Archive for March, 2010

The Road Goes On Forever And The Party Never Ends

March 29, 2010

            Late modernism lapsed into the Post Modern with a flurry of talk and writing having to do with the end of art. Arthur Danto and his essay, The End Of Art, immediately spring to mind (included in an anthology of like essays by others aptly entitled The Death Of Art). He also writes Art After The End of Art, and even one entitled The Wake of Art! The meaning of “end” slips and slides with many of these writers. It squirts across the spectrum, from being like Jim Morrison’s The End to being construed as a conclusion, rationale, or goal (such as “does the end justify the means?”). At the time, most of the essayists who covered this territory pretty much claimed that the “end” (or ends) of modernism had been achieved, that we were now in a different phase (post modernism).

            Such thinking doesn’t appear to contribute to any speculative understanding of Post Warhol art, at least not with “Everybody knows this is nowhere” (see previous post “making the art”). There is no apparent end to “Everybody knows this is nowhere” (especially given the need to continuously make the signifier through the next, still to be experienced, event). Green art (by definition) is partial to recycling and reuse, so no “end” in sight there. Yet the number of art practitioners receiving degrees in art (BFA, MFA, or even the new European model of a doctorate in art) also seems endless with each passing year. As mentioned in “What Could Post Warhol Art Really Be Like?” (March 8, 2010), not all of these folks can get jobs within the arts, or become artist/entrepreneurs. This, coupled with the apparent endlessness of “Everybody knows this is nowhere”, suggests a commodification of artists. Within the current global capitalist economy, most commodities are now controlled by a limited number of mega corporations (soybeans are controlled by a cartel of less than 10, metals by like numbers, beer, etc.). Indeed, T Magazine doesn’t refer to the video’s originators as artists but as “creatives”, in line with the folks at the Apple store. It isn’t a stretch to consider that a similar fate awaits this burgeoning population of “creatives”. They may become ubiquitous, interchangeable, and expendable, like the office temps that Art Work: A National Conversation about Art, Labor, and Economics speaks of. This all may call for an update on what Danto and the other essayists wrote. Now, perhaps, The End Of Artists would be more in keeping with the trajectory of contemporary art.

            There is a bit of irony stealing into all this. With no “end” in sight for Post Warhol art, and a seemingly endless supply of new artists, er, “creatives”, continuously able to meet the “challenge” for new art (fresh meat), the words of Mr. Balasubramanian Muthuraman, vice chairman of India’s Tata Steel Ltd, provide a fascinating perspective. “You have to realize one thing — in the U.S., the consumption of steel per person per year, is more than the consumption of food per person per year.” With no “end” on the horizon, Post Warhol art (green art included) appears rooted in, and perpetuates, a culture of consumption. More art please, with a side of stainless to go!


“making the art”

March 26, 2010

            The New York Times’ T Magazine recently came out with a video covering Ryan McGinley’s new exhibition opening at Team Gallery (‘Everybody knows this is nowhere’ March 22, 2010). This is an amazing bit of Post Warhol art.

            Post Warhol art? This is a journalistic piece, it is about art, not art itself. Think again.

            Much of the art of the 1950’s/60’s was “made” by New York based critics employed by various newspapers, magazines, and journals to “cover the arts.” The question of “Is it art?” needed to be answered, and these folks did just that. These critics also were engaged with academia, as well as wrote books on what defined art and culture. Nothing unusual there. Post Modernism shifted who “made” art (in the distribution of sense, what determines art) to one that was less authoritarian, more communal and historical (a contextual interpretation). 

            This is Post Warhol art in all the ways that Post Warhol art has been adumbrated in past essays of this blog. T Magazine runs credits at the end of ‘Everybody knows this is nowhere” acknowledging the various “creatives” who collaborated on the finished product. Many of this blog’s essays regard current studio art pedagogy stressing the process at the expense of the product; that is to say, there ain’t no product (precisely the case with this video- we never get to see the work in the gallery opening that has drawn all these folks). Likewise the signifier must be continuously made. The video itself makes the significance, and it is only there with its viewing. Once the video ends, there is no more significance to be found with the event (next event, please). One possibility of Post Warhol art involves the emergence of green art. With that, one questions the “need’ for the conceptual, given that green art will not sustain itself with an aesthetic that relies on the conceptual. But on the sensual it will. In addition, our current situation is analogous to what was the western world at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century. The cultural response to the triumph of imperialism and industrialization was Impressionism. It was a sensuous aesthetic that wasn’t conceptual. Post Warhol art will likewise be one with an emphasis on the sensual without the conceptual. Indeed, ‘Everybody knows this is nowhere’ is very much akin to the famous Renoir, Luncheon Of The Boating Party. There are many other “party’ theme paintings by the Impressionists (Seurat’s Sunday Afternoon On The Island Of The Grand Jatte is of a large group of people enjoying themselves). This repeats itself with Toulouse-Lautrec’s, Manet’s, etc. Folies –Bergere works. The video fits in wonderfully. It is very now in that there is no artifact. The aesthetic is of the body (sensuous), and the body’s response to the sights and sounds portrayed within the video. It gladdens the senses. It continues some things that earlier artists have done. Rirkrit Tiravanija did a piece where he had an exact replica of his kitchen set up in a gallery. At the opening, he prepared food there that he served to the attendees. Yet T’s video takes it to the next level in that the footage at the restaurant is no more staged than what was in the street, as well as in the gallery. With Rirkrit, there was still an emphasis on the conceptual (the exceptionality and exclusivity of the gallery space). With this video, there is none. Like the Renoir, it is just the pure pleasure of witnessing folks enjoying themselves. Like Greenberg before, The Times is literally making the art, that is, determining what it is that we will see as art.

A Tribute To Jessica Lutz

March 21, 2010

            “But you should understand that this new kind of rock-star art world fame, which exists only since the early 80s, is at the price of the commodification of art which marginalizes the dialogue about art as social and cultural commentary, art as valuable beyond its price tag that we insist be the focus of our discussions here. Or, if it is not clear to you, then it should be clear that that kind of super success is due not only to talent, but to social, cultural, political and economic factors over which you have no control and which have nothing to do with talent. Gender, skin color, money and connections are, alas, at least as relevant as talent in achieving that kind of success.” from the inaugural address at the first residency of the new Vermont College MFA in Visual Art program, 1991 given by its founder, G. Roy Levin.

            What college president or university CEO would say such a thing today? Indeed, could say such a thing today? This inaugural address embodied the openness, inquiry and inclusivity of discourse that G. Roy Levin wished to have present in the new graduate visual art program. Today it might read more like “But you should understand that this new kind of artist as capitalist entrepreneur, which exists only since the 90’s, is at the price of the commodification of artists and art…” Certainly something NOT to be said on a college campus today, at least not by a president or CEO of industrialized education.

            G. Roy Levin’s vision or motivation may have been rooted with the likes of Mario Savio and the worldwide radicalism of the 1960’s. This was a time when conceptual notions like the freedom of speech or thought needed to be embodied or materialized in order to be actual. “Empowering” students to take cell phones to class, and text messaging during class time are not the meaning of free speech on campus.  The establishment of a university program that actualized open inquiry and inclusive discourse would have fulfilled just such a passion. Jessica Lutz was one of the collaborators in the origination of this Vermont College MFA in Visual Art experiment. As the administrative director, she was the everyday interface of the actualization of what could easily have been dismissed as an idealized form of pedagogy. And yet it is thanks to her skill and labor that the start up program not only continued, but thrived. This past week it was reported that Jessica Lutz was to have no more presence at the school, either in her role as program director, or any other advisory capacity. Likewise, it was reported that her place within Vermont College’s virtual space had vanished mysteriously, without a trace, like some soviet era purge. This has left many of us miffed.

            The tragedy is that we shall never know. This seems to be the tragedy of our time, the information age. We all know the outcome of Berkeley’s 60’s. By the end of the decade, the governor and his minions swept in to assert the rights of private property (state property, to be exact) over that of citizens desiring a playground and gardens. As president, he expanded this preference through the sleight of hand of saying you have rights, but can’t afford to exercise them. One of the cowled crusader’s wards, Karl Rove, fine tuned this technology of positivist ideology that masks intimidation and fear. Consume, Conform, and Keep Quiet keeps all institutional speech safe, antiseptic, and businesslike. An inaugural address today must be informative, while saying nothing. With such a mission statement, what would the administrative director’s job be?

            Thanks Jessica for your wonderful work, all the lives that you touched, the grace with which you handled all the stress, and most of all, for the difference that you made. It was a fine aesthetic, one to be treasured.

ichigo ichie

March 18, 2010

            It is the start of the beekeeping season, a rather dreary time. Though for the bees there is no season, for the beekeeper it starts with collecting the hives that didn’t survive the winter. In spite of always knowing better, it starts with an obsessive compulsive inquiry that accompanies each autopsy and post mortem: why didn’t this strong colony make it while that weaker one next to it did? By May, this yearly rite of depression will be displaced by the euphoria of new bee colonies, a floral race of blooms to rival NASCAR, and dreams of an abundant summer ahead. Beekeeping, the stuff of bipolar expeditions!

            At this latitude, beekeeping is seasonal. It runs cyclically. The same continuum repeats annually. To describe it as “having” an aesthetic would be to misunderstand the aesthetic it is purported to “have”. Much as the work of Liu Bolin (discussed in an earlier post entitled Cultural Slippage), the aesthetic of beekeeping involves the author within the work. There is no running away here, no stepping back, no distancing to facilitate appreciation; to paraphrase Eldridge Cleaver “In beekeeping, there are no spectators.” Yet it would be impossible to describe this aesthetic event, series of events, or engagement as a performance.

            In Everyday Aesthetics, Yuriko Saito returns often to the traditional Japanese wabi tea and ichigo ichie- one chance, one meeting. An aesthetic “phenomenon” is binary. It involves that which experiences as well as that which is experienced.  It seems as though in much western aesthetic discourse there is a presumption that this phenomenon is somehow singular- one chance, one meeting. True, like the wabi tea, it can be repeated many times, for a lifetime’s worth of aesthetic experiences. Yet these experiences are nonetheless assumed to be separate, independent, autonomous. This taints the ability to approach the matter, to discuss aesthetics from any point of view that would maintain it as a continuum, a predisposition to a non “singular” experience. This prejudices the discourse in favor of the “exceptionality” of the aesthetic experience over the everyday aspect (and by “every” day, we mean exactly that, as Donald Judd would have it, “one thing after another”).

            Aesthetic inquiry turns on the question of value. The value found in the making and doing, the value of experiencing what has been made and done. If Mermaid Hawley swims everyday in the water off Coney Island, and the beekeeper returns yearly to begin the season like Charon, by transporting the dead, is the value of these everyday practices only in the singular acts of taking a swim and working the bees? Should someone incorporate the practice of the ever unique (but always tightly choreographed) wabi tea into their year in, year out, is there not an aesthetic that carries over beyond that of the “one chance, one meeting”? Is there not a residual stain, flavor, or characteristic that lingers and permeates through to the next tea? Does not the notion/definition of “value” come into play here (in the non capitalist sense)? Is not the everyday recurrence, the cyclical seasonal repetition, a formation of “value” itself? Is this not a worth that is defined through practice rather than purchase? Is this not the very definition of aesthetic, that is, not only is the concept of “value” brought into being (formed, made and done), but it is also manifest in the very making and doing?

It’s Complicated

March 14, 2010


            In her book, Everyday Aesthetics, Yuriko Saito begins a section entitled ‘Ramifications of the aesthetics of distinctive characteristics and ambience’ by stating: “Our aesthetic appreciation of objects (in the broadest sense, including season, time of day, place) for expressing their distinctive characteristics has important ethical and pragmatic consequences.” (pg. 129) On pages 130/131 she writes: “These deliberate attempts to experience a work of art “incorrectly” sometimes do have an educational merit, as when we view a representational painting as a non-representational painting, which helps us focus on its pure compositional features. However, aside from such educational benefits, it seems that we are doing something wrong if we deliberately misinterpret an art object, and I believe that the ultimate reason for correctly experiencing a work of art resides in moral considerations. It has to do with our paying respect to what the object is and experiencing it for what it is, rather than using it merely as a means for gaining an aesthetic kick. An art object has been created under a particular historical/cultural circumstance by a specific artist with a certain intention, using a particular technique and materials. We have to go out and meet the object on its own terms, rather than demanding that the object come and meet our expectations and desires. (she footnotes this further: “I also believe that the artists have the responsibility to make the communication possible to the viewer/ reader, rather than expecting and demanding that the viewer do all the work to come and meet their idiosyncratic or esoteric world. Each party, I think, has to meet halfway.”)…Appreciating art on its own terms, within the right category, helps us cultivate this moral capacity of recognizing and understanding the other’s reality through sympathetic imagination.” In the next paragraph she goes on to elaborate on this other: “However, if the prerequisites for our moral life include understanding, appreciating, and respecting the reality of the Other, understood as not only other people but also other–than-humans, the capacity to experience and appreciate things on their own terms can contribute to cultivating this fundamental moral attitude and outlook.”

            Inquiry into the definition and nature of “objects,” “art objects,” “communication,” “the Other,” and their interrelationship has been the stuff of this blog from its inception. Certain questions are raised regarding “Our aesthetic appreciation of objects for expressing their distinctive characteristics” when one also considers “that the necessity of the conceptual in determining the aesthetic qualities and artistic meanings of works of art has been established” (see previous post, Saito quote). This becomes even more convoluted when one realizes that the conceptual which is so integral to “determining the aesthetic qualities and artistic meanings of works of art” (objects in the broadest sense) falls within the distribution of sense that Ranciere writes about. The political cannot be elided because one chooses to be exclusive and only deal with the aesthetic in an “art” sense, especially if one wants to expand the definition of aesthetics outside its traditional fine art association (as this book does).  Earlier on (pg. 46), professor Saito had recourse to quoting Sartre’s Roquentin in Nausea: “This is what fools people: a man is always a teller of tales, he lives surrounded by his stories and the stories of others, he sees everything that happens to him through them; and he tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell.”

            Communicating, communicating with an other, presupposes/implicates the telling. The story necessitates the lie, either within the story itself, or due to our need/preference to have a story rather than a purely digital, factual data account (as this blog’s many forays into television’s House attest). A Reuters article from March 11, 2010 by Steve James, Miners Say ‘Avatar’ Doesn’t Do Them Justice, concludes with: “Balasubramanian Muthuraman, vice chairman of India’s Tata Steel Ltd, with iron ore and coal mines that feed its steel-making operations, put it all into perspective although he had no idea about the film. “You have to realize one thing — in the U.S., the consumption of steel per person per year, is more than the consumption of food per person per year. It is the case in all developing countries. Mankind cannot live without steel and steel cannot be made without mining. What is important is that these operations are conducted in an environmentally friendly manner. If you stop mining, human beings cannot live in this world,” Muthuraman said.” Stories likewise rely on the conceptual. Who’s conceptual production? Do objects express the conceptual? Or are objects media (in the McLuhan sense)? Ubiquitous screens, from the wee ones fingered daily, like prayer beads by the faithful, to the jumbo trons found at huge public gatherings, are they objects (in the broad sense) expressing distinctive characteristics worthy of our aesthetic appreciation? Or are they “non-objects” that enable the existence of virtual objects that we assess as aesthetically or artistically meaningful? Which attempt leads us to experience the object “incorrectly”? Is there a “thingness” or “being as such” of objects (in the broader sense) apart from how they are conceptualized (appropriated) by a subject?

            It was pointed out once, that the other A.W.’s landscapes never show any jet contrails in the sky. Indeed, Wyeth wasn’t alone. A lot of landscapes never show them. The aftermath of 911 was the only time Americans under the age of 40 had ever seen the “thingness,” the “being as such,” of the sky without its being appropriated (conceptualized) by a subject. For a brief period of time there was “sensually apprehended nature” overhead without contrails. Is this what Saito wants us to appreciate? Or does the “broader sense” mean a sky with contrails, a landscape with cell phone towers, a screen that is always on somewhere as an integral part of the everyday?

            I very much like what Yuriko Saito is doing and admire her for all the work she has done, but it’s complicated.

Post Warhol Possibility

March 11, 2010


                      “I take it that the necessity of the conceptual in determining the aesthetic qualities and artistic meanings of works of art has been established and the formalist theory has been largely discredited, except for its value in calling attention to the sensuous.” Everyday Aesthetics by Yuriko Saito pg. 79 

           Well then, that determines it, what is or ain’t a work of art. Professor Saito uses the above quote to lead into her understanding of green aesthetics, the making and doing, as well as the use and appreciation (consumption?) of nature and artifacts from an environmental standpoint (as in “save the whales!” or in her case, Save the Cod!).  Considering this, what could post Warhol art be like, with Warhol being the brilliant artist/capitalist entrepreneur made possible by the evolution of Duchamp’s emphasis on the conceptual? The simplistic answer would be the evolutionary outgrowth of a commercial “green” art; an art that is ‘grasped” through an appreciation of this green aesthetic (founded on a conceptual determinant) as well as one that is totally commercial. A strange kind of hybrid indeed! Much of the appeal of the environmental movement is to value the diversity of the planet. Such a hybrid (favored by the markets) would appear to negate this by diluting diversity in favor of capitalist exchange value (enhancing diversity would negate commodity thereby undoing exchange value).

           “The sensuous,” the part that is assumed (marginalized to the extent that it only contributes value if called upon, i.e. pointed out) is ostensibly the part that green art conceptually centers itself on. It “gives voice” to sensually apprehended nature threatened by unenlightened (i.e. a not green aesthetic) commercialism. Harry Shearer entitles it “Listen to the warm”. In terms of an anticipated post Warhol art, this is a bit disturbing. A voiceless sensuous would be dismissed as not having aesthetic qualities or artistic meaning (when was the last time you heard a sunset say it was interesting because…?). This invites an intriguing possibility. The last period of radical social/economic transformation analogous to ours would have been the late 19th, early 20th century; the triumph of the industrial revolution, imperialism and the bourgeois. It also saw the emergence of a radically new form of western art, Impressionism, which has become some of the most popularly cherished work to date. This was an art of the sensuous, whose voice was definitely not conceptual. The art of Monet, Van Gogh, Renoir hearkened more to an aesthetic that “gladdened the senses.” If post Warhol art is to be this kind of commercial green art amalgam, one wonders who’s senses will be gladdened, whether green art will be able to do this (with its strong reliance on the conceptual), and whether this is at all sustainable?   



What Could Post Warhol Art Really Be Like?

March 8, 2010

            One thousand folks standing in line to apply for a custodian’s position in a K-12 school district certainly does make the news. Indeed, just that captured the public’s imagination mid 2009. 350 folks submit applications to fill a studio art instructor’s position at a university or college doesn’t get much notice. Indeed, it is considered normal. “Well, it is only natural” would be the expected reaction. Like the scratch and win tickets read, 349 players will need to “try again.” What do they do while waiting for their scratch and win to pay off?

            They work another job. That too is considered normal or “natural.” Most of those who consider themselves as artists work at something else to pay the bills (arts educators, administrators, technicians, and a plethora of non art jobs). Many are self employed at a “para” art job or otherwise. They do something that incorporates their art skills or their own, art related, technical equipment to draw an income in work that is not exactly what any of us would call art. But it also pays the bills.

            It’s tax time. That wonderful time of year when we get to wonder whether what we involved our energies in paid off, made any money, or whether we’re barking up the wrong tree and wasting time doing what we’ve been doing. Those who earn it through working at something else have to decide whether to continue with the status quo, or risk it all on a change. Those of us who strayed into “(ad)venture capitalism” have to, once again, decide whether we’ve been any good at it (a definitely critical choice to make). Yet it is also the time of year when these same entrepreneurs must decide, up front, on whether to speculate, to continue “investing” a chunk of change in their enterprise. This could be a considerable amount of coin, which always leads me to thinking “if one didn’t invest it, one would have that chunk of change and not all the hassle, all the contortions that it initiates.” True enough, but later one would also not have that chunk back with the return that it makes possible. I’ve always written off this little discourse to the fact that I am not a businessman; that capitalism and the intricacies of business hold no interest for me. This is so because, even if the earnings from this endeavor are only used as supplemental income, to “enable” me to pursue my primary interests (which don’t pay much, if at all), the “risk” of speculating the money is enormous. Why not just go through the contortions (the labor) without having to be at risk? Even with their low return, CD’s of large sums make money without the contortions (why the financial sector is so huge and receiving all the investment in this country. Why build a factory when you can make your investment plus some without the wait or hassle?).   I guess this is what separates business people from folks not interested in business. The latter sell their labor so that they can get on with what really matters in their life. The former are taking their surplus (profits) and visiting T.D. Ameritrade.

            This year found a certain urgency within my discourse. The urgency follows the quicker than anticipated deterioration of the economic situation (within our country, within the global capital economy). I remember reading an article in my youth on how folks were overeducated for their employment requirements- people with a high school degree being required in order to work an 8th grade education job, with a bachelors competing for high school proficiency work and with a masters or doctorate for what a bachelor’s was required (the self same spread appeared amongst the thousand who applied for the custodian’s job). These articles have appeared, on and off, in various versions for a slew of years. The urgency entered in this year when I realized the necessity of earning the income in the future. A future earning that becomes increasingly doubtful if one relies on just “sell(ing) their labor so that they can get on with what really matters in their life.” Originally the entrepreneurial endeavors were initiated “to “enable” me to pursue my primary interests.” I believed that over time they might be “useful” within the projected future. Now I see they will be essential, that’s the whole difference. Like it or not (and I don’t) I’m forced to be a businessman if I want to continue with the only life I know. Yes, yes, one should always be open to “reinvent oneself.” But then it becomes the only 2 (or more) lives one has ever known; delusions of immortality and immutability that define video game avatars.  

            The outlook by those who study these things and understand is that the current global economy (late capitalism) is now totally pervasive and homogenous. There is nothing that escapes it. Within such an economy violence is perpetrated in order to maintain “free market” conditions. These conditions mean that whatever resources that exist MUST be available for the market as well as whatever products are produced MUST be available to be consumed (at whatever price). There is no escaping this (i.e. rights of indigenous people, sacred religious ground, national park, environmental restrictions, etc.). The “market” will have access to resources, through violence if necessary. It is as if all of us are a resource. Harry Shearer jokes that we need to copyright our lives. Unless we treat ourselves as such (become businessmen) the possibility of “get(ting) on with what really matters in their life” disappears. What “matters in their life” becomes just another resource, a market commodity. This saddens me immensely. With the disappearance of a “commons” imaginary within our culture (a space held in common by all), it is difficult to imagine an alternate projection. This saddens even doubly. The increased emphasis on each person being a businessman and regarding their very selves as a marketable resource (need “to go out and sell myself”) diminishes even the possibility of ever imagining such a space. What could post Warhol visual art be like? Dare we even imagine it?

Well, Who Ya Makin’ Art For?

March 4, 2010

            Ok, Ok, I know, I know, you make it just for yourself, because it’s something you do and enjoy. It’s important to you. This is not about you, so stop reading, and go back to your art.

            This week I had the very good fortune to be able to listen in on two talks given by Professor Rajani K. Kanth, Harvard University Visiting Scholar, The Crisis in Modernism: Metaphysical Reflections, and Crisis at the Center: What is to be Undone? Yes, it was more of the Dark Ages America discourse but with a much more updated, global slant (it was hip, happening, now, uh-huh). It was great being able to sit in on the fruition of such intense and in depth research and study (Sorry Morris, but the uttered word is prior to the written one). Man, Raj was putting up some outrageous stats! Having my auditory receptivity turned up so intently disabled my memory chip so I don’t recall them exactly. There were figures like: Today the ratio of service industry jobs to manufacturing jobs in the US is over 10 to 1 (15:1?). When the young Mr. Warhol left his Monongahela Valley home for the bright lights it was 1:10. When Andy ran his factory, CEO’s made 10-20 times what their employees took home. Today it is over 110 times that of their average worker’s paycheck. Corporate taxes accounted for well over 30% of Federal revenue and payroll taxes made up a little more than 10% at the time Warhol cleaned up on Brillo Boxes. Flash forward to Damien Hirst’s diamond days when payroll taxes make up over 30% of the US Federal revenue and corporate taxes just 10%. I mean, you couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. He was slinging the numbers left and right, up and down, especially the 20 to 80 ratio. 20% of the folks in the world own 80% of the wealth while the other 80% are wrestling over the remaining 20% (You Betcha!). That’s world with a W; includes, but is not solely, the US. According to Professor Kanth, BMW runs the same ads in France, India, Somalia, China, Russia, and the US (I wouldn’t know, don’t get around much anymore, but I’ll take his word for it). The distribution of wealth is now pretty homogenous. The appeal to “make this the best Christmas ever with a new Lexus” is aimed at one particular sector (though the rest of us got to take it in, every day). Ah, ya gotta love numbers, the stuff of great art! No, but seriously folks, what does that have to do with art? Well, who ya makin’ art for? What are your expectations as an artist? Are they to emulate the outdated Warhol entrepreneurial business model or are they social? If they are social, going somewhere else will not change the ratio.