> I have no profound arguments with those who want to teach cultural
> literacy. Hirsch makes some excellent points along the way. I'm just working out an argument for more of a personal/folk tradition in art than either of the more familiar traditions of a pop art or high art.
> Don't you think we tend to ignore the possibility of our own particiation in a folk tradition of art and assign that role to more exotic, more naive and innocent "others"? I think so and I also think we are possibly missing something in our ignorance.
> Don't you suspect that if more of "us" were players in the art game, if we had some personal involvement or commitment to art, that we as a culture might be more supportive of "The Arts" in general?
At this point in America the only people who supposedly appear to
support the "Arts" are those who use it as some sort of investment,
or tax break.... A terrible generalization but as an artist for over
20 years in the fields of sculpture, painting and drawing and having
approached galleries from New York City to Seattle to Key West to
Boston I truly have come to the conclusion that noone cares about
art whether it is high, folk or whatever .... in reality those
distinctions have no meaning... Art is Art whether done yesterday by
a peasant or tomorrow from Pluto..Instead the selling of art is
rather connected to the political, social and yes sex of the artist.
There have been many studies on how many female sculptors have been
exhibited in this country compared to the number of males.... As for
American culture goes in relation to the arts... in particular to
the Visual Arts, America tends to be concerned with the acquisition
of money and power inasmuch as Art can do that ... then America can
be involved.... Galleries for example will only take Art work with
the knowledge that it will sell giving them an income(and hopefully
the artist too...)Their true concern can never be Wow.!!!!This is
art and we will therefore show it, exhibit it and let the artist
eat....No it is Wow!!!This will sell...