Monday, October 04, 2004

Barnes Cultural Impact on Artists

This is the real deal. What is it that those who support the Barnes move hope to gain promoting the Philadelphia art world? Are these the same folks who want to cut artist funding of the NEA and have never supported the Barnes? Where is the art that was supposed to be in the Kimmel music box? Where is the will to support the 1% public art law?

Will moving the Barnes be good for the galleries who need sales to fund living artists? It is a long way from the Parkway to Old City or Walnut Street. When the city cuts funding for the arts does it deserve a new art museum just to fill empty hotel rooms? Why do art managers continue to use children as an excuse to justify visual art? Should it not be up to parents to bring their children to the cultural world.

It would be better if artists were supported in their communities where they work. Why not create art economy zones. Art is a living language. That is what Barnes loved!
Art tourism from the Philadelphia Inquirer.


Blogger Jim said...

Yeah, I agree, Barnes in all his "kookiness" wanted art to be dealt with directly. He probably also understood that art is made by artists who happen to be real people that happen to need to eat and live. Museum curators and other artie lamprey eels don't quite get that...:-)

7:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home