#2807: Morris replies to Young on art and market

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From:Mysteries@aol.com

<< Rosemarie was not 'naïf' but quite skilled--- yet hungered for
exposure to more of the European masters which were not then available to be 
of
influence. She and a few others simply went on their own with what they had to
work with sans any asskissing to the Centre D'Art  autonomy.

I suppose one can wax heavy philosophical harangues about the freedoms  and
universalities of art but really, it's quite a simple and practical matter as
it  usually is in the matter of the exploitation of art for profit rather 
than,
say, a mere living wage  (which is what those waterfront copies are all 
about).

David X Young >>

We don't differ here do we?  I don't know about 'waxing heavy pholosophical 
harangues" whatever that means but I also know I would never refer to any 
artist I ever met in Haiti who was integrally and intentionally serious as 
'naif'.  Especially when thinking of the more culturally oriented artists 
such as Hyppolite or Liautaud who so successfully transferred the compressed 
spiritual art into other forms. And they were quite skilled as well. Their 
form and fuunction sprang from the American roots of Haiti itself.  I am not 
even referring to the copies...why bring them up at all?  

The tourist art scene was unfair to the trained artists.  No two ways about 
it.  That it was originally tourists who bought the self-taught artists was 
no fault of the artists.  It was hard for artists like your friend but not 
because there were untrained artists.  It was hard because they had no voice 
in the commerce.  You are right...Peters and Rodman dominated the market.  
The artists who did not kowtow to the Centre D'Art were heroes and heroines.  
I just feel that the ones who by whatever colonialist accident were shown by 
the Centre were not at fault or lacking in power or skills.

With respect,
Randall