Big Think

Benjamin Leo Bart de Groot commented on Chuck Close Justifies Public Art Expenditures on April 7, 2009, 4:30 PM

Support for the art -or rather the lack of it- seems to be something inherent in most western cultures. If what Chuck Close perceives is based on correct information, then it would make sense for the government to invest in art for the public domain i.e. museums and theaters and the like. Besides that: art is an investment whose price is not so much bound by the market (anything from an established artist will only increase in value). On the point of art being frivolous, that is an idea based on two things. 1) In the 20th century Art has fanned out more, causing established lines about what art exactly entails to become gray areas. Some might even call it a fall of standard and even (in Hegelian terms) the end of art. 2) The main buyers in the art market are wealty individuals -buisnessmen and celebrities- of whom a great number (not all, mind you) see art more as an investment than a beautifull piece of culture. They may value the aesthetics, but the stable amount of profit that can be made is a little more relevant. Now, if I were to feel really paranoid, I would say that the lack of attention from the government is because there are certain elements behind the curtains who see free expression, culture and educated though as a threat to their seats of power. "Dumb" people tend to be compliant and easy to manipulate. In any way, there should be more attention to arts and culture, because apparently they are in higher demand than one would expect.

Benjamin Leo Bart de Groot commented on Is art declining as a movement? on October 19, 2008, 9:50 AM

Art has, in a historic perspective, predominantly been the realm of the elite - be it religious or secular. The idea that art has a direction or another purpose more important than being an icon or luxury only exists since the 19th century when the idea of what sort of person an artist is matures (the seeds of this process were sown with the enlightenment in the 18th century). the artist becoming an autonomous genius with his own idea's about the objective of art. That's when art starts broadening out...That's what we're taught in art history education anyway. In my opinion, art is not declining but seems to decline because it is not what we tend to think of when we think about art. We will have to get used to the idea that art, whatever it is, is changing and taking new courses which on one hand seem to lower the standards of what art is and who artists are (you know how it sometimes seems you can label any old rubbish as art, as long as you put up a good story about it) but on the other hand open up new and unexplored realms for the artist to try out. So in my opinion art is not declining, but changing and we just hace to see which way it is going