Week Two: Aesthetic Evangelists

In review of Kester's article breaking things down into "community" and "public" was a great defining line that was drawn in the sand to separate the two works in a way that was fairly thought provoking and brought to light the administrative side that so wildly drives art. We see art around us daily and sometimes this art can have a political charge to it, with that community based art that is politically charged stands for a right or reason, or possibly for social justice. My question in return is, if something that is done for a social project to raise awareness for something, is it community-based public art, or has it slid into the category that is political art which is in turn elevates the artist for being the one who is responsible for this awareness of political justice?

Secondly, and this is something that I learned more about in one of my other classes here, when an artists creates in order to raise awareness or display the beauty of a culture (especially when they sell their art after) when does it switch over from community based art to an artist using the situations of a community in order to capitalize on them. In the case of Vik Muniz and the movie Wasteland one of his portraits sold for $64,000 and because he chose to make a movie was nominated for an Oscar launching the success of the movie (don't get me wrong I love his art, but it all just sounds a little fishy) (Moakley 2011). In return Times says he donated 100% of the proceeds of the artwork back to the workers in Rio, however multiple sources say otherwise, and one even says he only donated $50k and then once the movie became a success he felt led to donate more even though his portraits sold for much more (Carol 2010). 



Bibliograhy: 
Moakley, Paul. "Portraits with Purpose: Vik Muniz in Waste Land." Time. Time, 22 Mar. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2017

Kino, Carol. "Where Art Meets Trash and Transforms Life." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Oct. 2010. Web. 24 Jan. 2017.