9 ms·

Artists Should Be Allowed to Fail

77 points by wallflower 7y ago

TOGoS 7y ago
> In studio visits with artists around the globe, I hear about the concepts they’re exploring. I see them spend vast sums of money on research before they share anything with institutions or potential patrons. Come visit me I just doodle in my notebook it's cheap.
- em-bee 7y ago
  in essen germany, there is a place called "unperfekthaus" which is set up on that premise. artists get free workspace, and in turn they allow visitors to watch them work. visitors pay a small entrance fee (which includes free drinks), but besides watching artists work there are also other interesting activities and even workspaces for them to use. https://www.unperfekthaus.de/ https://www.unperfekthaus.de/ (in german)
devoply 7y ago
Only the wealthy should make a killing on works of artists after the market filters them out. While they are alive most of them should not be able to make any sort of decent living. Such is capitalism and art.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
inflatableDodo 7y ago
If as a professional artist, you have dramatic media articles detailing your failure to produce a particular work of art, then I think that this is actually a massive success, at least by the terms of the professional art world.
sombremesa 7y ago
Individuals and institutions do fund artists already, e.g. grants, patreon, commissions, donations, a plethora of residence programs - I'm all for having as much of all this as possible, and there is certainly not as much of it as there could be. However, I think all of these have some element of the artists needing to have proven themselves or having a good portfolio - and I think that is more than fair and true of all professions. Nobody who values their time and money wants to hire an untrained, inexperienced contractor who is about to do their first job. They are free to go to school, they may choose to get loans, it may turn out they suck at plumbing and then they are back at square one. None of that is society's fault. For every successful artist there are thousands upon thousands of people whose art is unmarketable or unvalued by the market, and you simply cannot bend the market to your say-so. That's not how any of this works.
- llamataboot 7y ago
  I agree overall that this article seems a bit incoherent. I also actually agree that, other than in times of the rich patrons, there's actually more ways to get funded as an artist now than 10 years ago. I'm not sure that marketability has ever been a good metric for deciding whether art is useful or not though. Useful art shows something about 'us' to the rest of 'us', and that may not be marketable at all. In that case, what would really help is a basic income. If you are passionate about art, you can pursue meaningful art that might show us some things about the human condition without needing to worry about whether it is marketable. If it becomes marketable so be it, there's your step up. If not, you are free to at least survive while trying to do whatever you are doing. -- I'd argue that the way art is funded is highly tilted towards what grantmakers think is "good art", which often isn't, but is the idea that the people that give them money to fund art has....
- xj9 7y ago
  > None of that is society's fault. if a society can only produce debt-ridden failures, that society has failed. if society does not provide adequate resources and training, you end up with angry stupid people. there's not really a reason why people need to get into debt to be able to be useful members of society. that's how things are done in the united states, but its a pretty ineffective system in a lot of ways.
  - fnordsensei 7y ago
    To continue along this line of reasoning, a successful society should allow for people to try their hand at a few different things without catastrophic consequences. It stands to reason that people who are allowed to fail as well as recover are more likely to find a niche that allows them to thrive.
    - dheera 7y ago
      I agree with this. As an engineer I can say engineers very much have this. Free cloud computing credits, dirt cheap hardware to experiment on, plenty of free learning resources, and zero travel expenses for most projects. Artists (and to a great degree, fundamental scientists in traditional academic tenure paths) don't.
TheChaplain 7y ago
Reading through it seems more of an issue about people who make promises and fail to upheld them due to poor planning?
- em-bee 7y ago
  i read it being more about changes or obstacles that the artists could not possibly have forseen, yet they get chastised for failing because of something that was beyond their control.
pram 7y ago
How do they determine what failure is, and how many times do they get to fail before they stop getting funded? I think everyone would like some money to pursue their passion, especially if it didn’t come with any accountability! The premise seems to be failure can lead to success. Yeah, maybe, but it could also just lead to more failure. You’re asking institutions and people to keep the money flowing “just cuz”
cryptica 7y ago
Art is a scam. It's all about social connections. It's about who is able to fool or coerce the richest person through social networking.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  There certainly seems to be a lot of bullshit going on.If you mention this you will just get criticised for not being enlightened enough. As to whether it's a bad thing that the super rich are getting fooled out of their money, well I'm fairly relaxed about that.
  - lancesells 7y ago
    The super rich aren't getting fooled out of money. Many are investing in art just like they invest in stocks with the hopes that they'll be able to sell it at a profit or use it as equity. Others just love art and want to buy pieces they enjoy while others want to prove they've got the biggest dick in the room. Art is worth what the market will pay and clearly the market will pay more and more every year. Is it a bubble waiting to burst? Maybe, but it will come back over time and those artworks will be worth even more.
- circlefavshape 7y ago
  That's a very narrow definition of art. For every Rothko here are hundreds of amateur painters who do it for its own sake
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  The strongest interpretation of your argument, that the entire art market is a scheme to deprive rich fools of their money, with no role for taste and real differentiation of artistic worth is obviously untrue. Van Gogh May have known some other artists and gallerists but he sold more or less nothing during his lifetime. I’m confident there are other examples in fine art and god knows Banksy and Shepard Fairey didn’t come up out of a traditional fine art background either. A weaker form, that the art world is incredibly incestuous and that who you know is incredibly important is true, but it still doesn’t make the entire art world a scam. Artists and gallerists believe in what they’re doing. I presume most of the rich buying art are doing so in part based on personal taste too.
tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
Failing is OK, as is having some wild dreams. Dragging others down with you isn't.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  Not sure if we need a clear definition on what's OK and is not. I'd say there are different gradations of harm. The article starts off with > Alright, let’s do it, let’s talk about failure. In my role overseeing visual and performing arts at Kickstarter, failure is an everyday term—a project is either “successful” and meets its funding goal, or “fails” because it doesn’t There is a third option for customers: funding succeeds but project either does not ship, does not ship according to specifications, or has serious product flaws. I get that's an elephant in the room Kickstarter (and Indiegogo and such) do not want to mention. It could be something you don't care about. I've seen left and right being confused, Mac/Linux support being dropped, launch date delay (very common) just to mention a few examples. Not every customer cares which fractures the customer base with fans and discontent former believers.
Causality1 7y ago
This author suffers from a serious lack of what is termed in some communities "shut up and multiply". >few articles highlighted the positive side of her Institute morphing into its current form. MAI is now a roving institution, traveling and running workshops all over the world, effectively reaching more diverse and far-flung communities. Except in doing so the number of artists the Institute can actually serve is crippled in comparison to an actual physical institute. >The piece wasn’t fully realized, but, in fact, the outcome is actually somehow perfect No it isn't. It failed to deploy at all and is currently a misshapen mass of orbital debris that doesn't even slightly resemble his intention. His backers who paid 1.3 million dollars to put a mirrored sphere into orbit were tremendously disappointed. If I pulled Starry Night off the wall and put it through a garbage disposal the outcome would not be "somehow perfect", it would be a tragedy. Bad things don't stop being bad just because you navel-gazed long enough to pull some arbitrary meaning out of them.
colechristensen 7y ago
Everyone should be allowed to fail, but how many artists are there out there that "failed" and got more ordinary jobs? (and how many out there with ordinary jobs would like to try their hand at failing to be an artist instead?) The economy isn't willing to support very many artists, and the support is very exponential with a small number making more than anybody needs and a very long tail making nothing or near enough. So tax Ticketmaster 10% and use the revenue to boost the NEA by a factor of 10. Or stop spending $200 for concert tickets and buy some art you like displayed on a coffee shop wall and take interest in the local music scene.
_pmf_ 7y ago
Everybody should be allowed to fail. It's when failing becomes a lifestyle in itself that is expected to be paid for by the general public when I object.
doodliego 7y ago
> a project is either "successful" and meets its funding goal, or "fails" because it doesn't. This guy works at kickstarter, so his definition of success should be "when backers get what they paid for" not when kickstarter gets paid. This attitude is symptomatic of this company's callous disregard for its own customers and the proliferation of scams and frauds on its service.
- em-bee 7y ago
  but his point was that the people funding the kickstarter should not consider an art project failed if it didn't exactly deliver what was promised. of course one can argue that such a statement from a kickstarter employee is somewhat self-serving. but the principle holds. take a completely different example: a startup develops software. it gets funded. it fails to make a profit. but the software is complete and released under a FOSS license. it ends up serving many people well. for the investors that startup was a failure. for the people that benefit from the software it was a success. this is the point here. an art project may fail, but that doesn't mean it can't still produce a benefit for society. if the latter is the case, maybe it should not be considered a total failure, but a different kind of success.
- Finnucane 7y ago
  Wouldn't Kickstarter be in a position to provide the funding he thinks artists should get? Which is to say, Kickstarter could easily set up a system to allow this explicitly. Why not allow artists to ask for this kind of R&D money? As long as it is clear what is being paid for, and what the risks are, and what the money is being used for, why not?
ozim 7y ago
I remember article that I cannot find anymore about French action of supporting artists. They ended with useless crap projects in their storages created just to get money off of the government. That is why you don't support every sketch. Market is bad, but bunch of predatory freeloaders will spoil every good idea. So we are stuck with what it is, namely prove your idea first heavily and then we can reimurse you.
- ovi256 7y ago
  FWIW, there's a income tax reduction scheme in France that allows people to invest in film production companies. If the project fails, you get to write off your whole investment - no harm right ? If it makes any money, you get your share of the profit. It's basically a free option on film production profits that the government gives out. The total number of film productions is limited by art ministry fiat. Connected producers get the necessary yearly accreditations, and the companies are limited in how much investment they can take. Because of this, France is the 3rd world movie producer, after Bollywood and Hollywood. They have the lowest median views per film though.
Allower 7y ago
I'm pretty sure most artistry can be described as failing with confidence, which is why most art is pretentious garbage.
harimau777 7y ago
One area where it always bothered me that artists weren't allowed to fail is in public school art classes. In my experience they are generally graded based on participation rather than on whether the student actually learns the techniques being taught. In turn I think that's because there's generally not anything actually being taught. It's basically just crafts time. Art classes would actually be useful if students were expected to learn things like color theory, advanced techniques such as watercolor washes, the characteristics of different materials, drawing techniques, composition, anatomical drawing, etc.
- circlefavshape 7y ago
  My brother went to art college, and it was more or less the same there.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- magashna 7y ago
  At the same time, putting a urinal in an art gallery is considered a significant piece of art history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    It is more complicated. That urinal in that gallery at that time by that artist had great meaning. Just as why painting soup cans can be great art, context always matters more than paint.
    - harimau777 7y ago
      I tend to think that some of the issue is that people use the word "art" to refer to things that are different concepts. I tend to feel that for something to qualify as art it has to have both philosophical merit and aesthetic merit (although I don't think the aesthetic necessarily has be be beauty). In my opinion, artists that emphasize almost exclusively the philosophical aspects of their art would be more accurately termed activists or political cartoonists; while artists who focus purely on the aesthetic aspect would be more accurately termed something like artisans. However, that's definitely heavy into the realm of opinion and even then there are definitely huge gray areas.
ThomPete 7y ago
Artists can't fail. Art businesses however can.
mitfahrener 7y ago
Thought artists rarely succeeds.. financially at least.
la_barba 7y ago
Well, to turn the question around, how much money are you personally willing to lose on a failed project? And how many times will you back a artist that has failed? The natural human tendency is to only back 'all star' teams when it comes to such projects, or even when considering which OSS project to contribute to, or which startup to join, etc, etc. A 'winner' does more than just win, they create a positive energy that attracts people to their cause. While failure may be important for progress to happen, the key here is of course that progress must happen for the failure to be considered "good".
ohthehugemanate 7y ago
This also goes for large art institutions. In my field (classical music, in Germany) these institutions live mostly on the public purse. As a consequence, their target audience skews hard towards government grant and subsidy committees. Many put on shows nobody wants to see, that speak to nobody, but have fascinating write-ups. It is in some ways a remnant of Milton Babbitt's famous article, "who cares if you listen?"[1] except without the intellectual honesty. Cultural institutes and funded culture agents exist not just to create art qua art, but as a part of culture - ie with an audience. Of course they should take risks and push boundaries, but not exclusively. [1] http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html
jfengel 7y ago
I'm a little confused on what they mean by "fail". The key sentence seems to be, "We can’t chastise an artist when a piece or project does not work out." If an artist can't take chastisement, they're not prepared to do art. They are putting themselves out there: if nobody sees it, it's not art. If there wasn't a risk to it, there would be no point in the success. People not liking it is one of those risks. That's referring to artistic rather than commercial failure, but the skill set is related. The money spent on the project is part of the artistic process. It's a permanent problem that there is never enough money to fund all of the arts projects worth doing, and no way of knowing beforehand either artistic or commercial successes. The article is correct that people with money, who wish to fund art with it, will have to take risks and suffer commercial losses, just as the artist will suffer artistic failures. So to the degree that the article says "Let's put more money into art that might fail," absolutely, yes. But that's not solving the ancient problem of finding that money, and we already knew that one of the problems is that a lot of people don't want their money going into any art except the most broadly appealing.

77 points by wallflower 7y ago

> In studio visits with artists around the globe, I hear about the concepts they’re exploring. I see them spend vast sums of money on research before they share anything with institutions or potential patrons. Come visit me I just doodle in my notebook it's cheap.

em-bee 7y ago
in essen germany, there is a place called "unperfekthaus" which is set up on that premise. artists get free workspace, and in turn they allow visitors to watch them work. visitors pay a small entrance fee (which includes free drinks), but besides watching artists work there are also other interesting activities and even workspaces for them to use. https://www.unperfekthaus.de/ https://www.unperfekthaus.de/ (in german)

devoply 7y ago

Only the wealthy should make a killing on works of artists after the market filters them out. While they are alive most of them should not be able to make any sort of decent living. Such is capitalism and art.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

inflatableDodo 7y ago

If as a professional artist, you have dramatic media articles detailing your failure to produce a particular work of art, then I think that this is actually a massive success, at least by the terms of the professional art world.

sombremesa 7y ago

Individuals and institutions do fund artists already, e.g. grants, patreon, commissions, donations, a plethora of residence programs - I'm all for having as much of all this as possible, and there is certainly not as much of it as there could be. However, I think all of these have some element of the artists needing to have proven themselves or having a good portfolio - and I think that is more than fair and true of all professions. Nobody who values their time and money wants to hire an untrained, inexperienced contractor who is about to do their first job. They are free to go to school, they may choose to get loans, it may turn out they suck at plumbing and then they are back at square one. None of that is society's fault. For every successful artist there are thousands upon thousands of people whose art is unmarketable or unvalued by the market, and you simply cannot bend the market to your say-so. That's not how any of this works.

llamataboot 7y ago
I agree overall that this article seems a bit incoherent. I also actually agree that, other than in times of the rich patrons, there's actually more ways to get funded as an artist now than 10 years ago. I'm not sure that marketability has ever been a good metric for deciding whether art is useful or not though. Useful art shows something about 'us' to the rest of 'us', and that may not be marketable at all. In that case, what would really help is a basic income. If you are passionate about art, you can pursue meaningful art that might show us some things about the human condition without needing to worry about whether it is marketable. If it becomes marketable so be it, there's your step up. If not, you are free to at least survive while trying to do whatever you are doing. -- I'd argue that the way art is funded is highly tilted towards what grantmakers think is "good art", which often isn't, but is the idea that the people that give them money to fund art has....
xj9 7y ago
> None of that is society's fault. if a society can only produce debt-ridden failures, that society has failed. if society does not provide adequate resources and training, you end up with angry stupid people. there's not really a reason why people need to get into debt to be able to be useful members of society. that's how things are done in the united states, but its a pretty ineffective system in a lot of ways.
- fnordsensei 7y ago
  To continue along this line of reasoning, a successful society should allow for people to try their hand at a few different things without catastrophic consequences. It stands to reason that people who are allowed to fail as well as recover are more likely to find a niche that allows them to thrive.
  - dheera 7y ago
    I agree with this. As an engineer I can say engineers very much have this. Free cloud computing credits, dirt cheap hardware to experiment on, plenty of free learning resources, and zero travel expenses for most projects. Artists (and to a great degree, fundamental scientists in traditional academic tenure paths) don't.

TheChaplain 7y ago

Reading through it seems more of an issue about people who make promises and fail to upheld them due to poor planning?

em-bee 7y ago
i read it being more about changes or obstacles that the artists could not possibly have forseen, yet they get chastised for failing because of something that was beyond their control.

pram 7y ago

How do they determine what failure is, and how many times do they get to fail before they stop getting funded? I think everyone would like some money to pursue their passion, especially if it didn’t come with any accountability! The premise seems to be failure can lead to success. Yeah, maybe, but it could also just lead to more failure. You’re asking institutions and people to keep the money flowing “just cuz”

cryptica 7y ago

Art is a scam. It's all about social connections. It's about who is able to fool or coerce the richest person through social networking.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
There certainly seems to be a lot of bullshit going on.If you mention this you will just get criticised for not being enlightened enough. As to whether it's a bad thing that the super rich are getting fooled out of their money, well I'm fairly relaxed about that.
- lancesells 7y ago
  The super rich aren't getting fooled out of money. Many are investing in art just like they invest in stocks with the hopes that they'll be able to sell it at a profit or use it as equity. Others just love art and want to buy pieces they enjoy while others want to prove they've got the biggest dick in the room. Art is worth what the market will pay and clearly the market will pay more and more every year. Is it a bubble waiting to burst? Maybe, but it will come back over time and those artworks will be worth even more.
circlefavshape 7y ago
That's a very narrow definition of art. For every Rothko here are hundreds of amateur painters who do it for its own sake
barry-cotter 7y ago
The strongest interpretation of your argument, that the entire art market is a scheme to deprive rich fools of their money, with no role for taste and real differentiation of artistic worth is obviously untrue. Van Gogh May have known some other artists and gallerists but he sold more or less nothing during his lifetime. I’m confident there are other examples in fine art and god knows Banksy and Shepard Fairey didn’t come up out of a traditional fine art background either. A weaker form, that the art world is incredibly incestuous and that who you know is incredibly important is true, but it still doesn’t make the entire art world a scam. Artists and gallerists believe in what they’re doing. I presume most of the rich buying art are doing so in part based on personal taste too.

tdsamardzhiev 7y ago

Failing is OK, as is having some wild dreams. Dragging others down with you isn't.

Fnoord 7y ago
Not sure if we need a clear definition on what's OK and is not. I'd say there are different gradations of harm. The article starts off with > Alright, let’s do it, let’s talk about failure. In my role overseeing visual and performing arts at Kickstarter, failure is an everyday term—a project is either “successful” and meets its funding goal, or “fails” because it doesn’t There is a third option for customers: funding succeeds but project either does not ship, does not ship according to specifications, or has serious product flaws. I get that's an elephant in the room Kickstarter (and Indiegogo and such) do not want to mention. It could be something you don't care about. I've seen left and right being confused, Mac/Linux support being dropped, launch date delay (very common) just to mention a few examples. Not every customer cares which fractures the customer base with fans and discontent former believers.

Causality1 7y ago

This author suffers from a serious lack of what is termed in some communities "shut up and multiply". >few articles highlighted the positive side of her Institute morphing into its current form. MAI is now a roving institution, traveling and running workshops all over the world, effectively reaching more diverse and far-flung communities. Except in doing so the number of artists the Institute can actually serve is crippled in comparison to an actual physical institute. >The piece wasn’t fully realized, but, in fact, the outcome is actually somehow perfect No it isn't. It failed to deploy at all and is currently a misshapen mass of orbital debris that doesn't even slightly resemble his intention. His backers who paid 1.3 million dollars to put a mirrored sphere into orbit were tremendously disappointed. If I pulled Starry Night off the wall and put it through a garbage disposal the outcome would not be "somehow perfect", it would be a tragedy. Bad things don't stop being bad just because you navel-gazed long enough to pull some arbitrary meaning out of them.

colechristensen 7y ago

Everyone should be allowed to fail, but how many artists are there out there that "failed" and got more ordinary jobs? (and how many out there with ordinary jobs would like to try their hand at failing to be an artist instead?) The economy isn't willing to support very many artists, and the support is very exponential with a small number making more than anybody needs and a very long tail making nothing or near enough. So tax Ticketmaster 10% and use the revenue to boost the NEA by a factor of 10. Or stop spending $200 for concert tickets and buy some art you like displayed on a coffee shop wall and take interest in the local music scene.

_pmf_ 7y ago

Everybody should be allowed to fail. It's when failing becomes a lifestyle in itself that is expected to be paid for by the general public when I object.

doodliego 7y ago

> a project is either "successful" and meets its funding goal, or "fails" because it doesn't. This guy works at kickstarter, so his definition of success should be "when backers get what they paid for" not when kickstarter gets paid. This attitude is symptomatic of this company's callous disregard for its own customers and the proliferation of scams and frauds on its service.

em-bee 7y ago
but his point was that the people funding the kickstarter should not consider an art project failed if it didn't exactly deliver what was promised. of course one can argue that such a statement from a kickstarter employee is somewhat self-serving. but the principle holds. take a completely different example: a startup develops software. it gets funded. it fails to make a profit. but the software is complete and released under a FOSS license. it ends up serving many people well. for the investors that startup was a failure. for the people that benefit from the software it was a success. this is the point here. an art project may fail, but that doesn't mean it can't still produce a benefit for society. if the latter is the case, maybe it should not be considered a total failure, but a different kind of success.
Finnucane 7y ago
Wouldn't Kickstarter be in a position to provide the funding he thinks artists should get? Which is to say, Kickstarter could easily set up a system to allow this explicitly. Why not allow artists to ask for this kind of R&D money? As long as it is clear what is being paid for, and what the risks are, and what the money is being used for, why not?

ozim 7y ago

I remember article that I cannot find anymore about French action of supporting artists. They ended with useless crap projects in their storages created just to get money off of the government. That is why you don't support every sketch. Market is bad, but bunch of predatory freeloaders will spoil every good idea. So we are stuck with what it is, namely prove your idea first heavily and then we can reimurse you.

ovi256 7y ago
FWIW, there's a income tax reduction scheme in France that allows people to invest in film production companies. If the project fails, you get to write off your whole investment - no harm right ? If it makes any money, you get your share of the profit. It's basically a free option on film production profits that the government gives out. The total number of film productions is limited by art ministry fiat. Connected producers get the necessary yearly accreditations, and the companies are limited in how much investment they can take. Because of this, France is the 3rd world movie producer, after Bollywood and Hollywood. They have the lowest median views per film though.

Allower 7y ago

I'm pretty sure most artistry can be described as failing with confidence, which is why most art is pretentious garbage.

harimau777 7y ago

One area where it always bothered me that artists weren't allowed to fail is in public school art classes. In my experience they are generally graded based on participation rather than on whether the student actually learns the techniques being taught. In turn I think that's because there's generally not anything actually being taught. It's basically just crafts time. Art classes would actually be useful if students were expected to learn things like color theory, advanced techniques such as watercolor washes, the characteristics of different materials, drawing techniques, composition, anatomical drawing, etc.

circlefavshape 7y ago
My brother went to art college, and it was more or less the same there.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
magashna 7y ago
At the same time, putting a urinal in an art gallery is considered a significant piece of art history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
- sandworm101 7y ago
  It is more complicated. That urinal in that gallery at that time by that artist had great meaning. Just as why painting soup cans can be great art, context always matters more than paint.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    I tend to think that some of the issue is that people use the word "art" to refer to things that are different concepts. I tend to feel that for something to qualify as art it has to have both philosophical merit and aesthetic merit (although I don't think the aesthetic necessarily has be be beauty). In my opinion, artists that emphasize almost exclusively the philosophical aspects of their art would be more accurately termed activists or political cartoonists; while artists who focus purely on the aesthetic aspect would be more accurately termed something like artisans. However, that's definitely heavy into the realm of opinion and even then there are definitely huge gray areas.

ThomPete 7y ago

Artists can't fail. Art businesses however can.

mitfahrener 7y ago

Thought artists rarely succeeds.. financially at least.

la_barba 7y ago

Well, to turn the question around, how much money are you personally willing to lose on a failed project? And how many times will you back a artist that has failed? The natural human tendency is to only back 'all star' teams when it comes to such projects, or even when considering which OSS project to contribute to, or which startup to join, etc, etc. A 'winner' does more than just win, they create a positive energy that attracts people to their cause. While failure may be important for progress to happen, the key here is of course that progress must happen for the failure to be considered "good".

ohthehugemanate 7y ago

This also goes for large art institutions. In my field (classical music, in Germany) these institutions live mostly on the public purse. As a consequence, their target audience skews hard towards government grant and subsidy committees. Many put on shows nobody wants to see, that speak to nobody, but have fascinating write-ups. It is in some ways a remnant of Milton Babbitt's famous article, "who cares if you listen?"[1] except without the intellectual honesty. Cultural institutes and funded culture agents exist not just to create art qua art, but as a part of culture - ie with an audience. Of course they should take risks and push boundaries, but not exclusively. [1] http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html

jfengel 7y ago

I'm a little confused on what they mean by "fail". The key sentence seems to be, "We can’t chastise an artist when a piece or project does not work out." If an artist can't take chastisement, they're not prepared to do art. They are putting themselves out there: if nobody sees it, it's not art. If there wasn't a risk to it, there would be no point in the success. People not liking it is one of those risks. That's referring to artistic rather than commercial failure, but the skill set is related. The money spent on the project is part of the artistic process. It's a permanent problem that there is never enough money to fund all of the arts projects worth doing, and no way of knowing beforehand either artistic or commercial successes. The article is correct that people with money, who wish to fund art with it, will have to take risks and suffer commercial losses, just as the artist will suffer artistic failures. So to the degree that the article says "Let's put more money into art that might fail," absolutely, yes. But that's not solving the ancient problem of finding that money, and we already knew that one of the problems is that a lot of people don't want their money going into any art except the most broadly appealing.