I was reading this essay about how site-specific sculpture, both functional and literal, is a way for artists to escape the capitalist hold on art, or combat the "commodification of art." One critic even went so far as to say that traditional painting is "dead." 


Let me just make one thing clear. Art as we (college students) know it is about making money. Our parents are paying money out of their asses not just for us to fuck around with as many materials as possible and have a great time expressing ourselves, but to develop a method or trade that will make us money in the long run and eventually pay back their investment. 


Many times I have had to explain to people that the difference between painting and drawing and illustration is that illustration is a more "commercial." Well, I'm changing my mind about that definition. It's hypocritical to say that illustration and graphic design and photography are considered "new media" (in other words: LOW ART) because if you make art and sell it, you have become a commercial artist. Also, much of art costs money to make, so in the producing of art one is automatically contributing to the capitalist system. 


Site-specific sculpture may have been a temporary break from the tradition of painting and the commodification of painting, but once it became a popular form of expression that made the artists a name and was printed in books and taught to young gullible artists and whatnot it is intrinsically modified to become a "commercial art." 


So, I think it's arrogant to assume that just because someone didn't commission you to do a painting of their dog or whatever that your art is somehow above the capitalist free market. We're all just trying to survive, and if someone asked them to do a big sculpture for free, what would their response be? Hell to the no. These things cost money. Case in point. 


Just a small thought I had.