I see a lot of really shitty publicly supported art made by artists who are working the grant system. For the most part the stuff blows. I am not sure if the shitty artists are drawn to public money or public money makes for shitty art. It is probably some in between.
Okay, I've never been to SF, but I have seen my share of public funds wasted on "art". Just playing devil's advocate here,
I have a question concerning "art".
(by the way, I am from the school of "something is either art, work or coincidence").
I have heard from a few writer friends, something to the effect of "if you publish your own book, you are less substantiative because you are the only one who feels your writing must be read".
In visual art (I am completely ignorant, and hope to remain that way), I know of no other way to get a gig, other than to "have a show". It is my ignorant understanding that has filtered information from "artist" friends, that self-promotion is best left to graphic designers.
Musical art not only commands self promotion to most, but also adds that the "real dudes" put their own stuff out. If you get on a label, well, that's just because "someone realized your potential". I suppose the same would be true for writers being published and visual artists finding sponsors or grant money.
In any case within the arts, music seems to get the most leeway for self-release.
What's up with that?
Sorry to hijack and post so much, but really curious about the "takes" from more than a few of the members of this board.
Why is that?