Let’s face it, some people claiming to speak for the arts, or all artists, or all of the public who would benefit from the arts, are quite obviously speaking for themselves, their own interests, and/or ideas that will never speak for all artists nor all of the public.
In the worst cases, they can be speaking for ideas which seek to deploy the arts as propaganda.
Usually, though, after the humor dies down, such thinking tends to lead to more foundations, arts councils and programs, not necessarily better art:
‘As a member of our creative caste, Ms Delaney wants to capture the buzz and thrum of city life. She wants to inspire “recognition” and, above all, “empathy.” It’s just that she’d prefer not to empathise too much with those non-creative people. Say, by working for a living and paying her own bills’
For those interested, here are a few central questions I’ve gleaned from many discussions and debates of my own:
–‘Who decides what is good and not good art, and what the public ‘ought’ to be viewing?‘
–’Should artists of ambition, some talent and potential genius be supported, and if so, how? Does this support always incentivize them to make better art?
–Does institutionalization lead to the easier appropriation of art by the religious, the politicians, the speculators and patrons, the culture vultures and various other ideological interests?