Carrie Dashow Can Art really be Free?
Free means you are a part of the world, not apart from it. In order to have a culture where we can give, our culture has to be valued. Here it is not. The individual is valued over the many. Which comes 1st is the next question. Do we create the freedom as if we have it (build it, they will come) or wait for it to happen to give? Both build upon each other, and in generosity we cannot expect back. It’s just... why art?... In other words, yes, art should be free, as the world, air, water and that which grows should. To foster this world we can all do our part, if we get what we need to live and if the culture we are in holds value for our inner and outer worlds –or any word at all– rather than the commodification of culture.
“Where we reckon our substance by acquisitions, the gifts of the gifted man are powerless to make him substantial” Lewis Hyde, The Gift
Who owns a work of art, once
One could think that by giving we actually grow bigger. If art is free, the better definition is that it can go anywhere, not to one place. Free as in it is free
it is freely distributed and
-dom.
At what cost do creative ideas exist (and thrive) as acts of generosity? /
supposedly liberated from commercial interests? >
Should we not ask then, what does it mean to own something. What it is to own something, which seems 17