Why is it so difficult to be an artist?
Karl Zipser
economic uncertainty, and also uncertainty of purpose. There is more
wealth in the world available for art than ever before. The uncertain
position of the artist is thus a mystery. Read more and discuss:
http://www.zipser.nl
Lauri Levanto
An inspiring question.
To become an artist is not so difficult. To survive as an artist is
difficult.As I see it, in the industrial world more and more people seek
an alternative life style. Meanwhile in the art profession the craft has
lost much of the discriminatory power. The market is full of mediocre
art eroding prices.
It was not fair to compare art career to employment of a pilot.
Artist is an entrepeneur, like a plumber or carpenter.
One must have the professional skills and business skills.
Those with good businesss skills tend to land on less risky markets.
When every second cell phone has a camera, picture making as such is no
longer a business. An artist must gain added value, become a brand
before any profit margin. As you noted earlier, a not so good original
Micheangelo drawing is more valuable than a masterpiece of an unknown
contemporary.
-lauri
Karl Zipser
to compare to an artist: a scientist. Science is a creative profession,
like art. Of course, scientific results are not supposed to be
creations, but discoveries. But to devise the experiments to find these
results requires creativity, as does finding good ways to present the
results.
Lauri Levanto
more compatible, a success is based on peer review.
-lauri
Karl Zipser
artist. A scientist is another example of a stable profession. A
scientist is in key respects self-employed -- in that he or she depends
on a self-determined strategy for how to work, and if that strategy is
flawed, the scientist will fail -- get no research grants. A competent
scientist will get by nowadays, just as a competent artist could get a
good living 500 years ago. But to succeed today, the same artist would
have to struggle much harder.
Andrew Werby
"Karl Zipser" <k...@zipser.nl> wrote in message
news:1146338901....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My point is to contrast the stable profession of pilot to that of
> artist.
[If there were such a thing as "outsider" pilots, the comparison would be
more apt. Would you want a self-taught pilot to fly your plane? Perhaps
she'd have interesting ideas that extend the idea of what flying was all
about, but it might be an uncomfortable experience...]
A scientist is another example of a stable profession. A
> scientist is in key respects self-employed -- in that he or she depends
> on a self-determined strategy for how to work, and if that strategy is
> flawed, the scientist will fail -- get no research grants.
[Very few scientists are self-employed, and once they're out of school, they
usually don't get to pick their own projects. Companies hire scientists to
work on specific areas of interest to the company, in which a scientist has
some background. The product of that person's labor is then owned by the
company; they're more like hired hands than entrepreneurs. Artists can be
hired similarly, but jobs are fewer and more temporary, pay is lower, and
benefits non-existent.]
A competent
> scientist will get by nowadays, just as a competent artist could get a
> good living 500 years ago. But to succeed today, the same artist would
> have to struggle much harder.
>
[Being a scientist 500 years ago was a lot more like being an artist; in
fact there was considerable cross-over between the two categories. At that
time, a scientist was typically thought of as a lone eccentric, working on
obscure projects of interest only to himself or perhaps a few other
scientists, who usually had to finance his work from other sources. At the
time an artist would be a solid citizen, working regular hours for decent
but unspectacular pay, usually at the behest of a patron from the nobility
or the church. It seems we've switched places since then, at least in the
mind of the public.]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
CB
to waste it dicking around with a website and on r.a.f., in anyway consider
their life or even their work "hard". ? Living in Iraq would be hard,
farming in Sudan would be hard, having a degenerative painful disease would
be hard. But for artists to pretend to be in the same boat is just
self-involved nonsense. Certainly it was true prior to the 1900's ( when no
sales amounted to starvation), or for those who had to face down a Stalin or
a Hitler or a Mao, but now? just suck it up and quit yer whining....
CB
"Karl Zipser" <k...@zipser.nl> wrote in message
news:1146297261....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
artangel
anyone can claim to be an actor. (Now there is a career comparison.)
Most professions rely on repetition of tasks and uniformity of output.
Is that what we ask of the artist?
Mani Deli
>To be an artist today is to confront continual uncertainty. There is
>economic uncertainty, and also uncertainty of purpose. There is more
>wealth in the world available for art than ever before. The uncertain
>position of the artist is thus a mystery.
To anyone who can't understand how the Modern Academic Art system
works.
There are millions of so called artists who paint as badly as any
Modern Art sucesses. They compare their failure work to those million
dollar successes and they know they can do as well and they can never
understand why they never made it. Of the one's I've met ignorance
ain't bliss.
Mani Deli
>Lauri, I was thinking about the pilot example, and I have a better one
>to compare to an artist: a scientist. Science is a creative profession,
>like art.
--and unlike modern art it requires a rigorous knowledge base.
Mani Deli
<laur...@dnainternet.net> wrote:
>--in the art profession the craft has
>lost much of the discriminatory power. The market is full of mediocre
>art eroding prices.
Mediocre artists enhance the prices of those who know their craft.
>Artist is an entrepeneur, like a plumber or carpenter.
>One must have the professional skills and business skills.
It starts with professional skills, that's why most never get started.
no skill no art!
Mani Deli
<cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Since art is subjective. Anyone can claim to be an artist. Just as
>anyone can claim to be an actor. (Now there is a career comparison.)
>
>Most professions rely on repetition of tasks and uniformity of output.
Rothko is a good example. A continuous output of very average horse
blankets.
>Is that what we ask of the artist?
It's what you expect from them.
Bill
better reason to hold artists in high regard. A good colored picture
of the prominent figures of the day was likely to be seen as almost
miraculous, considering that graphically, that was the only game in
town. No photography, no TV, no magazines, printing in a primitive
state and the need for daily hard work to produce the basic necessities
of life. Who had time to spend on art work even if the skills had been
there, not to mention the paints and pigments ?
Today, the artist's work is just one of a dozen graphic technologies;
one of the most labor intensive and therefore one of the most
expensive. Using technology to multiply his output lowers the value of
his work in the eyes of most potential buyers. Part of the problems
artists have to deal with is the totally mindless commercialism which
puts the art world beyond logic, reason or even common sense. It's
amazing to me that someone like an Ansel Adams has made a reputation
for himself which translates into fat prices for mere copies of his
work.
The work is fine. No argument there. But what did Adams do? Found our
most scenic vistas and pushed a button ! I admire him, not for his
artistry, but for his keen judgement in spotting an unfilled demand for
nice BIG pictures. All of it backed up by a massive promotional effort.
And VERY little talent.
Now consider the case of George Eastman who built Kodak and brought
photography to the masses. Feeling he had done all he could, he
enjoyed a final dinner with friends and family, said good night, then
went up to his bedroom and put a bullet through his head. George
Eastman was a genius. Ansel Adams was not. Commercialism recognizes no
rules of logic, fairness or talent. Two feet away from a million dollar
diamond no one could tell it from a cubic zirconia. Four feet away no
one could tell it from a piece of glass. The entire diamond industry is
locked up in the hands of a few big dealers running a cartel which (if
God exists) may one day land them in jail. It's an industry that
thrives on gullibility and stupidity, not unlike the world of fine art
you wish to join.
I think a good part of the problem which artists face today, in
addition, of course, to the variety of graphic stuff he has to compete
with, is a growing realization on the part of the public that the field
of fine art is, in many ways, as phony and as corrupt as a three dollar
bill. It's a field that would excite the envy of robber barons of any
generation. Perhaps our own generation in PARTICULAR ! No one needs to
be told that a canvas drizzled with paint that sells for seven figures
involves a shady game that most people do not want to play, run by
fakes and frauds and aimed at separating the unwary from their cash.
Summing up, I have to admire your sand and gravel for becoming an
artist. But I think you'd probably make more money selling body parts
under the table at the local county morgue. Certainly you'd be
involved with a nicer class of people in a more respectable
enterprise.) Good luck.
Regards. Bill
Andrew Werby
or anybody else; you just betray your own ignorance. Ansel Adams did far
more than push a button to make his images. If you read some of his writings
on photographic technique, you might get some insight into his mastery of
the exposure and printing process. He, more than anyone I can think of,
understood and systematized (in his "Zone system") the many ways that the
tones of a photographic image can be manipulated, and used his insight to
triumphant artistic effect. Many people before him had shot "big pictures"
of many of the same scenes, but nobody was able to pull out of them what
Adams did. "Mindless commercialism" certainly can be deplored in today's art
world, but Adams' work was mindful in the extreme, and he was utterly
dedicated to it until the end of his long life, traveling to seek out beauty
in nature until he was no longer able to do so. The surviving prints which
he made are deservedly valuable; with his creative use of darkroom
technology he was able to control their range of tonality with a precision
that is amazing even today. The fact that you can't tell the difference
between a diamond and a piece of glass doesn't make the glass more valuable
or the diamond less so. Similarly, your opinions on art are unlikely to
affect its value for those who understand it.]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
"Bill" <billm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146455492.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Winston
with technical issue as Ansel was. Minor was more concerned the senuality
of a given image.
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:INadnQVVJpi...@comcast.com...
artangel
Remember its MANI AND BILL FREE MONTH!
Dont reply to them and perhaps they will go away.
Erik A. Mattila
Be careful, artangle - this may turn out like my favorite zen coan:
A group of monks were preparing to travel to a retreat on the slopes of
Fuji, during which time they would observe the code of silence. In
order to observe the code, the made all their plans in advance, and
assigned specific duties to each so they would not have to talk at all
during the days of retreat and meditation.
But on the first evening of their retreat, a lamp ran out of oil and
went out. One monks looked at the monk who was assigned the duty of
keeping the lamps burning, and said "You fool, you've let the lamp burn
out!" Another addressed that monk and said: "but you are a greater
fool, for you've broken the code of silence!" Another monk then blurted
out "But you are a greater fool, for, knowing the code of silence, you
also broke it!" Another said "yet you are the greatest fool of all, for
knowing that he knew of the code, you....." and so on.
Erik
Mani Deli
<cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 10:42:52 -0800, "Fartangel"
<cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
That makes six times!
And she claims I repeat myself.
artangel
Maybe thats true however look at how pissed they are already and we
just started. What fun!
Mani Deli
<cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
Gee I'm soooo pissed!
Artangel life is all fun, she wrote,
>" I wish "fuck the gallery owner" were true. My sex life would be
>> better! I base my comments not only on what Andy said, but also on the
>experience of many artists, including myself, over many years. "
>
>Damn, I feel really bad now.
Gee!
> I still dont get many offers!
When your'e fat ugly and stupid what do you expect?
No replies expected! Remember this is ignore Mani month!
CB
"artangel" <cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1146593831.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Andrew and Winston.
>
> Remember its MANI AND BILL FREE MONTH!
>
> Dont reply to them and perhaps they will go away.
>
Well, you know I'm not taking part in this; I'm simply waiting for them to
say something
1) original
2) intelligent
3) indicative of some interest in art and art history.
Not at the same time of course, that might be asking a bit too much. But at
least one out of three.
Cheers;
CB
CB
"Biljo White" <biljo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20060503142713.636$G...@newsreader.com...
> art and art history. The 'Bruce Attah' post (whoever he is -- ARC guy?) is
> typical -- If 'modernists' had the power to 'force' people to do what
Bruce
> credits them for, they would have been running the world. The post is a
> funny hash of misinformation and impotent rage.
>
Thank you Biljo; though accidental your question about who was Bruce Attah
sort of crystallized a few thoughts that have been bouncing around in my
head since I finished Mark Rothko's "The Artist's Reality"... Brian Yoder is
the probably the ARC guy you are thinking of, but they do share a common
background in that they are essentially computer programmers. Not that that
in itself is either bad or good (or that many of the classical prosyletizers
mani or Bill are in fact programmers, they just share the symptoms and the
worldview) but it is a job that attracts a high percentage of folks with a
high capability for particularization and the retention of specific
knowlege, and a low capacity for generalization.
Unfortunately for them (and those like them) fine art - like any other human
intellectual activity - is driven largely by our need to generalize, which
is the basis of understanding. An aspect of Rothko's book that is hard to
say enough about is his development of that idea, and how it relates to art.
Those that have trouble generalizing will find art that goes beyond the
particularities (or what Rothko referred to as "visual" truth, as versus
"aesthetic" or "sensual" truth) a threat because it is simply not accessible
to them. It's rather like the language issue up here, where many things are
printed French on one side, English on the other; there's folks who get
upset when the side with the "wrong" language - the one they don't speak -
is showing on a store shelf (rather than just turning the box around).
There are some fascinating parallels here to be drawn - say between the new
"knowledge industry" workers and the various levels of rentier and bourgeois
classes of the 19th Century, at the lower end oppressed, at the upper end
stuffy and pedantic; all living by prescription. I've been on a bit of a
Flaubert/Balzac/Zola reading binge over the last little while; what's
amazing is that for many of the portrayals, it would only require a little
tweaking to bring them into the 21st century; same human beings, same
foibles, similar cultures...
> But, since you are waiting for worthwhile posts from Bill and Mani, I'll
> classify you as an incurable optimist!
Or someone with too much time on his hands :)
Cheers;
Chris
PS - Dan, if you are reading this, yes, I am slowly changing my tack.
Rothko's book was like a gust of fresh air.
Bill
? It's kinda nice knowing that people like Blojoe will be backing off
and sparing us his sophomoric nonsense. Which of course he dares not
put in any archive or data base storage system.
Regards, Bill
Karl Zipser
Karl Zipser
Thanks for this gentle satire on dealers, in response to CB's comment.
It is quite well done, and a fitting answer to the question, "Why is it
so difficult to be an artist?" In a system where to disagree is to be
degraded as a emotionally "threatened," how can there be genuine
questioning or progress? It reminds me of Freud in The Interpretation
of Dreams -- he argues that all dreams are wish fulfillment; when a
patient disagrees and describes a thoroughly horrible dream, Freud uses
it as proof of his theory: the patient had a wish to prove Freud wrong,
which the dream fulfilled. Within the system, there is no possibility
for dissent. You show that the art world today is much the same thing.
The collectors in your view are chumps -- even as they consider
themselves open-minded and intelligent. How long can such an art world
continue before it sinks under the weight of its own absurdity?
__________________________________________________________
I think I remember Bruce Attah from way way back. Your observation
about
programmers is right on target. I believe I commented here some time
ago
that many or most 'conservative' posters here; that is, folks who
believe
realism is the only art and that modernism is a dastardly plot, are
programmers. Someone commented recently that a frequent poster here
(no
names!) is a retired chemist.
I have found that engineers in general tend to favor generic realism
for
their art. Not surprisingly, scientists and mathematicians are more
varied
in their tastes since, as you know, those (interrelated) professions
rely
more on open-minded creative thought and they must carry out the
generalizations you mention for success.
> Unfortunately for them (and those like them) fine art - like any other
> human intellectual activity - is driven largely by our need to
> generalize, which is the basis of understanding. An aspect of Rothko's
> book that is hard to say enough about is his development of that idea,
> and how it relates to art. Those that have trouble generalizing will find
> art that goes beyond the particularities (or what Rothko referred to as
> "visual" truth, as versus "aesthetic" or "sensual" truth) a threat
> because it is simply not accessible to them. It's rather like the
> language issue up here, where many things are printed French on one side,
> English on the other; there's folks who get upset when the side with the
> "wrong" language - the one they don't speak - is showing on a store shelf
> (rather than just turning the box around).
Yeah, I think that the argument that you have to formally study art art
and
history to understand art from the Expressionists on is only partially
true. Several of my best collectors (ble$$ them!) are
well-educated but have never studied art. They have a real appreciation
for modern art in general and, going to galleries, can separate the
good
from the bad at least as well as I can. I believe it is a combination
of
intelligence and open-mindedness.
The emotional reaction is something else. I may have told this story
here
before; forgive me if I repeat myself. Years ago I had a solo show in a
gallery that was on the bottom level of a city building and was shaped
like
a long 'L'. The gallery owner reported that a woman came in and walked
slowly through the space, looking at my work. When she walked back she
hunched over and covered her eyes until she left exhibit. There is a
clear
threat, as you point out. And it's not limited to art -- check out
sci.physics.relativity some time -- it's filled with non-scientists
getting
very angry at special relativity, calling it a sham, a cult, etc. I
imagine because the concept runs contrary to the reality we see at low
speeds it frightens them. Imagine what a quantum mechanics group would
do!
(Feynmann: 'NOBODY understands quantum mechanics.') I like your example
of
two languages in Halifax.
> There are some fascinating parallels here to be drawn - say between the
> new "knowledge industry" workers and the various levels of rentier and
> bourgeois classes of the 19th Century, at the lower end oppressed, at the
> upper end stuffy and pedantic; all living by prescription. I've been on a
> bit of a Flaubert/Balzac/Zola reading binge over the last little while;
> what's amazing is that for many of the portrayals, it would only require
> a little tweaking to bring them into the 21st century; same human beings,
> same foibles, similar cultures...
I've been rereading Proust. Outrageous portrayals/analyses of human
nature.
Reread at least Swann's Way if you get a chance.
> PS - Dan, if you are reading this, yes, I am slowly changing my tack.
> Rothko's book was like a gust of fresh air.
I hope you like New Art City. For another view of an artist's
mind, see Picasso's poetry. I have a book of all of it; unfortunately,
it's
all in either Spanish or French. My knowledge of these languages is
good,
but not nearly good enough to catch the subtlies, slang, etc. Another
artist book is Picasso Says, which has a lot of good quotations --
nothing
like a narrative in the sense of the Rothko book, unfortunately. Also
Matisse on Art in the same vein.
It takes a big person to change his or her tack, especially those of us
over 30 (grin). Most people are far too rigid to do so.
Now I'll have to reread the Rothko book! Let me know when you're in
New
York or Boston next; we'll have coffee.
Dan
Mani Deli
> I believe I commented here some time
>ago that many or most 'conservative' posters here; that is, folks who
>believe realism is the only art and that modernism is a dastardly plot, are
>programmers. Someone commented recently that a frequent poster here
>(no names!) is a retired chemist.
All art done this century is
considered modern. I speak negatively of Modern Academic Art, namely
the stuff which inhabits the modern sections of our museum. This is
but a pale representation of total sum of modern art (written in small
letters) . I have said many times that there has been more fine work
created in this century than during others and no one would mistake
any of this as work in a style of any previous century.
I defend no style or subject matter as such, but I do believe that
the best fine art is somewhat inimitable. This is why I believe that
The fact that those so-called Modern Artists who are slightly
more talented but less well connected get essentially no place.
>(Feynmann: 'NOBODY understands quantum mechanics.')
In the same sense nobody understands art.
It seems that every modern art bimbo claims that all who reject Modern
Art claim that "realism is the only art." Bet this guy will believe
that until the end.
Karl Zipser
Dan Fox's satire, which you quote. I'm glad to get your definition of
Modern Academic Art, an expression which I've seen you use before.
Could you point out some of the good work that you think is not getting
the recognition it deserves?
Best Regards,
Karl
Thur
"Dan Fox" <danfoxa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20060508111516.778$s...@newsreader.com...
> Karl - nice to hear from you. my comments below:
>
> "Karl Zipser" <k...@zipser.nl> wrote:
>> Dan Fox,
>> Thanks for this gentle satire on dealers, in response to CB's comment.
>> It is quite well done, and a fitting answer to the question, "Why is it
>> so difficult to be an artist?"
>
> dealers really are pathological criminals who will do anything to make a
> buck. Ask any artist who has dealt with them over a period of time.
>
> In a system where to disagree is to be
>> degraded as a emotionally "threatened," how can there be genuine
>> questioning or progress? It reminds me of Freud in The Interpretation
>> of Dreams -- he argues that all dreams are wish fulfillment; when a
>> patient disagrees and describes a thoroughly horrible dream, Freud uses
>> it as proof of his theory: the patient had a wish to prove Freud wrong,
>> which the dream fulfilled. Within the system, there is no possibility
>> for dissent. You show that the art world today is much the same thing.
>
> regard as a legitimate treatment for mental illness. Don't know what this
> has to do with selling art -- The problem with dissent in the art world is
> that, to make any headway, you have to have a gallery - so in that sense
> the dealers dictate what art will be shown and collected. It has always
> been this way, but there used to be a few dealers who loved art and
> promoted the best artists they could find. Today I'm told that most MFA
> graduates look to see what is hot and then make that, rather than doing
> what they love, which is sad.
>
>>
>> The collectors in your view are chumps -- even as they consider
>> themselves open-minded and intelligent. How long can such an art world
>> continue before it sinks under the weight of its own absurdity?
>
> think you are confusing posters (easy to do). People collect for all kinds
> of reasons -- for investment or speculation, to impress their friends or,
> because they actually love the work and can afford to buy it.
>
> The real test of art is time. The reason that Leonardo, Vermeer, Ingres,
> Picasso, Matisse, Giacometti, de Kooning, Hopper, and others are looked at
> and read about today (the Pollack show at MOMA averaged 10,000 visitors a
> day for months), is that the work has lasting value and continues to
> provoke a strong aesthetic response in the viewer, generation after
> generation. Thousands of other painters (Bougereau and the graffiti
> artists
> come to mind) fade quickly because the work has no intrinsic merit and
> disolves once the hype is over.
>
> I have no idea whether the art world will ever promote great art from
> young
> artists again. Great music, theater, and dance is still being produced
> (cf.
> Matthew Bourne's choreography of Swan Lake), but only a very few people
> ever see it or go to performances of great classic work. How many authors
> of the stature of Hemingway or Faulkner or O'Conner or Nabokov have
> emerged
> in the past 50 years? Great musical standard tunes like Summertime or
> Don't
> Blame Me stopped being written in the 50s when rock music came out. My
> fear
> is that pop culture is very effectively killing taste and, with it, great
> art of all types.
> I have no idea whether the art world will ever
> promote great art from young artists again
and
> My fear is that pop culture is very effectively killing
> taste and, with it, great art of all types.
I think that the reasons for the perceived drop in
artistic standards (across the whole spectrum)
or the drop in the quantity produced, provide
the key to many questions about Fine Arts.
Is it that there are now so many consumers
that there has been an averaging out process,
rather than attention being paid to a more
sophisticated minority?
Will this process settle down, and a renewed
demand for better and better art develop?
Is it that there is so much being produced and
placed before the consumer that we are
blinded by the oversupply of stimulus?
Is there any deliberate movement that can
take any blame?
Are we trying to live our lives at such a pace, that
we do not seem to have the time, the concentration,
or the energy any more?
--
Thur
Mani Deli
> about Freud - magical mumbo-jumbo that unfortunately most people
>regard as a legitimate treatment for mental illness.
Agreed!
>The problem with dissent in the art world is
>that, to make any headway, you have to have a gallery - so in that sense
>the dealers dictate what art will be shown and collected.
Those who have superior craft can always find a gallery and sell.
There are dealers who deal in fine work and those who deal in hype.
> It has always
>been this way, but there used to be a few dealers who loved art and
>promoted the best artists they could find. Today I'm told that most MFA
>graduates look to see what is hot and then make that, rather than doing
>what they love, which is sad.
Most MFA grads can only produce hype as the don't know their craft.
>>
>> The collectors in your view are chumps -- even as they consider
>> themselves open-minded and intelligent. How long can such an art world
>> continue before it sinks under the weight of its own absurdity?
>
>The real test of art is time. The reason that Leonardo, Vermeer, Ingres,
What a comparison!
>Picasso, Matisse, Giacometti, de Kooning, Hopper, and others are looked at
>and read about today (the Pollack show at MOMA averaged 10,000 visitors a
>day for months), is that the work has lasting value and continues to
>provoke a strong aesthetic response in the viewer,generation after
>generation.
Most people don't give a damn about any of these nor have they lasted
very long and most are generally laughed at.
> Thousands of other painters (Bougereau and the graffiti artists
>come to mind) fade quickly because the work has no intrinsic merit and
>disolves once the hype is over.
Obviously you haven't checked Bouguereau's (Try learning to spell his
name Fox) auction prices and the fact that he is popular in museums
and as reproductions, unlike Picasso and Matisse.
>I have no idea whether the art world will ever promote great art from young
>artists again. Great music, theater, and dance is still being produced (cf.
>Matthew Bourne's choreography of Swan Lake), but only a very few people
>ever see it or go to performances of great classic work. How many authors
>of the stature of Hemingway or Faulkner or O'Conner or Nabokov have emerged
>in the past 50 years? Great musical standard tunes like Summertime or Don't
>Blame Me stopped being written in the 50s when rock music came out. My fear
>is that pop culture is very effectively killing taste and, with it, great
>art of all types.
Sour grapes! Your style of painting is avant-gone because it lacks
even a modicum of craft. There are loads of fine artists today and
they make a good living. It just isn't the case with almost all who
can do no better than imitate the selected drivel presently in the
modern sections of museums.
Mani Deli
I think most good work gets lots of recognition in spite of critics.
Even the MOMA has Dali, Tchelitchew, Peter Blume among it's most
popular paintings. They exhibited Disney and Parrish and The Whitney
had a big Rockwell show. No great American illustrator, comic book
graphic artist, pin-up artist etc. lacks recognition, they just sren't
generally allowed in museums. Iv'e mentioned many of these in former
messages.
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>...
>Obviously you haven't checked Bouguereau's (Try learning to spell his
>name Fox) auction prices and the fact that he is popular in museums
>and as reproductions, unlike Picasso and Matisse.
A statistician writes:
Google picasso reproductions 1,660,000 hits
Google matisse reproductions 618,000 hits
Google bouguereau reproductions 224,000 hits
not that I consider popularity equivalent to artistic merit
(whatever that means).
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept http://www.ewartshaw.co.uk
"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it" - Frank Zappa
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept http://www.ewartshaw.co.uk
3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
CB
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:t0tv52147o2nv0upv...@4ax.com...
>
> Obviously you haven't checked Bouguereau's (Try learning to spell his
> name Fox) auction prices and the fact that he is popular in museums
> and as reproductions, unlike Picasso and Matisse.
>
The priciest one I could dig up was a little under 3 million, for "Alma
Parens", sold by Rambo Stallone to an unnamed American collector. Lots of
money for most of us, but small potatoes in the art auction world.
Here's a shot:
http://www.arc-store.com/bougw907.html
It really does deserve an award of some type; even by B's standards it it is
absurdly tacky.....
But if you or some one else has a subscription to artprice, it would be easy
enough to settle this out.
CB
CB
> name Fox) auction prices and the fact that he is popular in museums
> and as reproductions, unlike Picasso and Matisse.
>
BTW, there's an interesting article in the Herald Tribune re. auction
prices:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/05/features/melik6.php
for those who doubt that Picasso, Matisse, van Gogh, and other supposedly
talentless daubers are still spectacularly in demand.
And what is the highest bid ever for a B? Just curious....
CB
CB
> I have no idea whether the art world will ever promote great art from
young
> artists again. Great music, theater, and dance is still being produced
(cf.
> Matthew Bourne's choreography of Swan Lake), but only a very few people
> ever see it or go to performances of great classic work. How many authors
> of the stature of Hemingway or Faulkner or O'Conner or Nabokov have
emerged
> in the past 50 years? Great musical standard tunes like Summertime or
Don't
> Blame Me stopped being written in the 50s when rock music came out. My
fear
> is that pop culture is very effectively killing taste and, with it, great
> art of all types.
I agree that the likelihood of an artist being raised to iconic stature in
the foreseeable future is small, but I think it is for different reasons.
For someone to stand well out from the crowd implies that the crowd stands
well below that person, and that distance seems to be growing less (at least
proportionally) as it is the nature of our system to slowly raise the basic
level of competence for all people, through education, communication, and
the assertion of individual rights.
In a sense Modernism - probably the last great "ism" - put the whole notion
of "isms" out of business, w/r to arts, since the end result was to validate
the possibility of pretty much any approach, if it is appropriate to
whatever task the artist wants to undertake. The supposedly linear path of
art from the Renaissance to the birth of Modernism has diverged into
countless smaller byways, which in my opinion is a good thing, for a number
of reasons; I think most importantly in that it symbolizes the growing sense
of self-worth of individuals, and an increasing reluctance to be led by
others.
The other cause of course is that for an artist (in whatever genre) to rise
to the social level of any of the historic greats, that artist has to create
work that in some aspect expresses contemporary society's needs and
aspirations. The ultimate here were the great Renaissance artists, Leonardo
and Michelangelo - both of whom in their lives and work expressed (and
created) Renaissance ideals. Fast forward to Rembrandt, capturing the
spirit, of the social revolution of Holland; it's explosion of individuality
and it's insolence towards its more prosaic neighbors.The list of such is
pretty long....
But as individuals become increasingly sovereign, society as a single entity
decays; it's as if there is only so much power available, and as it gets
allocated more equitably, any single person's access to it decreases. So
there is no single cultural monolith that an artist can lead, or follow; the
artist must pick his own way.
Cheers;
Chris
PS - what got me thinking about this was walking into my (teenage) son's
room one day, when he & a buddy were playing one of those Xbox
shooters..While at the same time, playing on his PC, was Edith Piaf's "La
Vie en Rose", which he had downloaded off the internet; it struck me that
even the average younger person is dealing with information in a breadth,
and depth, and immediacy most of us were never exposed to. They are able to
do this by dumping most of the isolating cultural baggage - especially the
fear of the unknown, as in Bill McCarty's fear of the other - through
tolerance and a willingness to try and understand difference. I hope I stick
around long enough to see what they do with it all :)