2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Somebody's willingness to pay for art has often been the predominant measure of art's value. This was true when famous cathedrals were painted, when rich bid on auctioned classics, and it rings true as we wrap up Sundance. While the motivations for these examples vary (to inspire, to demonstrate wealth, to make money, etc.), artists succeeded by understanding the demand for such things. If sufficient people (individuals, business sponsors, etc.) are unwilling to see 2 tons of sand fall from the ceiling for the sake of its "conceptual value", then it's a sign that our inherent democracy and marketplace simply don't see sufficient value for the effort expended. Artists can bemoan the lack of sympathy for a lost opportunity, but perhaps it's just a sign of art elitism to want people to accept art forms that others simply do not wish to sponsor.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context