able to purchase a piece that made me feel something. If only people bought the pieces that they understand or "feel", collections would not exist, there would be no need to put high price tags on any existing piece. However, if too many people feel connected to the piece and want to own it, according to the supply-demand equilibrium, it naturally costs more. The author's talent to speak to a wider audience is honorably valued higher in this scenario, which is only fair. A very materialistic approach, but that's you asked for. However, there are exceptions to this rule.
I won't buy Malevich's black square even if it were $1 because I already had it "tell" me everything it had to say without me even seeing the piece but merely hearing about its existence! I don't have to own it. And THIS is what makes it a master piece. The idea that Kazemir put into the painting has transcended its material boundaries. Something I want to reach with my art!
To those curious about what the Square told me, it is a "door" into the vast endless Universe where you are as big or small as you want and even the door itself is there to accommodate the scared nonbeliever's belief that s/he gets to hide out from the glaring infinity as if in some room.