- This topic has 2 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
I would hope that nothing like that would ever happen. I believe in the freedom of expression in art, And something like that could to easily be controlled and manipulated.
Are you saying that you hope the commission system would not be brought back? I think that the problem with government sponsorship of the arts (e.g. NEA funding) is that it violates the law of supply and demand, because works are supplied that are not related to public demand for them. With policies to promote commissioning, not only would you have art which is more desired, but it would likely produce higher quality art because it would have to conform to the likeness of the benefactor. I do not think that this would infringe on the artists' expression; to claim this one would have to claim that Michelangelo or Raphael's freedom was infringed upon.
I'm not saying that great works couldnt be created, and certainly not saying that artists shouldnt be commisnoied. Maybe I misunderstood the post. (art history is not something I'm real famieler with) I was under the impression that under this system that artists freedom were limited or censured. And if that was the case thats why I responded in my last post the way I did.
I see. The reason for my first post was that in my studies of art history, especially of times prior to the 20th Century, commissioning was more of the norm. During these times, the common man had much more contact with art than we have today. Obviously, other media replace the fine arts, such as TV, movies, and the internet, but there is still the opportunity for high public contact with the fine arts in public spaces. I think that by enticing artists to create that which is demanded by the public, the public will appreciate the fine arts and there will be less controversy over their funding.
Obviously, other media replace the fine arts, such as TV, movies, and the internet, but there is still the opportunity for high public contact with the fine arts in public spaces.? I think that by enticing artists to create that which is demanded by the public, the public will appreciate the fine arts and there will be less controversy over their funding.
Good point, now I understand yours. I could see how something like that could swing more intrest back to the arts.
This is the discussion thread for the article, “Could modern art benefit from Renaissance-styled patronage?”.
