looking for a sculpture
M.G.
mine--I've not seen it. She describes it as a bronzed sculpture of a man
pulling a woman out of the ground. The woman is arching her back and her
feet (or legs) sticking into the ground. The original is supposedly in
France, and she's only seen a picture of it which she doesn't currently
have. Have you seen such a sculpture, and do you know where we might
purchase a copy? Thanks, Mark
Gary Oblock
However, I do find it slightly disturbing that people are so willing to purchase
"copies" of long dead artist's works when there is so much good new art
being produced. As I see things it works sort of like this:
1) Sculptor produces good art but dies in poverty.
2) Copyright expires (if the work was actually new enough to have been
copyrighted).
3) Scumbag owner of sweatshop third world foundry makes a gazillion
inferior but dirt cheap copies of the dead artist's work. Sometimes they just
ignore the copyright of a living artist and make a closely derivative work that
clearly infringes on the copyright of the artist's work but "not many" artists
can afford the team of lawyers needed to fight an international copyright case.
4) Scumbag owner of pseudo "antiques" shop or pseudo "art gallery" buys them
and passes them off on the unsuspecting public.
So, wouldn't it have been better if John Q. Public had bought from the artist
in 1 above so he/she wouldn't have died in poverty but instead the scumbags
in 3 and 4 (which truly deserve it) would have.
-- Gary (Starving Artist) Oblock
Bronze Dreams
Santa Clara
http://www.bronzedreams.com
PS Note, the rant above is slightly tongue in cheek (I'm not actually
starving).
Bill GirarD
--
Fine Art
http://www.billgirard.com
"Gary Oblock" <mw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3DF440B3...@earthlink.net...
Gary Waller
> http://www.bronzedreams.com
>
> PS Note, the rant above is slightly tongue in cheek (I'm not actually
> starving).
>
I see a lot of creative people who are concentrating on this 'high end' of
the market, I would guess that you have 80% of these very talented people
chasing what is 10% of the market for high end interiors, fashion design,
fine art collectibles. Furthermore, success in this 10% of the market is not
based on talent alone, but also personality, luck and cash flow.
There was a famous designer (the push pin guy?) whose advice to creative
people is based on the "Charly the Tuna" principle - Designers and artists
want to be involved with things of 'good taste', but the general public
wants things which 'taste good'. 90% of today's market for 'eye candy' is
for things which taste good. Now Gary's and Bill's work is special because
it is also 'brain candy' , and therefore worth that extra price point.
Gary Oblock
People that that buy these copies aren't even getting good eye candy.
The foundries that toss this stuff out cut a lot of corners and produce
dubious looking statues at best. I guess using third world sweat shop
labor just doesn't let the perpetrators of this stuff shave enough off of
their costs??? ;-)
-- Gary Oblock
Gary Waller
I guess using third world sweat shop
> labor just doesn't let the perpetrators of this stuff shave enough off of
> their costs??? ;-)
>
production shops in Hong Kong, Canada, the US. and Mexico. In Canada and the
US we are missing a key component of the workforce - the artisan - a person
with highly developed skills which they are proud of, usually a long family
history of this trade or craft, and a work ethic which means showing up for
work six days of the week, even though 80% of their work will be fairly
repetitive (ie chasing bronze statuettes). An artisan is fairly well paid,
in keeping with standards in that area, maybe a little bit better if you
don't want them going to a competitor. In Canada, at least, an artisan
quickly decides they are an artist, and they begin to 'reinterpret' once
they get bored - to be bored is like a deadly sin in our new society, no
matter how much they are paid it excuses anything and everything. As a
culture we do not celebrate the artisan, the decorative arts or the
industrial arts. This change came about sometime after World War 2 - what
was needed now was 'technicians' trained and managed according to
'scientific and psycological' principles, this was the modern age -we're
going to the moon baby! I would like to think there is a rebirth of
artisanship in Canada and USA, I see hints of it all the time, but on
pessimistic days I think it just people who are bored, and think being an
artisan would be fun and interesting, until they find out it is often dirty,
heavy and repetitive.
There are a great many economies in the world that are stuck at the level
that Canada and US was after the war, and they still have a pool of
artisanship. This is one reason I am setting up in Mexico. The wages are
lower than Canada, but I can create a product that I would be proud to put
my name to. If you are going to play the 'wage game' there is always someone
who claims they can do something cheaper. A product which is well made, by
artisans, shines through the haze.
Dan S
You have this market looking for Art which was pretty much created in
the 19th century, and then you have modern artists who.. Richard
Brautigan refers to feeling like the sewing machine used to stitch a
turd to a garbagecan lid, and that describes a lot of modern sculpture.
And we're surprised our prospective buyers seek out work from the age of
Rodin?!?!
Dan
----------
In article <NY5J9.57949$yV1.4...@news1.telusplanet.net>, "Gary
Gary Waller
"Dan S" <arch...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:U%IK9.861$jN4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> And we're surprised our prospective buyers seek out work from the age of
> Rodin?!?!
And also interesting that Rodin learned his chops through many years
experience as a decorative or 'applied' artist. The biggest 'chop' learned
was how to deal with the rich and trendy, how to handle committee decisions.
It is ironic that nearly every artist I can think of who was successful in
their own lifetime, was a 'prima donna' personality. I guess there are a few
that weren't - I just thought of Robert Bateman - the wildlife artist (but
none of works have been accepted into 'national' collections) and Thomas
Kincade seems a nice enough sort of chap (but again shunned by the fine arts
community).
Gary Oblock
The modern art scene is a meme gone awry. Good representational
art does not seem to fit in it. It is all about the idea presented by the work
at the expense of any possible aesthetic appeal. In fact, sometimes it seems
that an attempt is made to minimize the aesthetic appeal of works of
modern art. It seems to me that modern art would only be purchased
by those who wish to seem trendy or clever. Obviously, however,
there are potential art buyers that instead desire art that is aesthetically
pleasing. Hence, there are artists, shows and galleries that cater to
these buyers.
So, back to my original question of why can't people buy the work
of contemporary (i.e. living) artists? Personally, I think there are living
representational artists out there that can match Rodan.
-- Gary
Andrew Werby
> Dan --
>
> The modern art scene is a meme gone awry.
[Meme- I had to look that one up. "A contagious idea"- you could think of it
as a virus... See http://www.memecentral.com/ ]
Good representational
> art does not seem to fit in it.
[It might be coming back, in the guise of "post-modernism". Nobody seems to
feel very passionate about the rather timeworn ideals of Modern art anymore,
with the possible exception of some tenured professors in art schools who
make their livings trying to infect young minds with them. But the ancient
urge to make things that look like other things must be constantly quashed
if it's not to resurface.]
It is all about the idea presented by the work
> at the expense of any possible aesthetic appeal. In fact, sometimes it
seems
> that an attempt is made to minimize the aesthetic appeal of works of
> modern art. It seems to me that modern art would only be purchased
> by those who wish to seem trendy or clever.
[Contemporary art these days is all over the map. Some has aesthetic appeal,
some doesn't. The days when the Modernist movement put up a united front are
long gone. It's more like the PreCambrian age now, with organisms (artists)
radiating wildly, trying to come up with something that somehow catches on.
While there are certainly many more failures than successes, there is some
interesting, even aesthetically pleasing art being made- but it depends on
ones own individual subjective sense of what's pleasing.]
Obviously, however,
> there are potential art buyers that instead desire art that is
aesthetically
> pleasing. Hence, there are artists, shows and galleries that cater to
> these buyers.
[There are many people who want pretty pictures for their walls, but don't
really know or care much about art. There are plenty of people willing to
take their money. There are even some artists fortunate (or retarded) enough
to be in tune with this market. But it's hard for me to get excited about
this stuff.]
>
> So, back to my original question of why can't people buy the work
> of contemporary (i.e. living) artists? Personally, I think there are
living
> representational artists out there that can match Rodan.
>
> -- Gary
[The Flying Monster? No way! Mothra, maybe...]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Dan S
----------
In article <6CpL9.379928$QZ.57421@sccrnsc02>, "Andrew Werby"
Andrew Werby
> Here is the Burghers of Calais, a heartrending work by Rodin, plop in
> the midst of the Met Museum's cafeteria.
> Dan
[Good one, Dan! It looks like they know something about the food preparation
that the oblivious diners don't...]
Couldn't King Kong kick Mothra's ass?
[This has been debated heavily by art experts for decades. Clement Greenburg
thought it would be no contest, but Lacan and Derrida made a very good case
for Mothra's powers of detextualization. David Hickey, however, conclusively
demonstrated that King Kong had the power of Beauty behind him, despite his
fatal attraction for phallically symbolic towers.]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
> ----------
> In article <3DFCAE9D...@earthlink.net>, Gary Oblock
Kromkowski
constantly >quashed if it's not to resurface.]
How true. But it is curious that the earliest art seems to be motif based.
It's funny how no one would really want music to just reproduce the sounds we
hear. Music Concrete thankfully did not succeed. Interesting the earliest
music which was probably percussion based was not a copying of nature. Even
the oldest harmonic based musical instruments (I think the oldest found are
flutes in China) seem to be based on abstraction of bird tones rather than a
copy of bird sounds.
And even "reality" TV needs to be edited.
When Aristotle wrote that good art imitates nature he clearly did not mean that
good art should _copy_ nature, since he could have said that directly but
didn't.
Good art imitates nature only in the sense that it has the same effect on us
that nature has. Namely, to make us momentarily stop work or the active life
and take up the contemplative life.
How did the visual arts go so astray? Was it that copying was such a good
trick.
JDK
Andrew Werby
"Kromkowski" <kromk...@aol.com7remspam> wrote in message
news:20021219110316...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> >But the ancient urge to make things that >look like other things must be
> constantly >quashed if it's not to resurface.]
>
> How true. But it is curious that the earliest art seems to be motif
based.
[You mean like zig-zags and dots in rows? Actually, the cave paintings of
Chauvet (recently dated to 30,000+ years BCE) and Lascaux show both
realistic and non-objective art side by side. Maybe this controversy has
been going on for quite a while... See
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/ ]
>
> It's funny how no one would really want music to just reproduce the sounds
we
> hear. Music Concrete thankfully did not succeed. Interesting the
earliest
> music which was probably percussion based was not a copying of nature.
Even
> the oldest harmonic based musical instruments (I think the oldest found
are
> flutes in China) seem to be based on abstraction of bird tones rather than
a
> copy of bird sounds.
[Ever get into a whistling contest with a mockingbird? Perhaps mankind
realized the futility of this sort of thing early on, and settled for what
came out when they whittled down bird-bones and blew down the ends. They may
have considered these sounds as being spiritually equivalent, much like the
ceramic armies that stood in for real troops at the royal burials.]
>
> And even "reality" TV needs to be edited.
>
> When Aristotle wrote that good art imitates nature he clearly did not mean
that
> good art should _copy_ nature, since he could have said that directly but
> didn't.
[Do you read ancient Greek, or are you passing this down from something
you've read? It seems like a rather sticky point of philology to me.
Certainly ancient writers were most impressed by feats of trompe l'oeil, as
when a bird was fooled into attempting to snatch some painted fruit- this
was considered the ultimate compliment to the artist. Of course, the
Ancients were always wathching birds, as their behavior was considered to
contain omens of future events.]
>
> Good art imitates nature only in the sense that it has the same effect on
us
> that nature has. Namely, to make us momentarily stop work or the active
life
> and take up the contemplative life.
[This might be the Buddhist definition of Good Art, but I'm not sure it's
universally accepted. Just as valid might be a postulation that Good Art
energizes us, spurring us on to further activity, while Bad Art drains
energy, leaving us listless and apathetic.]
> How did the visual arts go so astray? Was it that copying was such a good
> trick.
>
> JDK
[Some say it went astray when it stopped focusing on copying nature, and
embarked on an ultimately sterile quest to manufacture items that had no
relationship with anything existing in the world. I don't necessarily agree,
but the argument seems as valid as the contention that art, if it is to be
pure, shouldn't concern itself with earthly matters.]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Dan S
----------
In article <3DFCAE9D...@earthlink.net>, Gary Oblock
<mw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Akilli
ever read, and one of my favorites. There's enough absurd imagery inside to
furnish several paintings or sculptures of a concrete nature.
Ethan Gross
bennett-james
paintings, sculpture and jewelry: http://neolithica.hypermart.net
jimbo :)