As I read Coomaraswamy's writing, "What is the use of art?," I began to consider the differences between pure and manufactured art. If we were to classify each work of art by the reason for its creation, everything could be classified as either being made for profit, or for use. The purpose of manufactured art is to earn money, which results in less valuable creations. A work of art should only cost as much as it did to create, otherwise the nature of the artwork is overshadowed. We lack well-made, beautiful creations in our world because the focus has been put on earning money, rather than creating meaningful works of art. When the maker of any good chooses to create
based on personal desire, we are presented with valuable products, and we are
therefore able to “get our money’s worth.”
If a work of art was to only include the cost of materials (even with a little more money thrown in for labor costs), how could an artist support themselves? I think that, like any occupation, financial gain is used as a reward for good work. How else would one insure that good art continues to get made? An artist may be forced to seek other means of providing for themselves (not to mention their families) if they do not make enough money through creating their art. This would effect their artistic output for sure. Yes, we can argue about who is worthy or not worthy, but that really depends on if the artist can capture a sizable audience. If people are willing to pay for it, let them pay for it. It is your job as a free-thinking individual to decide if you believe the work bought by another person (or their respective artistic taste) is good. Just don't judge them for spending their money how they wish.
ReplyDelete[This does not mean that you shouldn't champion or support the artists you like, be they small-time, local, or internationally renowned. The only way art stays alive is if it has an audience to keep it so.]
Delete