Will the purity of their art remain? Or will they end up burned out and disillusioned like I am. Sure the recognition was nice at first, and the money, when it came, too. However, I have been to far too many exhibitions where the art is barely talked about, as people are gathered around the wine and cheese, and standing around looking cool. This is not why I got into making art. I’m sure this isn’t why the individuals at Creative Growth Studios do it, either.
Now that collectors are interested in these artists who don’t know they are artists, a statement, that doesn’t fully resonate with me; I wonder how that purity can remain. Works that were hung on the wall with narrow space between others, are now professionally framed. Certain artists and works are deemed “important”. And some artists are very much of aware of how much they are selling, and what’s selling, feeling the pressures that come with ‘success.” The debate continues as to whether the artists’ disability is relevant to their art, or whether it should be ignored and all of the art should be referred to as contemporary art.
I feel that my autism definitely influences my process and that I am a contemporary artist. I don’t understand the debate and why these things have to be mutually exclusive. I wish that all artists made art for the joy of it. Isn’t that what we did as children? We didn’t dissect works and write statements. The work stood on its own, from the heart and soul. When disability is cool and collectible, it may seem like recognition, but there is too much room for marginalization. When institutions go from enabling creation, to cultivating curation, it becomes the same as any other venue
No comments:
Post a Comment