I have two B.A.s, one in English (Creative Writing) and the other in Studio Art. I had to decide which discipline to pursue. I chose art because I felt less constricted by it.
Reading the Thorton book, I found it interesting when she quoted Elizabeth Schamelan, senior editor at Artforum, who said, "Contemporary art seemed to be taking more interesting risks than contemporary fiction" (153). I think part of the ability for contemporary art to take more risks is that it isn't as much of a mass produced commodity as fiction. The two markets do share similarities, but when it comes to the publishing house, fiction needs a certain marketability. This marketability means that fiction has to stay within specific forms. There are limited options for form and language, because in order to get readers writers need to make work that sits within a the tradition of literature and its structure.
Contemporary artists have some more freedom of expression because they are making an object that doesn't rely upon a publisher for realization. Their objects are stand alone and (generally) one of a kind. I'm aware that contemporary artists are concerned with where they fit in the market, but I don't think they have to be slaves to the mass public reception of their work in the same way that contemporary writers do.
No comments:
Post a Comment