Hi Joe: Thanks for writing in and for the nice comment about my “the art world is not online”…
Steffon Davis
2

As I contemplate this more (a topic that is always on my mind these days and propelled more so by this article) I was recently reminded of an essay by C. S. Lewis, “An Experiment in Criticism”:

…nearly all attention to the picture, cease soon after it has been bought. It soon dies for its owners; becomes like the once-read novel for the corresponding class of reader. It has been used and its work is done.
This attitude, which was once my own, might almost be defined as ‘using’ pictures. While you retain this attitude you treat the picture — or rather a hasty and unconscious selection of elements in the picture — as a self-starter for certain imaginative and emotional activities of your own. In other words, you ‘do things with it’. You don’t lay yourself open to what it, by being in its totality precisely the thing it is, can do to you.

I think this is what my quote from your article and what the cited report demonstrates, and what a lot of artists (though not always the art world entirely) fight against, ‘using’ art. At that point it isn’t even art anymore, no matter a master work or a child’s crayon drawing.

I understand you are serving a market and that market’s motivation for buying art is not your responsibility except to serve it. I put the blame on our Western society and culture (and that primarily the U. S. than other Western cultures) where utility is more important than anything. Art is only valuable if it is useful, such as decoration. Once the decoration changes or boredom sets in, the value of a particular piece is lost. That feeds the commodification of art and the resulting marginalization.

In that regard wall color is meaningless.

Just some further thoughts,

Joe

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.