Is Art Necessary?

Artistic making necessarily needs an audience. We must compose it of non-artists because the art produced from artists to artists, from writers to writers, from filmmakers to filmmakers is not necessarily art. Most of the time, this type of work is intellectual speculation to reflect on the profession’s limits — more teaching material.

Abandoning the patronage that marked the pre-capitalist era, an artist unintentionally mixes his creative world with the changing market in which opinion makers, once essential, seduce their space for the web collegiate. This collegiate of non-artists defines artistic tendencies inexorably by niche.

Never could a Michelangelo imagine having to submit the appreciation of his works to the peasants like that with a Bach could not understand anything that was not an opinion of the one who sponsored him. It was this point of view that would enable his breakfast the next day. Yes, art always depended on someone who financed it, brought a purpose, maybe even magic with the first cave paintings.

The modern world has not changed that. Through the freedom provided by social networks, we abolished the centralized curatorship of Kings, Queens, Presidents, Corporations, and Institutions. This context has offered unprecedented power to non-artists to choose and enjoy what is right for them.

Many theorists, many professionals involved in this market, try to understand what art is and its real purpose at all levels. The answer is a well-kept mystery that only historical distancing can reveal. Our mission if to never stop, to reflect on such a vital aspect of human civilization. Here it is worth remembering the late Brazilian poet, Ferreira Gullar, who said: “Art exists because life is not enough”

Follow me on this quest, in this space on Medium.

Betho Ieesus