Is it wrong for great art works to be hoarded by the rich?

[charlou]

And you're a self-defined art snob? How does one earn the acknowledgement of acceptable appreciation in your book, then, and why do you think your particular criteria ought to be the scale by which to judge?

[Gallstones]

In this Socialist utopia of access to the common prole, what kind of prices are artists to expect for their work? I guess copyrights and trademarks are out?

What would happen is I would hoard my own work, provided I was motivated enough to keep working.

The term "prole" came up as sarcasm earlier in the thread, but my impression from your post here, where you said, "One comment that may make me sound like a snob--I am one BTW--I don't think your average prole will be interested, let alone be able to appreciate the better quality art, fine art. So why should they be given access to something they aren't interested in?", is that you actually believe a person's income and social position has a bearing on their ability appreciate art? And you think your snobbery somehow validates that point?

I was born and raise white trash.
I admitted to being an art snob--I earned it.
One's income and social position do not have a bearing on their ability to appreciate art, their efforts do.

What's your definition of prole, then?

Prole = common, uneducated, intellectually lazy, content with being mediocre.

[Gallstones]

And you're a self-defined art snob? How does one earn the acknowledgement of acceptable appreciation in your book, then, and why do you think your particular criteria ought to be the scale by which to judge?

Yes, I am self defined. Why pretend? I paid my dues in blood, sweat, tears and dollars earned by labor and paid as due.
Whether another human being understands or agrees to that is irrelevant to me. My scale is mine to apply.

[charlou]

And you're a self-defined art snob? How does one earn the acknowledgement of acceptable appreciation in your book, then, and why do you think your particular criteria ought to be the scale by which to judge?

Yes, I am self defined. Why pretend? I paid my dues in blood, sweat, tears and dollars earned by labor and paid as due.
Whether another human being understands or agrees to that is irrelevant to me. My scale is mine to apply.

Exactly.

Mine is different. Some might consider me "common, uneducated, intellectually lazy, content with being mediocre" due to my background and approach to life and art, yet if they didn't know those things about my background and approach to life and art, and we shared our views on art without the arbitrarily imposed appreciation criteria getting in the way, we might have an interesting discussion ... perhaps kinda like the one you had with Ani.

IOW, the moment pomposity ingratiates itself into discussion about art (as it so often does), you've lost the point of what art appreciation is, I think.

[devogue]

Devogue, art is a commodity that is traded like any other. Artists produce it like vintners produce wine - and like them they sell their product to anyone who has the money. On what grounds should private ownership of art be circumscribed that other products are not? If it is the right of delectation, where do you draw the line as to which products fall into that category, and which ones don't?

Sorry for largely repeating what has already been said, but it seems Devogue has yet to reply to those issues.

I have to be honest and say I don't have the answer, but I think we can all agree that art is something that improves our lives intangibly and immeasurably. Some people get more from it than others, but we have all had positive experiences.

I think the crux of this lies in your first sentence - why should all art be a commodity traded like any other? I can understand if a living artist is commissioned by a patron to create some work - he is paying for the artist's time and labour to create the work, but what about after the patron has died and his personal enjoyment ends? Couldn't we find a way to include artworks in death duties or something, so ownership passes to the state?

I know all of this is fumbling in the dark and trying to find an answer to a very difficult question, but I just can't help but feel that it's unfair that one human can privately enjoy an item that hundreds of thousands of other humans are prevented from enjoying (and whose enjoyment wouldn't cost the one individual anything).

[JimC]

Rich owners of major artworks can be cozened/flattered/persuaded to send the artworks on regular tours to public art galleries all over the world. It does happen, and could happen even more readily if raving Marxists like Dev could be made to realise that you catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar...

[Atheist-Lite]

Rich owners of major artworks can be cozened/flattered/persuaded to send the artworks on regular tours to public art galleries all over the world. It does happen, and could happen even more readily if raving Marxists like Dev could be made to realise that you catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar...

Only a frog would come up with that one...

[Coito ergo sum]

Hook, line and sinker.

Damn you, Pappa....damn your black hear, man!

[Coito ergo sum]

In this Socialist utopia of access to the common prole, what kind of prices are artists to expect for their work? I guess copyrights and trademarks are out?

What would happen is I would hoard my own work, provided I was motivated enough to keep working.

The term "prole" came up as sarcasm earlier in the thread, but my impression from your post here, where you said, "One comment that may make me sound like a snob--I am one BTW--I don't think your average prole will be interested, let alone be able to appreciate the better quality art, fine art. So why should they be given access to something they aren't interested in?", is that you actually believe a person's income and social position has a bearing on their ability appreciate art? And you think your snobbery somehow validates that point?

I was born and raise white trash.
I admitted to being an art snob--I earned it.
One's income and social position do not have a bearing on their ability to appreciate art, their efforts do.

What's your definition of prole, then?

Anyone other than Royalty, Aristocracy, Bourgeoisie, Upper Class, or Middle Class?

[JimC]

You forgot the Lower Middle Class!

We are always forgotten, and we are not proles, thank you very much!

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the crux of this lies in your first sentence - why should all art be a commodity traded like any other? I can understand if a living artist is commissioned by a patron to create some work - he is paying for the artist's time and labour to create the work, but what about after the patron has died and his personal enjoyment ends? Couldn't we find a way to include artworks in death duties or something, so ownership passes to the state?

That sounds positively miserable. My dad owns a nice painting, and he would be prohibited from bequeathing it to me, or my mother? Fuck that. That's like saying that people that own wine can drink it while they are alive, but if they die, any wines they own pass to the State to be distributed fairly. Fucking hell, man.

I know all of this is fumbling in the dark and trying to find an answer to a very difficult question, but I just can't help but feel that it's unfair that one human can privately enjoy an item that hundreds of thousands of other humans are prevented from enjoying (and whose enjoyment wouldn't cost the one individual anything).

It's not a difficult question. The question is "can we collectively take property that doesn't belong to us?" The answer to that question should be very simple, I think, in most people's minds. No. Fuck no. If John Smith owns a painting and wants it in his living room, the fact that it was painted by his third grade daughter or Pablo Picasso ought have no bearing on whether or not he's entitled to do so.

You're wrong about the hundreds of thousands of people's enjoyment not costing the individual anything. It costs him the bulk of his property rights. Part of the value of a piece of property is in the ability to put it in your rec room or den and only invite your friends over to see it. To force him to move the painting is a cost. To force him to put it far away in a gallery or government building and only see it when he can make his way over there is a cost (maybe he's old and can't move around much, maybe he's disabled, who knows?). And, the reduction in value of the painting caused by it being generally accessible is a cost.

[Pappa]

Devogue, art is a commodity that is traded like any other. Artists produce it like vintners produce wine - and like them they sell their product to anyone who has the money. On what grounds should private ownership of art be circumscribed that other products are not? If it is the right of delectation, where do you draw the line as to which products fall into that category, and which ones don't?

Sorry for largely repeating what has already been said, but it seems Devogue has yet to reply to those issues.

This was my thought too. Although even if art were categorically different to other commodities, I'd still think it would be unfair to expect someone should share one of their artworks purely because it was expensive. What about other forms of art that are out of the reach of the poor? Anyone can go to a public gallery for free to see some amazing art, but what if you want to go to see a famous production at the theatre or opera?

There are examples of restrictions on property, such as listed buildings, which have controls on what you can and can't do with them even though you may own them entirely. So it wouldn't be a huge difference to see something similar with artworks, but if a painter sells a painting to someone they should have every right to do with it as they please. Even burn it if that's their want.

If the public wanted to prioritise the availability of art they could do so by lobbying their governments to stop spending so much money on hospitals and police and start buying up some Rothkos* instead.





* I really like Rothko.

[Pappa]

Hook, line and sinker.

Damn you, Pappa....damn your black hear, man!

[Seabass]

Devogue, art is a commodity that is traded like any other. Artists produce it like vintners produce wine - and like them they sell their product to anyone who has the money. On what grounds should private ownership of art be circumscribed that other products are not? If it is the right of delectation, where do you draw the line as to which products fall into that category, and which ones don't?

Sorry for largely repeating what has already been said, but it seems Devogue has yet to reply to those issues.

I have to be honest and say I don't have the answer, but I think we can all agree that art is something that improves our lives intangibly and immeasurably. Some people get more from it than others, but we have all had positive experiences.

I think the crux of this lies in your first sentence - why should all art be a commodity traded like any other? I can understand if a living artist is commissioned by a patron to create some work - he is paying for the artist's time and labour to create the work, but what about after the patron has died and his personal enjoyment ends? Couldn't we find a way to include artworks in death duties or something, so ownership passes to the state?

I know all of this is fumbling in the dark and trying to find an answer to a very difficult question, but I just can't help but feel that it's unfair that one human can privately enjoy an item that hundreds of thousands of other humans are prevented from enjoying (and whose enjoyment wouldn't cost the one individual anything).

Actually, the answer is very simple.

Accept the fact that you can't have everything you want. Spend less time worrying about what you can't have, and more time appreciating and enjoying what you can and do have.

In other words, don't be a leftist; it's no way to live, man.

[Hermit]

it's unfair that one human can privately enjoy an item that hundreds of thousands of other humans are prevented from enjoying.

I hear you, comrade Devogueski, but we do live in societies that C.B. Macpherson wrote about in a book titled Possessive Individualism. If you don't like it, you can't really draw the line ( :snigger: ) at great works of art. The unfairness, as has been pointed out several times now, applies to everything and anything that hundreds of thousands of other humans are prevented from enjoying.