Wednesday, August 11, 2010

The Art of Me

Just finished a long debate with a friend about whether or not something is truly art when it's sole purpose is to make $$ and fame, rather than for the pure joy/expression/passion/____ of making it. I believe the consensus being that if you felt the work best described as "art", as opposed to art, it was probably just that: a make money and fame gimmick. Seems like too often the word art is a convenient label to stick on something in order to make its intentions seem more pure. Like when people say advertising is/can be "art" (yes, those are quotes).

Well then I see this, which clouds the issue all together, at least with respect to intent. Yes, much $$$ being exchanged for these pieces, yet seemingly by accident. But when you live your life as a shadowed mystery, are you actually famous? And when the $$$ are for someone else?

Are these intentions pure? Were they ever?

I hope so. Would love to hear your thoughts...

1 comment:

brooksy said...

been following Banksy since I lived in England and I believe he is still having a laugh at the 'art' world - he didn't make money....or was his 'graffiti' worth anything until recently. I think he has proven through his film that folks buy/value art art because they are told to. People are sheep. People are idiots. Art is what you make of it. How much art can you take?