The author stated that if there is no gift there is no art, but then goes on to say that there is a concept that a gift “can not be sold, bought or received one’s own will.” being that art does exist as a commodity (going to museums, buying classical works of fiction), how does art still lie in the category of gift?
When it comes to defining art as a gift, it feels the author isn’t calling the artwork the gift, but rather the art piece is a representation of the gifted abilities the creator possesses. It is in that sense art can be a commodity and still hold the traits of a gift. In addition, the author poses the ideas that a gift can be as simple as the inspiration that emanates from art. It once again disconnects the physical artwork from the gift aspect. From that point the gift is only accessible to those who can gain inspiration from the work- it’s not a purchase. All in all, art can be a gift, but art pieces are a part of economical markets.
The best gift I have ever received is an impossible fill in the blank. I am too uncertain to definitively provide that title to any one gift; however, one of my most notable gifts is my bike. I got my first big kid bike for Christmas one year, yet I am not sure when. It was the most thrilling experience to go downstairs and have this shiny silver vehicle. It gave me my first sense of freedom, as well as trust from my parents. I’m not that into biking, but the experiences that bike has been through makes it one of my most valued possessions.