VABALOG

Miks kunstnikud peaksid rohkem raha teenima

Harvard Business School’i Working Knowledge avaldas hiljuti Robert D. Austin’i ja Lee Devin’i uurimuse “It Is Okay for Artists to Make Money…No, Really, It’s Okay”. Uurimuses käsitletakse eelkõige kunsti ja kommertsi vahekorda nagu ka seda, miks osad inimesed näivad ärrituvat sellest, kui kunst või kuntsnik raha teenib:

For some reason people become bad tempered or think something needs fixing when artists or art objects make money. But that can’t be right, can it? Surely more artists ought to make more money more often, and the fact that they don’t—that’s the real problem. In our analysis and arguments from here on, we will aim to support this case.

Tegu ei ole niivõrd sügava uurimusega kuivõrd diskussiooniga, mille käigus üritavad autorid kolme väärarusaama lahata ja ühtlasi ümber lükata:

1. Art is a luxury, an indulgence
2. Yeah, but that’s not art; it’s not any good
3. Commerce Dominates and Corrupts Art, and Subverts its Purpose

Kuigi autorite argumendid ei ole uued ja paljuski sarnased sellega, mida juba aastaid kultiveerinud Virginia Postrel, Grant McCracken ja Tyler Cowen, siis tegu on ühe kompaktsema (alla 30 lk) ning lihtsamalt loetava käsitlusega, mis võiks jõuda kõigi nende kunstnikeni, kes ennast “kommertsiga ei määri” – kahjuks liigagi levinud arusaam Eestis tänu meie kunstikoolidele, kus õpetavad inimesed natuke liiga ühekülgselt kunsti kommertsvõimalustele lähenevad, sest kardavad kommertsialiseerumise labastavat mõju samas tunnistamata, et üldjuhul on tegu eelkõige kunstniku valikuga:

“Selling out” is a matter of artist behavior. It’s a choice. Feel, along with Nietzsche, betrayed if you wish, but can we really criticize artists for wanting to move up Maslow’s hierarchy just as readily as an accountant might? And, as we’ve already noted, sometimes lower motivations do lead to great art (Pope Julius II paid Michelangelo to do as he was told). We’ve also seen plenty of bad art (some of it really bad) motivated honorably, caused by attempts to do good in the world, to promote a worthy cause, to demonstrate a thesis, to improve or humanize business management, or even to expose the benighted to high culture. The didactic urge, the desire to “say something” with art, especially something political, has likely undone many more artists than commercial influence has; Harold Pinter, who made his reputation writing plays that pointedly refused to meet people’s expectations about saying something, late in his life became so roused to express his political views that many people think he sold out to politics and ruined his work from that period. It’s difficult to say whether commercial selling out hurts art, finally, and as we’ve said, it would be difficult to find a legitimate basis for criticizing the primary instigators of the practice (artists themselves).

Eriti tabav tundus aga Eestis viimase aasta jooksul kultuuri- ja kunstiringkondades nagu meedias toimunud debatt kultuuri rahastamise üle, kus enamus debatist taandus kahjuks sellele, kui palju “peab” üks või teine kunstnik saama raha riigieelarvest mitte tulemuse vaid staatuse eest, sest meil on niigi vähe “kultuuri”:

If our culture is art deficient, some of the blame could be laid on the “art for art’s sake” idea, and on the rarified atmosphere that even some artists and art patrons cultivate. When artists embrace the idea that only a certain few, an elite, can make, understand, or appreciate art, or that art should never be judged on the same scales of value used for non-art things, they cut themselves off from the world we all live in. And it’s unnecessary. Art can be valued in many ways.

Tagged with: harvard business school, kommerts, kunst, lee devin, robert austin, working knowledge

Categorised as: ...