The eternal question continues to burn in the hearts and wallets of artists everywhere— Is art made for the sake of the people, or the artist who makes it? If you think it’s for the people, then that would presume that the art must be mass-produced so it can be purchased by the rich and poor alike. If it’s for the artist, then the art can only be sold for extravagant prices which few can afford. So which to choose if you’re a young struggling artist trying to make a living?
I guess the answer lies in your beliefs. Any artist who tells you they don’t like a payoff is full of that fragrant stuff you find in sewers. But to only have your art owned by wealthy people seems holier-than-thou to me. I think the point of being an artist is making an impact on people’s lives, on their way of thinking. Part of that impact is being able to hold the art, touch the art, damn well destroy the art if you paid for it. You can’t do that when the art is on a museum wall behind a burgundy velvet rope with a security guard to the side.
Maybe I only see it this way because I’m young and unsung as an artist. Supply and demand determines a lot. Money can corrupt even the strongest mind. But I’m going to try to do the right thing, and make art that everyday people can afford. If I ever blow up, I hope I have the sense to remember that. Peace.