rentier
I saw the Roger Ballen exhibition at the National Library recently, and loved it. the work is beautiful and disturbing--he studies as a psychoanalyst or similar during his later years, and you can see it!
But one thing really made me think. Ballen's work is supported by his career as a geologist -- it has in the past allowed him the financial freedom to travel and take photographs. How important is this 'time' to make art, I wonder?
It got me thinking about the difference between people who haven't got financial pressures and those who do, and what this means for their art. I think the technical term for it is a rentier class--people who are supported by private means (ie family money) and thus have the time (and probably the education) to lead them to create art. This is contrasted with people who don't have financial backing and who may make different art, or not make art at all....Am I making assumptions here? Is there such a thing as a class divide in artworks/artists? It all sounds a bit Cultural Revolution to me, but I can't shake the feeling, especially when I think of art school students. The difference beteen those who don't have to work and those who do, for example. How does it impact on their art? Would Nick Cave have made such brilliant snotty nosed noise if he'd not been a private schoolboy. with access to the education and family money that allows one to f*ck up, and then start again? Does it matter?
hmmm. Is that a chip on my shoulder? I worry ....
PS the surfing's going well, thanks for asking! Heading back down to the coast tomorrow :)
