Monday, October 22, 2007
Why artists shouldn’t accept state funding
spiked: "Ceri runs an arts charity in London. For years, she’s applied for government grants to fund her work, but not any more. ‘You can’t do anything interesting or original’, she says. ‘Everything has so many strings and requirements attached about involving the community or helping people stop smoking or whatever, that there’s no room to do anything else.’"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While I agree with this article for the most part, it's definitely something I feel is hard to relate to in the US. We don't deal with public art funding, government inolvement/control, etc., on as grand a scale here as they do in the UK. My first reaction was to suggest that this article is a little melodramatic, making it sound as though the average artist is oppressed, controlled by the government, and that "good" art has to come out of underground movements, like in the Soviet Union or something. But then I realized that perhaps this isn't an overstatement, since we have little understanding of the artworld abroad, and we only know how design and fine arts function as private business in the States. It definitely tells me that as a working artist someday, I need to pay attention to the way the industry functions outside the US as well and be more familiar with the way things get done.
People don't need art.
They should.
But it's not a necessity like a toothbrush, or water or even a roof over their head. Constantly non-artists perceive art as something they can just go watch when they're bored on a Sunday afternoon. Until we reach a medium where people are going to view art because they NEED art, we will always be troubled by the claims money has upon us. That's my Utopia.
Post a Comment