De Kooning Process
Jerko
furiously, and I believe I have sucked out a great deal of info about these
guys, but I have some trouble understanding De Kooning.
Now, I am not talking about "feelings" from colors and stuff, I am curious
if there were any interesting techniques De Kooning created, because
(forgive my ignorance) it appears to be just a bunch of sloppily painted
images on the canvas. I don't see any revolutionary techniques, however I
have never seen a De Kooning painting in real life. The only painting I
even remotely like is "door to a river" but other then that it seems like he
just didn't like foreshortening peoples bodies.
One more thing, I was wondering some of his "woman" paintings were
influenced by that Cezanne painting of the guy sitting in the chair with
small legs.
Please help me understand...I feel stupid.
keith o'connor
painted images on the canvas."
your right that's exactly what they look like. out of the wild looking brush
strokes of the portrait that i saw evolves a human soul - its in a way like
freud's portrait of the queen - you can sense a very strong mature soul
behind the strong strokes that define her physical body.
it is a separation between the frail body and the persona within it. in this
sense art is not just the craft of imitating a physical appearance but a
psychological experience. the problem with this type of art is that it takes
a long time and much exposure to understand it.
i will add that from your study of cezanne you should have come in contact
with his later years use of open colour over which he laid linear
structures to control the open colour's tendency to go completely abstract.
de kooning is doing a similar thing with texture among the textured strokes
little bits of imitative attributes activate the link to appearance holding
it very tenuously to our visual world concepts. it is this stretching of
links between abstract and imitative structures that creates his aesthetic.
you have a choice - keep looking and hope that some day you will see it or
follow the easy mani route - and just say its all crap.
--
take care: Keith
"Jerko" <blak...@mercury.com> wrote in message
news:4124313b$0$21753$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
Mike Stengl
> furiously, and I believe I have sucked out a great deal of info about these
> guys, but I have some trouble understanding De Kooning.
>
in my mind de koonings work is ugly and on the very fringe end of
representing anything. but what blows me away is how he lived on the
verge of poverty secure only in his passion for painting. so in his
mind he was doing something worth betting his life on and hey, he
cashed in. art is about creating that which words fail to describe and
i don't think it is a hoax that some of these people become popular.
someone must see or feel something that others do not. i see that with
my own work. i recently had an exhibition in portland where i stood
around for four hours being the guy with his soul and dirty laundry
stuck up on the walls and i watched people come in and in a glance
dismiss four years of my work and on the other hand had people, almost
in tears, come up with nothing in particular to say to me other than,
'i really like your work, i can't afford to buy it, but i just had to
tell you how much it touched me...' art's a crazy business (you can
qoute me on that), like the prehistoric human that just HAD to crawl
way ass back in that cave where NObody would find him/her and draw on
the friggin walls. the first graffiti artist sans audience.
King Rundzap
you'd have some idea of the technical methods that they employed. I
wouldn't say I've studied de Kooning, but I've seen a lot of his work
in museums, more in books, and know the usual facts, such as him being
an abstract expressionist, sharing a studio with Gorky, being often
credited with beginning action painting, etc., but I'm sure you know
all of that stuff already. I like a lot of his work, but I can see
how someone wouldn't. My sister definitely wouldn't buy any of it.
However, it sounds like you're wondering what unusual techniques, if
any, he might have used or pioneered, but then you're maybe conflating
that with his painting style, subject matter, composition, etc. Is it
that you don't "get" the content of de Kooning's work, or that you're
wondering if he did odd things like applying paint with old shoes?
For the former, I don't think there's really a right answer (even if
de Kooning himself supposedly explained his work somewhere), and
ultimately, you either like his stuff or not, and if not I wouldn't
worry about it. Maybe you'll like it later, maybe not. If the
latter, as I mentioned, I haven't read about de Kooning enough to
know.
--King Rundzap
"Jerko" <blak...@mercury.com> wrote in message news:<4124313b$0$21753$61fe...@news.rcn.com>...
Mani Deli
wrote:
>I've been Studying Cezanne, Van Gogh, and early Picasso for he last 6 months
>furiously, and I believe I have sucked out a great deal of info about these
>guys, but I have some trouble understanding De Kooning.
There's nothing to understand.
>One more thing, I was wondering some of his "woman" paintings were
>influenced by that Cezanne painting of the guy sitting in the chair with
>small legs.
De Kooning knows more than Cezanne that's why he's less famous.
>Please help me understand...I feel stupid.
De kooning stuff can be imitated by anyone with some technical
knowledge. De Kooning's impasto color schmiers are achieved by
loading a large brush with many different colors. Then just add a few
goo goo eyes and naughty parts should you be that technically capable
and will get a similar flat-as-a board-cat vomit look. Unfortunately
no one of any consequence will pay any attention to the result because
it lacks a de Kooning signature; the only thing that makes his
painting more valuable.
However its a good way to impress idiot art teachers. I did it years
ago and the teacher said that at last I was painting something good.
An average chimpanzee paints better than de Kooning. None as yet
happened to win the Modern Academic Art lottery. It seems Artzy fartzy
curators are prejudice against chimpanzees. Perhaps it's because they
might shit on the floor and all those allied with Fox will call it
art.
If it looks like its the product of a eight year old its the artists
problem not the viewer's.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
King Rundzap
> De kooning stuff can be imitated by anyone with some technical
> knowledge. De Kooning's impasto color schmiers are achieved by
> loading a large brush with many different colors. Then just add a few
> goo goo eyes and naughty parts should you be that technically capable
> and will get a similar flat-as-a board-cat vomit look.
If you mean that someone could paint something that you or someone
else would say is a similiar style to de Kooning's if they had some
technical knowledge, that is true, although of course not everyone
will agree given two different artists that they are doing something
in the "same style". But someone could paint something in a similar
style to any painting, by anyone, if they had some technical
knowledge. If you mean they could _copy_ de Kooning, in the sense of
a forgery, that would take quite a bit more technical knowledge, and a
ability to "deconstruct" (not theoretically) the painting to figure
out roughly what needs to be done first, what colors need to be used,
etc., and that's also the case for people creating forgeries of any
painting. It wouldn't be any easier to produce a de Kooning forgery
that would fool experts than it would be to produce a Rubens forgery
that would fool experts. It's much easier, in both cases, to produce
a forgery that would fool the general public.
> Unfortunately no one of any consequence will pay any attention to the result > because it lacks a de Kooning signature; the only thing that makes his
> painting more valuable.
I disagree with you on this point, which you keep repeating. You seem
to think that the general public only likes what the art literati
tells them to like. The underlying implication is that no one
"really" likes work like de Kooning's, they just say they do because
they think they're supposed to say that. Well, that's not true. Most
of the general public isn't familiar with what the art literati likes
or tells them to like. They just like what looks good to them, and
that doesn't exclude artists (known or unknown) producing abstract
expressionism, or figural drawings like Klee's, say. I've bought
plenty of work from "unknown" artists that was abstract or not
anything you'd consider a good figural portrayal, and I know lots of
other people who have done so as well. Heck, even just a quick glance
at what has bids on eBay will demonstrate that to you--just search the
self-representing artists category. I also do a lot of arts & crafts
shows, and abstract and what you would call poor figural work sells
frequently there.
Now, you've qualified your response with "no on of any consequence",
but I have a feeling that's just going to be tautological to you--if
they pay attention to work like that from "unknowns", they're "not of
any consequence", and if they don't, they are "of some consequence".
You can't mean that no professionals in the artworld pay attention to
it, because emerging artists working in styles like abstract
expressionism are accepted frequently at various galleries, for
example.
However, I do agree with you on this issue regarding one point--the
artists who become "mega-stars" in the artworld might as well be
chosen by lottery, because they're not the only ones producing their
type of work--most of the people producing that type of work remain
relatively unknown. However, that's the case with any field, and it's
because success in any industry isn't just based on a particular kind
of work alone. Industries/fields are areas of social interaction, and
all of the factors that go into making any kinds of social
interactions successful also play a major part (those include being
able to get along with others, having contacts, etc.)
So I agree that artworks getting the types of prices that de Kooning
gets, and for that matter that Rubens or any other famous artist gets,
are because the literati has accepted them. But it's definitely
possible to make a living working in any style of art if one is
unknown. You just won't likely become rich.
> However its a good way to impress idiot art teachers. I did it years
> ago and the teacher said that at last I was painting something good.
I agree that it's ridiculous that an art teacher would say that
traditional figural work isn't good, but something approximating de
Kooning is. Although I can see encouraging work like de Kooning's if
you're taking an Abstract Expressionist Painting class. But in
general, I would encourage each student to pursue work in the style(s)
they're interested in.
> An average chimpanzee paints better than de Kooning.
That's an understandable opinion. So would be "an average chimpanzee
doesn't paint better than de Kooning". And speaking of animals
painting, some do remarkable work. In fact, I own an animal painting
that I bought off of eBay--it was done by Koopa the turtle (check out
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=turtlekissdesigns&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=50)
to see some examples of Koopa's work, and notice that most are
selling).
> None as yet
> happened to win the Modern Academic Art lottery.
I agree with that.
> It seems Artzy fartzy
> curators are prejudice against chimpanzees. Perhaps it's because they
> might shit on the floor and all those allied with Fox will call it
> art.
Maybe they're prejudiced against chimpanzees, but as I mentioned
above, "winning the artworld lottery" isn't just about your visual
art, it's also about your social skills, which only makes sense (who
is going to want to work with an artist who is a jerk, or constantly
trying to sue the gallery, etc.?) The fact that social skills are
important for success in endeavors necessitating social interaction
makes it more difficult for chimpanzees. However, I wouldn't be
surprised to see some Koopa paintings in museums or galleries soon, if
they're not already there.
> If it looks like its the product of a eight year old its the artists
> problem not the viewer's.
That seems insulting to eight year olds to me. There is something
wrong with all eight year old art?
> No skill no art!
All art has some skill behind it. So that wouldn't exclude much "art"
from being art.
--King Rundzap
Thur
> or tells them to like. They just like what looks good to them, and
> that doesn't exclude artists (known or unknown) producing abstract
> expressionism, or figural drawings like Klee's, say. I've bought
> plenty of work from "unknown" artists that was abstract or not
> anything you'd consider a good figural portrayal, and I know lots
If we look at what "the general public" like, then it has to be Kitsch.
Mass produced, low quality, and apparently superficial works.
The most successful operator on the world of mass produced works
in this area is ( the industry of) Kinkade.
The "general public" I refer to and assume you mean, is the "art buying"
section.
There must be some people who do not understand Modern Art.
How many? How many of those who buy repro's of de Kooning?
Are any of them influenced by a desire to buy what they think is
"art", and embarrassed to chose what they really want, because
they are afraid to admit to a lack of knowledge, and to be not
uptodate with modern trends?
How else could such Abstract works find a wider market, since
they are so deliberately obscure?
Because I have such difficulty in finding the art in his works, I use
this to support my suspicion that the art buying general public
contains many like me , and perhaps many more who study and think
about it less.
Thur
"King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425a3330.0408...@posting.google.com...
> Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<ujuai057ceqsv5eql...@4ax.com>...
>
> > De kooning stuff can be imitated by anyone with some technical
> > knowledge. De Kooning's impasto color schmiers are achieved by
> > loading a large brush with many different colors. Then just add a few
> > goo goo eyes and naughty parts should you be that technically capable
> > and will get a similar flat-as-a board-cat vomit look.
>
> If you mean that someone could paint something that you or someone
> else would say is a similar style to de Kooning's if they had some
keith o'connor
snip: "However its a good way to impress idiot art teachers. I did it years
ago and the teacher said that at last I was painting something good."
interesting: i have encountered the tenor (x = is an idiot ) in your
postings before - especially in relation to your art teachers.
(i'll save your constant reference to me as a jerk for another time)
ok lets go: your childhood experience has led you to believe that you are
not as good as others - a consistent bombardment of this idea was over time
reinforced to the point of belief - once that level of belief is achieved
your interpretation of stimuli from the outside world is coloured by your
negative self belief such that only bad people can associate with you as
good people will associate with good people -
- when your art teachers tell you that you are doing something good then
they must be bad because after all your a bad person and good people will
stay away from you.
- you will say this is a pile of psychobabble crap but that's the typical
response from people in your condition - like the fish in the fish bowl you
only know one reality - the creative tendency is to discover other realities
beyond the fish bowl and that is something you won't let yourself do because
after all you are a bad person.
--
take care: Keith
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ujuai057ceqsv5eql...@4ax.com...
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<ujuai057ceqsv5eql...@4ax.com>...
>
>> De kooning stuff can be imitated by anyone with some technical
>> knowledge. De Kooning's impasto color schmiers are achieved by
>> loading a large brush with many different colors. Then just add a few
>> goo goo eyes and naughty parts should you be that technically capable
>> and will get a similar flat-as-a board-cat vomit look.
>
>If you mean that someone could paint something that you or someone
>else would say is a similiar style to de Kooning's if they had some
>technical knowledge, that is true, although of course not everyone
>will agree given two different artists that they are doing something
>in the "same style". But someone could paint something in a similar
>style to any painting, by anyone, if they had some technical
>knowledge.
Try Ingres for starters.
> If you mean they could _copy_ de Kooning, in the sense of
>a forgery, that would take quite a bit more technical knowledge, and a
>ability to "deconstruct" (not theoretically) the painting to figure
>out roughly what needs to be done first, what colors need to be used,
Even de Kooning couldn't copy a de Kooning or a painter's drop cloth,
so what.
>etc., and that's also the case for people creating forgeries of any
>painting. It wouldn't be any easier to produce a de Kooning forgery
>that would fool experts than it would be to produce a Rubens forgery
>that would fool experts.
In your dreams.
> It's much easier, in both cases, to produce
>a forgery that would fool the general public.
Depends on the artist.
>> Unfortunately no one of any consequence will pay any attention to the result > because it lacks a de Kooning signature; the only thing that makes his
>> painting more valuable.
>
>I disagree with you on this point, which you keep repeating. You seem
>to think that the general public only likes what the art literati
>tells them to like.
I don't think the general public likes or has the slighted interest in
de Kooning.
> The underlying implication is that no one
>"really" likes work like de Kooning's, they just say they do because
>they think they're supposed to say that.
never said that!
> Well, that's not true. Most
>of the general public isn't familiar with what the art literati likes
>or tells them to like. They just like what looks good to them, and
>that doesn't exclude artists (known or unknown) producing abstract
>expressionism, or figural drawings like Klee's, say. I've bought
>plenty of work from "unknown" artists that was abstract or not
>anything you'd consider a good figural portrayal, and I know lots of
>other people who have done so as well. Heck, even just a quick glance
>at what has bids on eBay will demonstrate that to you--just search the
>self-representing artists category.
Done it, its all crap and that's why it sells for a crap price.
> I also do a lot of arts & crafts
>shows, and abstract and what you would call poor figural work sells
>frequently there.
The problem is that similar stuff inhabits museums pretending to be
great art.
>So I agree that artworks getting the types of prices that de Kooning
>gets, and for that matter that Rubens or any other famous artist gets,
>are because the literati has accepted them. But it's definitely
>possible to make a living working in any style of art if one is
>unknown. You just won't likely become rich.
and are likely to remain very poor, with good reason.
>> An average chimpanzee paints better than de Kooning.
>
>That's an understandable opinion. So would be "an average chimpanzee
>doesn't paint better than de Kooning". And speaking of animals
>painting, some do remarkable work.
That's my point, but none as yet happened to win the Modern Academic
Art lottery.
Did you ever wonder why?
>> If it looks like its the product of a eight year old its the artists
>> problem not the viewer's.
>
>That seems insulting to eight year olds to me.
Well, get some to complain about it.
>There is something
>wrong with all eight year old art?
>
Not at all, as most is far better then the crap in modern sections of
museums.
Mani Deli
>to mani from the jerk:
>snip: "However its a good way to impress idiot art teachers. I did it years
>ago and the teacher said that at last I was painting something good."
>
>interesting: i have encountered the tenor (x = is an idiot ) in your
>postings before - especially in relation to your art teachers.
Please do! I also had good teachers in case you don't know it.
>(i'll save your constant reference to me as a jerk for another time)
Why not start right now.
>ok lets go: your childhood experience has led you to believe that you are
>not as good as others - a consistent bombardment of this idea was over time
>reinforced to the point of belief - once that level of belief is achieved
>your interpretation of stimuli from the outside world is coloured by your
>negative self belief such that only bad people can associate with you as
>good people will associate with good people -
>- when your art teachers tell you that you are doing something good then
>they must be bad because after all your a bad person and good people will
>stay away from you.
>
>- you will say this is a pile of psychobabble crap
You got it booby!
> but that's the typical
>response from people in your condition
To a jerk like you!
Even Marylin Yente Welch had you figured out, with, "Fuck off, Keith,
you pompous-ass-non-artist-hobbyist-jerk-resident-blow-hard."
King Rundzap
lot of different things. Yes, Kinkade has been very successful (and I
like his work, by the way--it doesn't seem low quality to me), and
there are many other "name" artists like that who have made a lot of
money outside of the "mainstream artworld", including Frank Frazetta,
Penny Ann Cross, Boris Vallejo and even people like Leroy Neiman, who
have always been more at the fringe of the mainstream artworld. I
think they all produce high-quality work.
However, I was referring above more to the public buying artworks (and
tautologically we could say the "Art buying section", but I'm also
including people buying prints, posters, etc.) from artists who
_aren't_ "household names", to point out that it's not true that
people rely only on name recognition and what they're "supposed to
like", but buy works, from abstract to minimalism to realism, that
they like the look of. They find these works at places like arts &
crafts shows, malls, framing stores, at online locations like eBay,
self-representing artists' sites, etc.
Most of the artists selling works through these avenues aren't going
to get rich anytime soon, and aren't likely to become household names,
but on the other hand, I've had booths close to artists who have done
$10,000+ during the course of just one show, and that includes all
styles--even abstract expressionist works, or minimalist works. Those
artists were not well-known, people just liked the way their work
looked, so they bought something, if they could afford it. If you get
that lucky at even 5 shows per year, you're making a healthy living,
above the average income in the U.S. Not every show is going to be
like that, but with experience picking the right shows, you won't end
up with many duds, either.
Maybe I'm odd, but a lot of people I know do not like or buy something
based on whether they "understand" it or not. They tend to more just
like the way something looks or not. My principle criterion isn't
whether I understand something or not, either, it's also whether I
like the way something looks or not.
Also, sure maybe some people buy de Kooning reproductions, if they do,
because they want to be "in with the in crowd", although that pretty
much implies that they've had some kind of formal art education, or at
least have become pretty wrapped up in the academic-oriented artworld
. . . if de Kooning is even still considered "in" there. Even with
the knowledge of art that I have, which I'd say is moderate, I
couldn't answer whether de Kooning is still considered "in". I would
guess that far more people who buy de Kooning reproductions probably
do so because they saw something of his at a museum and liked the way
it looked. Without knowledge of and a desire to fit into the
academic-oriented art crowd, most museum-goers wouldn't feel any more
pressured to buy a de Kooning print than they feel pressured to buy a
Tiepolo print, or any other artist's work who might be featured at the
museum or art store (like a frame or poster shop) they might be
visiting.
The idea that no one likes, or would like, work like de Kooning's if
it didn't have a famous name attached is simply not borne out by
experience.
--King Rundzap
DNALJM
>painting, some do remarkable work. In fact, I own an animal painting
>that I bought off of eBay--it was done by Koopa the turtle
Holy shit! If you have that much disposable income lying around why don't
you dump it into my paypal account so I can get a degree in biology? I know
I'm not an animal, "wound" as John Updike would say, "tightly by my nature,"
smearing paint and feces mindlessly across a piece of paper for a food reward,
but I'd like to become a contributing, valued member of society.
King Rundzap
> >else would say is a similiar style to de Kooning's if they had some
> >technical knowledge, that is true, although of course not everyone
> >will agree given two different artists that they are doing something
> >in the "same style". But someone could paint something in a similar
> >style to any painting, by anyone, if they had some technical
> >knowledge.
>
> Try Ingres for starters.
Try Ingres for someone who could paint something in a similar style to
any painting if they had some technical knowledge?
> > If you mean they could _copy_ de Kooning, in the sense of
> >a forgery, that would take quite a bit more technical knowledge, and a
> >ability to "deconstruct" (not theoretically) the painting to figure
> >out roughly what needs to be done first, what colors need to be used,
>
> Even de Kooning couldn't copy a de Kooning or a painter's drop cloth,
> so what.
Copy a de Kooning in the sense of a forgery? Probably a lot of
painters would have difficultly producing forgeries of their works
that would fool experts.
> >etc., and that's also the case for people creating forgeries of any
> >painting. It wouldn't be any easier to produce a de Kooning forgery
> >that would fool experts than it would be to produce a Rubens forgery
> >that would fool experts.
> In your dreams.
No, in fact. We could do an experiment if you'd like. I know you
live in the New York area. So do I. Pick either yourself or another
artist in the New York area to create a forgery of a de Kooning work
and of a Rubens work. We'll then take it to 10 different experts in
the area and see how many are fooled by either forgery. Are you game?
> > It's much easier, in both cases, to produce
> >a forgery that would fool the general public.
> Depends on the artist.
Well, and probably it depends on the public. How knowledgeable are
they about a particular artist's techniques on a given work, etc.
Again, I'm game for some field research if you'd like to test your
claims.
> >I disagree with you on this point, which you keep repeating. You seem
> >to think that the general public only likes what the art literati
> >tells them to like.
> I don't think the general public likes or has the slighted interest in
> de Kooning.
I know for a fact that isn't true. I know plenty of people who have
encountered de Koonings and similar works at art museums, who have no
art school training or knowledge of what is supposed to be cool or in
with the academic artworld, and who liked them.
> > The underlying implication is that no one
> >"really" likes work like de Kooning's, they just say they do because
> >they think they're supposed to say that.
> never said that!
That's what makes it an implication, and not something you directly
said.
> > Well, that's not true. Most
> >of the general public isn't familiar with what the art literati likes
> >or tells them to like. They just like what looks good to them, and
> >that doesn't exclude artists (known or unknown) producing abstract
> >expressionism, or figural drawings like Klee's, say. I've bought
> >plenty of work from "unknown" artists that was abstract or not
> >anything you'd consider a good figural portrayal, and I know lots of
> >other people who have done so as well. Heck, even just a quick glance
> >at what has bids on eBay will demonstrate that to you--just search the
> >self-representing artists category.
> Done it, its all crap and that's why it sells for a crap price.
Here are some current prices (with bids) on eBay for abstract works by
unknowns:
$396.00, 15 hours to go,
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20158&item=3741844112&rd=1
$310, 15 hours to go,
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20158&item=3741842385&rd=1
$299, 3 days to go, http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20158&item=3742364211&rd=1
Here's one by a turtle:
$107.50, 15 hours to go
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20158&item=3741807176&rd=1
I don't consider 3 or 4 hundred dollars to be crap prices, but I agree
that no one is likely to get rich off of those prices (and remember I
mentioned elsewhere that I agree with you that prices in the tens of
thousands of dollars range are created by an embrace by the artworld,
and that it has a bit of a chance, or lottery-like element to it).
However, as I mentioned I've also had booths at arts & crafts shows
near people (unknowns) who had abstract works like that who had 5
figure (over $10,000) shows. A lot of those folks do shows almost
every weekend, and frequently enough have 5 figure shows. I don't
consider that a crap income, but maybe you do.
> > I also do a lot of arts & crafts
> >shows, and abstract and what you would call poor figural work sells
> >frequently there.
> The problem is that similar stuff inhabits museums pretending to be
> great art.
I didn't say I thought it was poor figural work, just that you would
call it that. I think there's a lot of great art in all kinds of
venues, including arts & crafts shows, and of course museums.
> >So I agree that artworks getting the types of prices that de Kooning
> >gets, and for that matter that Rubens or any other famous artist gets,
> >are because the literati has accepted them. But it's definitely
> >possible to make a living working in any style of art if one is
> >unknown. You just won't likely become rich.
> and are likely to remain very poor, with good reason.
I don't consider making a living being poor. Again, to make a living
with art, there are many factors involved that have nothing to do with
your actual artwork, regardless of what style you paint in or how you
paint in that style. You have to study and invest time and money into
marketing, and you have to be creative in your approach to marketing.
You have to be sociable. You have to be persistent, etc. A lot of
artists do not want to do, or have a difficult time doing those
things. For many, the social skills are probably the most difficult,
but all of those things are difficult for many artists. In my
experience so far, that's a larger barrier to success in the visual
artworld, or any of the arts, than any other factor. The amount of
artists who think that the world is going to come knocking at their
door just because they're creating art is incredible.
> >That's an understandable opinion. So would be "an average chimpanzee
> >doesn't paint better than de Kooning". And speaking of animals
> >painting, some do remarkable work.
> That's my point, but none as yet happened to win the Modern Academic
> Art lottery.
I agree with you fully that an awful lot of artists who have great
work are ignored by the academic artworld. But I think the reasons
why they are ignored are many. For many artists, it goes back to the
factors of marketing, sociableness and persistence, but I agree that
that's not the whole story, and I agree that there is a much greater
tendency to be ignored by that academic artworld if you're working in
some styles of painting. On the other hand, if we're concerned with
making a living, I wouldn't stress acceptance by that world as the
most important factor. While there are some living artists whose
acceptance by that world has made them millionaires (like Johns,
Koons, Twombly, etc.), the bulk of artists making decent livings with
their work--in all styles, not just realism or
representationalism--have very little to do with that world, and often
couldn't care less about it. That they couldn't care less about that
world is especially true when it comes to folks working in less
traditional areas, such as comic book art, animation, production art
in the film world, etc.
> Did you ever wonder why?
Oops, saw this after I wrote the above. So obviously I have wondered
why, yes.
> >> If it looks like its the product of a eight year old its the artists
> >> problem not the viewer's.
> >That seems insulting to eight year olds to me.
> Well, get some to complain about it.
I'll have my youngest nephew contribute some complaints maybe, lol.
> >There is something
> >wrong with all eight year old art?
> Not at all, as most is far better then the crap in modern sections of
> museums.
Then I wouldn't say that it is a problem that something looks like the
product of an eight year old.
> No skill no art!
You didn't comment on all art involving some skill. It's a skill to
just put a stick of graphite to paper, say, and yes, I know that
chimpanzees could even do that--chimpanzees can certainly have skills.
(this gives me a good segue into philosophical aesthetics, which is a
passion of mine:-)
On the other hand, would we want to say that inanimate objects are
skilled? I wouldn't say that, I don't think, but I think that things
produced by inanimate objects can be art. For example, I'd say that a
copy of a Bouguereau produced by a machine is art, even though a
machine produced it. You might say that the machine didn't initially
produce it, Bouguereau did, but the machine production isn't identical
to Bouguereau, either. In fact, it's very different, especially due
to the printing processes used by machines as opposed to the physical
process of painting, and each copy of the Bouguereau work is a bit
different than the other copies.
There's a lot more to say here, but I won't bother unless you or
someone else is interested in those kinds of issues. I think they
have implications for "no skill no art" however.
King Rundzap
figure out that you're an animal, but I suppose you meant you're not
an animal with the Updike qualifications you mentioned, although I'd
disagree that you aren't bound "tightly [to your] nature". Many
artists smear paint across a piece of paper or canvas for a reward
though. And some have smeared feces.
But at any rate, buying one of Koopa's paintings has a direct benefit
to me--I enjoy the work, it gives me pleasure to look at it, etc., but
giving you money for a biology degree has no direct benefit for me.
Maybe if you provide some goods or services in exchange that I'd think
were worthwhile . . .
I might be able to use a painting/shipping/office assistant.
dna...@aol.com (DNALJM) wrote in message news:<20040821025128...@mb-m29.aol.com>...
DNALJM
>were worthwhile . . .
>
>I might be able to use a painting/shipping/office assistant.
It does benefit you in that right now I get a massive tax refund for being
poor that you pay for. But I'm not adverse to doing work either-only I'm
moving to FL in a week.