In defence of Sofa Art
Lauri Levanto
Motto: "Theatre is life,
Cinema is art,
TV is furniture"
One time Gallup research tried to classify socio-economic
status on a scale where points were given on some
household items like
- do you have handpainted pictures on the wall
- do you have carpets on the floor
- do you have more than 3´ books in the living room.
This refers to a common opinion that having art was bourgeus
and improper for the leftist intelligentsia of the 60's.
A bit simplified, the art world had two ways out;
- proletarian posters ala Warhol & Lichtenstein, or
- museum art (for collective use).
The poster markets - with or without art - reveal
a need for interior design products. I think that a home
should be a place where you can be comfortable
with your own thoughts. Everyone collects CD's they like
to hear, buy books they want to read.
What is wrong with the pictures they want to look?
I don't mind if it is a poster of Che Guevara,
South Park or Vincent's Sunflowers.
As well a handpainted stilleben,landscape or
quasiabstract.
Even kitch is kitch only in a wrong context.
The museums are no longer collections of good art.
Many of modern works are made for museums,
to be experienced in cultural temples, to be
*part of* that experience industry.
Like in Hollywood, both the artists and the
producers benefit of the star cult.
Like in Hollywood the artists and
producers alike serve the system.
* * *
Many artists abhor sofa art. They are blinded
by the myth of self expression.
Is 'real art' self-expression? Many great artists
were or are not nice persons. Better not to express that.
The less great artists
can't distinguish ego-expression from self-expression.
The great art sure has expressive power, but I think that
van Gogh, Rembrandt, Bosch, deKoonig are recognized
because they expess something universal as opposite
to a particular self.
Some artist go so far they rather starve in wait of
recognition than do *artistic work* that is
produce artworks for customers.
* * *
Look at the Last Supper of Leonardo. It was sofa art
in the strictest sense. Maybe the colours were not
selected to match the sofa, but the theme, size
and composition were chosen to fit in a particular
interior, the back wall of a certain dining room.
Did this make it less art?
Inspite of the restrictions, it was made well.
That's the point.
If you - as a real artist - were asked to
decorate a dining room, would you not feel
obliged to do that well?
- lauri
Marilyn
I filled out a culture survey once for the family. I put down that my
husband visited the library once a week. There was no room to explain
that he picked me up there after picking up his beer to drink while he
watched The Game.
Marilyn
lake
painting doesn't belong in a vault or a closet.
- 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!
Scarlett
"Lauri Levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
news:398BF32E...@nokia.com...
: On defence of Sofa art
:
: Motto: "Theatre is life,
: Cinema is art,
: TV is furniture"
Who wrote the above Lauri? Why do I think it was *not* a visual
artist???
(snip)
:
: * * *
: Many artists abhor sofa art. They are blinded
: by the myth of self expression.
: Is 'real art' self-expression? Many great artists
: were or are not nice persons. Better not to express that.
But, being a nice person and expressing yourself can bring
horrific imagery. And the reverse can be true as well. I don't
think the *decency* of the artist is important but instead, the
ability or desire to convey a certain vision which will be of
interest to others. Take Hollywood for instance; they don't have
the most *moral* reputations BUT can create a vision that will
enthrall the rest of us (moral ones!).
Sofa art? Sorry, I don't believe sofa art is even art. Not at
all. Nope.
I remember my mother had a yucky avacado green refridgerator and
stove when that color was all the decorative color rage.
ICKY!!!!!! But, our neighbors who couldn't shell out the money
for that pukey color really envied her. So sofa art will contain
avacado green (if it happens to be in style) or mauve or
something appropriate to match the furnishings. How can this
possibly be art? Then isn't wallpaper an even higher art form???
Also, when the mauve or avacado green (etc.) furnishings are out
of style next year and let's say - pumpkin orange - becomes the
style and the people who can afford it run out and furnish their
homes in pumpkin orange and commission a painting to have strong
pumpkin orange elements in it, do you not realize that the former
avacado green, mauve or whatever will be donated to the Salvation
Army, to a loser relative or in the trash?
Then art can never be on a higher level than a place one parks
their ass...
(snip)
: Some artist go so far they rather starve in wait of
: recognition than do *artistic work* that is
: produce artworks for customers.
And I admire those artists! I'd rather sling hash, scrub toilets
or mooch off my family than ever even consider making sofa art.
BUT, making sofa art would be a lot easier, make more money and
cause less stress and/or heartache than art from within. Frankly,
why even categorize sofa art? Why not just manufacure some
paint-by-numbers sofa art kits and then the person can brag "Yes,
I did it all by myself" or even better - "I'm an artist too!"
: * * *
:
: If you - as a real artist - were asked to
: decorate a dining room, would you not feel
: obliged to do that well?
Nope! I wouldn't do it in the first place. In the second place,
people who care that much about *decorating* usually aren't close
friends and I find them shallow and quite boring.
This is not a flame, Lauri. I just strongly disagree with almost
every point you've made here.
--
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his
head once
and for all." (from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
:
: - lauri
Lauri Levanto
>
> Surveys can be so manipulated to give desired results.
Sure I know that. I worked 20 yrs in that business.
About the only reliable result I produced
when I had to interview Dogs about a new dogfood.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
>
> "Lauri Levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
> news:398BF32E...@nokia.com...
> : On defence of Sofa art
> :
> : Motto: "Theatre is life,
> : Cinema is art,
> : TV is furniture"
>
> Who wrote the above Lauri? Why do I think it was *not* a visual
> artist???
It was in Net, I've lost the source.
You believe visual artists take TV as art
(é
: {)
(é
-lauri
> :
> : * * *
> : Many artists abhor sofa art. They are blinded
> : by the myth of self expression.
> : Is 'real art' self-expression? Many great artists
> : were or are not nice persons. Better not to express that.
>
> But, being a nice person and expressing yourself can bring
> horrific imagery. And the reverse can be true as well. I don't
> think the *decency* of the artist is important but instead,
THE ABILITY OR DESIRE TO CONVEY A CERTAIN VISION (bold by lauri)
> ability or desire to convey a certain vision which will be of
> interest to others. Take Hollywood for instance; they don't have
> the most *moral* reputations BUT can create a vision that will
> enthrall the rest of us (moral ones!).
I mostly agree, but what the bold printed has to do
with self expression. The great Hollywood artists express roles, I
presume.
> (snip,snip)
>
> : Some artist go so far they rather starve in wait of
> : recognition than do *artistic work* that is
> : produce artworks for customers.
> And I admire those artists! I'd rather sling hash, scrub toilets
> or mooch off my family than ever even consider making sofa art.
Remembering an older thread, doesn't that make you an amateur ;-?
> BUT, making sofa art would be a lot easier, make more money and
> cause less stress and/or heartache than art from within. Frankly,
> why even categorize sofa art? Why not just manufacure some
> paint-by-numbers sofa art kits and then the person can brag "Yes,
> I did it all by myself" or even better - "I'm an artist too!"
>
> : * * *
> :
> : If you - as a real artist - were asked to
> : decorate a dining room, would you not feel
> : obliged to do that well?
> Nope! I wouldn't do it in the first place.
Do you really turn down all commissions?
> In the second place,
> people who care that much about *decorating* usually aren't close
> friends and I find them shallow and quite boring.
Well then, if you were asked to *decorate* a room in Tate Modern?
(The english term home decoration is awkward,
Scandinavian languages speak of interior architecture)
> This is not a flame, Lauri. I just strongly disagree with almost
> every point you've made here.
It didn't sound like one. You select quite a different style
when flaming me ;-)
Scarlett
: > : Some artist go so far they rather starve in wait of
: > : recognition than do *artistic work* that is
: > : produce artworks for customers.
:
:
: > And I admire those artists! I'd rather sling hash, scrub
toilets
: > or mooch off my family than ever even consider making sofa
art.
:
: Remembering an older thread, doesn't that make you an amateur
;-?
I'm not an amateur by any means. I don't remember the older
thread.
Besides, what is *your* definition of an amateur?
(snippety-doo-dah)
:
:
: > Nope! I wouldn't do it in the first place.
: Do you really turn down all commissions?
Yes. It broke my heart, but I turned down "Pokeman" recently. I'm
not
a portrait artist so I'm not tempted much. However, I do live in
the
Southwest and I could make a bundle with some easily-painted
Southwest landscapes, Indian Maidens at the river with a jug for
water, etc... By not doing those quickly-selling and popular
genres,
I am, in fact, turning down the equivalent of a commissioned
work.
Barns would sell quite nicely as well...
: > In the second place,
: > people who care that much about *decorating* usually aren't
close
: > friends and I find them shallow and quite boring.
:
: Well then, if you were asked to *decorate* a room in Tate
Modern?
They would hire a decorator, not an artist. There is a big
distinction.
Yes. I would turn it down. But, I would *exhibit* there!
: (The english term home decoration is awkward,
: Scandinavian languages speak of interior architecture)
Who paints the walls? chooses the wallpaper and light fixtures?
That is what I am referring to as a decorator and most schools
have
degrees for this sort of thing.
: > This is not a flame, Lauri. I just strongly disagree with
almost
: > every point you've made here.
: It didn't sound like one. You select quite a different style
: when flaming me ;-)
You've got that *&#@!%$#*# RIGHT!
: > Scarlett
Scarlett
Lauri Levanto
but we do misunderstand each other.
You define sofa-art as synonym to crap.
My denotation was to decent art in private ownership.
So I can see much crap as sofa art -like those Indian girl withwater
jug.
I also think that if you take even that subject seriously
- so it means something to you -
and work seriously with it
you may turn out a piece of art.
Someone here told she as a professional artist
has two production lines:
- her true art
- crap, preferably unsigned that she makes for sales
That crap is crap be it as abstract or expressionistic as ever.
I have finished my first version of a garden gnome.
Far from perfect, far from crap. Hope I get the picture
on my web page soon.
If I get and order for a portrait, I turn it down.
Not because I abhorror commissions, but I feel not
competent in that field.
On the other hand, I could do a lanscape
of someone's favourite view. Seriously.
And sell it to him/her if it satisfies me.
BTW you skipped over my provocation that Leonardo's LAst supper
was sofa art.
- lauri
Scarlett wrote:
<...>
> : (The english term home decoration is awkward,
> : Scandinavian languages speak of interior architecture)
>
> Who paints the walls? chooses the wallpaper and light fixtures?
> That is what I am referring to as a decorator and most schools
> have
> degrees for this sort of thing.
I uhderstand that. And I believe people who care so little
that they let a decorator in their house has no interest
to that kind of work I make.
Chris
Just to throw my 2 cents in, I'd say that you are right; and then take
the argument a little further. Great art by nature transcends its
origins.
Personally I'd find it hard to credit anyone who would broadly dismiss
art on the basis of it's origins. Historically it really just hasn't
mattered if those origins were as sofa/decorative art, or
propaganda/educational art or art in praise of the patron (such as
portraiture) or art that was purely self expression (such as Pollock's).
As an amusing aside, Schama points out in his book on Rembrandt that a
major impetus behind the huge volume of Dutch art of the time was that
paintings were very useful for covering the damaged and mildewed walls,
caused by constant damp. Similarly look at the origins of the great
tapestries.
It is also not unusual for great art to be influenced by the fads and
fancies of the day. If you track a consistent theme through history -
say, like portraiture, or the crucifixion, you'll find aspects that come
into popularity for awhile, and then disappear - such as the arrangement
of figures, or the drawing style, the colour choices, or the symbols (or
lack of them) included in the work. But why not? Artists are generally
influenced by their times, no differently than their non-artist peers.
Regards,
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com
bruceattah
Apart from altar pieces and monumental works, nearly all of the
art in our museums was somebody's "sofa art" once.
This is less true of post-WWII art, but I see this as a problem.
If an artist is only able to sell to public institutions, and
cannot sell to private individuals spending their own money, I
think that artist is a failure.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Scarlett
: Maybe it was the language barrier again,
: but we do misunderstand each other.
:
: You define sofa-art as synonym to crap.
You interpret it that way Lauri, however I would define *crap* as
Elvis on Velvet and *sofa-art* as abstracted shapes matching
drapes or sofa or carpet (usually all) which I put a bit above
*crap*.
: My denotation was to decent art in private ownership.
: So I can see much crap as sofa art -like those Indian girl
withwater
: jug.
: I also think that if you take even that subject seriously
: - so it means something to you -
: and work seriously with it
: you may turn out a piece of art.
Is this a flame Lauri? If it is, please be more specific so I can
respond ;-)
: Someone here told she as a professional artist
: has two production lines:
: - her true art
: - crap, preferably unsigned that she makes for sales
And? Lots do that. I can't. Is there an element of snobbery
involved? An attitude of *selling out*? Probably. That's how I
feel. We don't all think alike do we?
: That crap is crap be it as abstract or expressionistic as ever.
How so?
: I have finished my first version of a garden gnome.
: Far from perfect, far from crap. Hope I get the picture
: on my web page soon.
I remember you saying you were going to make a garden gnome. So
are you putting this into a *crap* or *sofa art* category? Do you
want it to be *fine art*? Who is your intended audience? Do you
want it to be mass-produced? Do you want it to be available to
galleries and museums only? A bit part of it is the artist's
*intent*.
: BTW you skipped over my provocation that Leonardo's LAst supper
: was sofa art.
:
I intentionally skipped it because it is an invalid arguement.
Sofa Art is affordable. Sofa Art is not *divine*, *profound* or a
*masterpiece*. DaVinci's work was not intended for the common
person to decorate their home with. Most people of this time
would never even have occasion to see masterpieces, maybe not
even an original artwork. They didn't have Daniel Smiths (art
supply store) and everyone's aunt, uncle, cousin and/or neighbor
likely didn't claim to be an artist or to have access to art
materials to discover if they were. No "How to..." art books, no
painting shows, no art taught in the schools - a different class
of people were educated and for women, needlepoint would likely
be the closest encounter to art they would achieve (which, of
course was not recognized as art). How can we even consider this
as a type of *sofa art*????
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
: - lauri
Scarlett
"bruceattah" <battahN...@datametrics.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:00a1f068...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
: Sofa art can be pretty good.
I agree. So can a newly vacuumed carpet which shows the vacuum
track marks!
: Apart from altar pieces and monumental works, nearly all of the
: art in our museums was somebody's "sofa art" once.
Such as???
:
: This is less true of post-WWII art, but I see this as a
problem.
Why is it a problem? You can still get sofa art for a very
affordable price.
: If an artist is only able to sell to public institutions, and
: cannot sell to private individuals spending their own money, I
: think that artist is a failure.
Here is some shocking news: most artists who sell to public
institutions (you are speaking of museums, correct?) must first
have sold to MANY private individuals. Different collectors have
various tastes in art and this is reflected in the price they
pay. I doubt that you would define *sofa art* as anything above 5
figures?
Lauri Levanto
>
> "Lauri Levanto"
>
> You interpret it that way Lauri, however I would define *crap* as
> Elvis on Velvet and *sofa-art* as abstracted shapes matching
> drapes or sofa or carpet (usually all) which I put a bit above
> *crap*.
> : BTW you skipped over my provocation that Leonardo's LAst supper
> : was sofa art.
> :
> I intentionally skipped it because it is an invalid arguement.
> Sofa Art is affordable. Sofa Art is not *divine*, *profound* or a
> *masterpiece*. DaVinci's work was not intended for the common
> person to decorate their home with.
That's right, it was intended for the rich church
to decorate their dining room with.
You really think, it is only money that sanctifies art?
> : My denotation was to decent art in private ownership.
> : So I can see much crap as sofa art -like those Indian girl
> withwater
> : jug.
> : I also think that if you take even that subject seriously
> : - so it means something to you -
> : and work seriously with it
> : you may turn out a piece of art.
>
> Is this a flame Lauri? If it is, please be more specific so I can
> respond ;-)
A difficult question? In art schools it is common
to get a pre-defined task and you have to do your best out of it.
That does not make it crap or sofa art *by definition*.
It is serious artistic work.
I believe an artist can continue that kind of serious work
after the school, too. In sculpture commissions are common.
It is a fools risk to cast monumental bronzes
jus for kicks.
Now I'm ready to answer the flame question.
( I remember you milk jug -that was another story along the same lines)
If you decide to paint an indian girl or western landscape,
ant take the task as seriously as you did at art school.
You may find that the commitment does not infringe your
artistic freedom. If you study the task, I bet you find
much personal to say, real art to make. Just loke Leonardo did.
Just remember, don't comromise.
Why leave that segment of art markets to crap factories?
> : That crap is crap be it as abstract or expressionistic as ever.
>
> How so?
If it made in purpose to fool the commons, or the bourgeuse,
I call it dishonest.
* * *
>
> : I have finished my first version of a garden gnome.
> : Far from perfect, far from crap. Hope I get the picture
> : on my web page soon.
>
> I remember you saying you were going to make a garden gnome. So
> are you putting this into a *crap* or *sofa art* category? Do you
> want it to be *fine art*? Who is your intended audience? Do you
> want it to be mass-produced? Do you want it to be available to
> galleries and museums only? A bit part of it is the artist's
> *intent*.
>
Thanks for the interest. First of all my GardenGnome was
an artistic question. If people want garden 'decoration'
why should we force them to restrict themselves
crap industry. In alt.sculpture someone asked are we
not oblidged to give an *alternative* to pink plastic flamingoes.
A good question.
Secondly, my sister's summerhouse with all those petty pretty
things deserved a garden gnome. She didn't ask for it.
I just could not force me to be so cruel to buy her one
of those awful Disneylike monsters.
Thirdly it was me a challenge to do it.
It was an unique piece, i would not sell it under 1K.
If I have to classify it, how is exterior decoration?
The same category as Statue of Liberty, Facade of Guggenheim etc.
They didn't have Daniel Smiths (art
> supply store) and everyone's aunt, uncle, cousin and/or neighbor
> likely didn't claim to be an artist or to have access to art
> materials to discover if they were. No "How to..." art books, no
> painting shows, no art taught in the schools - a different class
> of people were educated and for women, needlepoint would likely
> be the closest encounter to art they would achieve (which, of
> course was not recognized as art). How can we even consider this
> as a type of *sofa art*????
This is the secon part to answer. Leonardo lived in a time when
artist were craftsmen, he strived for a status in art world, among
poets
and musicians already accepted. So he did his best on commissions.
At that time nobody could dream of 'artistic freedom',
the artist got paid only for a *work* done.
That was worse than current commercialism.
You have right, Scarlet, that common people had hardly any
acces to art on those days. Today it is too easy.
The howto books makes it as easy as needlework was
at Leonardo's time. We do have three categories with
obscure boundaries: Artworks, hobby and Kitch.
When contemporary art is conquering new territories,
why should it let kitch erode the markets from behind?
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
>
> "bruceattah" <battahN...@datametrics.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> message news:00a1f068...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
> : Sofa art can be pretty good.
>
> I agree. So can a newly vacuumed carpet which shows the vacuum
> track marks!
>
> : Apart from altar pieces and monumental works, nearly all of the
> : art in our museums was somebody's "sofa art" once.
>
> Such as???
How do you think the US museums bought the classical works?
Directly from Rembrandt's studio? Nope, from auctions,
when private owners were desperate for cash.
> : This is less true of post-WWII art, but I see this as a
> problem.
>
> Why is it a problem? You can still get sofa art for a very
> affordable price.
If the art has lost respect to the individuals in the audience
and speaks only to each other or critics, I see it as a problem.
We do need insider discussion, too, I say.
>
> : If an artist is only able to sell to public institutions, and
> : cannot sell to private individuals spending their own money, I
> : think that artist is a failure.
>
> Here is some shocking news: most artists who sell to public
> institutions (you are speaking of museums, correct?) must first
> have sold to MANY private individuals. Different collectors have
> various tastes in art and this is reflected in the price they
> pay. I doubt that you would define *sofa art* as anything above 5
> figures?
There YOU challenge the borderline to sofa art. Only the word
"Collectors" scare me. I rather sell to a living person
who happens to like my work than to a collector who
smells only money in it. Painting for collectors
is more close to calculating prostitution that Elvis on velvet.
( That was a flame, if you noticed :-)
- lauri
bruceattah
>
>"bruceattah" <battahN...@datametrics.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>message news:00a1f068...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
>
>: the art in our museums was somebody's "sofa art" once.
>
>Such as???
Such as nearly everything. Before the 18th Century, there were
no public museums at all (the oldest museum in the world still
operating is the British Museum, which was established in the
1750s). So, apart from art for churches and monuments, all easel
painting, all small sculpture and much graphic art from the
beginning of the Renaissance up until the 1700s was sofa art.
After that, the majority of landscapes, portraits, animal
paintings, genre pictures and still-lifes were still intended
for the decoration of private spaces, as were all engravings
(except those in books). Mythological illustrations, classical
allegories, smaller religious pieces and nudes also tended to
serve this purpose. The only types of art that were likely to go
directly into public spaces were stately portraits, history
paintings, monuments and religious commissions for churches.
Museums only began to play a big role in art from the time of
Napoleon onward. Even then it was not new art mostly, but stuff
that had been looted in wars (from private collections), dug up
from the ground, or seized or bought from private owners. Later,
donations began to play a part, usually as part of a bequest.
The phenomenon of a public museum acquiring art directly from
artists or their agents was rare until recently.
So, like I said, nearly everything you see in art museums today
was somebody's sofa art once: the allegories of love and the
nudes probably hung in the bedroom, the still-lifes in the
dining room, hunting scenes in the drawing room, and portraits
in the hall.
Some people's houses are still like that, today.
>:
>: This is less true of post-WWII art, but I see this as a
>problem.
>
>Why is it a problem?
Because the artists are often fulfilling politically or
intellectually-devised requirements, but not aesthetic ones.
>You can still get sofa art for a very affordable price.
But the very best sofa art is often expensive, which is one
reason to be grateful for museums.
>: If an artist is only able to sell to public institutions, and
>: cannot sell to private individuals spending their own money, I
>: think that artist is a failure.
>
>Here is some shocking news: most artists who sell to public
>institutions (you are speaking of museums, correct?) must first
>have sold to MANY private individuals. Different collectors have
>various tastes in art and this is reflected in the price they
>pay.
I don't know about most, but there are plenty of artists around
who live entirely off the state, or charity. In between
university teaching jobs and state-funded residencies, they
spend their time applying for grants, awards and public
commissions. Yes, they may sell some work to private collectors,
but the collectors who buy certain kinds of work often never
keep the work in their own homes. Instead, it goes either on
loan to a museum, or to a gallery owned by the collector, or to
a warehouse, where it stays until it has accumulated sufficient
value to be sold on. This type of "collector" is a relatively
new phenomenon, and what makes them different from dealers or
speculators is a bit of a mystery to me.
>I doubt that you would define *sofa art* as anything above 5
>figures?
I guess it depends on where you buy your sofas, but if your sofa
cost $50,000 and the side tables $20,000, then you might not
balk at paying $100,000 for a painting to accompany them.
Anyway, what's price got to do with it? You can find great art
(I mean real masterpieces) for under $10,000. You just have to
look for stuff that's not well known.
Marilyn Welch
the 18th century, therefore you are using a 20th century term to
describe what you imagine to be households of the 18th century.
Marilyn
Scarlett
: That's right, it was intended for the rich church
: to decorate their dining room with.
: You really think, it is only money that sanctifies art?
You tell me who promoted the divine art of that time? Who had the
money to commission it? Who could support the artists?
P_L_E_A_S_E!!!!!!!!
:
: Now I'm ready to answer the flame question.
: ( I remember you milk jug -that was another story along the
same lines)
Really Lauri? Do you think for a moment that I would consider
what I painted for my overbearing daughter as "fine art"???
Didn't I make fun of it? Even you made fun of your garden gnomes
before you started the task.
: If you decide to paint an indian girl or western landscape,
: ant take the task as seriously as you did at art school.
: You may find that the commitment does not infringe your
: artistic freedom. If you study the task, I bet you find
: much personal to say, real art to make. Just loke Leonardo did.
To compare them to Leonardo is stretching it quite a bit don't
you think? I stated that those who want to do that should indeed
do it. It will sell and it is not fine art. It definitely has a
market and has a place in the *artworld* but it is a very
different artworld and is not on the same playing field as
others.
: Just remember, don't comromise.
I'm married. What bigger compromise could there be?
: Why leave that segment of art markets to crap factories?
:
Don't even get me started!!!!!!!!! Those elvis on velvets are
done in Mexico, the Phillipines and other sweatshop locations and
one person will do an eyebrow, another a shoe, etc. Assembly line
production for pennies a day. Enjoy!
: > : That crap is crap be it as abstract or expressionistic as
ever.
: >
: > How so?
:
: If it made in purpose to fool the commons, or the bourgeuse,
: I call it dishonest.
And do you think that Shakespeare or Homer is dishonest? Do you
think the commons read them? Do you think the commons even like
Ibsen? An analogy to fine literature would be the *sofa art* of
writing: "Harlequin Romances" - they are very popular with the
common people but do you think they are in the same category???
Lauri Levanto
It looks like we asssign so different meanings
to words that discussing much further is pointless.
Scarlett wrote:
>
> Lauri wrote:
> : That's right, it was intended for the rich church
> : to decorate their dining room with.
> : You really think, it is only money that sanctifies art?
>
> You tell me who promoted the divine art of that time? Who had the
> money to commission it? Who could support the artists?
> P_L_E_A_S_E!!!!!!!!
>
It is a common knowledge we both share that renaissance artists
were supported by commissioners. What you state is that
a wealthy commissioner, like the church, deserves
honest, serious artwork while the masses don,t.
Were not most Leonardo's works commissioned by Lorenzo di Medici.
(Just now I have no access to reference books)
Let's assume some petty wealthy shopkeeper wanted
a portrait of him. At that time His prices were affordable to
middle class. That's why he painted Mona Lisa.
<...>
> : If you decide to paint an indian girl or western landscape,
> : ant take the task as seriously as you did at art school.
> : You may find that the commitment does not infringe your
> : artistic freedom. If you study the task, I bet you find
> : much personal to say, real art to make. Just loke Leonardo did.
>
> To compare them to Leonardo is stretching it quite a bit don't
> you think? Sorry Scarlett, it was not at all my intention
to over-estmate your arts value :-)
I stated that those who want to do that should indeed
> do it. It will sell and it is not fine art. It definitely has a
> market and has a place in the *artworld* but it is a very
> different artworld and is not on the same playing field as
> others.
The last time, I have not asked you to do intentionally
inferior work. It is not what I -or Bruce- understand
with *Good Sofa Art*. Affordable, but may be of moderate
size pieces of serious good art. Could you think
being qualified to do that?
> : Why leave that segment of art markets to crap factories?
> :
> Don't even get me started!!!!!!!!! Those elvis on velvets are
> done in Mexico, the Phillipines and other sweatshop locations and
> one person will do an eyebrow, another a shoe, etc. Assembly line
> production for pennies a day. Enjoy!
Reread my sentence abowe. I am well aware how crap factories
work.
And I still believe most of people deserve something better,
that is good sofa art. Do they now have much of aa choice?
> : If it made in purpose to fool the commons, or the bourgeuse,
> : I call it dishonest.
>
> And do you think that Shakespeare or Homer is dishonest? Do you
> think the commons read them? Do you think the commons even like
> Ibsen? An analogy to fine literature would be the *sofa art* of
> writing: "Harlequin Romances" - they are very popular with the
> common people but do you think they are in the same category???
Between the symhonies Sibelius wrote small piano pieces
he called 'sandwiches' as they provided bread and butter
to the family. Some of those are little gems. That I can compare
with good sofa art.
Now you got the point. Shakespeare was writing and playing
to the common. He did it seriously and well. That is the
litterature equivalent to good sofa art. I have no idea how much
Homer charged for Illiad. You must ask Erik.
I agree that the Harlequins are crap industry like those
Elvis'es. Both have only a mustard seed of art. They are made
for collecting money - like the paintings addressed to collectors.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
>
> Apologies to Lauri for AGAIN accidentally sending this post to
> him directly!!!!
No offence, sometimes it is me easier to read emails.
That I am obligdeg to do in office time :-)
* * *
> : ( That was a flame, if you noticed :-)
> : - lauri
>
> No, I didn't notice at all Lauri. In fact, I am still puzzled
> over it. For a flame to get my attention you must insult my
> intelligence, my looks, my family and/or my taste in art or music
> or anything. Something like this: "Your art sucks you stupid old
> hag. People like you are too ugly to reproduce. Sure you went to
> art school, I can tell - you are almost as smart as a 6th grade
> student!"
> See?
I have studied the art of flaming. Your technique is
as a 6th grade student.
with love and smile
-lauri
--
There is plenty of stuff I do not like.
However, I rather read it in usenet than spraypainted
on walls.
Marilyn Welch
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Chris wrote:
> Hi Laurie;
>
> Just to throw my 2 cents in, I'd say that you are right; and then take
> the argument a little further. Great art by nature transcends its
> origins.
>
> Personally I'd find it hard to credit anyone who would broadly dismiss
> art on the basis of it's origins.
This part of your post reminded me of the PBS series on "The Greeks" where
they showed that some of the most famous and enduring Greek art which
sells for millions today was considered mundane and ordinary at the time
of its execution: the vase paintings in black and red ochre. The contents
of the vases were much more valued at that time. The painters of the vases
were not interested in public opinion of their work, they had quite a low
status in those days. They competed with each other, even putting jibes on
the bottom of the paintings, equivalent to saying:
"Look at my work, and weep." or "Bet you can't top this one, Joe."
Try to find some analogy to this ancient Greek art and a genre that
is going on today if possible.
Not Chocolate box art because British Chocolate box art is a collectors'
item today.
Marilyn
Chris
be able to claim that sort of off-beat humour is Odd Nerdrum.
But that sort of competition exits whenever you have people who have
high degrees of skill that they celebrate in having - from dueling
banjos to football games, from the face off between Zeuxis and
Parrhasius or Rembrandt & Leivens, to a recent event (say 10 years ago
or so) where one engineering group apparently sent another some
superfine wire as an example of their skill, and the other sent it back,
with a hole neatly drilled through it (the details are probably wrong,
but I hope you get my drift..)
So maybe Mani's right.
Cheers;
Chris
> But that sort of competition exists whenever you have people who have
rather than
> But that sort of competition exits whenever you have people who have
Slight difference!
Marilyn Welch
"exists."
However, the line about Mani being right, that must be a misprint.
Marilyn
Erik A. Mattila
> Whoops, the 3rd line should have read:
> > But that sort of competition exists whenever you have people who have
>
> rather than
> > But that sort of competition exits whenever you have people who have
>
> Slight difference!
>
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
Damn, Chris, I think it took me 10 minutes of intense concentration to see
what the difference was. I could see that line two was a tad shorter,
but....(gives me an idea for a new computer game: "What's Wrong With This
Sentence? WWWTS."
Groans (I joke), Erik
Thomas Ziorjen
Scarlett wrote:
> "Lauri Levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
> news:398BF32E...@nokia.com...
> : On defence of Sofa art
> :
> : Motto: "Theatre is life,
> : Cinema is art,
> : TV is furniture"
>
> Who wrote the above Lauri? Why do I think it was *not* a visual
> artist???
> (snip)
Ha! What's more it is an insult to furniture ; P
[...]
>
> Sofa art? Sorry, I don't believe sofa art is even art. Not at
> all. Nope.
> I remember my mother had a yucky avacado green refridgerator and
> stove when that color was all the decorative color rage.
> ICKY!!!!!! But, our neighbors who couldn't shell out the money
> for that pukey color really envied her. So sofa art will contain
> avacado green (if it happens to be in style) or mauve or
> something appropriate to match the furnishings. How can this
> possibly be art? Then isn't wallpaper an even higher art form???
I'd put sofa art on *exactly* the same level as wallpaper. No
better, no worse, and certainly no more relevant.
>
> Also, when the mauve or avacado green (etc.) furnishings are out
> of style next year and let's say - pumpkin orange - becomes the
> style and the people who can afford it run out and furnish their
> homes in pumpkin orange and commission a painting to have strong
> pumpkin orange elements in it, do you not realize that the former
> avacado green, mauve or whatever will be donated to the Salvation
> Army, to a loser relative or in the trash?
>
> Then art can never be on a higher level than a place one parks
> their ass...
I had an amazing experience some years ago, when a woman came up to
me at a show and started gushing about how *wonderful* one of my
pieces was and how it really was... "one of the most *beautiful*
things I've ever seen... [pause] ...too bad it doesn't go with my
sofa." My jaw dropped. I just couldn't believe it, but she was
totally serious.
Some time later I had an idea for a conceptual piece: a 'sofa size'
canvas (3x4' landscape format) with the words 'Your Sofa Goes Here'
and an arrow pointing down. Available, of course, in a range of
decorator colours...
>
>
> (snip)
>
> : Some artist go so far they rather starve in wait of
> : recognition than do *artistic work* that is
> : produce artworks for customers.
>
> And I admire those artists! I'd rather sling hash, scrub toilets
> or mooch off my family than ever even consider making sofa art.
> BUT, making sofa art would be a lot easier, make more money and
> cause less stress and/or heartache than art from within.
Ain't that a fact!
> Frankly,
> why even categorize sofa art? Why not just manufacure some
> paint-by-numbers sofa art kits and then the person can brag "Yes,
> I did it all by myself" or even better - "I'm an artist too!"
This is actually a great idea Scarlett, you could manufacture the
same pictures year after year and just change the paint colours to
match the current colour trend.
BTW there is actually a company that has made a business of
researching what the designers are up to and predicting next years
hot colours, then selling that information for scads of money to
clothing manufacturers & such. Yikes, what a world.
>
> : * * *
> :
> : If you - as a real artist - were asked to
> : decorate a dining room, would you not feel
> : obliged to do that well?
>
> Nope! I wouldn't do it in the first place. In the second place,
> people who care that much about *decorating* usually aren't close
> friends and I find them shallow and quite boring.
>
> This is not a flame, Lauri. I just strongly disagree with almost
> every point you've made here.
So do I.
Thomas Ziorjen
Scarlett wrote:
> "Lauri Levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
> news:39913163...@nokia.com...
>
[...]
>
>
> : Someone here told she as a professional artist
> : has two production lines:
> : - her true art
> : - crap, preferably unsigned that she makes for sales
>
> And? Lots do that. I can't. Is there an element of snobbery
> involved? An attitude of *selling out*? Probably. That's how I
> feel. We don't all think alike do we?
I was talking to a painter I have deep respect for, and this subject
came up; he would rather work on construction sites from time to
time than do a line of inexpensive work to sell to the local tourist
trade, even under a pseudonym, (which is something that has been
suggested to me as well). We agreed that there was no way that you
could prevent that kind of activity form affecting your 'real'
work. That there was always a danger that somehow elements of the
dashed off stuff would creep in.
There is also, of course, the issue of feeling like a cynical creep,
making stuff that deliberately appealed to the naive tastes of the
rubes. Designed only to part them from their money.
Sorry, no way.
Thomas
http://artlives.homestead.com/Thomas.html
Thomas Ziorjen
mdeli wrote:
> A painting that has quality doesn't lose it even if it matches the
> toilet. What counts is what's on the wall not where it hangs.
Well there you go Mani, a perfect niche for you -- Bathroom Art. You
can have rolls of degrees printed to match the bathrooms *and* your
work.
--
Thomas
http://artlives.homestead.com/Thomas.html
mdeli
toilet. What counts is what's on the wall not where it hangs.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
>I was talking to a painter I have deep respect for, and this subject
>came up; he would rather work on construction sites from time to
>time than do a line of inexpensive work to sell to the local tourist
>trade, even under a pseudonym, (which is something that has been
>suggested to me as well). We agreed that there was no way that you
>could prevent that kind of activity form affecting your 'real'
>work.
When ones "real" work, whether for tourists or somone else doesn't
sell, one has to do something else.
>That there was always a danger that somehow elements of the
>dashed off stuff would creep in.
>
The main danger is usually that you don't want to know that your
abilities amount to such nothing that you can't even impress a
tourist.
>There is also, of course, the issue of feeling like a cynical creep,
>making stuff that deliberately appealed to the naive tastes of the
>rubes. Designed only to part them from their money.
>
- - -like Abstract expressionism
Artlives
Thomas Ziorjen wrote in message <399B029A...@sunshine.net>...
>
>
>Scarlett wrote:
>
>> "Lauri Levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
>> news:39913163...@nokia.com...
>>
>
>[...]
>
>>
>>
>> : Someone here told she as a professional artist
>> : has two production lines:
>> : - her true art
>> : - crap, preferably unsigned that she makes for sales
>>
>> And? Lots do that. I can't. Is there an element of snobbery
>> involved? An attitude of *selling out*? Probably. That's how I
>> feel. We don't all think alike do we?
>
>came up; he would rather work on construction sites from time to
>time than do a line of inexpensive work to sell to the local tourist
>trade, even under a pseudonym, (which is something that has been
>suggested to me as well). We agreed that there was no way that you
>could prevent that kind of activity form affecting your 'real'
>dashed off stuff would creep in.
>
>making stuff that deliberately appealed to the naive tastes of the
>rubes. Designed only to part them from their money.
>
As usual Lauri gets it wrong. That guy really should try and pay attention.
I am the professional artist he is speaking of and who sells work in two
ways. One goes into a co-op gallery at prices of around 300 pounds (450 US
dollars) for an eighteen by twenty four inch canvas and which I sell an
average of one a week. The other is for exhibitions and which five foot
paintings for around 2,000 pounds now and which I do sign but don't get to
sell on a regular basis.The ones that go into the co-op gallery are
generally *studies* that I do when working towards a new series. I don't
rate them because of that. However, they often get attention from people
looking for larger works. Often I will produce specifically, paintings that
I know will sell. I rarely sign them and I don't rate them but think it
amusing that people do. But I now make a living out of it and it sure as
hell beats some dead pan job that pisses you off so much that you forget how
to create. And the *real* work I often speak of improves because I now have
the time and energy to inject into its development.
Lauri loves to find a way of resurrecting things I said in the past and
manipulating them for his own uses. Silly old fool.
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
Erik A. Mattila
> Well there you go Mani, a perfect niche for you -- Bathroom Art. You
> can have rolls of degrees printed to match the bathrooms *and* your
> work.
Son of a gun. I can't remember where, but I did read a technical
discourse on bathroom art. What kind of materials would withstand that
treacherous environment and so forth. It's just another market niche as
far as I am concerned.
One thing that has challenged me on this thread is just the term 'sofa
art.' In some posts I read it simply as 'easel painting' which has
faded in and out and in to popularity in the past century. In others I
read 'kitsch' or something like that.
How about 'Motel Art?" In the early sixties I worked at a factory
called "Art Fair of California" which boasted a product line that it
called "Hand Painted Original Oils" which sold for 12.99 through 29.99
(size mattered). I mainly worked in the production frame section, but I
would go over with the artistes when there was a big order to fill. It
was a cool job. Minimum wage, and you could come and go as you pleased
because the owners 'understood' artists. But the painting crew were all
ex-convicts that had learned to paint in prison. A pretty interesting
lot, actually. Some of these guys didn't perceive much difference
between a flame-job on a motorcycle fuel-tank and Rembrandt's "Night
Watch." They were only really invested in the idea of graphic skill,
which I thought was pretty neat, in a way. Some of them wore smocks and
berets to work.
But none of us thought much of the work we were doing, in terms of art.
The process went like this. We would begin with hardboard panels,
usually in lots fo 50, and paint in backgrounds, which were done with a
6" brush dipped in commercial latex paint. 2 or 3 neutral colors,
lightly blended with horizontal strokes. When dry, these panels were
screen-printed with an outline of the design, again in a neutral gray
latex. When dry, the panels were moved to a network of tables, and the
artists among themselves assigned colors. There was an "original" as
the guide, to tell you where to put your color. We would go over to the
55 gallon drums of very think, gooey commercial latex colors, and heap
up a glob on a mortar-board, and walk through the tables applying the
color in the right spots with a pallette knife. Some of the images,
like the "Paris Street Scene" were pretty complex. They may have
required a hundred and fifty globs of different colors to complete.
Next was the fun part. With liner brushes and a creamy black latex mix,
we would sign the paintings. "Picasso" or "Rembrandt" was a favorite
signature, but the idea was scribble it so it couldn't really be read,
and challenge was to make it look like it could be "Picasso" with some
imagination. On days when we felt jocular, we would sign the works with
obscenities, again, artistically illegible in an avant garde sort of
way.
Then the paintings were moved over to the spray-booth and 'varnished' so
they looked like oils, with a varathane. Then framed. The moulding was
inexpensive pine with pressed designs, but the real artists were the
Mexicans who worked there. These guys were magicians, in my opinion.
Hired out of the border art industry (your velvets, your Cheech/Chongy
Aztec Princesses etc.) the maestros could simulate about any surface or
texture you called for with basic inexpensive materials. I'm not
kidding, these guys were highly skilled, and I learned a lot from them.
Gold-leafing, for example. Gold-leafing is not terribly difficult if
you are using real gold leaf, expensive and very malable. But the stuff
you buy in most art supply and hardware stores is a brass simulation,
and very difficult to work. Not for the maestros. I was amazed at how
well they could apply this rot-gut cheap material.
So one day I was saying bad things about the product, and one of the
owners overheard me. There were three, two Armenian businessmen and an
MFA from a New York City art school. It was the artist who overheard
me, Bob (I can't remember his last name). He came over and told me "You
know, Erik, I really resent you running down the product. I've studied
fine art for years and I've worked hard to come up with this way of
making art, and I am very serious about it." He went on to discuss his
feeling about elitism in the arts, and his belief that art should be
available to the masses and so on. I have to admit that it made me
think a bit, and I told him "Gee, I never thought about it that way."
(I was about 18 at the time).
Every once in a while I see one of these paintings (which I can
immediately recognize) in a movie, for example, that has a sleazy motel
scene in it. I always squint hard to see if I can see the signature.
Erik
Chris
hand painted original work" in the same way again...Out of curiosity,
did you ever put your own name on one? (You don't have to answer that :)
It doesn't seem all that different from the workshop paintings done in
the past by big names (except perhaps in skill level) - where a master
would do a design, and perhaps the more difficult areas & finishing
touches (or maybe only sign off the final product), while apprentices &
junior artists would do the rest. One might be a specialist in eyes,
another in flowers...shades of Kinkade...
Regards;
Erik A. Mattila
> That's a great story, Erik, I don't think I'll ever look at a "genuine
> hand painted original work" in the same way again...Out of curiosity,
> did you ever put your own name on one? (You don't have to answer that :)
I may have, but I think those ones made it to the hotels.
> It doesn't seem all that different from the workshop paintings done in
> the past by big names (except perhaps in skill level) - where a master
> would do a design, and perhaps the more difficult areas & finishing
> touches (or maybe only sign off the final product), while apprentices &
> junior artists would do the rest. One might be a specialist in eyes,
> another in flowers...shades of Kinkade...
It would be pretty interesting to study the techniques of the older
production studios (Holbein, Cranach, Rubens). I don't know how much is
currently known about the nuts and boldts of this. I think more is known
about print shops such as Dürer's. I would imagine that cartoons were
created, perhaps by the top gun, and these transferred onto the panels,
maybe even a standard pallette created for the project (say 25 Henry XIII
portraits). But now I'm curious if one guy painted lips, another eyebrows,
another ears and so on (Henry did kind of look like Mr. Potatohead). But
certainly Holbein would be there to insure quality control and branding.
I'll bet there were some words exchanged from time to time! I remember
reading that when Picasso was a kid he regularly painted the feet on his
dad's doves.
Erik
William Engell
Chris
Certainly it'll affect your 'real' work - it might even affect it for
the better, if you let it. After all, you would then be requiring of
yourself the ability to step outside self absorption, to understand how
another person might see the world, or perhaps to find depth where
superficial glances find triviality. Caravaggio and his early still
lives is a reasonable example...
Regards,
Chris
Thomas Ziorjen wrote:
>
> I was talking to a painter I have deep respect for, and this subject
> came up; he would rather work on construction sites from time to
> time than do a line of inexpensive work to sell to the local tourist
> trade, even under a pseudonym, (which is something that has been
> suggested to me as well). We agreed that there was no way that you
> could prevent that kind of activity form affecting your 'real'
> work. That there was always a danger that somehow elements of the
> dashed off stuff would creep in.
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/
Thomas Ziorjen
I really hope you didn't take it that way! I knew you did smaller preparatory
works for sale in the coop gallery, but obviously that's not what this
discussion was about. Never even occurred to me that he might have been
referring to you. We're talking about cranking out schlock for the tourists
here!
--
Thomas
http://artlives.homestead.com/Thomas.html
Artlives wrote:
> Thomas Ziorjen wrote in message <399B029A...@sunshine.net>...
> >
> >
> >Scarlett wrote:
> >
> >> "Lauri Levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
> >> news:39913163...@nokia.com...
> >>
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> : Someone here told she as a professional artist
> >> : has two production lines:
> >> : - her true art
> >> : - crap, preferably unsigned that she makes for sales
> >>
> >> And? Lots do that. I can't. Is there an element of snobbery
> >> involved? An attitude of *selling out*? Probably. That's how I
> >> feel. We don't all think alike do we?
> >
> >I was talking to a painter I have deep respect for, and this subject
> >came up; he would rather work on construction sites from time to
> >time than do a line of inexpensive work to sell to the local tourist
> >trade, even under a pseudonym, (which is something that has been
> >suggested to me as well). We agreed that there was no way that you
> >could prevent that kind of activity form affecting your 'real'
> >work. That there was always a danger that somehow elements of the
> >dashed off stuff would creep in.
> >
Thomas Ziorjen
I'm posting it again:
*Yikes* Alison! I certainly wasn't thinking about *You* when I made that post!
Peter H.M. Brooks
Thomas Ziorjen <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote in message
news:399C6E83...@sunshine.net...
> Yikes Alison! I certainly wasn't thinking about *You* when I made that
post!
> I really hope you didn't take it that way! I knew you did smaller
preparatory
> works for sale in the coop gallery, but obviously that's not what this
> discussion was about. Never even occurred to me that he might have been
> referring to you. We're talking about cranking out schlock for the
tourists
> here!
>
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
--
Nihilism satisfies the nihilist which is at least
something to be said for it.
Artlives
I'm not used to this browser and probably missed the total gist of your
post - hate reading this on Outlook but Turnpike will insist on collecting
newsgroups like Email and I don't have the time anymore to play!
The reality of life is that we all have to do things that we don't want to
in order to survive, and trying to be romantic about it is like shooting
yourself in the foot. If it means cranking out schlock then do it - why
shouldn't those tourists be allowed to have their nic naks - or are you
propsing we educate them in what is good and bad art? Set up a stand in
Hyde Park and tell them it is all crap, maybe?
I guess it very much depends what stage of your career you are at - I doubt
I will be writing this in five years, for instance. And I would rather
survive by selling those sketches and run offs than work some lousy job as I
have had to do so often. In all honesty, the work that I send into the
co-op gallery is indeed often preparatory work. I tend to do multiples of an
idea and often out of them there are some nice sellable images. What would
you do? Throw them away or stick them in the loft to collect dust? I would
rather turn them into cash to buy more materials personally.
There is another side to it too. As you know, I work in series. One series
tends to occupy me for about a year and then I make a deliberate attempt to
move on - as seen in my new work. I might take elements of that previous
series to the new one - in fact it is inevitable. The pouring paintings took
a long time to get right - the wrinkles in them and the succesful layering
preoccupied me for a long time - and resulted in a lot of failures (as seen
when I did a mass throw out when I was evicted from my studio recently).
But I am now able to make a dozen of them in one day, if I so want. And at
three hundred pounds that makes a pretty good days work, wouldn't you say?
It certainly makes time for developing other ideas - and is a great relief t
o have a stock of when you suddenly find you have no where to work anymore.
Artists need to become better entrepeneurs. Are you follwing the thread on
Artlives about my research paper - the proposal for a government financed
network system to help artists in the East End of London survive the
regeneration problem that has resulted in soaring property prices and
forcing them all out? Artists need to take control of their own situations.
best to you
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.com
Thomas Ziorjen wrote in message <399C6E83...@sunshine.net>...
>Yikes Alison! I certainly wasn't thinking about *You* when I made that
post!
>I really hope you didn't take it that way! I knew you did smaller
preparatory
>works for sale in the coop gallery, but obviously that's not what this
>discussion was about. Never even occurred to me that he might have been
>referring to you. We're talking about cranking out schlock for the
tourists
>here!
>
>--
>Thomas
>http://artlives.homestead.com/Thomas.html
Artlives
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message <8nihld$2v1$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>Heh-heh..
Still an impotent little twerp pretending to be an artist, ? or has your
jealousy now consummed you so much you aren't able to even react in words of
more that two syllables?
Peter H.M. Brooks
Artlives <artl...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:399d...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
>
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message <8nihld$2v1$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>
> >Heh-heh..
>
>
> Still an impotent little twerp pretending to be an artist, ?
>
>
>or has your
> jealousy now consummed you so much you aren't able to even react in words
of
> more that two syllables?
>
Still I was rather amused by that bon mot - sorry to hear it hurt you so
much.
--
So, now bring them in, for I will play the cook,
And see them ready 'gainst their mother comes.
- Titus Andronicus
Lauri Levanto
-lauri
Thomas Ziorjen wrote:
>
<...>
Lauri Levanto
last week I visited the Roskilde Viking ships.
As far as I know they built ships up to
100' without any kind of drawings.
I know a boatbuilder, who draws only the
stem and stern, plys the main frame.
All the rest is just done.
What is the history of designing at
drawing board and production after drawingss?
-lauri
Erik A. Mattila
> The silk screen phase aroused my interest.
>
> last week I visited the Roskilde Viking ships.
> As far as I know they built ships up to
> 100' without any kind of drawings.
>
> I know a boatbuilder, who draws only the
> stem and stern, plys the main frame.
> All the rest is just done.
>
> What is the history of designing at
> drawing board and production after drawings?
>
> -lauri
Good question. I think drawing is pretty modern. But even in navel
architecture today, much of the detailing is left to trade-standards (true
architecture also, as a matter of fact - I mean the architect doesn't say 'each
stud will be skew nailed to bottom plate with four 8P nails.)
A good example was the "Victory Ships" built here in the US after Pearl Harbor.
The designers did not tell the ship-builders or build a hatch with rounded
corners. When they went into production, there was a critical shortage of
experienced marine welders, so any welder could get a job. The result was steel
ships built with a lot of square corners throughout the structure. This is call
a 'stress riser' in steel engineering, since the steel transfers loads to
corners. Crystalization and failure resulted, and the Victory ships fell apart
after very short service lives. Had there been a lot of marine welders around,
there would have been no corners. But even today with advanced CADD/CAM
systems, details are left to tradesmen. In the US there's a contract clause
that says "All work will be proformed in a workmanship-like manner." This means
'trade standards' will apply, and it is specific enough to cause a victory in
court agains a contractor who does not perform work to standards.
I think the indigenous Bermuda Sloop is still built without plans, as the
Roskilde and kin were. In fact traditional water-craft are built world-wide
this way. I remember studying Early Christian Art and an episode in the 2nd or
3rd century when the Roman Economy was kaput for long enough to see the
guildsmen who built Roman buildings find other work, and teach their kids other
work (a 200 year recession or depression, I think it was). When the economy got
better, and public works projects were planned, there were too few experienced
masons around to do the work. There was a manuscript which survived in Carthage
which was advertising for masons to work in Constantinople, where new projects
were planned. Turns out that Carthage managed to have a pretty good economy
during the Roman slump, so there was still plenty of masons there.
One result was the Hagia Sophia, which was the largest dome ever attempted. It
crashed down once or twice, as I recall, but the dome that is there now, built
without theoretical engineering or drawings, 'slumped' into an egg-shaped form
about a month after completion, but didn't collapse. You can lay down in the
center of the Mosque today as see the deformation (I saw a photo thaken from
this vantage point once). Amazingly it held - now for about 1800 years, which
included some pretty violent earthquakes.
My guess is that scale models were much earlier than drawings. But the way it
all went together was left to the people doing the work. That's the exciting
thing about ship-building, in my opinion. When you look at a fairly modern boat
like a Cornish Pilot Gig you're staring at history. Somewhere back in the past
some people discovered that a clinker-planked hull could be beached, dryed-out,
then put back in the water and become seaworthy in a short time - as the wood
swelled. Or that if planks were used as structural members, instead of just
keeping water out of a space, a stronger, lighter, faster ship could be built.
(I guess carvel - planking and heavy scantlings became popular when you were
trying to keep cannon-balls out of that protected space!).
Erik
Lauri Levanto
you put in promoting your career, the co-op studios
and you new discussion group. Only the means I question sometimes.
There is nothing wrong if people want to buy your
preliminary experiments or scethces. That only proves you are
on a good track.
From your earlier post, however, I got an impression that you
deliberately produce for sales works with 'less artistic quality'.
Even your recent posting hints to that direction.
I really hope I have misunderstood.
That you want to leave them unsigned makes me wonder.
If you are afraid that those pieces may tarnish your name
as a 'real artist', have you considered what they do
to the reputation of that co-op gallery of yours?
-lauri
> Alison A Raimes
> http://www.raimes.com
Lauri Levanto
> > : - her true art
> > : - crap, preferably unsigned that she makes for sales
> >
> > And? Lots do that. I can't. Is there an element of snobbery
> > involved? An attitude of *selling out*? Probably. That's how I
> > feel. We don't all think alike do we?
>
> I was talking to a painter I have deep respect for, and this subject
> came up; he would rather work on construction sites from time to
> time than do a line of inexpensive work to sell to the local tourist
> trade, even under a pseudonym, (which is something that has been
> suggested to me as well). We agreed that there was no way that you
> could prevent that kind of activity form affecting your 'real'
> work. That there was always a danger that somehow elements of the
> dashed off stuff would creep in.
>
Like Chris noticed it may even have a positive effect.
The first violinist in DR (Danmarks Radio) symphony orchesta
sometimes plays on the street. He claims:
If I can't stop people to listen, then there is something wrong with my
music.
> There is also, of course, the issue of feeling like a cynical creep,
> making stuff that deliberately appealed to the naive tastes of the
> rubes. Designed only to part them from their money.
>
> Sorry, no way.
That was my point. Whatever you do, you have better to do it
seriously. I think it does not exclude making good art
for ordinary people to have it in their living rooms.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
questions.
Some comments interspersed.
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
> Lauri Levanto wrote:
> > What is the history of designing at
> > drawing board and production after drawings?
> >
> > -lauri
>
> Good question. I think drawing is pretty modern. But even in navel
> architecture today, much of the detailing is left to trade-standards (true
> architecture also, as a matter of fact - I mean the architect doesn't say 'each
> stud will be skew nailed to bottom plate with four 8P nails.)
Meanwhile I found that the church builders in 18th centyry here
had to send the drawings for approval.
The renaissance frescoes needed quite detailed shablons, too.
<...>
> In the US there's a contract clause
> that says "All work will be proformed in a workmanship-like manner." This means
> 'trade standards' will apply, and it is specific enough to cause a victory in
> court agains a contractor who does not perform work to standards.
That is something we lack in the art industry. If we had it,
there were hardly any sofa art in the pejatory sense.
<...>
> When the economy got
> better, and public works projects were planned, there were too few experienced
> masons around to do the work. There was a manuscript which survived in Carthage
> which was advertising for masons to work in Constantinople, where new projects
> were planned. Turns out that Carthage managed to have a pretty good economy
> during the Roman slump, so there was still plenty of masons there.
>
> One result was the Hagia Sophia, which was the largest dome ever attempted. It
> crashed down once or twice, as I recall, but the dome that is there now, built
> without theoretical engineering or drawings, 'slumped' into an egg-shaped form
> about a month after completion, but didn't collapse.
> You can lay down in the
> center of the Mosque today as see the deformation (I saw a photo thaken from
> this vantage point once).
it is a Mosque now. When I tried that, I was thrown out.
>Amazingly it held - now for about 1800 years, which
> included some pretty violent earthquakes.
>
> My guess is that scale models were much earlier than drawings.
I recall and article in SciAm a few years ago, where they found
remains of Roman age
full scale engravings of top parts in the base and the street
in front of the building.
But the way it
> all went together was left to the people doing the work. That's the exciting
> thing about ship-building, in my opinion. When you look at a fairly modern boat
> like a Cornish Pilot Gig you're staring at history. Somewhere back in the past
> some people discovered that a clinker-planked hull could be beached, dryed-out,
> then put back in the water and become seaworthy in a short time - as the wood
> swelled. Or that if planks were used as structural members, instead of just
> keeping water out of a space, a stronger, lighter, faster ship could be built.
> (I guess carvel - planking and heavy scantlings became popular when you were
> trying to keep cannon-balls out of that protected space!).
>
Carvel planking was used in Greek Triremes. The planks were thick as
they were
joined with tenons. The frames were inserted later as in clinker
building.
Otherwise you are right. When depending on oars, you find the difference
with heavy and light boat. The Viking ships with superior sailing
properties were superseedeed by the medieval Koggi that were built
stiff.
Not only to withstand cannon balls, but the vibrations caused by own
canons.
-lauri
> Erik
Alison A Raimes
> First I want to say that I admire the determination and effort
> you put in promoting your career, the co-op studios
> and you new discussion group. Only the means I question sometimes.
>
> There is nothing wrong if people want to buy your
> preliminary experiments or scethces. That only proves you are
> on a good track.
Your impressions are often very confused, Lauri. I have never made that
claim and it is not true. I know how you love to do that. I explained what I
did in my last post - and
encourage all those emerging artists to do the same - lest they end up
bitter and twisted like most of the people on this group. Cynicism is
something that disillusioned artists are best at - wouldn't you agree?
As to your misinterpretation of things I have said in the past that you keep
in your weak archived memory bank: at the co-op gallery, I have a space that
has my name in it, my resume, my address and telephone number as well as
postcards and business cards and a link to me on their website. My name is
etched on the gallery window too. As one of the best selling and most
actively involved artists in that gallery, I can assure you that their
reputation is not at risk by me not signing the work. Incidentally, just for
the records, I don't sign any of my work. As to my reputation, as you well
know. I couldn't give a moneky's fart what people think of me. The work
doesn't get signed for the same reason it has never been signed - it is not
me or my name that is for sale.
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
http://www.cablestreetstudios.com
http://www.skylarkgallery.com
Lauri Levanto
DejaNews:
Alison 23.03.2000:
>...
>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.
>...
Alison Fri 18.aug.2000:
> If it means cranking out schlock then do it - why
>shouldn't those tourists be allowed to have their nic naks - or are you
>propsing we educate them in what is good and bad art?
lauri:
Well, it seems I was confused. Maybe my confusion was due to the
discrepancy of the
quotations above and below.
Alison A Raimes wrote Mon.21.aug:
> Your impressions are often very confused, Lauri. I have never made that
> claim and it is not true. I know how you love to do that. I explained what I
> did in my last post - and
> encourage all those emerging artists to do the same - lest they end up
> bitter and twisted like most of the people on this group. Cynicism is
> something that disillusioned artists are best at - wouldn't you agree?
>
> As to your misinterpretation of things I have said in the past that you keep
> in your weak archived memory bank: at the co-op gallery, I have a space that
> has my name in it, my resume, my address and telephone number as well as
> postcards and business cards and a link to me on their website. My name is
> etched on the gallery window too. As one of the best selling and most
> actively involved artists in that gallery, I can assure you that their
> reputation is not at risk by me not signing the work. Incidentally, just for
> the records, I don't sign any of my work. As to my reputation, as you well
> know. I couldn't give a moneky's fart what people think of me. The work
> doesn't get signed for the same reason it has never been signed - it is not
> me or my name that is for sale.
>
> Alison A Raimes
> http://www.raimes.com
> http://artlives.homestead.com
> http://www.cablestreetstudios.com
> http://www.skylarkgallery.com
Alison A Raimes
serves to support it. why are you always so confused? The work I sell at
the gallery is not my *real* work and I continue to assert that to you, the
gallery and myself.. Its a seperate and coinciding event necessitated by the
high cost of living in London. The work I have at the gallery is not in any
way the work that I would or do show in exhibitions. I grimice when I see
it, but always make sure that my space and the work look as professional as
befits the circumstance. As I have persistently said, I don't rate this
work because it is preparatory - I sell it much cheaper than my studio
work - which is nice for those who can't afford the prices of exhibition
standard work. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a value to others,
just not to me - which is clearly the case or I wouldn't be making a living
from it.
It is just one of the things that you have to do to get a career off the
ground - I expect lots of artists here could give examples of what they have
had to do. I would rather sell that work than clean toilets because it
gives me time in the studio. I would therefore continue young artists to do
the same. This puritanical view to selling art seen here is only ever
protected by people who don't have the necessity to sell - either because
they are not artists or they have wealthy parents or spouses - or their work
is not good.
Incidentally, my prices have now doubled since I wrote the archived stuff. I
would also say that after a lot of hard work at the gallery that the profile
has improved dramatically this year. Its growing with its artists and I
suspect will continue - sales are well over double from last year.
I'm tempted to lower myself to the bore Broebeck's level and tell you to
*get a life* Lauri, but I suspect this IS it.
Goodbye
Alison
http://www.raimes.com
Lauri Levanto <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
news:39A1271F...@nokia.com...
Lauri Levanto
for your patience in explaining.
I do not accept all, but I learned a lot.
(Sometimes it is the English grammar that is confusing.
"These works I do not sign" sounded like an
exception to non-English ears :-) You know you love to use
coloured language.
> ... but always make sure that my space and the work look as professional as
> befits the circumstance.
I'm glad of that. I appreciate ordinary professionam work.
That's why I opened this thread.
thanks and bye
-lauri