In the U.S., both those who study creativity and the creators they study
have been overwhelmingly male and almost exclusively White, which has
created a slant in the research that tends to reinforce particular
definitions of creativity. In Western society, the artist is someone
like Van Gogh, for whom art is a central passion around which all else
revolves, who has an inner drive to create that overcomes all obstacles,
who creates night and day at the expense of all else, is tortured by
visions, specially "gifted," radical, crazy, possessed, isolated, lousy
at relationships, poor, misunderstood. And White and male.
It’s time to rearrange the patterns and points of view of creativity
research and create new gestalts that include the experiences of more
artists and look at them from different perspectives. Quite frankly,
it's time to get real about what it means to be an artist.
As an artist in my particular time and place, I notice that art and capitalism are an odd pair. The percentage of artists who make their living from their artwork in the U.S. is very small, and in most places the conditions that make that possible do not exist. Nevertheless, the first question I always get when I say I'm an artist is about whether/how/where I sell my work. If I don't sell my work, it must not be very good. But here's the catch...if I do sell my work, I must have "sold out."
I'm an artist who's opting out of this no-win game, the commodification of art. Through this blog, I'm choosing to share my art freely and not for money. I also lend it and am open to trading.
No comments:
Post a Comment