A recent study of consumer attitudes towards art found that the majority perceives art as entertainment.  Since art is considered as entertainment art should not and need not be supported by the likes of the National Endowment for the Arts and other grantmaking organizations whose mission it is to keep artists working at making art. Instead, the majority believes all art should be subject to the same economic criteria for success as any business is.  I imagine this shift in thinking has come about largely by museums promoting themselves as an alternative to the movies and by a whole lot of conceptual (and by design temporary) art being shown in these museums.  

However, artists, throughout history, have been able to do their art  because they were supported by the society in which they lived.  Perhaps they were born into a wealthy family or were supported by the church, or temple or a wealthy patron.  No doubt the organization or individual had a personal gratifying interest in giving his money to the arts but art history shows us how we all have benefitted and still benefit from art that has been created throughout time.

What makes art different than entertainment is that art making is something done outside of the economic mainstream. It is not about mass production of words or images but about the individual expression of what it means to be alive – something we all grasp at understanding. For that reason alone artists deserve support for the value their work brings to the society at large.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 25th, 2010 at 6:06 pm and is filed under Art and Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.