"Art is meaningless unless its marketable." Would you say this is true?

Question

Self quote.

Answer 1

Art is just another means of survival for the starving population that embraces the fact that each and every individual is different, cool, popular, or has the potential to be the president, when in reality, art is nothing but your meaningless emotions put onto paper or canvas or clay or whatever you fancy. As a means of survival, art - for those who use it as income - is nothing more than a job. You wake up and you paint and you go to bed, thinking about what you should do next. It's the same job that everybody has, but it makes the person and the populace think that this "artist" is so emotional, so deep and so incredibly smart that they can project their thoughts into their work. Everybody projects their thoughts into their work. If you are good at what you do, then that is your job and it has thus far worked for you.
Art is not symbolic; art is used for three things: money, sex, and fame. Art cannot be used for any more than this. Name one artist who denied money or who denied a partner because they could never understand what the artist was saying. This is the curse that an artist must learn to live with: the fact that no matter how many people can relate to their work, nobody will ever actually understand what was going through your head at the time of creation.

Answer 2

Art is supposed to evoke an emotion and /or an intellectual interest. Happiness, sadness, anger, curiosity, perplexity, etc.

"So, it is meaningful even if only the artist or a few people appreciate it as art.

In terms of the broader market, I think a more interesting question is whether or not you agree with this: Art is whatever you can get away with. Because, in order to be marketable as art, you have to convince someone of its worthiness as art. Who, exactly would that person be and what group of people or "market" would he represent.

The museum curator would not necessarily choose the same items as art as, say, K-Mart for its customers.

Answer 3

From a practical standpoint. The phrase "starving artist" exists for a reason. Artists see things beyond the normal person's perception, unless the average Joe appreciates art, they won't buy it. Nevertheless a true artist does not care about marketing, but to reflect how the perceive , and translate it into art.

Answer 4

Absolutely not! Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so in turn is art. What you may consider art I may consider it not and even if it was on the market wouldn't pay a penny for it. I have some art on my fridge that is priceless!

Answer 5

Thats a nice, thought-provoking question.

Money is only one reason to create art. Most artists are driven by an urge to express themselves or another reason. Most of the great art of the past was to the glory of God. Tribal art has nothing to do with money; its religious and it binds people of the same culture together. Some artists wouldn't dream of 'prostituting themselves' by selling their works during their lifetime.

Answer 6

Well it depends on what you see in the art....and if it means something to you....example: my daughter is 1 and she drew me a picture, all it consists of is different colored scribbly marks...but to me it is better and more special than any other painting out there to buy...so like i said it all depends on you i think. But art is art no matter what it looks like or who created it...so therefore no art is meaningless...all art started out as a thought....and the thought is what truely counts!

Answer 7

No that is not true. Being creative can release tension, help distract you from other problems in your life, is self therapy and can just all around make you feel better. Who cares what other people think or what price tag you put on it. What matters is the pleasure you experience from creating the art.

Answer 8

No, a lot of art had no place in the market of its day, only to become hugely popular years later, and sometimes even long after the death of its creator.

Answer 9

You're obviously referring to artwork in the formal sense that can be listed in a catalogue and sold to collectors. Art in the sense of style or fashion is never marketed unless indirectly. That is, the swinging hips of Elvis Presley selling records and concert tickets, or the blond hair of Marilyn Monroe selling hair dye or wigs. As for the specific subject, discussed by your statement, of aspiring and struggling artists making concessions that risk the creation of bland, banal, middle-of-the-road art . . . next, please.

Answer 10

I would say that it could, even if it was marketable be meaningless to someone. For instance I could never do without all 12 of my paintings and I don't give a shyte what anyone thinks of them.