No one buys art, part II

In this post on how no one buys art, Andy Chen comments "After mulling it over some more, it seems that only buying art for decor, status, or envy is rather pessimistic. Pessimism doesn't make something untrue but.... '

Oops. I think I've not been very clear. Probably that post sounded depressing; it's not the facts that are depressing, it's just that it's winter and the days have been dark and short, and so the snarling wolves of depression have been circling in the periphery of my vision.

I don't think it's bad that people buy decor, or mementos. I don't even think it's bad that people buy stuff for status reasons, although I think that taken to extremes that doesn't appear to be a very gratifying life.

I think it's good. Decor, for instance, is a good thing. We don't want to live in rickety, uncomfortable shacks with blank walls, we want to live in nice, snug, comfortable homes, and we want to decorate the inside (and sometimes the outside) in ways which make our lives more filled with beauty. That's a good goal. I think it should be spread as broadly as possible. When choosing drinking glasses, choose the ones that make you feel good when you look a them - you're going to look at them every day for a long time. (we have great drinking glasses here. Every one is different, they're lovely colors with a swirly pattern, and drinking a glass of cold milk is a fun, beauty filled experience).

Likewise, mementos. I'm all for Chip and Buffy having fun bodysurfing, and I'm really big on cold Chardonnay while sitting near a roaring, comforting fire. After we have a great experience, it makes sense to want to be reminded that we had a good time, even if right now we have to put on the boots and go out in the cold rain to cut up the tree that just fell across the driveway.

Even the 'artist by proxy' thing is fine with me. People are buying something, and having it enhances their life. If buying one of my photographs lets someone move even a teensy bit closer to being the kind of person who walks out onto a foggy, cold beach at 4:30am, I'm all for it. We, all of us, often participate in things by proxy. It's a way to pass experiences around. I love reading books about solo sailing around the world, or Shackleton's expedition. If that's not buying being adventurous by proxy, nothing is. (Even more important, a nice way to read about the privations of Shackleton's expedition is sitting in a comfy chair, with a nice fire in the fireplace, and a nice big glass of Cabernet on the corner table within easy reach).

So I think the reasons people buy artworks are good reasons. I also think the real reasons people buy an 'art object' have little to do with the fact that the object is the outcome of someone's artistic process, and everything to do with the positive impact possessing the object will have in their life.

What I think is amusing is the amount of conflict artists as a group have about the very realistic observation that no one actually buys art. Artists in general sneer at the idea of selling work to anyone they suspect is just buying decor. Don't believe me? Ask any artist how they'd feel if a couple looked at their art on the wall in the gallery, and one spouse says "Oh, I love this! It would look so nice over the couch - the yellows will really complement the yellows in the oriental carpet, and I think it goes so well with all the other things we have in the living room. Let's BUY it!"

Why is that? Why do artists live in mortal fear that someone will buy their art, and hang it on the wall, and derive daily enjoyment from it? Shouldn't the fact that you've gotten to engage in the artistic process, and then someone else got to benefit from the object created as a side effect, and the world got to win twice be something we celebrate rather than lament?

I suspect the reason is that artists in general HATE the idea of the need to make their art saleable. If your artistic process is all about working out your religious issues by making images of religious figures in the medium of animal dung, you can pretty much bet that no one is going to see it in the gallery and decide to buy it to go over the sideboard in their dining room. Some artists are fortunate that the work they want to produce is easily saleable, and artists whose work isn't are jealous of this, and so they do what every jealous person does - they run down the salable art as 'commercial' or 'shallow' or 'not really art'.

That's natural, and normal. But hiding your head in the sand and pretending that someone will buy the art objects you make just because your artistic process is filled with soul searching even if the art itself is aesthetically aversive - that isn't very productive.

And, at the back of my mind, I get the nagging feeling that there's something in there about the current art world's rejection of beauty, too. It amazes me that in a world so filled with beauty, artists seem to be engaged in a petty game along the lines of "You want art that goes over your sofa, do you? Here! Take this ugly, repellent thing. Put that over your damn sofa, you offensively wealthy, shallow, art-ignorant, insensitive buffoon!"

And what the artists are failing to realize is that they're cutting off their nose to spite their face, not only because they'll never sell a darn thing, but also because they're distorting their art just as much as if they were only making art that would sell.

Do I think artists should avoid making controversial art? Absolutely not. But neither should they avoid making certain kinds of art just because there's a risk someone will think it goes nicely with their sofa.