In “How to Provide an Artistic Service: An Introduction,” Andrea Fraser brings up the dilemma of freedom for members of the art world. In the article she seeks to “address the potential loss of autonomy consequent to appropriating models from other professional fields – such as contracts and fee structures – as a means of resolving practical problems” (71). The point here is that the art business is not all that different from other businesses.
For Fraser, autonomy is “represented…in our relative freedom from the rationalization of our activity in the service of specific interests” (71). Moreover, art objects are not needed the way other goods are – such as houses and food. It would seem that because there is no explicit need for art objects, artists are free to make the pieces they wish to make according to their “own criteria of judgment” (74). However, there exists a whole world of business dedicated to these seemingly functionless objects.
Like other manufacturers, artists, curators, and galleries can experience demand for their products. However, demand does not have to involve a specific need. It could simply be that an artist sees this body of work sell better and receive better reviews than this other body of work. The problem for the artist then is whether to make work similar to the successful body in order to survive as an artist, or to practice artistic freedom, create a different body of work, and risk failing as a working artist. Fraser comes to a paradoxical conclusion: “dependency is the condition of our autonomy” (74). She notes that an artist can do whatever they want, but risks failing if they do not consider the “social and economic conditions of [their] activity” (75). With this in mind, she decides that the most freedom that can be practiced by someone who wants to make a living as an artist is to find an audience – to decide “who and how we serve”—in order to autonomy without risk of losing financial support.
Andrea Fraser. “How to Provide an Artistic Service: An Introduction.” Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 69-75.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is really no original idea. Almost every art major I've met has made the same tired jokes at one point or another stating that such a major is "worthless" or making references to the stereotypical figure of the "starving artist." Art isn't naturally a business. It becomes a business when the artist, a human, is confronted with their needs for survival. The art world becoming a business like any other introduces the possibility of success for an artist that doesn't come from a wealthy background. Of course, if survival were the only thing to consider, then grounding the "service" you provide in something that there is a demand for based on need--survival based on the survival of others. But the artist chooses to create something useless and something that most hope will sell based on desire, instead. "The problem for the artist then is whether to make work similar to the successful body in order to survive as an artist, or to practice artistic freedom, create a different body of work, and risk failing as a working artist." It's an interesting problem, that doesn't really have a simple solution for an artist wishing to survive, as simply catering to the public doesn't appeal to the nature of their existence. The public's desire isn't often clear, either. The desire for a certain body of work may easily run out, and there doesn't seem to be much of a dialog between the artist and the potential buyers, other than the pieces that have are currently selling.
ReplyDelete