Hello.
I was talking to Kieren (who waited so valliantly all night at the Free Art Fair queue) and he was talking about some of the people he met there. Apparently there was a some homeless people, and they got ten grands worth of artwork between them. Although I think that this is brilliant and am first to congratulate artistic appreciation and inginuity amongst tramps, the idea that alot of this "free" art is going to be immediatly sold does seem in my eyes to taint old Jasper's vision. I mean the art is free as it is given from the artist to the person in the queue, but much of it then loses this unique status and is sold on. I suppose there's no way of controlling what people do with something that you give away for free, but rather than removing money from the art business, as the Free Art Fair aims to do, it seems to have just delayed the financial element of dealing with art. Oh well, I hope some people kept the things that they got.
Tom
3 comments:
I really liked Jasper's ethos as well (though it did seem to me that the artists hadn't necessarily donated their best work. Would they have if money was involved? Did they takea free event as seriously?) but I think it's like he said, once the art has left the free art fair, it's out of his hands what is done with it. I think fair play to the tramps for showing ingenuity. The commercial scene (like we saw at Frieze) seems so speculative and calculating and art is seen as an asset and a form of investment, at least in this way instead of the money being passed back and forth amongst a select few and only seen in the form of a bank balance, the money in this case has had direct, hopefully positive effects on somebody's life.
From speaking to a source who attended the 'Free Art Fair', the overall attitude from the que was positive. As is with any public event, the people who attend such, are dramatically different.
I think that the concept of the 'Free art fair' is a good one, it has all the right intentions. I think that the way in which it is percieved by the public is a very different thing entirely. If you look at the week long fair as one event and the que as another, i think that it is easier to understand and digest.
The 'Free art fair' set out to achieve as has been said before an antidote to 'frieze'. The que, an art form in its self as it has become is a series of events which were caused by the fair, a knock on,an experiment of which involves temptation, greed and genuine lust for a piece of art work.
The audience that the que was made up of can be compared to any situation in life. Such as a commercial gallery or car boot sale. Different people interact and have a very different responce.
I felt that the forementioned comment that the artists at the free art fair hadn't necessarily donated their best work had a particular resonance. Maybe I am just full of cynicism but by submitting a piece of work to the fair, that wasn't necessarilly laboured over in the same way a piece destined for private auction would be, the artist was still inevitably profiting. This may not be in a monetary sense but it is undeniable that the pubicity surrounding the art fair would serve to further the career of the artist. So is it fare to say the input of the relevant artists may not be as noble as one would think?
Post a Comment