I don't understand why Berg thinks artists don't need to deal with real world conditions. A successful artist in today's artworld has many expenses similar to those incurred in operating a commercial business. That usually means assistants and, frequently, a studio manager to keep records and maintain the day to day practical issues. Also, the cost of artmaking materials can be very daunting, far above what many people realize. The fickle reality of the artworld adds to the risk. Few artists can maintain their success beyond a decade simply because the art market thrives on novelty and blue/blue chip, meaning a revolving door of the hot emerging artists and the handful of "old master" artists. Being an artist in a society that does almost nothing to support the arts and cares nothing for endeavors done for their own sake can be very hard going in terms of making a living. If Berg is so worried about the corrosive effects of being an artist in our materialist, market society, he should endow an arts foundation, do something materially positive for art and artists and stop demeaning "ambitious" artists. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 9:21:42 PM Subject: Re: Isn't Bravo's "Work of Art..." turning artists into politicians? Won't "Work of Art..." create this kind of viewer?: - Men often applaud an imitation and hiss the real thing. Aesop On 1/2/11, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:22 PM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> - Politics are now nothing more than means of rising in the world. >> >> Samuel Johnson >> > > > Won't "Work of Art.." attract the ambitious rather than the artistic?
