artists, money and honor
Picasso seems to have been the most prolific and richest artist of all time, and its assets - when he died in 1973 at the age of ninety-one years - included an extraordinary body of work: 1885 paintings 1,228 sculptures, 7,089 drawings, 30,000 prints, 150 sketchbooks, 3222 works in ceramics, along with two castles, three houses, 4 and a half million dollars in cash, one million 400 thousand U.S. dollars in gold, stocks and bonds for 24 million dollars. It also seems that Picasso, having achieved economic prosperity, had made a particular habit to always carry large sums of cash: it gave him great confidence. Discussing art with a collector - and now collectors are the real critics in the deepest sense of the word - I happened to mention Picasso and his artistic and human history. Money is at the heart of discriminating criticism. The collector is true that when a says "like" is followed immediately by a direct action, that is ready to pay the price of his trial. It 's like playing poker, when you say "see" you have to put money on the table. Money is very important for artists, because artists are not particularly greedy, but because the money has meaning internal alchemy. If you read the letters of artists, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, De Chirico, often talk about money. We think the American Andy Warhol. His philosophy was based on the assumption: "I started as a commercial artist and I want to end up as an artist manager." Which is what he did, but not without having slipped, between his career a commercial artist in the fifties and in the intermediary of the cultural industry in the seventies, a profitable and viable career as an artist. Warhol had a dream about his personal wealth: he wanted to walk down the street and hear someone whisper: "Here is the richest person in the world." The equation of Joseph Beuys creativity = capital was interpreted by Warhol on the contrary, as Marx did when on the other hand, taking the capitalist point of view, he wrote in his manuscripts of 1844: "Through its role in mediating the money is 'unique creative force. " And again: "This means that money is available to me, what I can pay, what that money can buy, that is myself. The characteristics of money are my own and my strength essential characteristics, that are the essential characteristics and strengths of its owner. What I am and I can not therefore in no way determined by my individuality ... I am a fool, but money is the true understanding of all things, and then as its owner might be stupid "?
Picasso seems to have been the most prolific and richest artist of all time, and its assets - when he died in 1973 at the age of ninety-one years - included an extraordinary body of work: 1885 paintings 1,228 sculptures, 7,089 drawings, 30,000 prints, 150 sketchbooks, 3222 works in ceramics, along with two castles, three houses, 4 and a half million dollars in cash, one million 400 thousand U.S. dollars in gold, stocks and bonds for 24 million dollars. It also seems that Picasso, having achieved economic prosperity, had made a particular habit to always carry large sums of cash: it gave him great confidence. Discussing art with a collector - and now collectors are the real critics in the deepest sense of the word - I happened to mention Picasso and his artistic and human history. Money is at the heart of discriminating criticism. The collector is true that when a says "like" is followed immediately by a direct action, that is ready to pay the price of his trial. It 's like playing poker, when you say "see" you have to put money on the table. Money is very important for artists, because artists are not particularly greedy, but because the money has meaning internal alchemy. If you read the letters of artists, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, De Chirico, often talk about money. We think the American Andy Warhol. His philosophy was based on the assumption: "I started as a commercial artist and I want to end up as an artist manager." Which is what he did, but not without having slipped, between his career a commercial artist in the fifties and in the intermediary of the cultural industry in the seventies, a profitable and viable career as an artist. Warhol had a dream about his personal wealth: he wanted to walk down the street and hear someone whisper: "Here is the richest person in the world." The equation of Joseph Beuys creativity = capital was interpreted by Warhol on the contrary, as Marx did when on the other hand, taking the capitalist point of view, he wrote in his manuscripts of 1844: "Through its role in mediating the money is 'unique creative force. " And again: "This means that money is available to me, what I can pay, what that money can buy, that is myself. The characteristics of money are my own and my strength essential characteristics, that are the essential characteristics and strengths of its owner. What I am and I can not therefore in no way determined by my individuality ... I am a fool, but money is the true understanding of all things, and then as its owner might be stupid "?
Marx is definitely out of fashion, but his remarks are still useful to give an explanation to the that once the art had a value and a price, but now the price of a work of art has become his value. In fact, this planning of the market so that works of art are treated as money is what is old. Rembrandt began to do so, but rather than greed or need, this was a clear strategy to get more freedom with their market value with the honor and the favor of the powerful. He sought the honor of honors not in the sense that others could give, but in the sense of what art could give, the value that his own art was created, and this was quantified in money. Rembrandt had no money and always willing to promise paintings or engravings in payment of its debts. It appears that some clients come to the conclusion that one way to ensure the delivery of work was put between Rembrandt their debtors. A value of its artistic merits, so as to bring together paintings and money with an abstract quality: as in itself was nothing, the money - then as now - was accepted as a representation of the value. And this nearly aestheticized it, then as always.
0 comments:
Post a Comment