Jennifer Dalton and the question of the day...
rach:
Last night for a bevy of reasons I found myself at a party at Smack Mellon in Brooklyn, a DUMBO non-profit art space that is housed in a gorgeous old shipping building underneath the Manhattan Bridge. One of the pieces that really stood out to me was this dispenser machine by Jennifer Dalton, part of a project called What is the Art World Thinking? that grew out of a year of surveys. On the base of the machine is the question, “Are times of recession good for art?”
If you answer yes, you get a blue capsule with a silver coin:
It says (Artists) - (Money) = Good Art. If you answer no, you get a gold coin with a plus sign in the same equation. The dispenser caused a big debate among two women in front of me, who started arguing that the question is inherently different for visual and performing artists: the former, this woman argued, probably thrive in situations where they can barely afford heat and food, and long for the money to vacate their once gritty city. The latter need patronage to survive, people to pay to see them play music or dance ballet, and without money, patrons are few.
I think the real question here is, does thinking that a recession is bad for art mean that you also think throwing money at an artist makes their work good? I’m not sure the two go together…but then, that’s why this work is in a gallery, asking me to think about these things days later.
Anyone want to weigh in?
Money isn’t necessary to create art, only to create art on a grand scale, and more often than not, that art suffers from being on a bigger scale.
I work in theater. I can tell you this: mainstream Broadway is too expensive for your average student or 20-something, and that’s forgetting the people with dependents.
It’s why they have things like youth and student rush, etc. But it’s true: money needs to come from somewhere to subsidize people even getting into these shows, which are mostly Young Frankenstein: The Musical, although I’m not sure those greedy bastards even have a student rush. Anyway.
I don’t believe you need patronage to create performing arts, though. Total bullshit. You want an audience? Find one. Make people pay attention. 30 people in Washington Square is an audience, just as 4,000 in a Broadway house is. One of the best things I’ve ever seen in New York was a production of Adam Rapp’s Finer Noble Gases performed in a classroom at Juilliard with a zero-scale set and by-invite only. Anybody who says this is a fruitless, futile thing to do is wrong: they’re making art and getting it seen. Isn’t that the point?
Too many artists associate success with happiness. Success is great, but what’s better? Being the most obscure band in the world and having a blast, or being the biggest band in the world, losing a sense of purpose, and hating life? I have no proof the former exists, but tell me it definitively doesn’t, or that the latter is never better off. Try.
