Why Installation Art is Probably NOT the Best Option for Emerging Artists
Whether most Artists want to admit this to themselves or not, maintaining an Art Practice requires that the Artist establish the same “Good Business Practices” that any other business operator would need to employ.
--
Installation Art produces little collectable tangible/physical Art, and thus, no collection and/or investment opportunity for those who might want to compensate us for our work. It’s temporary, and generally based more on concept than specific art or manufacturing skills. That’s just a fact.
If your Art practice is largely being supported by grants and benefactor donations, you are probably not going to become a “Top Earning Artist” anytime soon. As much as any other Artist in the world, I live to create Art. However, I realize that there is a cost of living to consider. Food, rent, transportation, fuel, clothing, etc., all cost money. Grants provide a relatively low rate of compensation to those who receive them for the creation of their Art, and “soliciting donations” is just another polite way of saying “begging.”
Marcel Duchamp, Sculptor, Painter, Cynic, and all-around oddball, is considered to be the father of the “Readymade.” “Readymade” is another way of saying that it is an object or objects that had a function other than being an “Object of Art” before being “reconceptualized as Art.” Duchamp’s initial efforts to expand the definition of “Art” were seen by many as tacitly being “Anti-Art,” as it made it possible for Artists to produce new types of Art without ever learning complex skills like Painting, Sculpting, or any of the other skills associated with Traditional Art or even with complex New Media Art. While I personally agree with many of the concepts that Duchamp enumerated, I can reasonably understand why some are critical of his ideas.
