|
Karin, I think a person can be honest, and still "play the game". In some ways, the hand-wringing we do over this stuff points to those time-honored notions of "selling out", "commercialism", and the really whacked idea that being an artist who is commercially succesful is somehow dishonest in itself. (?!? what's up with that ??)
So far as we are entirely honest, the whole process of bios, statements and CVs seems ridiculous, because the works should speak for themselves. It's why we paint instead of writing novels . . .
As for presenting one's self as an "ordinary person", that would depend to some degree on the particular gallerist's marketing angle. In a world where amateurs, "late bloomers" small children and animals periodically can be (and regularly are) idolized as "masters", the "puffery" that attends CVs claiming an artist is a genius, a scholar who studied under Rembrandt and Michelangelo, displays in all major museums, and is collected by hundreds of influential people is "necessary" self-defence that qualifies one's career, justifying it as something that truly is beyond the ordinary. In general, the public wants to believe that artists present deeper "truths" by virtue of elevated philosophies, understanding and techniques. The marketing of art depends upon its being a meritocracy. Only "the best" sells; to be seen as "the best", it has to be "something really special".
Of course, it begs the question whether this paperwork actually accomplishes that, and truly, I have my doubts!
|
Threaded Mode
