Saturday, June 30, 2012

Has Any Artist Deemed Major...

Has even one artist deemed "major" willed his or her estate (art) to a charity that actually feeds children or other human beings?

I tend to intuitively think the answer is "No."

I think it would be awesome if there were all these Rothkos out there feeding third world nations, but I don't think it's so.

What if an artist only produced works to be sold exclusively for charity--and this artist were not a schlock artist.

Like what if Picasso had done that.

Artists are generally as selfish as everyone else.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


3 comments:

  1. How many "major" artists have RECEIVED charity? Conversely. (Probably a lot?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point. It's jus....the works might express their laudable ethics, but it surprises me that I can't think of anyone who just left a huge estate and said, "Let it feed the world." Instead you probably just have Paloma and her siblings fighting over the lion's share of Daddy's unthinkable wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Damien Hirst could have probably fed a nation with that pauper's diamonded skull. (If he got his asking price.)

    ReplyDelete