(A Class Act, part II)
In Italy, the perception of an artist as a socially valid professional has been socially accepted since the times when Renaissance artists would have their "bottega", their workshop right in the heart of the city. Even though you couldn't afford a painting, you could see an artist at work, perhaps even have a chat with them about the meaning of their art, or the price of bread. Their bottegas' presence amongst the other traders and in full view of any passer-by, demystified the process of making art and had the side effect of creating a culture in which being an artist and enjoying art would not be just a the preserve of the rich, generating the democratisation of the artistic profession.
Italy is an extremely difficult country for contemporary non-commercial artists to receive public funding directly, which means that artists have to work mainly in a commercial way to make a living. But bottegas still exists, and artists act as direct agents of their own work, alongside the curators of the galleries who they work with . The difference is in the public perception of art as socially valid, which -in the right political climate- would mean that if Italian artists were publicly supported the public wouldn't scream outrage at the loss of hospital beds in the name of art.
But are the UK public really screaming outrage? This is what the tabloids would have us believe, but in the UK there is a lot of evidence that public interest for contemporary art has improved a lot in the past fifteen years. Arts Council England's research Taste Buds pointed to that, saying that the UK has the potential to double its art market.
Here a crucial distinction must be made: allowing the art market to grow to improve public perception of artists' value in society is one thing, supporting and fostering individual artists operating in a non-commercial way to allow them to exist is another. The two are not mutually exclusive.
