This is not going to be an entry that cites any data. This is a feely piece, because I'm an artist. Artists go with their gut just like comedians do. The only difference is that comedians do whatever they can to get a laugh, and artists do whatever they can to get a scratch of one's head. Both are important, but they are not the same. So, that's why I'm about to bash artists here. Real comedians go wherever they have to in order to achieve a concrete response. Artists do whatever they can to appear smart.
I don't have too many artist friends. It's a shame, because artists thrive on the dialogue with other artists. That's where I'm steering this. Artists are so lame nowadays. Most galleries work on marketing an artist based on their identity. Again, I'm not citing data here. I could get more specific, but I don't want to make this about identity politics directly. I want to talk about how the system works. Art can be broken down into four points of discussion.
*Art process
*Art market
*Artist identity
*Art history
Each one of these topics can exist on its own. In fact, when we talk about the art market it usually precludes the other points. The market for me is probably the least interesting point of conversation. Art history could be the most important, because I'm an art nerd. Artist identity is also interesting, but I care about if the work is good. Someone's identity doesn't signify the work being good. A person's imbued characteristic is just that. The work has a life separate from that. The art process is also a solid field to explore, because we can learn from process and pull it into our own practice.
At the moment, the artist identity is how the market functions. If we can sell the person we can sell the work. It's no different than selling Coke. Marketing feels the pulse of what is needed and creates a supply. We are in a world where there is equity in claiming victimhood. It is of no consequence if the person is a victim. Simply belonging to a group or looking a certain way paves the way to cash in. Galleries push the artist first. The narrative is always boring, just like commercials have become. We look to the impressionists who became the avant-garde. The mystique of these poor bohemians is that they lived in cold water flats. They were poor, and there was something holy about that. It really tugs at our Judeo-Christian strings as a society. Rich unholy and poor holy is how that goes.
We have an art world that functions on mythos, and the mythos sells the brand. We utilize the three other topics when discussing the art market. We use the process, identity and history to spin a tale about why the art is worth something. It's only worth something, because the market reacts to the need. The need is never for the art. The need is economic and political. Billions of dollars are generated through the sales of these items. The political bend is connected with academia and where art is cultivated. It comes from the universities and institutions. It's all supported with tax dollars and the state in its infancy. State wants to retain its power and expand. Art is a product of this system, and thus cannot bite the hand that feeds it. The state is now "thriving" off of these victimhood politics, and the art is an expression of the times.
If artists want to climb the ladder then we need to bow to the market and the state. This is a bummer, because it has boiled into a culture war with very serious money backing it. "In every joke theres a tiny revolution," George Orwell. Comedy can strip away at the false web we live in. Art can easily become propaganda pushing a statist agenda. Too many artists know where their bread is buttered. Too many artists don't ask the real questions that we would in an art process. And too many artist are no longer revolutionaries caring about something more than the market.