Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:41:38 +0300
Subject: Re: Artists' unions and anti-art


malgosia askanas wrote:
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know how far this argument goes.  First, I am not sure what is
> meant by art not being "valued".  True, so-called "public sculpture" is not
> much "valued" by the general public who is supposedly its beneficiary, but
> Hollywood films, advertisements, TV, car design, packaging, magazine layouts,
> computer graphics, clothes design, office-furniture design -- these seem to me
> quite ubiquitously popular with one or another segment of the "general public"
> and quite a central item in the culture, no?  And even so-called "fine art"
> is, one assumes, "valued" by people like gallery owners, etc. who make a profit
> off of it.
> 
> Secondly, there have been times and places where artists have unionized in
> some form; the Artists' Union is the US in the 30s is one example.  So I am
> curious about histories, material and philosophical, of such phenomena.
> 

You might like to check out the Finnish Artists' Union at
http://www.artists.fi Finland has highly organised artist unions which
are officially recognised (even for tax purposes!).

cheers
-- 

Andy Best
Avatar breeder, amongst other things
http://meetfactory.com


     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---