Can’t Buy This: Seeking Economic Independence in both the Art and Craft Spheres.

As this year’s Armory Show in New York, the largest annual art fair in the world, comes to an end this week, the art community has galleries, buyers and the market on the mind. This week, I, once again, venture into the blogosphere, examining ways in which other bloggers comment on the state of the market in general. The two posts that I have found interesting both deal with notions of economically independent objects and practices. The first, posted by David Bollier, points to the newly opened exhibition at the P.S. 1 Contemporary Art Center in Queens, New York, featuring “not for sale” works by art giants such as Robert Rauschenberg, Jeff Koons (his 8.5 ft. Rabbit shown to the right), Tim Hawkinson and Christo. What Bollier is intrigued by is considering ways in which “commercial markets enhance or degrade the essential work of art.” The second post is an excerpt from Dennis Stevens Speech at the NICHE Awards, held on February 18th, 2007 in Philadelphia. Here, Stevens examines new movements and trends in the field of crafts and a break from the commercialization that is often associated with the practice. My comments on either blog are also posted bellow.

From what I gather, this show is an attempt by curator Alanna Heiss to say, look, it is still possible to make art for art’s sake, without a need to sell, to please the market. And I certainly agree with you that her “idea deserves some serious attention.” But what I simply don’t understand is that everyone who has been asked to participate in the show belongs to a very small and exclusive group of artists, who at this point in their career can actually afford to not sell a work or two or hundred. Perhaps it is Heiss’s intention to somehow illustrate her frustration with the art market strictly through major success stories, but how about pointing out renowned artists, who, unlike the Jeff Koons of the art world haven’t geared their entire careers toward creating big, flashy, glossy, seductive objects for sale? How about celebrating artists such as Henry Darger whose works (shown on the left) were in fact never meant for sale? Collections such as his are indeed products of the economically liberated art making process in which Heiss is interested.

I am very glad to see your comments on the position of new craft movements and their search for “economic freedom.” They are both informed and insightful. While I had always thought of crafts as enjoying a comfortable niche in the market, I can see now that reliance on any conditional financial support can serve as a limiting factor in all creative processes. Today, both arts and crafts (though generally separated) are dependent on the support of institutions and, more notably, the markets. While the general functionality and “sellability” of the ladder practice gives craft makers some ease in terms of economic survival, it is nice to see them move away from their comfort zone in order to re-invent themselves and their position (on the right are images of public guerilla works by the group of 11 Houston-based knitters who call themselves Knitta), blurring the lines between the arts and craft. Having had more of a personal contact with a larger and less hegemonic market than most young artists, I believe that craft makers are better suited and more skilled to approach the art world without falling into its economic traps.