Last night for a bevy of reasons I found myself at a party at Smack Mellon in Brooklyn, a DUMBO non-profit art space that is housed in a gorgeous old shipping building underneath the Manhattan Bridge. One of the pieces that really stood out to me was this dispenser machine by Jennifer Dalton, part of a project called What is the Art World Thinking? that grew out of a year of surveys. On the base of the machine is the question, “Are times of recession good for art?”
If you answer yes, you get a blue capsule with a silver coin:
It says (Artists) - (Money) = Good Art. If you answer no, you get a gold coin with a plus sign in the same equation. The dispenser caused a big debate between two women in front of me, who started arguing that the question is inherently different for visual and performing artists: the former, one woman argued, probably thrive in situations where they can barely afford heat and food, and long for the moneyed types to vacate their once gritty city. Art for art’s sake, etc. The latter really need patronage to survive—people to pay to see them play music or dance ballet—and without money, patrons are few and far between. I’d say both types of art can be made with or without support, but I do think this is a distinction that will play out as the funding starts to seep out of the sides of our little island in the coming year.
I think the real question here is, does thinking that a recession is bad for art mean that you also think throwing money at an artist makes their work good? I’m not sure the two go together…but then, that’s why this work is in a gallery, asking me to think about these things days later.
Anyone want to weigh in?
