I'm just interested in how people explain the relativistic approach they take to this situation, and why is it that they seem to exempt art from the same standard they would apply to any other discretionary purchase.
Laverdure-
your point was what I was noticing and hoping people would comment on more. As I said in an earlier posting, I've found that when I state the problem in the abstract hypothetical, most people say, no, I would never buy art from someone who was rude to me, expressed beliefs I don't wish to support, etc. But when you take it down to a specific example, I've had people say, "Oh, I know so-and-so is a royal ass, and he's rude to me and to people I know, but I still like his work so I'll keep on buying it".
I'm just interested in how people explain the relativistic approach they take to this situation, and why is it that they seem to exempt art from the same standard they would apply to any other discretionary purchase.
If you don't think you should not own the work of people you find reprehensible, the logical end would be to search out such information on every artist you intend to buy from. Is it any better, philosophically speaking, if you own the art of someone reprehensible but didn't realize they were reprehensible? They're still a reprehensible person.
It would seem to me it's either an all or nothing proposition. You're either doing it, or you're not.
That was awesome!I guess the question is, is the lobster bisque good enough to make you deal with the Soup Nazi, or is the Soup Nazi obnoxious enough to make you forgo the lobster bisque . . .
I guess the question is, is the lobster bisque good enough to make you deal with the Soup Nazi, or is the Soup Nazi obnoxious enough to make you forgo the lobster bisque . . .
I guess the question is, is the lobster bisque good enough to make you deal with the Soup Nazi, or is the Soup Nazi obnoxious enough to make you forgo the lobster bisque . . .
People may be assholes, but money is green.
Kevin- I think there exists a not-so-subtle distinction between selling a finished product and providing a service. When I'm selling a product, I am much less concerned about the quality of the person buying it because it is a limited interaction. When providing a service, that's a different story.
I once had a customer for whom I shot copy slides of her artwork. The level of service I provided to her for the fee charged was disproportionate in her favor - I came to her house, shot the slides of her work in situ, charged the same price for an 8x10 original as a 30x40 original, and delivered the slides to her for $5 per original slide, $2 per in-camera dupe. She then went on to ask me for much greater service, cutting into my vacation time to shoot slides with a 2-day turnaround, and she expected me to do it at the same rate as my 7-day service. When I told her there would be a rush charge, she went ballistic. Needless to say, I would not take her business again. However, should she approach me at an art show and want to buy one of my prints, as long as she took it as delivered (matted, not framed), I'd be happy to take her money. People may be assholes, but money is green.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?