Art as a Commodity
I had a bit of a revelation today. We were discussing community based art, artists that go in a revamp a community centre as a work of ‘art’. But I really struggle with this. Surely art is a commodity. It needs to be owned as an artwork for it to be an art. Through it being purchased, traded, stored as an artwork, it is proclaimed to be art, and is art. But a community centre will never be owned, not as an art work. It can’t and won’t be traded by dealers. No rich business owner is going to want a community centre in their front room.
Not to negate the importance of community centres, of course they’re great for society. But they’re not works of art, whether they exist because of ‘artists’ or not. What makes the ‘artists’ any different from architects, from builders for that matter.
And not only does this diminish the work of the genuine artists, but also the members of the community. Do they then become just another media for the ‘artist’ to use? Are the people a part of the ‘artwork’ too? Where is the line drawn, is every community centre now a work of art, whether it’s been lead by an artist or not?












