the effevt of art magazines on your work
ma...@artthought.com
who read them. Do you read art magazines or ignore them? Is you read them
how does it effect your work?
In Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe's article, Art Writing and Art School he primarily
discusses how he thinks art magazines are taken more seriously everywhere
else except in "those places where art is made, exhibited and sold."
Read the rest of my thought at
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb1007575&MyNum=959960
672&P=No&TL=959960672
Read Rolfe's article at
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/rolfe/rolfe97-3-4.asp
I'd like to hear from you.
lake
long period of time in the studio. Personally, I've found art magazines
can easily be a distraction from this primary endeavor. They are
geared, like most all magazines, towards fashion and glamour rather
than towards substance. The fact that the art mags tend to use
high-falutin' language doesn't change this essential fact. Many of them
pretend to be at the very cutting edge of modern thought (that's their
business, to stay in business) but they rarely are.
I read them about once a year, at most. To me, they'd be more
interesting if they contained more controversy, which is to say, more
NEGATIVE reviews, and rebuttals. But as it is, they come across as
merely a particularly pretentious form of boosterism. It's no wonder
the general public is not the least bit interested.
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
christopher moss
one thing
_ Modern Painters is the only rag I know of that shows genuine concern
for modern art. And best of all they've got Jed Perl and Lance Esplund
writing for them. Perl is one of those NY critics who doesn't back down
or give into the whims of fashion, he's one of the only critics I have
any semblance of respect for. He's not right all of the time, he's given
great reviews to quite a few less than great artists but he's also put
some of the "winners of the modern art lottery" in their place (his
piece from a few years ago about Frank Stella was downright down and
right). Esplund's reviews also can be dead on, his criticism is subtle
though, if he doesn't like it he merely describes it. Aside from these
two Matthew Collings showed recently that he's not afraid of the greats
either (he knocked Balthus around a bit last winter). And the latest
issue featured 3 articles (count 'em, three) on Chardin. Now that takes
a bit of balls, a magazine calling itself Modern Painters has enough
guts to feature a painter who's been dead for 300 years.
_On top of that they've got some great graphic designers with some taste
for a change. And the best part about this magazine is the fact that
they reserve themselves to 4 issues a year, that's proof enough of
dedication to quality writing, and sometimes even quality art.
_So, yeah, in my book there is one rag that's worth the time, money and
energy it takes to keep up on modern art. Give it a try when you get
around to it, I'd say it's worth the bucks.
-cm
Keith O'Connor
Very early in the 20th century some
german expressionists started a magazine
to describe the developments in their
cutting edge art. They decided that they
would publish only when they had
something to say otherwise they would
not publish. There were only a few
issues and no one knew when the next
issue would come out.
Can you imagine a modern day publisher
doing that?
have fun: keith.
ps. The implication is so obvious I
won't waste words on it.
Ulrich Mayring
>
> Ok I'll comment on this topic:
>
> Very early in the 20th century some
> german expressionists started a magazine
> to describe the developments in their
> cutting edge art. They decided that they
> would publish only when they had
> something to say otherwise they would
> not publish. There were only a few
> issues and no one knew when the next
> issue would come out.
> ps. The implication is so obvious I
> won't waste words on it.
Well, maybe the German expressionists didn't have much to say, but at
least they admitted to it. Most good ideas are actually good for a
while, but get overused thereafter.
The philosophical question that arises from this: does good art have to
be original? Is Tintoretto the main man, because he strove for "the form
of Raphael and the color of Tizian?" The art market tells us that
Raphael and Tizian are far more expensive than Tintoretto, but Beuys is
far more expensive than all of them and he had neither the form of
Raphael nor the color of Tizian. Perhaps he had the better motto than Tintoretto?
The next philosophical question is: how do we distinguish good art from
bad art? Is originality the decisive factor? Or is it just a prerequisite?
When I read Mani DeLi's ramblings^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hessays I always ask
myself how he rates originality. Sometimes I have the impression that he
emphasizes technique, knowledge and skill too much, which would mean
that Konrad Kujau must be one of the greatest artists of all time,
because he can copy everyone from Cranach to Monet to Hitler.
Ulrich
--
Ulrich Mayring
u...@123.org
Keith O'Connor
It is not that the German Expressionists
had little to say - an interesting
interpretation with a touch of the
sword's point - they felt that if you
had nothing to say then don't publish to
a schedule, which can result in saying
much about nothing. The implication of
their action being that even in their
day the art magazines were doing just
that - I didn't think I had to put that
implication into words, but such is
life.
I agree with them, a touch of gold now
and then is better than a pile of manure
on your kitchen table, (in my opinion).
That was my comment on the effect of art
magazines on my work.
have fun: tinman
Jaxart
lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid says...
>It's no wonder
>the general public is not the least bit interested.
>
>- Lake
I have no idea where you get this notion from but where
I have been the art magazines are one of the most
highly sought after in libraries and places where they
are available to that 'general public' you declaim.
I've long recycled my magazines by taking them to the free
magazine tables at libraries where I've lived and the art
magazines are the first to be snapped up.
As for my reasons for subscribing to the ones I can afford,
I do it for the same reasons I subscribe to other magazines.
To stay informed.
--
============================================================
For a unique art experience visit:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/index.html
============================================================
sharon
Magazine" and "American Artist" for over ten years. I read these
mags cover to cover every month. They are primarily by and for
artists. They have provided me with a wealth of information
regarding techniques, supplies, business aspects and inspiraton
on painting.
Because to some degree these particular magazines provide
instructional information I have found some useful information
in my onw technique (both mags focus primarily on
representational work). But I also subscribed to them to see a
broad range of work by other artists. And though I have no
interest in coping anothers style or work, some paintings have
inspired painting of my own.
After several years of reading I have found certain principles
and info is frequently repeated by different artists but I have
also found that in each new magazine there is some useful new
bit of info I can use. I also frequently purchase sample
products offered by suppliers (most recently 8 unisom pastels
for $17.95).
Sharon
Hutto
habit, but I find that it keeps my drive at full blast.
I read ArtNews, Modern Painters, Contemporary Visual Art, ArtPapers and
ArtForum. I choose the first three most often - ArtNews for the articles, and
the other two for the endless supply of terrible art. Modern Painters and CVA
are both Shitish mags, so they fully support the useless anomaly of the Cool
Britannia.
I read them, add names to my "naughty" list, and feel the fury boil onto my surfaces...
Call it crazy, call it an interesting stress management technique.
I also like to keep myself aware of newcomers to the scene, to make sure no
one I know personally is famous yet...I'd hate that. :)
As far as direct stylistic influence...hmm...probably none. Favorites in the
art press these days...Hmm...Odd Nerdrum is the only one I'd bother to
admire...the only living one, that is.
Plus, you know, you can write off art mags as business expenses...Modern
Painters is up to 9 bucks a pop in the US. Sweet.
Hutto
lake
think the general public is more interested in art than they are given
credit for. If art mags were to furnish a more comprehensible rhetoric,
to explain some of the ideas they are dealing with, instead of being so
deliberately high-brow, then everyone would benefit. There is nothing
all THAT complicated about new painting. It could easily be put in
terms that the average person would understand. But it is not!
- Lake
lake
open mind, it's just that I got so thoroughly sick of the art mags
during the 70's ans 80's, I've more or less ignored them all since
then. I would LOVE to read a good pan of Frank Stella!
Jaxart
lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid says...
>If art mags were to furnish a more comprehensible rhetoric,
>to explain some of the ideas they are dealing with, instead of being so
>deliberately high-brow, then everyone would benefit.
I have no idea why any magazine should dumb down its
rhetoric to attract a dumber readership. But there are
all sorts of 'art' magazines for all sorts of people.
Some are heavy on rhetoric that attracts the collectors,
others address themselves to art issues, and yet others
are written for people interested in the 'how to' of
creativity. In fact I wonder if there aren't more magazines
written about arts and crafts than any other subject,
attesting to the popularity of the subject.
Joseph C.A. Bennett
Gentlemen, Ladies...all of this is interesting, these views on the variety
and relative worth of art magazines including the O'Connor-Mayring tete a
tete on the German Expressionist literature, but we seem to be addressing
only half of the basic question raised by Mark in his original post. He
asked A) do we read these pubs, and B) what effect might they have had upon
our work.
A) has been answered: we read them. Now, let's tackle B): Do they have an
effect upon our work, and if so, what effect?
Could be interesting.
Marilyn Welch
> >
>
> Gentlemen, Ladies...all of this is interesting, these views on the variety
> and relative worth of art magazines including the O'Connor-Mayring tete a
> tete on the German Expressionist literature, but we seem to be addressing
> only half of the basic question raised by Mark in his original post. He
> asked A) do we read these pubs, and B) what effect might they have had upon
> our work.
Nice opening!
> A) has been answered: we read them. Now, let's tackle B): Do they have an
> effect upon our work, and if so, what effect?
>
Not so fast. First, which ones?,
and MY choices (to each his own) would be:
-the e-zine of New York Times on line,
-ArtNews,
-Coagula (www.coagula.com) out of LA,
-Modern Painter (they write a lot about American artists)
-Art in America which we thought went downhill is now up again.
-ArtForum, sometimes
(The ads are good too, gives some small idea of what's out there.)
-The New Yorker
for example the Sept.99 issue has an article
on THE ART WORLD: Selective Affinities: The Artist as Curator
by Perter Schjeldahl
AND an article on Balthus.
That answers a qualified A.
B Does looking at the above effect my work?
Yes, everything effects and affects my work.
But any contemporary reading/looking gives me an idea
of what other artists are doing.
This allows me to see my own work in some contemporary context.
Attitudes towards past artists is in flux. For example an article
on Rothko in "Art in America" didn't change my opinion or
attitude to his work but it made me realize that today his
"artist's statments" do sound dated in the more secular, cynical
age that we live in. It places him in his historical context.
So, I'd guess that critical reading of art magazines keeps me up-to-date
with galleries, shows, artists, artwork, attitudes, critiques.
As for editorial content, any artist/writer is free to submit articles to
these magazines.
Marilyn
Erik A. Mattila
> >
>
> Gentlemen, Ladies...all of this is interesting, these views on the variety
> and relative worth of art magazines including the O'Connor-Mayring tete a
> tete on the German Expressionist literature, but we seem to be addressing
> only half of the basic question raised by Mark in his original post. He
> asked A) do we read these pubs, and B) what effect might they have had upon
> our work.
>
> A) has been answered: we read them. Now, let's tackle B): Do they have an
> effect upon our work, and if so, what effect?
>
> Could be interesting.
My guess would be that indulging in art rags would give one clues to what's
hot and what's not, seeing that the art publishing industry is certainly a key
factor in setting trends, promoting ideas and fads, and defining 'important'
art etc. So a vast readership queries these rags with the question in mind
"what should my art look like to get in the door of Castelli's. So that's one
way the rags can affect studio practice. Another way is completely negative.
An artist may choose to produce art that is exactly the opposite of what's
displayed in the rags for the sake of originality or general rebelliousness.
In either case, the rags are somehow determining what is produced.
Then there's the middle path. Just don't read art rags, and follow your lucky
stars. Take it from me, ignorance is bliss.
Erik Mattila
christopher moss
open mind, it's just that I got so thoroughly sick of the art mags
during the 70's ans 80's, I've more or less ignored them all since then.
I would LOVE to read a good pan of Frank Stella!
_Perhaps that's got something to do with the fact that art mags in the
70's and 80's refused to review paintings (for the most part), so we
painters few have ????? to really sink our teeth into. It was all part
of the fashion trends in art in the 70's and 80's, now, fortunately,
painting has come a bit back in fashion (a lot actually, even since 1989
or so). And fortunately for us also is the availability of Modern
Painters and Art in America (mostly for the reviews of shows in the
back).
_Also to answer the original poster of the message, (sorry to ignore
you), art rags affect my work in about the same way as the daily paper,
or Newsweek. In other words, not a bit, other than the fact that I'm a
painter in this or that society and so obviously I would respond to this
or that aspect of society. I've really got no clue if this kind of stuff
comes to play in my work, I don't see it but if you want to read into
things maybe it does. I'm not the final author in that regard, I just
make the stuff.
-cm
lake
paint. If art mags are your definition of"what's happening", you're in
trouble.