Readings

Ok the readings for last week were Freeland Ch. 4 and Goldbard Ch. 3 & 4. Freeland explores the connection between art and money, and how each tie into the other. She also hits on how people with money have their own "taste" than people without, and thus when they sponsor art, the type of art on display is different than is say a lower socio-economic person were to display it. This is quite interesting as it still pertains to almost anything these days. People of higher class would rather enjoy the entertainment of a Broadway show than watch Larry the Cable Guy tell jokes about his oddball redneck family. However, she also notes that there can be success by artists who don't fit the high class taste because their art provides a shocking mass appeal. She also talks about museums and how they came to be or who opened them. It was interesting to see how countries believed museums gave them class, even if the art displayed was not particularly of well-known artists. Museums were a must-have by cities that wanted to show sophistication and build an image for their country, as was the case with the National Gallery. It was those with money, however, that made these museums possible and she notes that it funding has switched from private philanthropists to corporations. This makes me ask, do corporations want to earn the same distinction of higher class by supporting these museums? And who is then in charge of choosing the art, or do they leave it to the institution they support and really only provide money as an image builder? It definitely would be weird to one day see a sigh next to a Rembrandt or Monet that says, "Sponsored by Coca-Cola" or "This art made possible by Bud Light." She also talks about how the "poor artist" is supposed to make it when artists like Van Gogh are having paintings sold for millions and millions, and that there may never be the opportunity for them to be successful unless a philanthropist or corporation is willing to invest the money on art they believe will get the most public attention. There is also some information on people who make art that cannot make money in a statement against this concept that the value of art is so astronomical, but I don't think these artists need to necessarily do that. I think that art can be valued by each person at a certain monetary amount, but everyone will give art their own value to themselves and some pieces will mean more or do more for the viewer than others, and naturally they will be worth more than any billion dollar painting or sculpture.
On the other hand, Arlene Goldbard first talks about the programs of community cultural development that serve as examples of what is an "end product." I read this after reading Freeland so I was naturally comparing this to that concept and its very different. It is much harder to measure the success of a cultural development program. With art, we have for so long done it through buying it for large amounts of money or posting it in world-renowned museums, but we can't do that with a group of students who put on a dance show about their culture every year. Or can we? What Goldbard hits on in her first chapter is that there are many different kinds of programs, some that produce shows, some that simply get a group of people together to learn more, or some that actually produce some type of product that shows a culmination of the time the group spent together and to remind them and others what they were working for and towards. Could we put these things on display? What would be the value in that? They obviously are holding these groups and events to develop culture in their own individual community, so would people in other communities value it as much, or would it lose substance if it was more wide spread? I think these are all things we have to consider before we try to make anything have a mass appeal and image that people all over can enjoy. For example, lets use music. There are many many artists out there who are what many call "local." They are the band that plays at a bar one night or maybe a small university in their home town. They pretty much know anyone who enjoys their music and are appreciative of the support that is shown by the few. Once they are discovered however, things can change. Music is marketed for certain people, and so many artists have undergone changes in the meaning of their music and have really lost touch with what they were gearing for in the first place, and I feel this could happen with cultural development programs. Instead of being a group that teaches high school students of their own individual cultural history so that they can appreciate their heritage, a mass appeal could turn the program into a big exhibition for politicians or celebrities to "show support" of today's you. If they really wanted to support the youth, why not make their own program, or better yet, really become involved. I feel that allowing individual communities to develop their own programs to teach and develop whatever aspect they want to those in their community, and by doing this we are still nurturing a sense of diversity across the globe and not a uniformity. So where does money fit in with this? Well, communities need it to develop their programs, to provide supplies or simply a snack during a long meeting. Would it be any different then to fund them with millions and millions of dollars as are traditional forms of art? I think it shouldn't, but it will.
I have said a lot so I will leave on a note that I feel the topic of any further discussion should be the future of the value of art. Monetary or not, I think all art has some value and if were to discuss further how society could foster any type of change in it, than we should. I know I did not hit at all on Chapter 4 of Goldbard. That being said, I don't feel it fits in with what I discussed. It's her formula, her ideal cultural development program that is being described and although it could help us with our own development, I think leaving groups to think for themselves, create a group, and end up being discussed by someone like Goldbard is far more influential than if multiple communities were to follow a cookie-cutter group process and become just as successful everywhere.