#lyra garcellano

Lyra Garcellano, b. 1972 Self Portrait Philippines (2011) Oil on canvas [Source]

ArtOdyssey says:

I’m feeling rather indifferent about this article. I appreciated learning about the facts Mr. Cotter presented here as I don’t know a lot about the nitty-gritty of the “current market system” of art, global or local. However, the general sentiment expressed in this article was nothing new to me, nor do I believe it would sound new to any artist.

Maybe what I'm feeling isn't indifference so much as it is despondency. These are problems I don't believe I personally can do anything to help directly solve. I think these sorts of problems regarding the art world have always been there and I don’t see them ever going away. Art will always largely be a commodity and will always be entrenched in the economic highs and lows of the elite. I don't claim to have expert knowledge on art history, but I am aware that this is how it has always been, especially in the West where the article’s focus is.

The author expressing frustration about the gentrification of New York City, the lack of “art-world solidarity”, the inequitable distribution of finances in the art world, the lack of integration within art institutions: these concerns are completely valid and they do affect me, yes, but what can be done to solve these things – by artists, in particular? There will be exceptions, I'm sure; there will be revolutionary works that demand the art industry listen and change, but I don't trust these will be able to completely reverse the status quo.

I agree that there is a need for "an influx of new commentators" in art who will produce criticism that is evaluative and beyond mere advertising. I also agree that public institutions need integration with regards to the art represented regularly and consistently, as well as the inclusion of non-white curators, administrators, and directors who will encourage such diversity. I believe these will greatly help steer the focus back towards art and less towards the market.

I share the author’s disappointment that artists and art institutions have become mere “labor sources” and “support staff” for the industry. I also am against “the current market system shaping every aspect of art”, from how artists live to what kind of art is made and given exposure. The restrictive range of art that the market supports is threatening as it results in little exposure to less marketable forms such as film, performance, and installation (the likes of which I am personally more invested in making).

One of the questions I have in mind is this: Was there ever a time when this was not the way it is? Was there ever a time when the art industry had its neat, little place in the art world and money didn't have such power in art?

What can artists do? Specifically, what can an artist, who is neither rich nor influential, do? I suppose the best course of action is to keep oneself educated about art and its continuously developing life in the world, involve and educate others (if one believes in doing so), do the work, do it often and do it well, work to make it accessible to what audience one intends, and try to survive doing this for as long as one wishes to.

I, in no way, am at ease with the knowledge that this is how the art world is now. I recognize that this situation with the global art industry (and local too, I would assume) makes it monstrously difficult for artists to create work, to experiment, to show, and to sustain their practice and themselves, without succumbing to the pressures of the market.

Ideally, the art world should function in such a way that art is valued beyond its monetary worth. I recognize that there always have been and there always will be artists, as well as various other people concerned, who do function this way and those who even combat this way-of-things actively.