Intent and Content

For those of you who recall, I did a little write up on Contempo mag – the new Arts/Cutlure/Design SA thinger – when it first came out. More or less, I said I completely support their intentions, despite my occasional skepticism of some of their content (which is mostly applaudable). There’s been some overt aggression towards the mag by some of the more vociferous (I eagerly await their magazines and web sites that support the arts in any way, shape or form!).

I recently got a mail from the features editor, Germaine Moolman (edited):

…in the "A Posed Question" for the second issue we’re hoping for varying views that launch a debate (or carry on the debate, rather) … Would you please be so kind as to respond to [these questions] for us, and maybe pass it on to some of your connections to fill out for us? …

The questions she sent me are pasted below, and you can feel free to enter into the debate by responding, via email, to  copy [at] contempo [dot] co [dot] za. You should get this to her by end of day on Tuesday.

These questions are aimed at highlighting the issues in the debate surrounding the commercial viability of art.

•    Should art be influenced by its commercial validity?
•    Does the art market support non-commercially viable art?

•    Do you take into consideration the commercial viability of the artwork or are you lead purely by the work and the thematic concerns?
•    What is your opinion of “commercial art” as opposed to “fine art”, or is there in fact this distinction?
•    In the context of being a South African artist where there is no such thing as “living on the dole”, how much of an influence does having to support yourself with your art play in the art that you produce?
•    What role does the gallery play in this issue? Do you find that your less commercially viable art is not accepted by galleries? Does this influence the art that you produce?

LENGTH: Your response should not exceed 200 words

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION