txt: The Colour of Money - www.frieze.com
But what about the artists who effectively harness the commercial forces of our cultural moment, which Saltz and his editors at New York find so distasteful? Their post-Warholian impact on the current artistic landscape cannot be dismissed with simplistic ethical arguments: money is bad, so art tainted by it is also bad. The fact is that there is no way to escape the market: it absorbs subversion and packages dissent, selling us an image of ourselves as conscientious objectors even when we are deeply entrenched in its system.
video: Pink Floyd - Money on youtube.com
One Comment
This argument of ‘Market = Bad ergo Art with support of the Market = Bad’ is frankly quite annoying. It has especially supported an increase in “indie” culture, but it has not really offered us anything interesting or new.
It’s impossible to ignore the essential system of barter and wealth that our society is founded upon. Instead of applying some all-encompassing moniker about wealth-backed art being evil, shouldn’t we evaluate art on an individual basis?
Also, isn’t that an amazing video?