I was posed a question last week that, at the time, made no impact on me. But over the weekend it’s been swilling around my brain, and is taunting me with my inability to answer it.

Does “bad” art deserve to be marketed/promoted?

If you go straight past the “who gets to decide it’s bad art” question (cause lets be honest, the expected answer to that is “what’s bad to one person could be Picasso to another” and that sort of answer really gets us nowhere) – I honestly don’t know how to answer this one.

I want to say “no, it bloody well doesn’t deserve my bood, sweat and tears poured over it, as I try to convince already cynical journalists and jaded audiences that this crap is worth their time/money/brain space” but obviousy that makes me an elitist bitch.

I want to say that the optimist in me hopes there may be an audience for everything, but you and I both know that would be incredibly naive – especially since I can give first hand evidence that it’s already hard enough getting audiences to “good” art, especially if it’s not mainstream. And whilst I don’t believe in the finite audience argument (there’s only a certain number people in Perth to spread around to see a certain number of shows, performances, screenings et al – and essentially we’re all competing for the same pool of people) somewhere along the way, I do have believe that audiences deserve better than bad hyperbole for cringe-making art, just because it’s my job to get you there in the first place.

I could always run with the “honest” marketing campaign; This exhibition is so shit, you have to come and see it, or you’ll never believe how bad it really is!

I’m not even sure there’s an answer, I just know that I can’t stop asking myself the question…. And I better watch out though – I could talk myself out of a job if I take this one too seriously!

Advertisements