>I like what I like as art. There fore I don't need a
>gatekeeper. Because I grew up around the arts I never depended on a
>taste maker or gatekeeper to define art for me. It was always
>immediately accesible either wet in the living room or well dried in
>giant art books. Gatekeepers only work for those who think they want
>to know something about art that they can't quite figure out for
>themselves.
there you lose me. you grew up around the arts but you fancy that there were no gatekeepers. how can you possibly say that when so much of art is about defining it as "not popular" and "not understood by the masses"? i mean the first thing the Bad Subjects and Pulp Culture crowd did was positively sniff and point out that graphic artists are NOT artists. And you will find the same thing in plenty of books: people who make art for commercial purposes simply CANNOT be artists. And yet, millions of people have been employed since at least the day's Pear's Soap employed artists to make illustration for their packaging. If that's not gatekeeping based on some mysterious standard that no one will actually describe -- because they they get all gooey about how it ineffable -- then I don't know what is.
But i'll sit back and let the Artists and hotshots explain it and see if someone hits on an angle I understand this time.
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org