In response to one of the points you discussed at #class… we SHOULD be working to expand access to art beyond the wealthy, well-educated, etc. True art should be created not to appeal to a particular audience, but should be the artist’s expression of themselves and their feelings on the world. Why should people besides the wealthy, well-educated and well-located be restricted to that?

And yes, there is a better system to the commercial art world…by looking to the past and perhaps reintroducing the ‘commission an artist’ idea. Thats our mission, at least.

To see more go to http://www.idada.org/Ethics.aspx

By working with the staff of the Arts Council of Indianapolis we’ve been able to see results. Already most organizations requesting donated art have adopted guidelines to be more equitable with supportive artists.

The key is education. It’s ongoing as long as there are new generations of emerging artists. Lessons from events like #class have to be repeated and continued so all of our arts tribe can be empowered with additional knowledge.

I certainly don’t mean to understate the role of money in the art world. Of course artists should be fairly compensated for their work. Of course commercial galleries should pay their artists. Perhaps galleries should be regulated or licensed. Yes, social media might make self-promotion by artists both a more feasible and more acceptable way of making their work known to the public. Mass production and mass marketing (“the 20×200 model”) seem effective means for making art affordable. However, to me, all of these are business issues involving business ethics — not ethics intrinsic to the art world.

Ben Street made a crucial point about the art world in his Letter from London: Ethic Minority (2): the contemporary art object depends upon exterior fiscal powers for its very justification as art. With regard to the role of money in the art world, that simple statement seems to me to pose more fundamental ethical questions.