If ?art? touches something in a broad range of people, it will be commercially s uccessful, if it doesn?t it won?t. The taxpayers subsidize much of today?s ?art ?. After over 50 years of life, I have begun to be able to detect, by just look ing, ?art? that can?t stand on its own commercially.
I take pictures of what interests me and helps me tell the story, that I want to ld. I agree with those who say that they ?want to? and ?enjoy? taking picture n umber 413,942,975 of Half Dome. To my mind, not even St. Ansel, ?captured? Half Dome, but maybe 1000 years from now, some Girl Scout with that day?s Brownie wil l. (Won?t we all be surprised if it looks best shrouded in a cloud of pollution ?) When you pay for the camera and film, what you ?want? is the only justifica tion that you need. If you want someone else to pay for the camera, film or ren t, then you should be able to find at least one other person that is willing to use resources that they created, from the sweat of their brow, to subsidized you r efforts at ?art?. I don?t count finding someone that is willing to say that y our ?art? is good enough to subsidize with MY money.
Wouldn?t ?art? be better served if, instead of dispensing tax dollars to a polit ically well-connected elitist few, we just used the money so that every American could set aside one day to do ?art??
In America, at least, if you?re not willing to support your own artistic efforts by living the minimalist life style that can be obtained by working 20 hours a week cooking burgers, then maybe the problem isn?t what it costs to practice art , it is that down deep, you agree with the market.