On Abstract Art - Briony Fer
Peter H.M. Brooks
ISBN: 0300069758?
I ask because it looks interesting on amazon.com, but expensive. There
isn't a review on Amazon, but, if anybody knows where I could find a
review, that would be great.
I am looking for a reasonably serious, non-boring, non-pretentious
examination of abstract art in general, and abstract expressionism in
particular. If this is the book, then I will bit the bullet and buy it -
if not, any good recommendations would be very welcome.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter H.M. Brooks
a few of my pictures on my web site for a while, but this will be a
physical exhibition. I am interested to hear from people who have done
this before, any advice and any pitfalls would be very useful to have
in advance. Some of the particular areas that are occupying my mind are
as follows:
- What location is best? A gallery that charges a percentage, or a
rented space?
- How should I fill the opening evening? Is it best to hire an agent or
try to have an unusual angle?
- How much would it be sensible to spend?
- How many pictures should I show? I could have a small group of around
20 of my best, or go for a wider range of around 60-70.
- Is it best to stick to one medium? I have plenty of oils/acrylics that
would work, but I also have quite a lot of pastel/pen&ink/pencil
drawings that are smaller, but might have an appeal.
- Should I have a catalogue with photographs? I have seen some that are
sold and very expensively produced, does this work, or is it best to
have a simple black and white descriptive list with prices?
- It will be expensive to frame all the paintings. However, I know that
the right frame can really make [or even transform] a painting. Is there
any point in having some unframed/unmounted pictures?
- I was thinking of selling postcards of some of the pictures. Is this
sensible? What sort of quantity is it sensible to make?
- How long should the exhibition last? A week or two seems enough, but,
if there is a good opening night would a shorter three day run be
enough?
- What usually goes wrong?
- What should I be thinking about that I haven't thought about so far?
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>- What should I be thinking about that I haven't thought about so far?
That you aren't ready to exhibit your work ?
--
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
http://raimes.homestead.com/index.html
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> In article <8babpo$j4d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Peter H. M. Brooks
> <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> >
> >- What should I be thinking about that I haven't thought about so
far?
>
> That you aren't ready to exhibit your work ?
>
were 'ready', then the exhibition would be next week, rather than
planned for some months hence.
However, that probably isn't what you mean. What would you class as
'ready'?
I feel quite comfortable about the idea and have accepted a good deal of
encouragement from various people who have suggested that I ought to
exhibit it. I also have exhibited some pieces on the internet for some
time now, so, I wonder exactly what you mean.
Still, thank you for the point. If there is some psychic state of
readiness that will come to me some day, then I will enjoy it, however,
I may go ahead and exhibit before I am ready.
--
Andrew D.
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
+In article <q3p0HSAt...@raimes.demon.co.uk>,
+Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
+> In article <8babpo$j4d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Peter H. M. Brooks
+> <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
+> >- What should I be thinking about that I haven't thought about so
+far?
+> That you aren't ready to exhibit your work?
+Well, that is an interesting response!! It is trivially true as, if I
+were 'ready', then the exhibition would be next week, rather than
+planned for some months hence.
[snip]
+Still, thank you for the point. If there is some psychic state of
+readiness that will come to me some day, then I will enjoy it, however,
+I may go ahead and exhibit before I am ready.
If you're confident you have a marketable product then you are ready
except for the questions that remain unanswered. We can't all know from
day one what is involved in setting up an exhibition and I commend you for
asking the questions that I'm sure many others, myself included, would
like answered by those who've been there before.
In that regard Alison's answer seemed just a little unhelpful.
Andy.
conq...@wantree.com.au
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Peter H.M. Brooks
there - unless it is considered such a deep dark secret that can only be
discovered by painful experience!
>
> In that regard Alison's answer seemed just a little unhelpful.
>
completely, though. I think that it is a bit of a chicken and egg
situation, the only way you can be certain that you do have a
commercially viable artistic product is to exhibit it and see what the
sales are like. If nobody buys anything, then you may have exhibited it
badly [what I would like to avoid], or you may have an unsaleable
product. The best way to be sure is to make certain that you do the best
job possible in exhibiting. Then, if nobody buys, you can be sure that
your work is crap [or the buying public has not taste!].
Of course it may just be that Alison looked at my web-site and didn't
like the pictures, coming to the conclusion that other people wouldn't
want to buy them either. That is fair enough, but I haven't put any new
pictures on my site for ages and I have been producing a lot of quite
different, and, for me, exciting stuff. I think that a lot of it is
quite good enough. Not only that, my recent experience has enabled me to
go back to some of my old pictures and improve them substantially, which
has also been a delight.
Anyway, apart from all this, I do think that it was a good question to
think about. Even if I am quite confident that my work will sell [and
having made sales before, without an exhibition, suggests that I am not
that wrong in this], am I really ready for an exhibition. It is a
revealing of yourself to the general public, and the critics, that is
not all sunshine and roses. Critics can't keep their jobs if they are
only full of praise for everything, so one can expect at least a couple
of indifferent, if not actually hostile, reviews. I can imagine that the
emotional experience of exhibiting all your work, that you are privately
delighted with, and having nobody buy it, or even turn up to the
exhibition. I think that some meditation on egotism and ones feeling
about failing are probably wise before deciding on an exhibition.
So, all in all, I think it was quite a good question - if it was a
little pointed, then it isn't that bad a thing, given my points in the
above paragraph.
Scarlett
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
(snip)
: - What location is best? A gallery that charges a percentage, or a
: rented space?
Percentage, Peter. Rented spaces are called "Vanity Galleries" and can
actually hurt your reputation, though maybe it is different in the UK.
: - How should I fill the opening evening? Is it best to hire an agent or
: try to have an unusual angle?
Are you wealthy? Have you found the space yet? What kind of space is it,
for example - is it a cooperative gallery, regular gallery or rental space?
With the exception of rental spaces the others usually take care of the
refreshments. Good musicians can add a nice touch though...
: - How much would it be sensible to spend?
Rental? A zillion dollars, I guess. Otherwise, you may pay for mailing and
printing in a cooperative and a regular (50% commission) gallery will
normally pay everything. Printing a brochure is a nice investment. If you
serve refreshment, buy the cheap wine that comes in a cardboard box and some
celery, carrots, etc and a cheap dip. Maybe a lunchmeat tray with some
cheese and a bowl of punch.
: - How many pictures should I show? I could have a small group of around
: 20 of my best, or go for a wider range of around 60-70.
You don't want the cluttered old-fashioned "Salon" look of the 19th century.
How big is the space? How much tract lighting is there? You don't want any
works in the dark.
: - Is it best to stick to one medium? I have plenty of oils/acrylics that
: would work, but I also have quite a lot of pastel/pen&ink/pencil
: drawings that are smaller, but might have an appeal.
Have a dominant medium and then put in just a few of the other.
: - Should I have a catalogue with photographs? I have seen some that are
: sold and very expensively produced, does this work, or is it best to
: have a simple black and white descriptive list with prices?
Both if you can afford it. But have a catalogue only if you've produced a
LOT of recent work. My advice, not more than 2 years old.
: - It will be expensive to frame all the paintings. However, I know that
: the right frame can really make [or even transform] a painting. Is there
: any point in having some unframed/unmounted pictures?
If the works are very big it sometimes works to have grommets and have them
hang unstretched. I've seen art present various ways and the art itself is
the most important thing. A wonderful frame won't make a work that is weak
strong.
: - I was thinking of selling postcards of some of the pictures. Is this
: sensible?
At the opening? If this is your first opening, I wouldn't advise it. You
are supposed to GIVE these away.
What sort of quantity is it sensible to make?
How many people are you inviting or are you talking about selling postcard
images?
: - How long should the exhibition last? A week or two seems enough, but,
: if there is a good opening night would a shorter three day run be
: enough?
It is usually up to the gallery. Are you paying for a rental space? I've
seen exhibitions range from 3 weeks to 1 & 1/2 months usually.
: - What usually goes wrong?
Lights burn out and your work can't be seen. Opening night will coincide
with a BIG art event and nobody can make it to your opening. Someone looks
like they will buy your work and instead of introducing yourself you go
*mental* and act like they have lice. You forget people's names. You can't
answer a question asked you about your work due to a blank mind (it's
temporary). Once I showed in a brand new gallery - they paid everything and
even let me order the food. ONE PERSON came to the opening! It turned out
the space was new and great but built in the middle of a gang drive-by war
zone!
This could be a GREAT thread: What can go wrong at an opening?
: - What should I be thinking about that I haven't thought about so far?
Press release. Do you have a list of regular gallery-goers to invite?
Good luck and remember, some day you will look back and wonder what the big
deal was about. It may turn out to be fun. Don't spend all your money
because this should be your first step of many exhibitions.
--
Scarlett
Website:
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Art Beyond Borders:
http://www.eurolab.at/art/
"Do you know what he needs?
Two or three shock treatments," Mary George said.
"Get that artist business out of his head once and for all."
(from "The Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
:
:
: Peter H.M. Brooks
: http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>It seemed that way to me too, at first. I don't think that it is
>completely, though. I think that it is a bit of a chicken and egg
>situation, the only way you can be certain that you do have a
>commercially viable artistic product is to exhibit it and see what the
>sales are like. If nobody buys anything, then you may have exhibited it
>badly [what I would like to avoid], or you may have an unsaleable
>product. The best way to be sure is to make certain that you do the best
>job possible in exhibiting. Then, if nobody buys, you can be sure that
>your work is crap [or the buying public has not taste!].
Artists exhibit for two reasons. The first is driven by the ego and the
belief that they have something they want to share with an audience.
Those artists don't care where they show - they will do it in their
homes, the local library, schools etc. They just want their work to be
seen.
The second reason is driven by commerce and ego combined. They believe
that the product they have is special and, like Peter, they relate
success to sales. This is of course absolute rubbish. The buying public
will spend their money on all sorts of crap, especially when they are
seduced by an *exhibition* - sales are never a measure of success.
>
>Of course it may just be that Alison looked at my web-site and didn't
>like the pictures, coming to the conclusion that other people wouldn't
>want to buy them either. That is fair enough, but I haven't put any new
>pictures on my site for ages and I have been producing a lot of quite
>different, and, for me, exciting stuff. I think that a lot of it is
>quite good enough. Not only that, my recent experience has enabled me to
>go back to some of my old pictures and improve them substantially, which
>has also been a delight.
>
I have never hidden the fact that I don't like your work at all, Peter,
but I am sure people will buy them. The reasons I can't accept you as an
artist are this. Your website has displayed the same old work for over a
year. It claims *impressionist*, *expressionist* , and *abstract* all in
one space. Its extremely immature - the sort of work expected at
Foundation Course prior to degree. Your claims to *Abstract*
particularly disturbs me because you are now asking for a basic reading
book in Abstract art, which presumes that you really do not understand
your work. None of the work shows that you have focused enough. Its
encouraging to at least hear that you are wanting to develop and
improve, but my advise is not to exhibit until you, at least, know what
you are exhibiting. If you are only interested in sales then yes, get
yourself a vanity gallery and stick the stuff up on the wall. Write a
statement that will bullshit and sit back and count the pound notes. And
then try and convince yourself you are a *success*. In a few years time
you may regret you did it.
I show in a co-op gallery as well as exhibit professionally. The co-op
gallery is commercially driven - providing me with the income to produce
the exhibition work which rarely sells because of price and size. The
co-op gallery work is what I would call rejects, or work that I can
*knock up* in a few minutes. This year I sold 38 paintings averaging
around 100-150 pounds each. When I first started selling I got very
excited. But I never felt *successful*. By the end of the year it had
become just a source of income - I have lost my pride in that work but
still need the income. I never sign them and hope that my *real* work
never be associated with them. The *real* work is my studio work. Mostly
that work gets destroyed, but at least once a year I suddenly hit on an
idea which then become a series of work which then gets exhibited. I
exhibit it because it represents what I believe in and not because I
need to make a living. Come along to Open Studios at Cable Street in
June if you want to see this sort of work.
>Anyway, apart from all this, I do think that it was a good question to
>think about. Even if I am quite confident that my work will sell [and
>having made sales before, without an exhibition, suggests that I am not
>that wrong in this], am I really ready for an exhibition. It is a
>revealing of yourself to the general public, and the critics, that is
>not all sunshine and roses. Critics can't keep their jobs if they are
>only full of praise for everything, so one can expect at least a couple
>of indifferent, if not actually hostile, reviews. I can imagine that the
>emotional experience of exhibiting all your work, that you are privately
>delighted with, and having nobody buy it, or even turn up to the
>exhibition. I think that some meditation on egotism and ones feeling
>about failing are probably wise before deciding on an exhibition.
No you are wrong about this. Exhibiting allows you the rare opportunity
to place all your work in one space and to be able to stand back and
evaluate where you are. It serves as an essential part of an artist's
working progress. Rarely do artists who belong in the first bracket care
about sales. They use the experience as a learning process.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
>
> >product. The best way to be sure is to make certain that you do the
best
> >job possible in exhibiting. Then, if nobody buys, you can be sure
that
> >your work is crap [or the buying public has not taste!].
>
> Artists exhibit for two reasons. The first is driven by the ego and
the
> belief that they have something they want to share with an audience.
> Those artists don't care where they show - they will do it in their
> homes, the local library, schools etc. They just want their work to be
> seen.
>
agree that this is a good reason, and a common one. Web sites are
particularly good for this as they are free.
>
> The second reason is driven by commerce and ego combined. They believe
> that the product they have is special and, like Peter, they relate
> success to sales. This is of course absolute rubbish. The buying
public
> will spend their money on all sorts of crap, especially when they are
> seduced by an *exhibition* - sales are never a measure of success.
>
success as an artist, though it isn't completely different either. It is
possible for a great artist never to sell anything, and have lots of
exhibitions. It is also possible for a bad artist to sell lots of things
and have few exhibitions. Examples for both are easy to find.
However, in the main, people who have good, interesting, accessible art
tend to sell reasonably well when they have exhibitions. Some artists
paint specially commercial pictures to sell them, claiming that their
'real' art is too difficult or unapproachable for the general public to
be able to appreciate it. I suspect that this is a position where they
are trying to avoid having their art judged.
>
> >
> I have never hidden the fact that I don't like your work at all,
Peter,
> but I am sure people will buy them. The reasons I can't accept you as
an
> artist are this. Your website has displayed the same old work for over
a
> year.
>
This is true. I have pointed out exactly the same point in just this
thread - at least the bit about it being the same stuff.
>
>It claims *impressionist*, *expressionist* , and *abstract* all
in
> one space.
>
If you understood these terms, then you ought to be able to understand
why they apply to certain of the pictures. They are not 'claims', simply
helpful descriptions. I don't think it wise to arrive at conclusions
about any art on the basis of descriptive terms used for it -
particularly by the artist!
>
> Its extremely immature - the sort of work expected at
> Foundation Course prior to degree. Your claims to *Abstract*
> particularly disturbs me because you are now asking for a basic
reading
> book in Abstract art, which presumes that you really do not understand
> your work.
>
I think you are mistaking the production of art and the criticism of
art. The book by Briony Fay is actually about the criticism of abstract
art and is an academic book - you won't find any 'how to paint abstract
pictures' stuff in it! Understanding abstract art in general is quite
different from understanding your own work - I would have hoped that
anybody could have seen that, but clearly I was wrong.
>
None of the work shows that you have focused enough. Its
> encouraging to at least hear that you are wanting to develop and
> improve, but my advise is not to exhibit until you, at least, know
what
> you are exhibiting.
>
I haven't posted any paintings for a year or two, not because I haven't
been painting (I have been doing a lot and have been extremely happy
with my progress), but because I was interested in what people thought
of what I had there - and the results have been fascinating. Before
adding new oils and abstracts it has been my objective to get some
pen&ink, pencil and pastel drawings up, but I have been too busy to get
round to it.
>
> If you are only interested in sales then yes, get
> yourself a vanity gallery and stick the stuff up on the wall. Write a
> statement that will bullshit and sit back and count the pound notes.
And
> then try and convince yourself you are a *success*. In a few years
time
> you may regret you did it.
>
It is nice to year that you are so sure that people will want to buy my
stuff. I don't think that I will regret it, and I don't need the money.
However, I think that the experience will be good for me - and my
artistic development.
>
> I show in a co-op gallery as well as exhibit professionally. The co-op
> gallery is commercially driven - providing me with the income to
produce
> the exhibition work which rarely sells because of price and size. The
> co-op gallery work is what I would call rejects, or work that I can
> *knock up* in a few minutes. This year I sold 38 paintings averaging
> around 100-150 pounds each. When I first started selling I got very
> excited. But I never felt *successful*. By the end of the year it had
> become just a source of income - I have lost my pride in that work but
> still need the income. I never sign them and hope that my *real* work
> never be associated with them. The *real* work is my studio work.
>
As I say above, I think that this idea of 'real' work is a little sad.
All art is work and all art work has some value. I think that it is a
pity for you to have contempt for the people who buy it. I do understand
why, if you have such comtempt, you don't feel pride in it, though!
>
Mostly
> that work gets destroyed, but at least once a year I suddenly hit on
an
> idea which then become a series of work which then gets exhibited. I
> exhibit it because it represents what I believe in and not because I
> need to make a living. Come along to Open Studios at Cable Street in
> June if you want to see this sort of work.
>
That is clearly a nice thing to do. I hope that you enjoy your
exhibition. It would have been nicer if you had shared some of your
experiences with the process of exhibition, but, it is obviously up to
you.
>
> >Anyway, apart from all this, I do think that it was a good question
to
> >think about. Even if I am quite confident that my work will sell [and
> >having made sales before, without an exhibition, suggests that I am
not
> >that wrong in this], am I really ready for an exhibition. It is a
> >revealing of yourself to the general public, and the critics, that is
> >not all sunshine and roses. Critics can't keep their jobs if they are
> >only full of praise for everything, so one can expect at least a
couple
> >of indifferent, if not actually hostile, reviews. I can imagine that
the
> >emotional experience of exhibiting all your work, that you are
privately
> >delighted with, and having nobody buy it, or even turn up to the
> >exhibition. I think that some meditation on egotism and ones feeling
> >about failing are probably wise before deciding on an exhibition.
>
> No you are wrong about this.
>
Funny that you say this, when you go on to agree with much of what I
say.
>
Exhibiting allows you the rare
opportunity
> to place all your work in one space and to be able to stand back and
> evaluate where you are. It serves as an essential part of an artist's
> working progress. Rarely do artists who belong in the first bracket
care
> about sales. They use the experience as a learning process.
>
If the experience has no feedback, then it can't be a learning process.
Clearly the money, and the writing of the critics, and what people who
visit say, are the feedback.
I often arrange to put a lot of my work in one space and evaluate where
I am. Putting up my web site all that time ago was very useful in this
regard. I look forward to my exhibition providing a similarly useful
experience - as well as all the money that Alison expects me to make!
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
'Use Hume, the brain conditioner that will give your brain more body
bounce and lift, banishing the nasty wrinkles, snags and frayed ends
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Scarlett" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> (snip)
> : - What location is best? A gallery that charges a percentage, or a
> : rented space?
>
> Percentage, Peter. Rented spaces are called "Vanity Galleries" and can
> actually hurt your reputation, though maybe it is different in the UK.
>
pukka gallery also provides security and staff to watch and make sales.
>
> : - How should I fill the opening evening? Is it best to hire an agent
or
> : try to have an unusual angle?
>
> Are you wealthy? Have you found the space yet? What kind of space is
it,
> for example - is it a cooperative gallery, regular gallery or rental
space?
> With the exception of rental spaces the others usually take care of
the
> refreshments. Good musicians can add a nice touch though...
>
that, and I am not that good on the Kazoo. I have looked at a few
galleries and exhibitions [some of work that I certainly wouldn't rate
very highly, Alison may like it even less than mine!] and I am still at
the thinking stage. However, I know somebody at rather a good gallery
here who said that he would be quite keen to show my work. I haven't
discussed rates with him yet though.
>
> : - How much would it be sensible to spend?
>
> Rental? A zillion dollars, I guess. Otherwise, you may pay for mailing
and
> printing in a cooperative and a regular (50% commission) gallery will
> normally pay everything. Printing a brochure is a nice investment. If
you
> serve refreshment, buy the cheap wine that comes in a cardboard box
and some
> celery, carrots, etc and a cheap dip. Maybe a lunchmeat tray with some
> cheese and a bowl of punch.
>
in restaurants. They pay no rental and give a percentage in the 10-20%
range if anything sells.
>
> : - How many pictures should I show? I could have a small group of
around
> : 20 of my best, or go for a wider range of around 60-70.
>
> You don't want the cluttered old-fashioned "Salon" look of the 19th
century.
> How big is the space? How much tract lighting is there? You don't want
any
> works in the dark.
>
enjoy three or four paintings on a wall rather than tons. I suppose that
looking at well hung museum gallery should really have answered this one
for me!
>
> : - Is it best to stick to one medium? I have plenty of oils/acrylics
that
> : would work, but I also have quite a lot of pastel/pen&ink/pencil
> : drawings that are smaller, but might have an appeal.
>
> Have a dominant medium and then put in just a few of the other.
>
>
> : - Should I have a catalogue with photographs? I have seen some that
are
> : sold and very expensively produced, does this work, or is it best to
> : have a simple black and white descriptive list with prices?
>
> Both if you can afford it. But have a catalogue only if you've
produced a
> LOT of recent work. My advice, not more than 2 years old.
>
one or two pictures from before then. What is the issue with older
pictures?
>
> : - It will be expensive to frame all the paintings. However, I know
that
> : the right frame can really make [or even transform] a painting. Is
there
> : any point in having some unframed/unmounted pictures?
>
> If the works are very big it sometimes works to have grommets and have
them
> hang unstretched. I've seen art present various ways and the art
itself is
> the most important thing. A wonderful frame won't make a work that is
weak
> strong.
>
quite well, but I think that, where it works, a good frame does really
give a piece some lift.
>
> : - I was thinking of selling postcards of some of the pictures. Is
this
> : sensible?
>
> At the opening? If this is your first opening, I wouldn't advise it.
You
> are supposed to GIVE these away.
>
away badly printed black and white lists with numbers, names and prices.
>
> What sort of quantity is it sensible to make?
>
> How many people are you inviting or are you talking about selling
postcard
> images?
>
>
> : - How long should the exhibition last? A week or two seems enough,
but,
> : if there is a good opening night would a shorter three day run be
> : enough?
>
> It is usually up to the gallery. Are you paying for a rental space?
I've
> seen exhibitions range from 3 weeks to 1 & 1/2 months usually.
>
up to the gallery.
>
> : - What usually goes wrong?
>
> Lights burn out and your work can't be seen. Opening night will
coincide
> with a BIG art event and nobody can make it to your opening. Someone
looks
> like they will buy your work and instead of introducing yourself you
go
> *mental* and act like they have lice. You forget people's names. You
can't
> answer a question asked you about your work due to a blank mind (it's
> temporary). Once I showed in a brand new gallery - they paid
everything and
> even let me order the food. ONE PERSON came to the opening! It turned
out
> the space was new and great but built in the middle of a gang drive-by
war
> zone!
>
That must be the nightmare of everybody's first night.
Actually, on that theme, I had a friend who got the night of a party
wrong. She turned up all dressed up and ready a day late. It was
terrible, but she coped.
>
> This could be a GREAT thread: What can go wrong at an opening?
>
Maybe this is the thread! I certainly was looking forward to more of
this style of discussion than an amateur critic outing myself.
>
> : - What should I be thinking about that I haven't thought about so
far?
>
> Press release. Do you have a list of regular gallery-goers to invite?
>
> Good luck and remember, some day you will look back and wonder what
the big
> deal was about. It may turn out to be fun. Don't spend all your money
> because this should be your first step of many exhibitions.
>
Thank you. I certainly hope that it will be tremendous fun, and an
incentive to produce even more work. I think that the framing will be
the biggest cost and I have prepared for that. I have a fairly good
laser printer so I can use that for a catalogue. Maybe I will have a
collage of paintings printed in colour for the cover - that way it
should look quite good and be fairly reasonable.
RosaGena
a few of my pictures on my web site for a while, but this will be a
physical exhibition. I am interested to hear from people who have done this
before, any advice and any pitfalls would be very useful to have in advance.
In reference to your question about art shows, I wish to learn what people tell
you, too. I just got a county art grant which requires that I be in at least
three juried shows. Plus, I want to do some outdoor and indoor smaller shows.
I'm new to newsgroups, so maybe you could also give me a hint about how to best
learn from them.
Thanks,
Jeanne
http://artenlightens.com
Jaxart
>
>I am meaning to exhibit my art live in a few months time - I have had
>a few of my pictures on my web site for a while, but this will be a
>physical exhibition. I am interested to hear from people who have done
>this before, any advice and any pitfalls would be very useful to have
>in advance.
My advice to you is to save your money, unless you have
pocket books as large as your ego. Has anyone ever liked
a work of yours well enough to buy it? Have you ever been
asked to give a work to a friend who has then thought
enough of it to hang it in their living space?
That having been said, if you want to find out how good
or bad you are, set up an exhibit of your work somewhere
people will see it, don't let on you're the artist, and
sit back and watch and listen as they pass it by, or not,
as the case may be.
I began by showing my work at art fairs
where I set up my own booth space -- for a fee. Because my
subject matter was of interest, realist, AND CHEAP, I had
instant success both selling and critically. I was very LUCKY,
since I was totally self-taught at that time. But self-taught
by virtue of deliberate study of the how, what, why of art
while attempting to actually do it. Art Fairs were the way
I slowly built a local reputation, got in the newpapers, etc.
And I found galleries that would handle my work. The most
sales from a single gallery were an airport gallery space where I
sold paintings of local scenes that tourists responded to.
Keeping prices within reach of the average person was also
important. I keep mine in line with other works in the galleries
I have associated myself with.
It's not going to happen overnight, and spending money to
promote yourself in solo exhibitions is a great waste when
you have no art following or exhibition experience to begin with.
--
============================================================
For a unique art experience visit:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/index.html
============================================================
Sharon Barcone
that currently unknown artists have a better chance of getting into smaller
galleries. Your work should fit in with the gallery's trends in art and
price for paintings of like size and ability. But most important is not to
get disappointed and don't be afraid to try other venues. Local art and
craft fairs are also good for getting started. Sometimes restaurants and
hospitals accept artwork for hanging for sale . Another good start is with a
local art society or art clubs, these organizations often have members
shows. Winning in a competition can open gallery doors.
In the US there are several magazines that list art shows and competitions
both national and international including "Sunshine Artists" which is an
entire magazine devoted to show listings, some of the better shows are
listed in "The Artists Magazine" and "American Artist".
Another important factor is to present yourself in a professional manner.
Business cards, a bio sheet and an artist's statement will help to instill
some confidence from a potential gallery agent and a potential customer.
One further point to consider is that local organizations and art fairs will
give you an excellent opportunity to network with other artists in your area
who can provide excellent tips and info on what's happening where.
Sharon
Peter H.M. Brooks
do...@emailme.com (Jaxart) wrote:
> In article <8babpo$j4d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk
says...
> >
> >I am meaning to exhibit my art live in a few months time - I have had
> >a few of my pictures on my web site for a while, but this will be a
> >physical exhibition. I am interested to hear from people who have
done
> >this before, any advice and any pitfalls would be very useful to have
> >in advance.
>
> My advice to you is to save your money, unless you have
> pocket books as large as your ego. Has anyone ever liked
> a work of yours well enough to buy it? Have you ever been
> asked to give a work to a friend who has then thought
> enough of it to hang it in their living space?
>
ask.
>
> That having been said, if you want to find out how good
> or bad you are, set up an exhibit of your work somewhere
> people will see it, don't let on you're the artist, and
> sit back and watch and listen as they pass it by, or not,
> as the case may be.
>
not having one. I do agree, however, that having one is a good test of
what people think - though that may have a large or little effect on
what one does later.
>
> I began by showing my work at art fairs
> where I set up my own booth space -- for a fee. Because my
> subject matter was of interest, realist, AND CHEAP, I had
> instant success both selling and critically. I was very LUCKY,
> since I was totally self-taught at that time. But self-taught
> by virtue of deliberate study of the how, what, why of art
> while attempting to actually do it. Art Fairs were the way
> I slowly built a local reputation, got in the newpapers, etc.
> And I found galleries that would handle my work. The most
> sales from a single gallery were an airport gallery space where I
> sold paintings of local scenes that tourists responded to.
> Keeping prices within reach of the average person was also
> important. I keep mine in line with other works in the galleries
> I have associated myself with.
>
>
> It's not going to happen overnight, and spending money to
> promote yourself in solo exhibitions is a great waste when
> you have no art following or exhibition experience to begin with.
>
anything if they need 'exhibition experience' to do so? How can anybody
have a 'following' if nobody has seen their art?
Peter H.M. Brooks
rosa...@aol.com (RosaGena) wrote:
> I am meaning to exhibit my art live in a few months time - I have had
> a few of my pictures on my web site for a while, but this will be a
> physical exhibition. I am interested to hear from people who have done
this
> before, any advice and any pitfalls would be very useful to have in
advance.
> In reference to your question about art shows, I wish to learn what
people tell
> you, too. I just got a county art grant which requires that I be in at
least
> three juried shows. Plus, I want to do some outdoor and indoor smaller
shows.
>
too.
>
> I'm new to newsgroups, so maybe you could also give me a hint about
how to best
> learn from them.
>
lot. The more topics, questions, points of view etc. that you bring up,
the more interesting responses you get. I have enjoyed usenet for many
years now and always find surprising responses to questions.
I may be missing something, but I don't see any of your picures when I
look up your URL.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Sharon Barcone" <Sharon...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> You haven't said if you have a gallery to take your work but keep in
mind
> that currently unknown artists have a better chance of getting into
smaller
> galleries. Your work should fit in with the gallery's trends in art
and
> price for paintings of like size and ability. But most important is
not to
> get disappointed and don't be afraid to try other venues. Local art
and
> craft fairs are also good for getting started. Sometimes restaurants
and
> hospitals accept artwork for hanging for sale . Another good start is
with a
> local art society or art clubs, these organizations often have members
> shows. Winning in a competition can open gallery doors.
>
where people make money from the entry fees and they award prizes to
friends, well known artists or nobody. It is important only to enter a
reputable competition - not an expensive one.
A local art club or society is a very good idea. I enjoyed seeing an
exhibition of the Clifton Art club in Bristol, it was very variable work
and I liked one or two of the pieces, pretty well all of it was very
conventional stuff. I was also interested to look at the Frenchay Art
society pictures, again, mostly the sort of stuff you would expect to
see at that sort of place.
I think you make a good point about fitting in with the sort of thing
people expect to see at a gallery. There is no point trying to show huge
abstracts at a place that usually shows delicate watercolour flower
paintings.
>
> Another important factor is to present yourself in a professional
manner.
> Business cards, a bio sheet and an artist's statement will help to
instill
> some confidence from a potential gallery agent and a potential
customer.
>
I agree that this does give a good image - in any area, not just in
setting up an art exhibition. I am thinking of a proper catalogue,
albeit in black and white, along with the above. I have noticed that,
even in public museum type galleries [the Louvre, or the Tate or the
Prado, or even the van Gogh museum] that people like to have something
to tell them what they are supposed to be looking at. I personally
prefer to read up about paintings afterwards then, maybe, look at them
again, but to let the initial effect of the painting be uncluttered with
other opinions, even the artists. This does seem to be something of a
minority view, however. I also know that, with well known artists and
paintings it is almost impossible to come across them fresh.
>
> One further point to consider is that local organizations and art
fairs will
> give you an excellent opportunity to network with other artists in
your area
> who can provide excellent tips and info on what's happening where.
>
The internet, in discussions such as this one, ought also to be a good
place to 'network' - not to labour the pun too much!!
Alison A Raimes
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>If you understood these terms, then you ought to be able to understand
>why they apply to certain of the pictures. They are not 'claims', simply
>helpful descriptions.
Please - enlighten me more. How do these *terms* apply ? Clearly we have
very different ideas about the use of such words in describing art. If
you tell a viewer that a painting is *impressionist* or *expressionist*,
is that not a *claim* ? Once a label is attached to a work it
presupposes its reception. You might want to consider such things when
preparing exhibition proposals. Gallery owners are generally well
informed in the field they represent. Its always important to be more
informed in your own profession than they are - never let a gallery
owner have the upper hand.
>I think you are mistaking the production of art and the criticism of
>art. The book by Briony Fay is actually about the criticism of abstract
>art and is an academic book - you won't find any 'how to paint abstract
>pictures' stuff in it!
Good to hear. Who is she and how does she approach the subject of
Abstract Art ?
>Understanding abstract art in general is quite
>different from understanding your own work - I would have hoped that
>anybody could have seen that, but clearly I was wrong.
It depends if you are just dabbling. If so, then yes, you are right
because all you are doing is just making images. Those who are focused
on one form of art over another generally have studied their subject and
will understand why and what they are painting. That's the difference
between being an image maker and an artist.
Jaxart
>This sounds like the famous catch-22! How can anybody ever exhibit
>anything if they need 'exhibition experience' to do so? How can anybody
>have a 'following' if nobody has seen their art?
Not at all. I'm specifically addressing your notion that you
should spend money on an exhibition. I'd put the horse in
front of the cart, start out slowly by exhibiting in Art Fairs
or wherever you can find exposure in public WITHOUT spending
a lot of money. Get into a gallery if you can. It's the
idea of spending a lot of money for an initial exhibit that
I am warning against. That's all...
You can read a just published today article about me and
my work at: http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/bio/vamonos/vamonos.html
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> >If you understood these terms, then you ought to be able to
understand
> >why they apply to certain of the pictures. They are not 'claims',
simply
> >helpful descriptions.
>
have
> very different ideas about the use of such words in describing art. If
> you tell a viewer that a painting is *impressionist* or
*expressionist*,
> is that not a *claim* ?
>
of picture you are going to see. If one said 'super-realist',
'photographic', 'surrealist' these would be alternative descriptive
words that would describe different pictures. Saying that it is a
'claim' suggests that there is something important or valuable in a
painting being impressionist in style, as if saying that a painting is
floral or a still life is somehow an important claim.
Maybe you should explain your feelings about these words more clearly to
illustrate what your problem with them is.
>
> Once a label is attached to a work it
> presupposes its reception. You might want to consider such things when
> preparing exhibition proposals. Gallery owners are generally well
> informed in the field they represent. Its always important to be more
> informed in your own profession than they are - never let a gallery
> owner have the upper hand.
>
That makes sense. I think that you are confusing the importance of being
an artist with that of being an art critic or art historian though.
>
> >I think you are mistaking the production of art and the criticism of
> >art. The book by Briony Fay is actually about the criticism of
abstract
> >art and is an academic book - you won't find any 'how to paint
abstract
> >pictures' stuff in it!
>
> Good to hear. Who is she and how does she approach the subject of
> Abstract Art ?
>
That was my question! Look the book up on amazon.com and you will see a
brief summary. I was hoping to find somebody who had read the book who
could say more - your previous comments led me to believe that you had
read the book, but now it seems not.
>
> >Understanding abstract art in general is quite
> >different from understanding your own work - I would have hoped that
> >anybody could have seen that, but clearly I was wrong.
>
> It depends if you are just dabbling. If so, then yes, you are right
> because all you are doing is just making images. Those who are focused
> on one form of art over another generally have studied their subject
and
> will understand why and what they are painting. That's the difference
> between being an image maker and an artist.
>
Nice try, but no cigar. I think that some people certainly are very
self-conscious about where they fit into art history etc., other people
are more interested in producing art. If you wish to call the former
artists and the latter image makers I have no particular problem with
it, but I don't think that you are correct.