I've posted about this before, but I'm a total sucker for public art. Especially cheerful art that makes my day seem a little bit brighter.
In my adventures around the Miami area, I've been finding pieces that intrigue me. Here are a few of them:
I love the flamingo! She is so delightfully decked out. Apparently flamingos were one of the creatures featured in Miami area (Like how NYC had the apples for a while and I think it was Chicago that had cows?). Roosters are also popular around here.
This artist has colorful pieces up all over Miami. I like the style, although the locals seem to sort of be "over" his style. Very bright and cheerful, though, as far as I'm concerned.
I think part of what attracts me to art in public is simply the fact that it's free, for all to enjoy. So many times there seems to be a price attached to the enjoyment of art, whether it be expensive tickets to theater and opera, museum admission fees, hardcover book prices, the ever-increasing cost of movie tickets, or certainly the extravagant prices of many fine art pieces.
Don't get me wrong--as an artist who makes a living off of people buying what I create, I am by no means suggesting that art should be totally free, or that artists shouldn't be paid. But few people can afford to buy every book they read--that's why we have libraries. Few people can purchase fine art pieces, that's why we have museums, and not everyone can even afford the ticket price, which is why they often have flexible fees and/or free admission days.
Absolutely, I think artists should not have to starve, nor to give away their ideas and their creations, but I also believe in sharing the wealth of creativity freely. Seems like a contradiction, no?
What do you think? Can the idea of free art and the idea of artists actually making a living exist and, not only survive, but thrive in the same economy?