2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Perhaps the combination of living in Portland in THIS day and age has allowed one to develop a slightly spoiled view of art and the life of the artist. The current accessibility of art, and it's creation, is only one we have enjoyed for a relatively short period of time. Historically, the process of creation was reserved for the masters. It was difficult, it was expensive (to create), and it was a life choice. And tell me, who do you think they created for? Not for themselves, as that does not generate an income, but for the public. Cities around the world (Florence, Rome, Paris, Vienna) are filled with PUBLICLY FUNDED art and it is because of their unique treasures that many of us will go into debt to visit them. The narcissism that is now art is a NEW chapter of individual creation, lets not forget that.

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context