Do those who buy the paintings of long dead artists and fund buildings for artistic performances do so because they truly love the arts or because they want to boast, "Look what I can afford to do!"? There was a time when wealth supported artists. That practice died out sometime after the sixteenth century. What goes on today borders on the absurd. While huge amounts of money are being spent, the artists themselves are being neglected. This is not love of art for art's sake; it's merely benefactor aggrandizement. by John Kozy
(liberal)
Sunday, February 7, 2010
I doubt that many people follow fine-art auctions, but major sales frequently are reported in the mainstream press. For instance, a Rembrandt painting sold for a record $33.2 million. The Massacre of the Innocents by Peter Paul Rubens sold for $77 million. Anthony van Dyck's last self portrait sold for $13.5 million. Even one of Adolph Hitler's water colors sold recently for $13,500. Needless to say, none of this money went to the artists or their progenies or even to supporting fledgling artists. So I ask, are the people who pay these enormous prices for the works of long dead artists really art lovers? Do they buy art because they truly love it or because they want to boast, "Look what I have!"
There was a time when wealth supported artists. That practice died out sometime after the sixteenth century. What goes on today borders on the absurd.
Although I use Dallas, TX as an example, what is going on in Dallas is going on in many other places. Fine-arts performance groups everywhere are living on the edge of disappearance.
Dallas is in the process of completing a $392 million addition to its Arts District by adding "world class" theater, opera, and ballet venues. The Arts District is comprised of 13 facilities including
the AT&T Performing Arts Center
the Annette Strauss Artist Square
the Dee and Charles Wyly Theatre
the Margot and Bill Winspear Opera House
the The Trammell & Margaret Crow Collection of Asian Art
the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center and
the Nasher Sculpture Center
Each of these, obviously, is named after some benefactor, and the facilities are magnificent. But the Dallas Morning News reports that
"Those who attended last Friday's opening-night performance of The Nutcracker at the Winspear Opera House could not help but notice that the music was canned, not live."
"By the end of the five year agreement the base musician pay will be $743 less than it is today."
"To reduce expenses in the 2008-2009 Season, contracts for Texas Ballet Theater dancers were cut from 38 to 35 weeks."
So there it is again, magnificent venues named after their benefactors while the artists themselves are neglected. This is not love of art for art's sake; it's merely benefactor aggrandizement. It's look what I can afford to build or buy. Not a single one of the benefactors listed has ever engaged in artistic creation or supported an artist.
But Dallas' goal was never to promote the arts. The goal has always been to "legitimize Dallas' claim as a city of the arts, revive its slumbering downtown, and create a grand civic place where everyone would feel welcome even without a ticket." But except for occasional special events, the goal is a fantasy. One fundraiser, Deedie Rose , has said, "When we built the art museum, the supporters were mostly visual arts people. With the Meyerson, it was mostly symphony people. This time we had million-dollar donations from people who had never been big arts supporters [emphasis mine] but who believed that the project was important for the city." The entire project is nothing but fluff to promote business.
But can it work in Texas or anywhere else? Texas in particular and the United States in general are not cultured places. Pop music and football are their major attractions. Will true art lovers flock to these performances? How far can a true lover of ballet be expected to go to watch a performance danced to recorded music? Will first class musicians go to Dallas or anywhere else to perform for pay that's a pittance? Will mediocre performances attract patrons just because they are performed in astounding buildings? I don't know, but I'm dubious.
Art for the sake of business is a long way from being art for art's sake. The people who attend these performances will not care the least about who the benefactors were even if their names are emblazoned on the buildings or leave remembering them. They will remember the performances, good or bad, not the architectural glitz. Architecture is only one part of the task, and it is the easiest part to build, just as buying the paintings of old masters is easier than painting them.
The views expressed
in this article are those of John Kozy only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
John Kozy is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
