For Kevin
Zoran Baric
> we
> perform for an audience, whether that audience is artists like
> ourselves, or
> non-artists who enjoy the fruits of our efforts. In a very real sense
> we
> become like entertainers trying out materials, medias, ideas on the
> reflective
> surfaces of the faces who look at our work. We examine in those
> visages for
> the emotional connections that we hoped to elicit, scrutinize their
> viability
> and validity, and then make decisions about the next piece of work
> that we hope
> will be even more so.
>
>
This is reply to Studio 120
under above directory: Sculptors Intention, Was: Can Anyone Help
Kevin,
Do you really think that we all share your approach and perform
exclusively for the audience?
With all the respect I have to tell you: I think I do not!
I don't even assume that respected media performers do what you said.
They LIVE their performance and this is why we call them Artists.
If I accepted your statement I would be in the same category with a
strip joint dancers. With them, and all others who do "effort" to
perform.
There is no any effort in my work, Kevin.
Maybe everything else but effort.
True, pure, trembling joy and contemplation, transcending ...no pain, no
effort.
If you meant that too, when you said: "we are all on the same side" -
you were wrong.
Either I do not belong to "WE" or I am not artist.
Zorba
Zoran Baric
You see what happened again!
Maybe I live performance too, even while writing you a letter.
I get filled by adrenaline and say what I normally wouldn't.
Sorry If I hurt you.
Still wishing you change your approach.
Zorba
Studio120
language that we use, whether written, verbal, or visual has limitations. We
struggle to expand those borders in ways that will open the minds of the
viewer. You're assuming that I'm equating mass entertainment, i.e.,
television, with fine art, and while the analogy still works even at that
level, it's generally assumed that TV appeals to the lowest common denomenator,
while fine art (hopefully) appeals to the higher aspirations of humans.
Regardless, the effort being made is one of communication. Art is a
communicative act that requires a cast of participants: the artist, the
artist's work with its intention, the viewer, and the viewer's interpretation.
The exchange of ideas from the artist to the viewer can be guaged as more or
less successful if 1) the artist finds satisfaction in the creation of the
work, 2) the viewer enjoys the work long enough to be engaged by it, and 3) it
affects the viewers perceptions about him or herself. Again, the situation is
that of the expressive act of communication - messenger, message, and receiver.
My only point in making the analogous reference was that too often we are not
willing to give credit to the viewer's response to our work. This is not to
say that we create work completely or exclusively for the benefit of the
audience, just that it's pretty pointless to make art that no one will look at
or that no one will understand.
Think of the religious person who "speaks in tongues". That person, while he
or she may be in an ecstatic state of "True, pure, trembling joy and
contemplation, transcending ...no pain, no effort", is not saying anything
that is intelligible. We can enjoy the moment, the ecstatic state, but we
can't understand what is being said. The moment has no expressive value beyond
itself.
Finally, I believe that when I said that "we" were all on the same side, my
attitude was a little more holistic. After all, we are all human and as humans
we seek the company of other humans in communities of artists, entertainers,
politicians, poets, clergy, etc, in an effort to be understood, accepted, and
allowed to continue to do what we love to do. So when you say "either I do not
belong to "WE" or I am not artist" you're making an attempt to exclude yourself
from the human race, and that, my new friend, is a very dangerous place to be.
Looking forward to your response,
Kevin Conlon
Studio 120
2201 Bull Street, #309
Savannah, GA 31401
Cathy Morgan
response -
When I first looked at Andy Goldsworthy's work and read what he had to say
about it, I was struck by the way he went about his work. He worked simply
to discover, and to please himself. I changed the way I thought about my
work and stopped thinking of its success in terms of how anyone else
responded to it. It was if, before this exposure to Goldsworthy, I just
didn't realize one could do that.
The interesting thing is - that of course Goldsworthy's work DOES
communicate, and is of enormous value (in my opinion) to other people. I
believe it's of more value to others because he does work to please himself.
And I believe this will be true of my own fledgling work as well.
Does this make it wrong to do artwork with the viewer's response in mind?
Is there a continuum here? At one extreme, the "artist" is so preoccupied
with viewer response that s/he's essentially a skilled tool in the hands of
the viewer, an artisan, more. At the other, the artist is oblivious to any
social context, lives in total isolation, is unaware of the "news," etc. and
works only for a sense of discovery, aesthetic delight, etc. Perhaps there
is value to both artist and society, no matter where one is on the
continuum? Certainly it must be a matter of personal choice. It's
difficult to discuss art without starting to interfere with another artist's
freedom.
By the way, my own current strategy is to work to please only myself, and
then be as flexible and assertive as I need to be in order to sell my work.
I went through a long period from about '94-'97 in which I believed that I
should distribute my work on an income-scaled basis, exhibit it only in
exhibits of art specifically designed as healing spaces, etc. I really
hemmed myself in and made it impossible for me to proceed with my heart's
desire: to make my art fulltime and earn a living from it. (And of course I
noticed that no one else was distributing anything to me on an income-scaled
basis. I had to accept living in a capitalist society.) So this division
between artmaking and selling art is what I've come to now.
--
Cathy Morgan, Morgan Sculpture
iron and mixed media vessel forms
Todd Fillingham
This struggle between pleasing an audience vs. pleasing oneself is quite
familiar. I have worked out, what for me, is an approach to a solution. I
have realized that the entity I refer to when I speak of myself is a result
of an enormous and possibly un-imaginable interaction of millions of others.
Biologically I am the result of eons of evolution, culturally I have been
raised in an un-precedented interconnected world culture. Therefor, that
which I find most important, that which I find most fascinating, revealing,
exciting is bound to be of some significance to others.
I find that I use this awareness of personal excitement and pleasure as an
indication, a kind of Geiger counter, of work that must have some
significance to others. By looking within I see without. It is only when I
try to second guess what others are looking for that I tend to stumble.
Cathy's idea of a continuum is still valid within this approach. I am always
attempting to refine this "sensor" of self awareness. And just as others
find entertainment in the trite, the mundane, the superfluous, so do I. But
I find that I can, with care, distinguish between these distractions and the
more significant echoes of what has come together to make me. As a matter of
fact, it is in the more indistinct areas that I find some of the most
beautiful reflections. Now, if only I were more skilled in creating objects
that indicate some of those reflections.
Todd
Zoran Baric
Studio120 wrote:
> As artists we are subject to the same limitations as entertainers - the
> language that we use, whether written, verbal, or visual has limitations. We
> struggle to expand those borders in ways that will open the minds of the
> viewer. You're assuming that I'm equating mass entertainment, i.e.,
> television, with fine art, and while the analogy still works even at that
> level, it's generally assumed that TV appeals to the lowest common denomenator,
> while fine art (hopefully) appeals to the higher aspirations of humans.
>
>
Kevin,
We do not share a same opinion regarding this topic and this is what is all about.
I know that my replays are not decorated with flower arrangements and scent.
If they were, we wouldn't have your massage of such quality and intensity.
Over carefully formulated and calming replies are usually unanswered.
Yes, we struggle to expand those borders and what we are doing now in this group is
exactly that. For me, this is much better way then introducing this motion into
segment of creation where it does not belong.
Entertainment that includes : TV shows, movies, theater, opera... It is not any
less than fine arts by itself.
How it moves you and what moves inside you determines whether is more or less.
> Regardless, the effort being made is one of communication. Art is a
> communicative act that requires a cast of participants: the artist, the
> artist's work with its intention, the viewer, and the viewer's interpretation.
> The exchange of ideas from the artist to the viewer can be guaged as more or
> less successful if 1) the artist finds satisfaction in the creation of the
> work, 2) the viewer enjoys the work long enough to be engaged by it, and 3) it
> affects the viewers perceptions about him or herself. Again, the situation is
> that of the expressive act of communication - messenger, message, and receiver.
> My only point in making the analogous reference was that too often we are not
> willing to give credit to the viewer's response to our work. This is not to
> say that we create work completely or exclusively for the benefit of the
> audience, just that it's pretty pointless to make art that no one will look at
> or that no one will understand.
>
Art is definitely, communication that requires participants.
Clearly, this is marketing or, better, presentation of our finished pieces.
My view is that communication with the potential buyer while working on your piece
will decrease its value - even though, you will sell it for the higher price.
And this is fine.
We want to be well of - "rich".
System has established those values and this is what makes the World go around.
>
> Think of the religious person who "speaks in tongues". That person, while he
> or she may be in an ecstatic state of "True, pure, trembling joy and
> contemplation, transcending ...no pain, no effort", is not saying anything
> that is intelligible. We can enjoy the moment, the ecstatic state, but we
> can't understand what is being said. The moment has no expressive value beyond
> itself.
>
This is an excellent proof of how different we are. I will not comment that - it is
not time yet.
>
> Finally, I believe that when I said that "we" were all on the same side, my
> attitude was a little more holistic. After all, we are all human and as humans
> we seek the company of other humans in communities of artists, entertainers,
> politicians, poets, clergy, etc, in an effort to be understood, accepted, and
> allowed to continue to do what we love to do. So when you say "either I do not
> belong to "WE" or I am not artist" you're making an attempt to exclude yourself
> from the human race, and that, my new friend, is a very dangerous place to be.
Obviously, the word human has a different meaning for each of us.
The way you use it - I would say: "homo sapiens" - even this sometimes does not
apply because it is referring to senses.
Do not get me wrong here.
I love people, but some are such a decay - seeking attention of the society.
Society responsible for that rot.
Nobody cares.
We developed a perfect methods of isolating ourselves, so we do not see that.
I am going of the topic. Sorry.
Yes, I was thinking about this "either-or" statement and when I read it - sounded
confusing.
When you said that WE perform for the audience and with "effort", I wanted to say
if this approach is called artistic than I am not the artist, simply, because I do
not belong there.
That is what I wanted to say. Sorry for a misunderstanding.
Aren't we having a good time here, or what?
Regards from
Zorba
Cathy Morgan
Cathy Morgan
By the way, I think that in selling artwork, it's important to think well of
one's potential buyers, and to expect the best - even while knowing the
risks of an art life.
Zoran Baric
Kevin,
I just realize that I did not invite you for the reply, so I'm doing it now.
I do not insist or mean any rush.
Zorba
Zoran Baric
Todd Fillingham wrote:
> I find that I use this awareness of personal excitement and pleasure as an
> indication, a kind of Geiger counter, of work that must have some
> significance to others. By looking within I see without. It is only when I
> try to second guess what others are looking for that I tend to stumble.
>
Mr. Fillingham,
Outstanding!
Please stay with us.
Not just because you share my opinion.
Your exposure will have a significant influence on all of us. I think so.
Zorba
Charles Mcgregor
If you look at say Celtic Art, you can see that it is aligned with
underlying Celtic philosophy, we know that from literature and
Classical commentary.
The same goes for other cultures and their visual art throughout most
of history.
The shared values of a culture should be reflected in it's art and
historically the role of visual art has largely been to provide
cultural feedback for it's community, just like Drama, Literature and Music.
The 20th Century saw the abrigation of such responsibility by
artists. Instead
artists sought to shock and change society and indulge their own
over-inflated egos.
In fact anything which was suspected of becoming populist was
immediately consigned to the ridicule bin, elitism reigned and
invisible clothes spotters were in evidence everywhere.
In other words, visual art was no longer performing it's function as
a contributing part of a culture.
The Western culture which so many sought to change with their shock
tactics this century has meanwhile serenely moved on it's own way
impervious to all the tantrums.
It *has* changed throughout the century, but largely through Film,
TV, Theatre, Literature. Establishment Art lost it's way and meaning.
I am perhaps being over pessimistic, of course artists have
contributed greatly to 20th C Western culture by imagery in Film, TV,
Adverts etc. but the 'academic sector',(for want of a better
expression), have alienated themselves from the public quite
deliberately, and hence can have no justifiable cause to complain at
the public's indifference. I think many of them do not even realise
that this in effect ammounts to zero influence on culture.
Already, many of the 'movements' are being ridiculed.
A century from now, the art establishment's elitism in the 20th C
will be viewed as being as weird as the 20th C habit of smoking.
To get back to the point , I think artists have a resposibility to
help provide cultural feedback. Sure, they should look to their own
inner subconscious and assume that it is representative of their
culture. Sure, they can do their own little nudge on it, and if it
is accepted then hey! they have made a difference.
What not to do is to reject something because it is popular, or to go
out take drugs and then try to create the wildest, most different
ideas you can think of.
Culture/society is like a huge bloody mega-tanker, the direction can
only be changed by tugs nudging it, a flash power boat zipping round
the harbour and then crashing into it's side will achieve nothing
except the derision and amusment of some of the passengers.
Bottom line is, you as a product of your culture, should find a
natural alignment of your artistic direction with that of your culture.
regards
chic
CROCUSDES
>The same goes for other cultures and their visual art throughout most
>of history.
>The shared values of a culture should be reflected in it's art and
>historically the role of visual art has largely been to provide
>cultural feedback for it's community, just like Drama, Literature and Music.
That's a fine post you sent us Chickand many of your points seem to be valid on
one level or another. However there are other facets that also hold true
without negating the ones given us. Rather than refute anything may I offer a
couple of alternative views that may coexist with what you have already
offered.
For instance the concept of shared cultural values being reflected in the work
of artists. Yes that certainly may be part of the process but just as often
one who simply exists within a culture doesn't necessarily have to agree with
its values and still have an effect. However, because each of us does exist
within this arena and offers up something that is individually unique that too,
by default, becomes part of the culture. It does so if the work becomes in
some way acknowledged and its presence persists. This is the sort of thing
that nudges the cultural status quo into a greater entity rather than a
different direction.
>Bottom line is, you as a product of your culture, should find a
>natural alignment of your artistic direction with that of your culture.
I have a problem with this statement but that's okay. Outsiders have
historically been shut out of the system but once in a while in spite of
resistance, an individual can and does often make the difference. We see that
all the time whether it's within the arts, sciences or even business. It
simply takes time for a different idea to make an impact.
>The Western culture which so many sought to change with their shock
>tactics this century has meanwhile serenely moved on it's own way
>impervious to all the tantrums.
Not so serenely and not without eventual acceptance. What we think as the norm
today was quite controversial not that many years ago. Anything that's out of
the normal range of cultural experience is almost automatically suspect and
that's just the normal mindset of an established viewpoint.
If you think of a cultural entity as being similar to a natural organism (which
it is because of collective consciousness) then perhaps you may see that its
natural tendency is to grow and not stagnate. This is what the organism
desires and this is what it needs to survive.
I always find it interesting that conceptual entities are very similar to
organic ones. Culture or even a corporation isn't something that exists within
a sterile environment but exists within the collective mind of individuals.
This means that there is a transferrence to the entity of the same desires and
goals that real folks have. It's an extension of our minds and just as real
and just as needy as each of us is individually. It's just that this isn't so
simple to see directly because the entity is larger than you or I until you put
it under a microscope.
As artists, we each make our individual contribution to the big effort.
Sometimes it takes hold, sometimes not but it's the effort by each of us that
has the value. If it takes hold then it may have even more value since others
may benefit.
To uphold or substantiate the norm within a culture may have its value as well
but it's not the only route to take. Any culture without ragged edges isn't
destined for a long and healthy life. Inbreeding has its consequences.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://www.chrisray.com
Zoran Baric
Cathy Morgan wrote:
Both of you seem to be agreeing that art is not a basic need. I've wondered
about this myself. Overall, I believe that it is. It's true that one unmet
basic need tends to dominate one's consciousness, but that doesn't make
other needs less basic. If one is very, very thirsty, that may make one
unaware of hunger (or a need for art.) But that doesn't make food or art
any less a basic need.
Then, Cathy Morgan wrote:
I really hemmed myself in and made it impossible for me to proceed with my
heart's
desire: to make my art fulltime and earn a living from it. (And of course I
noticed that no one else was distributing anything to me on an income-scaled
basis. I had to accept living in a capitalist society.) So this division
between artmaking and selling art is what I've come to now.
Cathy,
I just do not understand your eagerness in discussing the basic needs stating -
that art should come almost before food.
Now you are telling us that you compromise your art - for the sake of having a
full time job.
I am sorry but that question was unavoidable.
Zorba
Zoran Baric
I saw a brilliant reply of Chris, but I'll try to simplify.
By the way Chris, I think Mahatma Ghandy should be learning from you.
Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> There is a kind of social responsibility for artists.
> If you look at say Celtic Art, you can see that it is aligned with
> underlying Celtic philosophy, we know that from literature and
> Classical commentary.
> The same goes for other cultures and their visual art throughout most
> of history.
> The shared values of a culture should be reflected in it's art and
> historically the role of visual art has largely been to provide
> cultural feedback for it's community, just like Drama, Literature and Music.
>
Definitely, there is a social responsibility of art but art shouldn't reflect
shared values of the culture. Art is supposed to stimulate the evolution of
values and meliorate those present.
>
> The 20th Century saw the abrigation of such responsibility by
> artists. Instead
> artists sought to shock and change society and indulge their own
> over-inflated egos.
> In fact anything which was suspected of becoming populist was
> immediately consigned to the ridicule bin, elitism reigned and
> invisible clothes spotters were in evidence everywhere.
> In other words, visual art was no longer performing it's function as
> a contributing part of a culture.
>
Excuse me, but this is ridiculous!
>
> The Western culture which so many sought to change with their shock
> tactics this century has meanwhile serenely moved on it's own way
> impervious to all the tantrums.
> It *has* changed throughout the century, but largely through Film,
> TV, Theatre, Literature. Establishment Art lost it's way and meaning.
>
Yes, specially TV - inflicting human alienation, separation and isolation of
the classes.
> I am perhaps being over pessimistic, of course artists have
> contributed greatly to 20th C Western culture by imagery in Film, TV,
> Adverts etc. but the 'academic sector',(for want of a better
> expression), have alienated themselves from the public quite
> deliberately, and hence can have no justifiable cause to complain at
> the public's indifference. I think many of them do not even realise
> that this in effect ammounts to zero influence on culture.
>
This is an excellent example of what we came to and what are we living with.
I think Mr. Mcgregor's theory should stay a topic of our discussions for the
long time.
> Already, many of the 'movements' are being ridiculed.
> A century from now, the art establishment's elitism in the 20th C
> will be viewed as being as weird as the 20th C habit of smoking.
>
I do not know why You are mentioning elitism.
What kind of complexes you are subjected to?
Smoking habit?
> To get back to the point , I think artists have a resposibility to
> help provide cultural feedback. Sure, they should look to their own
> inner subconscious and assume that it is representative of their
> culture. Sure, they can do their own little nudge on it, and if it
> is accepted then hey! they have made a difference.
> What not to do is to reject something because it is popular, or to go
> out take drugs and then try to create the wildest, most different
> ideas you can think of.
>
This does not deserve a comment.
Please tell us who are you and what do you do for living?
> Culture/society is like a huge bloody mega-tanker, the direction can
> only be changed by tugs nudging it, a flash power boat zipping round
> the harbour and then crashing into it's side will achieve nothing
> except the derision and amusment of some of the passengers.
>
> Bottom line is, you as a product of your culture, should find a
> natural alignment of your artistic direction with that of your culture.
>
Chris, do you remember my statement about puppets?
I am just wondering what is the percentage of the population that Mr. McGregor
is presenting.
I hope, my dear colleges, that you understand NOW - the importance of our
discussions.
With all the respect toward our tools and materials - this is a critical issue.
We should be more than thankful to Mr. McGregor and I am extremely from my side.
Thank You
Zorba
> regards
> chic
>
>
Studio120
I found that Cathy Morgan's positions on art as a basic need (for her), and
compromises needed to make one's art perfectly congruous. It's a struggle that
we all deal with in some way along that continuum that Ms. Morgan spoke of in
an earlier posting.
While it is possible to live a life without making art or even looking at it
(after all, not everyone does!), it is not possible to live without contact
with other beings. Psychologists have studied the behavior of many species,
including man, deprived of social interaction and have found that all suffered
significant psychotic behavioral changes and premature death. Just like water
and food, social interaction is an absolute necessity. Again, I have to
reiterate my earlier point that art is a communicative act that engages the
parties involved. Just because it is visual rather than verbal does not mean
that it is any less so. To those of us who live in a visual rather than a
verbal world, the social aspect of our personality is expressed through our
art.
As artists we strive to communicate with our peers and society at large with a
visual vocabulary that we write ourselves. That vocabulary is referred to as
symbol, code, motif, metaphor, narrative, etc., and the attributes of that
vocabulary are as individual as the artists that create them, but one thing
they all share is they are an attempt on the part of the artist to express an
idea with a collection of visual cues. Those cues are the language that the
artist uses to speak to his or her audience, and assuming that the cues
represent similar ideas in the minds of the audience, a communicative act has
just taken place. The fact that this communication happens outside of the
mundane avenues of verbal expression is what lends the act its profundity and
make it so vital to those who appreciate it.
As to the issue of compromise, most of us do things that compromise our art.
Whether (like myself) we teach, or we maintain a production line of marketable
art, or we work a "real job", these are all things that are necessary for us to
do in order to make the money we need to survive in this world. It is a rare
that a sculptor can make exactly what he or she wants without any regard for
the audience or income. That does not mean that we can't aspire to that as a
goal, but the real world demands that we make the compromise because the real
world DOES NOT VALUE art the way we do. Its value as a communicative act has
been usurped by many other forms of communication that provide acceptable
sustenance to the social being, but not much more.
At what point between "making" for ourselves and "making" time, work, money,
etc., for others is a completely personal decision. Each of us must live with
the consequent loss of time in the studio by doing the other thing in life we
do to get by. As long as we can live with it individually then the rest of the
world, including our fellow artists, have to respect the decision that has been
made.
With due respect to you,
Charles Mcgregor
from croc...@aol.com (CROCUSDES) contains these words:
> Chick writes:
> >The same goes for other cultures and their visual art throughout most
> >of history.
> >The shared values of a culture should be reflected in it's art and
> >historically the role of visual art has largely been to provide
> >cultural feedback for it's community, just like Drama, Literature and Music.
> That's a fine post you sent us Chickand many of your points seem to be valid on
> one level or another. However there are other facets that also hold true
> without negating the ones given us. Rather than refute anything may I offer a
> couple of alternative views that may coexist with what you have already
> offered.
> For instance the concept of shared cultural values being reflected in the work
> of artists. Yes that certainly may be part of the process but just as often
No, it doesn't have to be part of the process. Historically it
always has been...until this last century. I think the invention of
the camera started the panic.
> one who simply exists within a culture doesn't necessarily have to agree with
> its values and still have an effect. However, because each of us does exist
Of course. My problem is those who deliberately look for extreme
disagreements, smacks of adolescence to me and may be enjoyable for
the individual, but ultimately is futile, because it leaves no legacy
of effect.
> within this arena and offers up something that is individually unique that too,
> by default, becomes part of the culture. It does so if the work becomes in
> some way acknowledged and its presence persists. This is the sort of thing
> that nudges the cultural status quo into a greater entity rather than a
> different direction.
I'm afraid there are not many truely successful revolutions, and
those that do succeed destroy the entire purpose of evolutionary culture.
> >Bottom line is, you as a product of your culture, should find a
> >natural alignment of your artistic direction with that of your culture.
> I have a problem with this statement but that's okay. Outsiders have
> historically been shut out of the system but once in a while in spite of
Outsiders yes, but very few artists historically, until this century,
have been outsiders.
> resistance, an individual can and does often make the difference. We see that
I believe artists made much more of a difference before confrontation
and shock tactics became fashionable.
> all the time whether it's within the arts, sciences or even business. It
> simply takes time for a different idea to make an impact.
Hope springs eternal...
> >The Western culture which so many sought to change with their shock
> >tactics this century has meanwhile serenely moved on it's own way
> >impervious to all the tantrums.
> Not so serenely and not without eventual acceptance. What we think as the norm
Sorry..don't see the acceptance.
> today was quite controversial not that many years ago. Anything that's out of
> the normal range of cultural experience is almost automatically suspect and
> that's just the normal mindset of an established viewpoint.
Not suspect, simply ignored.
> If you think of a cultural entity as being similar to a natural organism (which
> it is because of collective consciousness) then perhaps you may see that its
> natural tendency is to grow and not stagnate. This is what the organism
> desires and this is what it needs to survive.
But by evolution not revolution.
> I always find it interesting that conceptual entities are very similar to
> organic ones. Culture or even a corporation isn't something that exists within
> a sterile environment but exists within the collective mind of individuals.
> This means that there is a transferrence to the entity of the same desires and
> goals that real folks have. It's an extension of our minds and just as real
> and just as needy as each of us is individually. It's just that this isn't so
> simple to see directly because the entity is larger than you or I until you put
> it under a microscope.
Yes...like a culture, rather than a single organism.
> As artists, we each make our individual contribution to the big effort.
> Sometimes it takes hold, sometimes not but it's the effort by each of us that
> has the value. If it takes hold then it may have even more value since others
> may benefit.
But there has been so much wasted effort this past 100 years.
I think artists are re-maturing to the point of cultural
participation once more.
> To uphold or substantiate the norm within a culture may have its value as well
> but it's not the only route to take. Any culture without ragged edges isn't
It is the duty of artists to generate change, but evolutionary change
is the only one which retains gestalt cultural progression.
> destined for a long and healthy life. Inbreeding has its consequences.
Completely against inbreeding, completely for maximising sustainable
cultural change.
regards
chic
Charles Mcgregor
from Zoran Baric <zba...@sprint.ca> contains these words:
> I saw a brilliant reply of Chris, but I'll try to simplify.
> By the way Chris, I think Mahatma Ghandy should be learning from you.
> Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> > There is a kind of social responsibility for artists.
> > If you look at say Celtic Art, you can see that it is aligned with
> > underlying Celtic philosophy, we know that from literature and
> > Classical commentary.
> > The same goes for other cultures and their visual art throughout most
> > of history.
> > The shared values of a culture should be reflected in it's art and
> > historically the role of visual art has largely been to provide
> > cultural feedback for it's community, just like Drama, Literature and Music.
> >
> Definitely, there is a social responsibility of art but art shouldn't reflect
> shared values of the culture. Art is supposed to stimulate the evolution of
> values and meliorate those present.
Evolution, yes.
> >
> > The 20th Century saw the abrigation of such responsibility by
> > artists. Instead
> > artists sought to shock and change society and indulge their own
> > over-inflated egos.
> > In fact anything which was suspected of becoming populist was
> > immediately consigned to the ridicule bin, elitism reigned and
> > invisible clothes spotters were in evidence everywhere.
> > In other words, visual art was no longer performing it's function as
> > a contributing part of a culture.
> >
> Excuse me, but this is ridiculous!
I'm sorry but, perhaps if you were more specific in your condemnation
I could explain further.
> >
> > The Western culture which so many sought to change with their shock
> > tactics this century has meanwhile serenely moved on it's own way
> > impervious to all the tantrums.
> > It *has* changed throughout the century, but largely through Film,
> > TV, Theatre, Literature. Establishment Art lost it's way and meaning.
> >
> Yes, specially TV - inflicting human alienation, separation and isolation of
> the classes.
I don't see that the class system has become obviously stronger as we
leave the 20th C compared to as we entered it.
> > I am perhaps being over pessimistic, of course artists have
> > contributed greatly to 20th C Western culture by imagery in Film, TV,
> > Adverts etc. but the 'academic sector',(for want of a better
> > expression), have alienated themselves from the public quite
> > deliberately, and hence can have no justifiable cause to complain at
> > the public's indifference. I think many of them do not even realise
> > that this in effect ammounts to zero influence on culture.
> >
> This is an excellent example of what we came to and what are we living with.
> I think Mr. Mcgregor's theory should stay a topic of our discussions for the
> long time.
> > Already, many of the 'movements' are being ridiculed.
> > A century from now, the art establishment's elitism in the 20th C
> > will be viewed as being as weird as the 20th C habit of smoking.
> >
> I do not know why You are mentioning elitism.
> What kind of complexes you are subjected to?
> Smoking habit?
Come come, I'm sure you are not implying that I am the first to accuse the
20th C art establishment of elitism.
Likewise, I do not accept that the observation of said elitism
ammounts to a 'complex', it simply is a fact of life.
I mention smoking habit only because of it's contemporary nature with
20th C art elitism.
> > To get back to the point , I think artists have a resposibility to
> > help provide cultural feedback. Sure, they should look to their own
> > inner subconscious and assume that it is representative of their
> > culture. Sure, they can do their own little nudge on it, and if it
> > is accepted then hey! they have made a difference.
> > What not to do is to reject something because it is popular, or to go
> > out take drugs and then try to create the wildest, most different
> > ideas you can think of.
> >
> This does not deserve a comment.
Ditto.
> Please tell us who are you and what do you do for living?
No.
> > Culture/society is like a huge bloody mega-tanker, the direction can
> > only be changed by tugs nudging it, a flash power boat zipping round
> > the harbour and then crashing into it's side will achieve nothing
> > except the derision and amusment of some of the passengers.
> >
> > Bottom line is, you as a product of your culture, should find a
> > natural alignment of your artistic direction with that of your culture.
> >
> Chris, do you remember my statement about puppets?
> I am just wondering what is the percentage of the population that Mr. McGregor
> is presenting.
Large I expect, but I have no problem with that.(Except for the
bloody strings of course).
> I hope, my dear colleges, that you understand NOW - the importance of our
> discussions.
> With all the respect toward our tools and materials - this is a critical issue.
> We should be more than thankful to Mr. McGregor and I am extremely from my side.
Like, I said, the movement is back to participation and real influence.
regards
chic
Zoran Baric
C> >
> > > The 20th Century saw the abrigation of such responsibility by
> > > artists. Instead
> > > artists sought to shock and change society and indulge their own
> > over-inflated egos.
Where did you read that?
> > > immediately consigned to the ridicule bin, elitism reigned and
> > > invisible clothes spotters were in evidence everywhere.
> > > In other words, visual art was no longer performing it's function as
> > > a contributing part of a culture.
>
Yes, I agree. The environment that you are calling the culture.
The culture in your words sounds like technocracy.
This is not the culture.
> > >
> > > The Western culture which so many sought to change with their shock
> > > tactics this century has meanwhile serenely moved on it's own way
> > > impervious to all the tantrums.
> > > It *has* changed throughout the century, but largely through Film,
> > > TV, Theatre, Literature. Establishment Art lost it's way and meaning.
>
Yes Mr. McGregor, the way it goes - establishing values that soon will become claimed
by the computerized machines.
Is this Utilitarianism that you are promoting?
>
> I don't see that the class system has become obviously stronger as we
> leave the 20th C compared to as we entered it.
>
You are selecting the sentences that you can argue somehow.
I really do not know why you are doing all this.
Are you enjoying yourself ?
> > > To get back to the point , I think artists have a resposibility to
> > > help provide cultural feedback. Sure, they should look to their own
> > > inner subconscious and assume that it is representative of their
> > > culture. Sure, they can do their own little nudge on it, and if it
> > > is accepted then hey! they have made a difference.
> > > What not to do is to reject something because it is popular, or to go
> > > out take drugs and then try to create the wildest, most different
> > > ideas you can think of.
>
Cultural feedback?
I do not know what do you mean by Culture.
.> I am just wondering what is the percentage of the population that Mr. McGregor is
presenting.
>
> Large I expect, but I have no problem with that.(Except for the
> bloody strings of course).
You expect wrong, I realized, it is insignificant.
Mr. McGregor
You are an example of very alienated elements in our society, but good thing about it
is -> that ideas like yours are easily recognized as dehumanized and quickly
eradicated.
The reason you came to this group is to unproductively disturb and to be provocative.
There is nothing good that can come up in discussion with you.
In all my diversified surroundings I can not imagine any person to share even part of
what you wrote. Thus, problem is insignificant and disregarded as far as I am
concerned.
Zorba
Cathy Morgan
The fact that I sell it doesn't affect the way I make it. It just enables
me to go on making it. The alternative is to earn my living in some other
job, and do art part time, and for me personally this alternative is worse.
It's the same dilemma every artist must deal with.
To tell someone s/he's compromised her art is a bit offensive. To tell
me that, simply indicates a misunderstanding.
--
Cathy Morgan, Morgan Sculpture
iron and mixed media vessel forms
Zoran Baric wrote in message <36C9F752...@sprint.ca>...
Cathy Morgan
most of the newsgroup readers. It's not up to you to decide who is worthy
of participation in this newsgroup. It's not up to you to decide who's a
"real" artist. Sharing your opinions is fine, but you go too far when you
try to discourage someone else's expression in this group. I strongly
object to this.
Analyzing someone else's motives or integrity is usually offensive to
them, and a waste of time.
I'd like to see this newsgroup open to many perspectives and topics.
Cathy Morgan
actually affects the work we do. It seems to me that even if 100 newsgroup
participants said that what I'm doing were a worthless endeavor, not really
art, not what I SHOULD be doing as a sculptor - I'd still have to go with my
own choices. And I'd hope that's true for everyone else reading this
message. It enriches the world more if we work freely.
That said, I must say I'm interested in other people's perspectives -
what art they do, and why, and how they see it in relation to our society
and to the world as a whole. Because I may resonate to something and say
"ah, yes, that's true for me" and expand more in that direction. Or say
"ah, no, that's all right for that artist but it's not at all what I want to
do." So exposure to many different perspectives can be valuable. I'd like
to hear from more people in this group.
Charles Mcgregor
from Zoran Baric <zba...@sprint.ca> contains these words:
> C> >
> > > > The 20th Century saw the abrigation of such responsibility by
> > > > artists. Instead
> > > > artists sought to shock and change society and indulge their own
> > > over-inflated egos.
> Where did you read that?
Oh, I have to have read it? I couldn't have observed this for myself?
> > > > immediately consigned to the ridicule bin, elitism reigned and
> > > > invisible clothes spotters were in evidence everywhere.
> > > > In other words, visual art was no longer performing it's function as
> > > > a contributing part of a culture.
> >
> Yes, I agree. The environment that you are calling the culture.
> The culture in your words sounds like technocracy.
> This is not the culture.
Technocracy? certainly not. Where did that come from???
> > > >
> > > > The Western culture which so many sought to change with their shock
> > > > tactics this century has meanwhile serenely moved on it's own way
> > > > impervious to all the tantrums.
> > > > It *has* changed throughout the century, but largely through Film,
> > > > TV, Theatre, Literature. Establishment Art lost it's way and meaning.
> >
> Yes Mr. McGregor, the way it goes - establishing values that soon will become claimed
> by the computerized machines.
> Is this Utilitarianism that you are promoting?
No, I am merely suggesting that art has a part to play in culture and
that one shouldn't reject an idea simply BECAUSE it agrees with the
culture's ethos.
> >
> > I don't see that the class system has become obviously stronger as we
> > leave the 20th C compared to as we entered it.
> >
> You are selecting the sentences that you can argue somehow.
> I really do not know why you are doing all this.
> Are you enjoying yourself ?
Not at all, your views are unexpected and I am having difficulty
understanding them.
> > > > To get back to the point , I think artists have a resposibility to
> > > > help provide cultural feedback. Sure, they should look to their own
> > > > inner subconscious and assume that it is representative of their
> > > > culture. Sure, they can do their own little nudge on it, and if it
> > > > is accepted then hey! they have made a difference.
> > > > What not to do is to reject something because it is popular, or to go
> > > > out take drugs and then try to create the wildest, most different
> > > > ideas you can think of.
> >
> Cultural feedback?
> I do not know what do you mean by Culture.
Culture is not a simple subject.
We could discuss if you so wish.
Most people, however, have some notion of culture.
> .> I am just wondering what is the percentage of the population that Mr. McGregor is
> presenting.
> >
> > Large I expect, but I have no problem with that.(Except for the
> > bloody strings of course).
> You expect wrong, I realized, it is insignificant.
Well I have no figures to back my statement but certainly the
impression I have from the general public is that they expect art to
have a functional role in their culture both in terms of feedback and
suggestion, and that elitism has been a barrier to that role in modern times.
> Mr. McGregor
> You are an example of very alienated elements in our society, but good thing about it
> is -> that ideas like yours are easily recognized as dehumanized and quickly
> eradicated.
Ooer, I say! What did I say to deserve this?
> The reason you came to this group is to unproductively disturb and to be provocative.
You are quite wrong. I simply stated my own belief, I'm sorry if it upset you
but did not feel that it was either radical or unduly provocative.
Clearly, I was wrong on this point.
> There is nothing good that can come up in discussion with you.
Sorry you feel that way.
> In all my diversified surroundings I can not imagine any person to share even part of
> what you wrote. Thus, problem is insignificant and disregarded as far as I am
> concerned.
Well that's me told.
I'll try and stick to utilitarian rather than motivational posts in future.:-)
regards
chic
Zoran Baric
Cathy Morgan wrote:
> Zorba, I'd like to point out something to you that I think is obvious to
> most of the newsgroup readers. It's not up to you to decide who is worthy
> of participation in this newsgroup. It's not up to you to decide who's a
> "real" artist.
Cathy,
I am sorry for a disturbance I am introducing.
Participation in this group is open to everybody; and everybody is worthy.
I wish for more people to participate.
If you have in mind my response to Mr. McGregor - it is not what looks like.
I think I just stimulated him to stick here.
You can actually see that.
He has a lot to say and he has a certain point that we are going to discuss
later.
I felt free to express my immediate reaction.
The beauty of that system, we are using, is to give us time to think about
others ideas,
realize our mistakes and approach it later from a modified perspective.
I will have a nice challenge in discussions with Mr. McGregor.
We have something in common - we are both very disturbing and dangerous;
but for what cause - we might see very soon.
I never intended it to be up to me - to decide who is a "real" artist Cathy.
I have my theory about the "Artists world" that I did not come up with - yet.
In this theory nobody is suppose to get hurt, but some might change
perspective.
> Sharing your opinions is fine, but you go too far when you
> try to discourage someone else's expression in this group. I strongly
> object to this.
Maybe it looked like discouragement, but see Cathy, it has completely opposite
effect.
>
> Analyzing someone else's motives or integrity is usually offensive to
> them, and a waste of time.
>
It may be offensive, but is not waste of time if someone is MOTIVATED toward
betterment.
Even, if she/he is wrong. Don't you agree?
> I'd like to see this newsgroup open to many perspectives and topics.
>
I am more than sharing this point with you, Cathy.
Sincerely,
Zorba
Zoran Baric
Cathy Morgan wrote:
> Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I've compromised in that I sell my art.
> The fact that I sell it doesn't affect the way I make it.
Since, this is what you wanted to say I appologize for misunderstanding.
>
> To tell someone s/he's compromised her art is a bit offensive. To tell
> me that, simply indicates a misunderstanding.
>
Cathy, for me personally, these discussions have a grate value.
We all are trying to prove our points and learn from each other.
There is a value in every person and specific qualities can be found in each of
us.
Why not to spread our horizons if we have a chance to.
There are certain elements in our society - not willing to change by learning
and understanding.
It is in their very interest for nothing to be changed.
They are introducing values that are suffocating human spirit.
They made us not to be aware of ourselves.
This is what I am against, and if I get offensive sometimes to expose that - I
honestly apologize
Regards,
Zorba
Zoran Baric
Obviously, you are intelligent and knowledgeable individual.
I would like to continue discussions with you.
Is there a way that you can present your point clearly and honestly?
Or this is not your way because it might work against you.
What is your ultimate goal in these discussions or you want to keep it hidden.?
Say it clearly!
There are many readers with other than British heritage willing to get your point and aim.
Maybe you don't want them to get it!?
If you think that being confusing and enigmatic gives you the edge and superiority - go
ahead - play your game.
I hope this is not the case.
Please, feel invited.
Zorba
Charles Mcgregor
from Zoran Baric <zba...@sprint.ca> contains these words:
> Mr. McGregor,
> Obviously, you are intelligent and knowledgeable individual.
> I would like to continue discussions with you.
This is the opposite to what you said previously.
> Is there a way that you can present your point clearly and honestly?
I thought I had done. i.e.:-
IMO there is a functional role for visual art in culture
IMO elitism in 'establishment' art in the 20th C is a barrier to this
and the result is that the real effectual art is that perpotrated by
artists in Film, TV, Comics, Cartoonists etc. Even Kiddie's Cartoon
animators, IMO, have had more effect on culture than most
'Establishment Artists'.
The pretentiousness in the fashion industry is going the same way
right now, where most of the designs are becoming unwearably grotesque.
I know you don't believe any of this, but I do and believe it or not
many others do to.
I am not seeking to dissuade you from your own beliefs, you go right ahead.
True culture was not elucidated on, because of it's complexity.
However as I said, I am willing to lay out my version of it if there
is any interest.
> Or this is not your way because it might work against you.
Has anyone else had the same difficulty following a common enough
argument about elitism in modern art? Why, only this afternoon I
heard similar comment here on Radio Scotland.
> What is your ultimate goal in these discussions or you want to keep it hidden.?
> Say it clearly!
My only 'goal' is the exchange of knowledge, to mutual benefit. What else?
I am NOT going to get into pointless pissing contests about whose
'way' is correct.
> There are many readers with other than British heritage willing to get your point and aim.
> Maybe you don't want them to get it!?
Are you saying my English is incomprehensible? Maybe it's because I am Scots.
> If you think that being confusing and enigmatic gives you the edge and superiority - go
> ahead - play your game.
You are attributing a deviousness to my position which is simply not there.
I haven't the slightest intent to confuse or convert anyone.
Somebody disagrees with my view, then fine, so be it.
I don't expect to agree with everyone either.
> I hope this is not the case.
> Please, feel invited.
I don't need an invitation. If I have something to say I'll say it.
regards
chic
NiteMayor
I've been lurking around this NG for several months... There were some days
when I would go online and there were "0" new posts on alt.sculpture. The NG
certainly is interesting now. Sometimes it's like watching two kids fighting
over "He said I said he said..." Other times, it seems to deal with questions
about art that I find very interesting.
P.S. Andrew... thanks for your informative tips over the last few months. I
also visited your site. You know how to help a novice.
Cathy... please continue being the "ref." And keep an eye out for any "blows
below the belt."
Life is difficult. Life is unfair. I chose the road less traveled. (Peck,
Kennedy, & Frost)
J.T. Kammer nitemayor "at" aol.com
Zoran Baric
Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> The message <36CB13C1...@sprint.ca>
> from Zoran Baric <zba...@sprint.ca> contains these words:
>
> >
>
>
> IMO elitism in 'establishment' art in the 20th C is a barrier to this
> and the result is that the real effectual art is that perpotrated by
> artists in Film, TV, Comics, Cartoonists etc. Even Kiddie's Cartoon
> animators, IMO, have had more effect on culture than most
> 'Establishment Artists'.
>
"Culture" was not affected by art in 20th C - not only due to 'elitism". I would not blame an
elitism. My opinion is that somethig else happened - degrading art. If you want to say that art
is not what is supposed to be, I perfectly agree. If you are willing we can discuss that later.
Culture was affected by TV etc. because of it's power but not necesserely it's quality.
> The pretentiousness in the fashion industry is going the same way
> right now, where most of the designs are becoming unwearably grotesque.
> I know you don't believe any of this, but I do and believe it or not
> many others do to.
>
Fashion industry is, for me, not comparable to art. Industry is business. My vision of art has
nothing to do with business and industries. That comparison caused my reaction. There is
grotesque of unwearable clothes on fashion shows but I don't think it goes any further.
>
> True culture was not elucidated on, because of it's complexity.
> However as I said, I am willing to lay out my version of it if there
> is any interest.
>
Absolutely, there is an interest!
Zorba
Zoran Baric
Thank you for presenting your view this way. I think I understand now. Most
probably the residues of my previous culture are making me hard to accept some
facts.
Regards,
Zorba
Charles Mcgregor
from Zoran Baric <zba...@sprint.ca> contains these words:
> Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> > The message <36CB13C1...@sprint.ca>
> > from Zoran Baric <zba...@sprint.ca> contains these words:
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > IMO elitism in 'establishment' art in the 20th C is a barrier to this
> > and the result is that the real effectual art is that perpotrated by
> > artists in Film, TV, Comics, Cartoonists etc. Even Kiddie's Cartoon
> > animators, IMO, have had more effect on culture than most
> > 'Establishment Artists'.
> >
> "Culture" was not affected by art in 20th C - not only due to 'elitism". I would not blame an
> elitism.
Fine. I disagree except we may partly blame the invention of the
camera for 'forcing' artists into the world of abstraction thus
allowing more scope for pretention and bluff with it's inevitable
alienation from culture.
Nothing wrong with abstraction per se.
>My opinion is that somethig else happened - degrading art. If you want to say that art
> is not what is supposed to be, I perfectly agree. If you are willing we can discuss that later.
I am not saying what 'establishment art' is 'supposed' to be. IMO,
historically it served a function in culture and now it does not and
that,IMO, I see no reason beyond ego, that it should not.
These IMOs are important, only my opinion which is no more valid than
anyone else's.
> Culture was affected by TV etc. because of it's power but not necesserely it's quality.
TV is simply a vehicle, a medium. By 'power' here, you really mean,
I think, correct me if I am wrong, the huge numbers of people that
see it. IMO artists prior to this century would have jumped at the
chance to use this.
> > The pretentiousness in the fashion industry is going the same way
> > right now, where most of the designs are becoming unwearably grotesque.
> > I know you don't believe any of this, but I do and believe it or not
> > many others do to.
> >
> Fashion industry is, for me, not comparable to art. Industry is business.
I did not say fashion is art, but it is a fairly close analogy, and
one which is at a stage of alienation from culture that I hoped would
illustrate my point. A few years ago fashion designers designed
clothes that the general public then wore. Increasingly that is
becoming not the case. If the pattern continues, then designers will
design one set of clothes for fashion shows another set for the
public and at some stage the two will be so far apart that one person
will not be able to credibly do both and then we will have clothes
designers who design only for fashion shows and those who design
clothes for people to wear. Those who end up designing only for
fashion shows will have virtually no effect on culture, especially if
their increased alienation leads to the removal of even annual
coverage on popular media like TV.
Again, I'm not saying this shouldn't happen, who knows whether it
should or not.
Where the analogy falls down is that even if there were no
professional designers of any kind then people would still have
clothes and those clothes would still change through time simply
because most people can create what they want in clothes, which is
not the same for art.
It is also questionable who would sponsor such alienation in fashion,
i.e. I don't think it will actually happen for this reason alone,
however, it doesn't mean that the desire is not there amongst a
contingent of designers so it is still a valid snapshot.
> My vision of art has
> nothing to do with business and industries. That comparison caused my reaction. There is
O.K. but why?
> grotesque of unwearable clothes on fashion shows but I don't think it goes any further.
> >
> > True culture was not elucidated on, because of it's complexity.
> > However as I said, I am willing to lay out my version of it if there
> > is any interest.
> >
> Absolutely, there is an interest!
> Zorba
O.K. I'll start a new thread, as this is already way off topic.
regards
chic
Zoran Baric
Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> The message <36CBA302...@sprint.ca>
> from Zoran Baric <zba...@sprint.ca> contains these words:
>
> > Charles Mcgregor wrote:
>
> > >> "Culture" was not affected by art in 20th C - not only due to 'elitism". I would not blame
> an
> > elitism.
>
> Fine. I disagree except we may partly blame the invention of the
> camera for 'forcing' artists into the world of abstraction thus
> allowing more scope for pretention and bluff with it's inevitable
> alienation from culture.
> Nothing wrong with abstraction per se.
>
I am sensing our different definitions of art and artists as the reason for previous confrontation.
>
> I am not saying what 'establishment art' is 'supposed' to be. IMO,
> historically it served a function in culture and now it does not
I agree with this simple fact, but disagree with your explanation: -
why it does not have a function any more.
Also, I'll explain it if there is an interest.
> and
> that,IMO, I see no reason beyond ego, that it should not.
> These IMOs are important, only my opinion which is no more valid than
> anyone else's.
>
O.K.
> > Culture was affected by TV etc. because of it's power but not necesserely it's quality.
>
> TV is simply a vehicle, a medium. By 'power' here, you really mean,
> I think, correct me if I am wrong, the huge numbers of people that
> see it. IMO artists prior to this century would have jumped at the
> chance to use this.
>
I see that your impression toward the artist is reflected as to considerable force. I think that
they are so sparse and they are manipulatively dominated and suppressed by artisans. Details are
depending on the interest.
> I did not say fashion is art, but it is a fairly close analogy, and one which is at a stage of
> alienation from culture that I hoped would illustrate my point.
>
As any other business, to succeed is using all the possible means - alienation methods were proven
the best in 20th C.
> A few years ago fashion designers designed
> clothes that the general public then wore. Increasingly that is
> becoming not the case. If the pattern continues, then designers will
> design one set of clothes for fashion shows another set for the
> public and at some stage the two will be so far apart that one person
> will not be able to credibly do both and then we will have clothes
> designers who design only for fashion shows and those who design
> clothes for people to wear.
I see it in a more simple way.
Again, business.
Designers need to draw attention introducing grotesque on their shows.
It is a way of cheep advertising.
We are astonished, outraged, angry, fascinated ...etc., but a strong impression is created.
Her/his NAME can be heard more often.
That's all what's needed for our alienated culture - name.
Afterwards, she/he launches to the market very simple wearable clothes,
(very similar can be purchased in K-Mart or so) making a fortune.
It is game: alienate - manipulate - cash in.
The big problem is that artisans are accepting the rules of that game leaving the artists lost and
paralyzed due to their incompatibility toward that game.
> > My vision of art has
> > nothing to do with business and industries. That comparison caused my reaction. There is
>
> O.K. but why?
>
Art is productive, creative and enlightening.
Business is merciless, mean and sometimes destructive to survive.
It is wild, sleazy, whatever and whenever is needed. It does not make compromises with the human
nature. There is more to that, but not now.
Regards,
Zorba
William Dubin
>
> Zorba, I'd like to point out something to you that I think is obvious to
> most of the newsgroup readers. It's not up to you to decide who is worthy
> of participation in this newsgroup.
Thank you, Cathy.... it's about time someone said this. Not that I'm
against Zorba playing the fool, he does a great job of this, but it
simply has little to nothing to do with either sculpture or the act of
being a sculptor.
So far, I've not bothered to reply to anything said here (over the last
bunch of months) simply because I'de rather be in the studio than on
line, but your point is to well taken to not add a "second".
Wm.
Andrew Werby
> > A few years ago fashion designers designed
> > clothes that the general public then wore. Increasingly that is
> > becoming not the case. If the pattern continues, then designers will
> > design one set of clothes for fashion shows another set for the
> > public and at some stage the two will be so far apart that one person
> > will not be able to credibly do both and then we will have clothes
> > designers who design only for fashion shows and those who design
> > clothes for people to wear.
>
> I see it in a more simple way.
> Again, business.
> Designers need to draw attention introducing grotesque on their shows.
> It is a way of cheep advertising.
> We are astonished, outraged, angry, fascinated ...etc., but a strong
> impression is created.
> Her/his NAME can be heard more often.
> That's all what's needed for our alienated culture - name.
> Afterwards, she/he launches to the market very simple wearable clothes,
> (very similar can be purchased in K-Mart or so) making a fortune.
> It is game: alienate - manipulate - cash in.
> The big problem is that artisans are accepting the rules of that game
>leaving the artists lost and
> paralyzed due to their incompatibility toward that game.
[Some fine artists play this game very well. Damien Hirst, to mention
just one familiar name, got noticed for being shocking- exhibiting dead
animals pickled in formaldehyde. He has since gone on from this to do
more normal sorts of art, but people still pay attention because of the
name-recognition garnered from his previous work. Many artists are
attempting to duplicate this feat, but it is difficult to get a rise out
of a jaded society and a media world saturated with artists jostling for
attention like beggars exhibiting their afflictions and deformities. If
you find this sort of thing repellant, don't be "lost and paralyzed"-
figure out some other way to bring your art to the people and get them
to take notice.]
> Art is productive, creative and enlightening.
> Business is merciless, mean and sometimes destructive to survive.
> It is wild, sleazy, whatever and whenever is needed. It does not make
>compromises with the human nature. There is more to that, but not now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Zorba
[If art is to flourish, it must come to grips with reality at some point.
While it is possible for one to make art in isolation and never show it to
anyone, the only person it will enlighten is oneself. There's nothing the
matter with that, but for art to reach people, and sustain the artist in a
material sense, the business aspect of art must be considered. While it may
seem like a contradiction in terms, the business of art, properly conducted,
can be rewarding psychologically as well as economically. There is an
undeniable boost given to ones art, and ones feeling about ones art, when it
reaches an appreciative audience. On selling a piece of art, and receiving
our society's tokens of value, we are encouraged to make more art, and the
nagging doubts that haunt every artist (to some degree, at least) are held
at bay a little longer.]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools
Charles Mcgregor
from dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) contains these words:
>>chic said
>Zorba said
<snip>
In Scotland here, a few years ago, a friend of a friend of mine
called Muriel Gray, who was a graduate of the Glasgow School of Art
but who was/is in television, did a TV program on a young Scottish
artist who had come to prominence in Germany. His exhibits consisted
of various pieces of meat in various stages of decomposition hung on
butcher hooks.
Muriel had film of the exhibits and an interview with the artist some
German art critics etc.
The program covered many interviews with members of the Art
establishment in Scotland, academics, gallery directors etc. to whom
she showed her German film.
She mainly asked three questions. How can someone who just graduated
be so successful?
Why was he virtually unknown in Scotland? Was what he was doing really art?
Of course if someone is talented enough they can have immediate success.
Scots are not always quick to recognise their home talent. Yes, of
course it is art.
Were the answers.
In her show, the next week. Muriel revealed that the young Scottish
artist was in fact an out of work actor, that she had in fact set up
the whole thing to expose the pretension in modern art. None of the
people she had interviewed the previous week had even admitted that
they had never heard of the guy.
There was, of course, a huge furore from the art establishment in
Scotland and I'm pretty sure her career suffered because of her brave
act of exposure.
Nothing more to be said really.
regards
chic
Zoran Baric
Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> The message <drewid-2002...@prope19.ppp.lmi.net>
> from dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) contains these words:
>
> >In her show, the next week. Muriel revealed that the young Scottish
> artist was in fact an out of work actor, that she had in fact set up
> the whole thing to expose the pretension in modern art. None of the
> people she had interviewed the previous week had even admitted that
> they had never heard of the guy.
> There was, of course, a huge furore from the art establishment in
> Scotland and I'm pretty sure her career suffered because of her brave
> act of exposure.
>
> Nothing more to be said really.
>
> regards
> chic
Mr. McGregor,
That is it!
"Bravo Maestro"!!!
The problem is that we do not have in our society a "group" that is capable of
judging the pieces of visual expression and classifying them as art or craft. We
do not have even capability to form this group. We have instead some very
irrational establishment that is playing a "judge". Who or what is this? I am
trying very carefully to come to this point. Carefully, because I might badly
burn myself without achieving considerable results. There will be much more
coming. I hope from you too.
Thank you for the wonderful point Mr. McGregor.
Zorba
Zoran Baric
> A[Some fine artists play this game very well. Damien Hirst, to mention
> just one familiar name, got noticed for being shocking- exhibiting dead
> animals pickled in formaldehyde. He has since gone on from this to do
> more normal sorts of art, but people still pay attention because of the
> name-recognition garnered from his previous work. Many artists are
> attempting to duplicate this feat, but it is difficult to get a rise out
> of a jaded society and a media world saturated with artists jostling for
> attention like beggars exhibiting their afflictions and deformities. If
> you find this sort of thing repellant, don't be "lost and paralyzed"-
> figure out some other way to bring your art to the people and get them
> to take notice.]
>
Andrew,
Please, help me do it. I simply can not. The possible ways are interfering with
my ability to create. Something has to be different. We are not businessmen or
sales persons. Something rational has to be establish in our Culture so we can
be left to communicate, meditate and create. I am not for any radical or
immediate change. We are only discussing.
>
>
>
> [If art is to flourish, it must come to grips with reality at some point.
> While it is possible for one to make art in isolation and never show it to
> anyone, the only person it will enlighten is oneself. There's nothing the
> matter with that, but for art to reach people, and sustain the artist in a
> material sense, the business aspect of art must be considered. While it may
> seem like a contradiction in terms, the business of art, properly conducted,
> can be rewarding psychologically as well as economically. There is an
> undeniable boost given to ones art, and ones feeling about ones art, when it
> reaches an appreciative audience. On selling a piece of art, and receiving
> our society's tokens of value, we are encouraged to make more art, and the
> nagging doubts that haunt every artist (to some degree, at least) are held
> at bay a little longer.]
>
Andrew, I agree in almost everything you said in this paragraph. The problem and
the danger is:
Me as an emerging artist to succeed in this world - I will have to become an art
businessman and do things that any other business establishment requires. I am
just scared that after that I will not be any more what I used to be. Please,
convince me otherwise.
Regards,
Zorba
>
Andrew Werby
> > A[Some fine artists play this game very well. Damien Hirst, to mention
>
> > just one familiar name, got noticed for being shocking- exhibiting dead
> > animals pickled in formaldehyde. He has since gone on from this to do
> > more normal sorts of art, but people still pay attention because of the
> > name-recognition garnered from his previous work. Many artists are
> > attempting to duplicate this feat, but it is difficult to get a rise out
> > of a jaded society and a media world saturated with artists jostling for
> > attention like beggars exhibiting their afflictions and deformities. If
> > you find this sort of thing repellant, don't be "lost and paralyzed"-
> > figure out some other way to bring your art to the people and get them
> > to take notice.]
> >
>
> Andrew,
>
> Please, help me do it. I simply can not.
[Even if you wanted to, it's not something I could do for you- even if I
wanted to. If you had money you wished to trade in for fame, then you
could hire a publicist, who would make sure your name was mentioned in
the right circles, and popped up in magazines and news stories, and would
put your name in to be interviewed whenever an artist-type was called for.
Perhaps a creative publicist would help you stucture some publicity stunts
to get more attention. But I'm not in that business.]
The possible ways are interfering with
> my ability to create.
[How so? Just thinking about it?]
Something has to be different. We are not businessmen or
> sales persons. Something rational has to be establish in our Culture so we can
> be left to communicate, meditate and create.
[Somnething like what? A Cultural Revolution?]
I am not for any radical or
> immediate change. We are only discussing.
[You mean I should put my gun down?]
>
> > [If art is to flourish, it must come to grips with reality at some point.
> > While it is possible for one to make art in isolation and never show it to
> > anyone, the only person it will enlighten is oneself. There's nothing the
> > matter with that, but for art to reach people, and sustain the artist in a
> > material sense, the business aspect of art must be considered. While it may
> > seem like a contradiction in terms, the business of art, properly conducted,
> > can be rewarding psychologically as well as economically. There is an
> > undeniable boost given to ones art, and ones feeling about ones art, when it
> > reaches an appreciative audience. On selling a piece of art, and receiving
> > our society's tokens of value, we are encouraged to make more art, and the
> > nagging doubts that haunt every artist (to some degree, at least) are held
> > at bay a little longer.]
> >
>
> Andrew, I agree in almost everything you said in this paragraph. The
problem and
> the danger is:
> Me as an emerging artist to succeed in this world - I will have to
become an art
> businessman and do things that any other business establishment requires.
[Actually, the art business is not like any other business- it's much
harder. Just doing what everybody else is doing, while it makes sense
for most businesses, is sure death for an art business.]
I am
> just scared that after that I will not be any more what I used to be. Please,
> convince me otherwise.
[Sorry, I think change is inevitable, no matter what you do- or don't do.
When you look back on yourself after 20 years, you will find you are not
any more what you used to be.The best you can do is try to be more like
what you want to be. If running away from business opportunities is going
to help you do that, then by all means run. But if there's a way that
business can help you achieve what you would like to do with your life,
then you owe it to yourself to explore the possibilities. Stasis, however,
simply isn't an option.]
Zoran Baric
Andrew Werby wrote:
> In article <36CFA5F1...@sprint.ca>, Zoran Baric <zba...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> [Even if you wanted to, it's not something I could do for you- even if I
> wanted to. If you had money you wished to trade in for fame, then you
> could hire a publicist, who would make sure your name was mentioned in
> the right circles, and popped up in magazines and news stories, and would
> put your name in to be interviewed whenever an artist-type was called for.
> Perhaps a creative publicist would help you stucture some publicity stunts
> to get more attention. But I'm not in that business.]
>
Andrew,
You just told me how system works.
In a way, I knew that.
You see, I need a publicist to convince people in the right circles that my hanged
pieces of meet in various stages of decomposition are art - and I am all set.
>
> The possible ways are interfering with
> > my ability to create.
>
> [How so? Just thinking about it?]
>
I will definetely explain that later on. I promise.
>
> Something has to be different. We are not businessmen or
> > sales persons. Something rational has to be establish in our Culture so we can
> > be left to communicate, meditate and create.
>
> [Somnething like what? A Cultural Revolution?]
>
A Cultural revolution is a heavy word.
The Sculptors, as a part of visual expression artists, have the highest chance to
initiate some changes in the present art establishment. Situation with the painters
is much more complicated. Lack of one dimension facilitates them to come up with
much more bullshit then we do.
>
> I am not for any radical or
> > immediate change. We are only discussing.
>
> [You mean I should put my gun down?]
>
No, for the contrary, prepare your patriot missiles. Code red.
> [Actually, the art business is not like any other business- it's much
> harder. Just doing what everybody else is doing, while it makes sense
> for most businesses, is sure death for an art business.]
>
With this statement you touched an interisting issue. I will open a new directory
just for that.
> I am
> > just scared that after that I will not be any more what I used to be. Please,
> > convince me otherwise.
>
> [Sorry, I think change is inevitable, no matter what you do- or don't do.
> When you look back on yourself after 20 years, you will find you are not
> any more what you used to be.The best you can do is try to be more like
> what you want to be. If running away from business opportunities is going
> to help you do that, then by all means run. But if there's a way that
> business can help you achieve what you would like to do with your life,
> then you owe it to yourself to explore the possibilities. Stasis, however,
> simply isn't an option.]
>
Well, I hope we'll keep on discussing.
Now, we have the situation that two persons in this group think that something is
wrong with our art establishment. Looks like - I am the only one who is convinced
that things will change.
Regards,
Zorba
CROCUSDES
>something is
>wrong with our art establishment. Looks like - I am the only one who is
>convinced
>that things will change.
Good grief, things have changed dramatically since the early nineteen sixties
when I started out. At that time sculptors had it worse than painters ever
did. Since that time we've become the elite in terms of actually selling our
works especially through the commission process. I'm not saying that this is a
great success but it's better now than it ever was before. It's all relative,
of course.
I think that sometimes we are overly concerned with establishment issues as if
that's what it's all about. It isn't! There are alternatives to the system
and many sculptors have simply decided that their own destiny lie in their own
hands and have taken different initiatives than the traditional ways of
painters and the like.
If you need to fit into the system then do the system things that are required.
Otherwise you can do your own art, find your own way and get on with your
life. It's ridiculous to think that your professional well being depends upon
those who have other interests that do not coincide with your own. There are
other options so explore them if you wish, no one is stopping you except
yourself.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://www.chrisray.com
Cathy Morgan
the problem of prospering and thriving as an artist will be solved while I'm
away, and I'll miss the key messages.
One suggestion for you, Zorba - is to focus your energy first on making
your art to please yourself - to satisfy your own inner judgment. Then - to
focus your energy on finding ways to sell your art that work within the "art
world" as it is now - with the aim of getting enough income from this to
sustain your ongoing work. (I bet you can do this without doing the
equivalent of hanging meat.) To make the sales, you may need to do some
things that aren't much fun and that seem like a most irritating
interruption to doing your sculpture. But with experimentation and practice
you can find ways to sell your work that make the least interference, and
bring you some satisfactions in addition to the money.
Then - after these two projects - turn your energy to changing the art
world and the larger culture.
I offer this as a practical solution. It's only one option and may feel
too repellant to you to even consider. If so, I understand completely and
without objection. In any case, you have my best wishes for success in all
three endeavors.
Andrew Werby
> > I am
> > > just scared that after that I will not be any more what I used to
be. Please,
> > > convince me otherwise.
> >
> > [Sorry, I think change is inevitable, no matter what you do- or don't do.
> > When you look back on yourself after 20 years, you will find you are not
> > any more what you used to be.The best you can do is try to be more like
> > what you want to be. If running away from business opportunities is going
> > to help you do that, then by all means run. But if there's a way that
> > business can help you achieve what you would like to do with your life,
> > then you owe it to yourself to explore the possibilities. Stasis, however,
> > simply isn't an option.]
> >
>
> Well, I hope we'll keep on discussing.
> Now, we have the situation that two persons in this group think that
something is
> wrong with our art establishment. Looks like - I am the only one who is
convinced
> that things will change.
>
> Regards,
>
> Zorba
[No, Zoran, you were the one that wanted to stay the same, remember?
I was trying to tell you that wasn't going to happen. I don't think
there are many people out there who would do much to keep the "art
establishment" from collapsing under its own weight- and quite a few
willing to give it a little push...]
Andrew Werby
croc...@aol.com (CROCUSDES) wrote:
> >Now, we have the situation that two persons in this group think that
> >something is
> >wrong with our art establishment. Looks like - I am the only one who is
> >convinced
> >that things will change.
>
> Good grief, things have changed dramatically since the early nineteen sixties
> when I started out. At that time sculptors had it worse than painters ever
> did. Since that time we've become the elite in terms of actually selling our
> works especially through the commission process. I'm not saying that
this is a
> great success but it's better now than it ever was before. It's all relative,
> of course.
[They've changed quite a bit since the early nineteen nineties,
for that matter. Remember the doom and gloom of those years?
The art market of the 'eighties had collapsed, galleries
everywhere were closing, and most artists- not just sculptors-
were feeling more abused and isolated than ever before. Power
was concentrated in ever fewer hands, and politicians everywhere
were trying to put as much distance between themselves and the
world of art as possible, for fear of being mistaken for
supporters of us Christ-soaking, bullwhip-shoving, meat-pickling
minions of Satan.
Then along came the Internet, and suddenly every artist in the
world has a private "gallery" at his or her disposal, with many
more clamoring for our work. Instead of feeling isolated, we
have to tear ourselves away from exploring all these burgeoning
opportunities in order to get any actual work done at all. The
contrast from the alienation of the past couldn't be more striking-
and it's just getting started.]
> I think that sometimes we are overly concerned with establishment issues as if
> that's what it's all about. It isn't! There are alternatives to the system
> and many sculptors have simply decided that their own destiny lie in their own
> hands and have taken different initiatives than the traditional ways of
> painters and the like.
>
> If you need to fit into the system then do the system things that are
required.
> Otherwise you can do your own art, find your own way and get on with your
> life. It's ridiculous to think that your professional well being depends upon
> those who have other interests that do not coincide with your own. There are
> other options so explore them if you wish, no one is stopping you except
> yourself.
> Chris Ray - sculptor
> http://www.chrisray.com
[Hear, hear! It's never been easier to write your own ticket.]
Andrew Werby
<cjmo...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> A most interesting a valuable discussion - I hate to go on vacation for fear
> the problem of prospering and thriving as an artist will be solved while I'm
> away, and I'll miss the key messages.
[I wouldn't worry about that too much, Cathy- enjoy your vacation. When
you get back, you can check with dejanews (http://www.dejanews.com) and
read anything that's been posted in the last 6 months- not that I think
we'll have discovered the Meaning of Life in the interim...]
Zoran Baric
CROCUSDES wrote:
>
>
> Good grief, things have changed dramatically since the early nineteen sixties
> when I started out. At that time sculptors had it worse than painters ever
> did. Since that time we've become the elite in terms of actually selling our
> works especially through the commission process. I'm not saying that this is a
> great success but it's better now than it ever was before. It's all relative,
> of course.
Chris,
In a way, not every way, things change for the better. Most of the problems are
getting solved through the evolution, as you said. There are some stuff in the art
establishment that are getting worse. I see them. You probably do not, and it is
understandable. The difference between me and others is that I do not want to
adjust to the system so easily. You guys accepted the system and you play by it's
rules, thinking - this is the only way. I might be like you one day - but at least,
I'll give it a try. I do not have anything to lose. If I get rejected and buried by
the art establishment now - It will not hurt me a lot. Anyway, the way it is now it
does not look very appealing to me - but it could be : for me and you. If I point
out the problems of malfunctioning and give my suggestion for solution, I think it
should be considered as a contribution.
> I think that sometimes we are overly concerned with establishment issues as if
> that's what it's all about. It isn't! There are alternatives to the system
> and many sculptors have simply decided that their own destiny lie in their own
> hands and have taken different initiatives than the traditional ways of
> painters and the like.
>
That was the easiest and the least painful way to approach that. I agree.
>
> If you need to fit into the system then do the system things that are required.
> Otherwise you can do your own art, find your own way and get on with your
> life. It's ridiculous to think that your professional well being depends upon
> those who have other interests that do not coincide with your own. There are
> other options so explore them if you wish, no one is stopping you except
> yourself.
> Chris Ray - sculptor
> http://www.chrisray.com
As I already said Chris, I do not need necessarily to fit into the system. I'll
take some risks before I do that. It will help me to sleep better. Big chances are
that I will not make it, but at the same time I do not give up easily. Discussions
in this group are valuable preliminary preparations for the further actions.
The very best regards from
Zorba
Zoran Baric
Andrew Werby wrote:
> In article <36D0E902...@sprint.ca>, Zoran Baric <zba...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> > > I am
> > > > just scared that after that I will not be any more what I used to
> be. Please,
> > > > convince me otherwise.
>
> > Now, we have the situation that two persons in this group think that
> something is
> > wrong with our art establishment. Looks like - I am the only one who is
> convinced
> > that things will change.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Zorba
>
> [No, Zoran, you were the one that wanted to stay the same, remember?
> I was trying to tell you that wasn't going to happen. I don't think
> there are many people out there who would do much to keep the "art
> establishment" from collapsing under its own weight- and quite a few
> willing to give it a little push...]
>
Andrew,
For some reason, I do not know why, you do not understand my poor english. It
happened many times so far. I just wander how come the rest of the group do
understand me.
I will say it now as clearly as possible:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not want to change my basic motivation, energy and feelings as a sculptor.
In order to keep that:
I do want to see changes it the social approach toward the art and artists.
In order to see these changes:
The artists should initiate some moves to be more respected and dominate the art
establishment instead of being dominated and manipulated by the establishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zorba
William Dubin
I started out in the early 60's also, and I guess I was lucky, because
things were "good enough"... at least I had a gallery and my stuff was
included in group shows all over.
But by the mid 70's, the whole thing had turned MIMINUAL (I was doing
bio-morphic at the time), and so I quickly found myself WITHOUT a
gallery and without exhibitions. By the time there was some intrest in
my stuff again, I had changed completely, and after 2 shows decided I no
longer wanted my stuff "out there".
Luckily, I have been able to keep this decision, and have only allowed
my drawings to be exhibited once since then (in 1993), and that was at a
gallery that was so small that all together only 21 people came to see
the show. It was WONDERFUL.......... got 2 reviews, both AWFUL...
basically condemming my 1960's aesthetic (bio-morphic sex-crazed Sadian
type stuff)....
Now my work is only shown to friends, and even then with great
reluctance.
Are things "better" today? I couldn't say from personal expierence, but
I CAN say, it doesn't really matter. What does matter, is that you have
been WORKING for the last 30+ years................ and I'm quite sure
you remember how many over those years no longer do.
Anyway, its time to get more ART and less biz., back into these
discussions.
Where were you in the 60's? I was in San Francisco (I think).
Wm.
William Dubin
>
>The artists should initiate some moves to be more respected and dominate the art
> establishment instead of being dominated and manipulated by the establishment.
>
Until you forget the f.....g establishment, you won't need to worry
about ART because you'll be far to busy not making it while you waste
time on things that neither matter nor are changeable in any case. The
rest of its just a way to NOT be in your studio. Go THERE, do something
thats worth looking at, and the whole other trip won't matter.
Wm.
Zoran Baric
CROCUSDES wrote:
> >The difference between me and others is that I do not want to
> >adjust to the system so easily. You guys accepted the system and you play by
> >it's
> >rules, thinking - this is the only way. I might be like you one day - but at
> >least,
>
> Zorba if you're going to follow along with this then please make a better
> effort at understanding what is being said. Don't twist our words around,
> please, I don't appreciate it.
> Chris Ray - sculptor
> http://www.chrisray.com
Chris,
The last thing I would want to do is twisting the words and manipulate.
I read your massage a few times now and I noticed my wrong - first impression. I
was euphoric and I apologize. I am sorry Chris, I realized. Since you are
presenting a big authority for me Chris, I appreciate such warnings from you.
They will make me improve my style and other things.
What actually happened is that I get a strong impression from the first two or
three sentences of the paragraph and I pull the meaning from them.. I see now
that your last sentences of your paragraphs are the most important for the
meaning of the message.
Chris,
I do not agree with the following paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Ray wrote:
If you need to fit into the system then do the system things that are required.
Otherwise you can do your own art, find your own way and get on with your
life. It's ridiculous to think that your professional well being depends upon
those who have other interests that do not coincide with your own. There are
other options so explore them if you wish, no one is stopping you except
yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zorba
Zoran Baric
> Until you forget the f.....g establishment, you won't need to worry
> about ART because you'll be far to busy not making it while you waste
> time on things that neither matter nor are changeable in any case. The
> rest of its just a way to NOT be in your studio. Go THERE, do something
> thats worth looking at, and the whole other trip won't matter.
>
> Wm.
William,
Do not get me wrong, I understand your point. I was convinced that this is the way,
but I faced some problems. Many young, talented sculptors are facing these problems.
The only thing I want is to expose those inhibitors. I can not solve that, but if I
expose it properly - all of us will solve it. It is going to take some time.
Zorba
CROCUSDES
CROCUSDES
>my stuff again, I had changed completely, and after 2 shows decided I no
>longer wanted my stuff "out there".
William, it's sad what sometimes happens in our careers but who can say where
the fault lies, really. Sometimes there is a lack of interest in our works,
heaven knows, I can tell you a lot about that, especially now, but we are not
totally without responsibility either.
A lot does depend though on the area in which you live or market your work, no
question. What may be misunderstood about the opportunities for artists is
that there are more folks than ever who have an interest in owning works of
art. Now if you want to question those reasons fine, they may not be the same
as the "art establishment" has. Nevertheless this affords each of us an
opportunity to put forth our work and if through our efforts, a deeper
appreciation of the arts results, then isn't that great. If the net result is
that someone just owns a "collectable" instead, well be glad you could pay the
rent and simply move on.
>Anyway, its time to get more ART and less biz., back into these
>discussions.
Yes, I can understand the impatience but some folks consider this aspect of
what we do an integral part of our work and it may have some relevance still.
>Where were you in the 60's? I was in San Francisco (I think).
I was in Philadelphia, a place mistakenly considered a rats hole for artists
but that wasn't and isn't true. You just have to understand that what isn't
obvious on the surface may have deeper roots and it's up to you as the artist
to find them.
Most of us do find the business aspect of our work unpleasant but it's simply
something that's necessary to pay attention to. Unless you prefer a day job
instead (no way could I do that).
Artists in the past that we know about today have all had to deal with the very
same issues all of are dealing with today. Read their personal histories and
you'll understand that this is a never ending concern. Many have opted for
alternative ways to survive as artists when they've been locked out of the
system. We simply do whatever we have to do and there's no shame in that.
Zoran Baric
Cathy Morgan wrote:
> A most interesting a valuable discussion - I hate to go on vacation for fear
> the problem of prospering and thriving as an artist will be solved while I'm
> away, and I'll miss the key messages.
I wish it was so easy Cathy, you will take many vacations before anything will
be solved.
Looks like it is time for me to take a vacation too.
Zorba
Fred Mason
and I must admit that at times I find myself somewhat confused. There seem
to be multiple issues, some of which I still care about and others which I
have resolved for myself long ago.
The business of being an artist is as much about art as is the creation of
objects. Working full time in our studio, not being on scholarship, or
backed by some endowment I must sell my work to pay my mortgage, pay the
landlord for the studio space, and a host of other things.
I don't feel that selling our work compromises our integrity as artists for
our clients come to us for the design and of specific items. We primarily
make custom and one of a kind jewelry. The majority of our income comes
from commissions, those which are the most fun are the ones which give us
free rein. Our work in larger scale 3D has evolved as a result of our
gardening. We began making items for the yard, then fountains. Things
which we liked.
For years we have shown and sold our work at a variety of art shows. As I
recall the majority of the conversations were not about "what is art?" but
where can we go to sell this stuff. The public is not monolithic, certain
shows and areas are more accepting of one style or another. The problem
most of us seem to face is finding the right market for the work we produce.
Selling direct to the public does offend certain elements of the"art elite"
for we do not bow to their judgments about what is art. I have one
particular critic in mind as I write this. My experience has been that many
of these folks come from a psuedo-academic background who prefer to think of
artists as living in garrets and starving for the sake of "ART".
Personally, I like running water and central heating.
The fact that we are paid for our creations does not diminish the joy of
creating. The joy that our clients express when they pickup the article
they commissioned is in itself a great reward. Somethings I like to think
that we work on the barter system -- we make new stuff and trade it for
mechanically engraved potraits of past presidents.
Fred
Zoran Baric wrote in message <36D2328D...@sprint.ca>...