Art, located between tradition and modernity, emphasizes the role of emotion and morality in economic behavior, considers the society as a whole and the value of life - the function of consumption, and pursues fairness in the amount of labor. In all walks of life, there are places where people need to sacrifice their life for righteousness.
Political economy is defined as collective state or corporate support for art and architecture in the public sphere intended to be accessible to the widest possible public, raising questions about the relationship of the state to cultural production and consumption. EDITED BY JULIE F. CODELL - The Political Economy of Art
Making the Nation of Culture, 2008. This collection of essays explores the political economy of art from the perspective of the artist or from analysis of art production and consumption,emphasizing the art side of the relationship between art and state. The volume explores art as public good, a central issue in political economy.
The reassuring misconception is that money and art shouldn't go together.
However, money has always been an aspect of "Art"—as distinct from craft, adornment, and sacred symbolism. A critical assessment of the motives and issues confronting modern artists who use various types of currency and financial instruments (coins, bills, banknotes, debt, derivatives contracts) as means of creative and critical expression and intervention.
Political economy education is adventurious. The development of educational institutions is part of a grassroots effort led by students, faculty, and staff to fend off a stingy government (notably under different political parties), especially if the government is eager to merge the school with another institutions. Or turn it off completely. In either case, the government has seen fit to impose an austerity agenda on struggling art schools. In this context, the myths surrounding the relationship between art and money infantilize and marginalize artists and art professionals as hopeless, penniless romantics unable to take care of their wallets - while simultaneously dismissing neoliberalism as Austerity normalized into harsh, rational, necessary paternalism. Ultimately, the two myths reinforce each other: "art" is art precisely because it is not money; money is money precisely because it is not art.
Why Are (Most) Artists Fucking Poor?
The majority of artists earn very little. Nonetheless, there are plenty of aspiring young artists. Do they contribute to the arts willingly or unknowingly? Governments and other institutions also contribute to the art in order to improve low-income communities. However, their assistance is ineffective: subsidies exacerbate artists' destitution. The economy of the art is extraordinary. Although the arts thrive in the marketplace, their natural inclination is toward gift-giving rather than commercial exchange. People believe that artists are selflessly dedicated to their work, that prices do not represent quality, and that the arts are free. But is this true? This novel multidisciplinary analysis explains the unusual economy of the art. The study is supported by insightful illustrations from a visual artist's practice.
The W.A.G.E. released the findings of its 2010 assessment of payments made to artists who exhibited with nonprofit art institutions in New York City between 2005 and 2010. The poll discovered that 58% of the artists who answered received "no form of payment." The audience, which included Artists Space director Stefan Kalmár, addressed critical questions about the poll technique but did not dispute the group's results. W.A.G.E. has collaborated with Artists Space to investigate the creation of a self-regulatory approach necessitating the deployment of a charge schedule inside the organization. One of the reasons for artists' pay - according to presenter A.K. Burns - is that NGOs receive funding from many sources for public education, and the artist serves as the instructor. Why do the artist isn't getting paid. One of W.A.G.E.'s statements suggests that artists should be compensated for their cultural worth in capital value, which is still controversial.
The typical opposing viewpoints include the notion that artists will eventually get compensated through commercial sales of their work, including the belief that NGOs lack the means to pay artists. W.A.G.E. rejects the artist's standing as a speculator and tries to address fee agreements between NGOs and artists through their certification program. A.L. Steiner contended that the market has its own economy, and W.A.G.E. is now ignoring the speculative recompense that occurs following an exhibition. In terms of budgets, Artists Space contributed samples from 2005 to the present at the request of W.A.G.E for comparison to the Canadian CARFAC fee schedule, which coincided with the W.A.G.E survey time period.
The budgets shown Under Kalmár's guidance, Artists Space has utilized different portions of its budget to compensate artists, placing a fresh focus on financing production and artists' fees - this effectively demonstrates that nonprofits do have the resources to meet the variable CARFAC schedule, which would never have exceeded 4% of any of the budget samples laid out. This brings people to the first, and possibly more crucial, reason for which it felt vital to teach political economy at an art school and to continue this research into a book about money and art: the current financial and economic crises. Even though experts tell us that the 2008 financial crisis is behind us, the rich are the only ones who can truly live in a world where inequality is still on the rise and austerity policies are still in place. Unfortunately, most people approach this situation as though it were inevitable, as though violent behaviors by godlike "markets" toward society—especially the vulnerable and impoverished—were normal or even necessary.
As a matter of fact, art society is choosing to accept neoliberal economics, and this decision is influenced by the boundaries of what artists collective imaginations can envision.
The romantic idea that art is fatally allergic to money is dangerous because it fetishizes art as a holy space that capitalism has profaned. By doing this, people become sidetracked from capitalism - is eradicating and sapping imagination and creativity from a variety of different areas of life, most notably the foundation of the economy itself: the means by which humans coexist on a limited and unstable planet. It is long overdue to direct artistic drive and craft toward fundamental economic problems.
Money and "art" have always been intertwined, and any attempt to deny this connection will only serve to strengthen the bond. Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore the rise of various institutions worldwide that are now trying to turn artworks into financial assets. These include hyper-securitized "freeport" luxury warehouses where these and other investors store their art out of sight, out of the reach of the public, possibly for decades or even centuries at a time; new algorithmic indexes that capture and predict the price of contemporary art; and art investment funds that enable speculators to pool their capital to purchase contemporary works solely to profit from their eventual resale.
19th-Century British art critic John Ruskin has made several appearances on Litkicks. Here, Michael Norris introduces us to a surprising side of Ruskin not widely known today: his economic and political essays. — Levi
The most significant art critic in England from the middle to the end of the 1800s was John Ruskin - influenced by Romanticism during the Victorian and Edwardian periods. He wrote volumes on extensive topics, including architecture (The Stones of Venice, The Seven Lamps of Architecture), art (the extensive Modern Painters), and many others. John Ruskin published more than 250 publications in all. Among the varied literary and political figures he influenced were Tolstoy, Marcel Proust (who translated several of his works into French), and Mahatma Gandhi.
John Ruskin was apprehensive about the state of the working class throughout the Industrial Revolution, which was hard for them. The influential books on free-market capitalism written by the great writers of Political Economy, as economics known at the time, were published. The division of labor was discussed in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. David Ricardo and J.S. Mill wrote seminal works on political economy. Political economists postulated that natural laws, such as the laws of supply and demand and self-interest, controlled economies and could not be subject to governmental regulation.
A portion of the population was doomed to poverty as a result of these economic regulations, which was a sad but inevitable side effect. Political economists believed that the purpose of the government was to create an environment that would support the laws of supply and demand as well as self-interest. On the other hand, population control was supposed to govern the impoverished.
Why is Ruskin relevant to our day? He describes art in a colorful, somewhat challenging way that frequently leans toward purple prose. But if you get used to his writing style, it's actually rather beautiful and powerful. Even once we come to terms with his writing style and start appreciating it, why would we want to read a critic from the nineteenth century who opposed political economy? The case for global free-market capitalism is unquestionably won. Alternatively, has it?
Konstantina Zika
11:05 PM
Monday, February 12, 2024
Mitilini, Greece
Artpendix Press
Comments