Throughout history arts progression has built on a series of self realizations and it seems incorrect to assume that art will vanish as it proceeds to realize this territory of creative entrepreneurship as its new home. This change, perhaps signifying arts expansion beyond aesthetics and into a more public market seems like an entirely reasonable progression, but not necessarily the end of art. The success of these new “creators” may very well be determined to some degree by like buttons and revenue growths, but we should not forget the complex truths discovered when we confined art to the field of aesthetics. It seems to me that the author is forgetting that if indeed this is arts development, then we will need to understand the potential value this new creative entrepreneurship in the context of art history. Without understanding it as such, arts aesthetic realizations will be lost and creative entrepreneurship will become indiscernible from the mindless consumption that this new movement so closely parallels. My feeling is instead that art is in the process of recognizing this shift and that in doing so, artists are employing the language, capital and opportunities available in this expanded territory to conduct complex artistic gestures which are entirely aware of this transition. What this will mean for the future of art practices and art education, I do not know either, but instead of considering this shift as the end of art, I seems to me that we should be considering how this annex can be a progression that will ensure arts future... m.theatlantic/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-death-of-the-artist-and-the-birth-of-the-creative-entrepreneur/383497/
Posted on: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 20:44:41 +0000