Illustration vrs Art? what do you say?
Samual
Tell me, what is (in your minds)the difference between illustration and
a perfectly rendered painting of, say, wildlife? Why is one sold as
art, but could quite comfortably be in a school book? Could this be
answered already by curators of popular galleries>>>>meaning the absence
of such works?
Is Skill art?
Curious to see your answers. :O)
Sam>> an observer
burnin...@my-deja.com
Well, it's not like this is the first time this has been asked this
year. Why don't you just scan some history?
Additionally, you assume, as do many, that the terms "art" and
"illustration" are mutually exclusive. They are not. People
who attempt to make the distinction are typically those not
capable of doing an "illustration."
"Illustration" is used for a work-for-hire which had
a specific purpose. A good example would be N.C. Wyeth's
paintings for, say, The Black Arrow. An illustration is
typically realistic and requires technical abilty to render.
"Art," on the other hand, is whatever you wish to call it at
the moment.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
rdav...@my-deja.com
sam...@nospamplease.com wrote:
> Topic that will probably meet with some fun and angry answers:
>
and
> a perfectly rendered painting of, say, wildlife? Why is one sold as
> art, but could quite comfortably be in a school book? Could this be
> answered already by curators of popular galleries>>>>meaning the
absence
> of such works?
>
> Is Skill art?
>
> Curious to see your answers. :O)
There is art and then there is Art. In other words art can exist on many
different levels. Childrens art for example can be unique, decorative
and very beautiful. Wildlife art can be technically stunning but as
boring as yesterdays news. I think there is a space reserved ( in my
mind at least ) for what I call real Art. This art causes a reaction in
us that reaches to our most inner self. We say to ourselves how did he
or she do that or in some cases how did they get away with that. Of
course some peoples "wow, grooovy baby" is someone else yawn.
Time tends to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Ron
>
> Sam>> an observer
Jillian
>
>Topic that will probably meet with some fun and angry answers:
>
>Tell me, what is (in your minds)the difference between illustration and
>a perfectly rendered painting of, say, wildlife? Why is one sold as
>art, but could quite comfortably be in a school book? Could this be
>answered already by curators of popular galleries>>>>meaning the absence
>of such works?
>
>Is Skill art?
>
>Curious to see your answers. :O)
>
This has been hashed and rehashed in this newsgroup.
The consensus is still out and the line between
art and illustration is an ever-shifting one
depending on who one is talking about and also
on who is doing the talking.
Hutto
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Samual wrote:
> Tell me, what is (in your minds)the difference between illustration and
> a perfectly rendered painting of, say, wildlife?
The difference lies mainly in intent.
The quality of the work is not necessarily different. An "illustration"
could be a "fine art" work...or an illustration could be a cartoon.
"Illustration" is mainly a term used to descibe the function of an image,
or rather, the purpose for which an image is employed.
Picasso's work has been used as illustration, as has the work of many
hundreds of artists regarded as "fine artists".
On the other hand, not all "illustration" is museum-quality fine artwork.
For the purposes of efficiency, many illustrators use speedy techniques
and cheap materials in order to get the images produced. Illustrators
might churn out multitudes of pictures a day using fast, formulaed methods
which get the job done but do not produce pictures suitable for "fine art"
consideration. Craftsmanship and materials factor into masterworks to some
small degree. Still, some "outsider" artists are considered (by SOME) to
be fine artists. Frequently, "outsiders" use "found" materials, like
plywood and cardboard, for painting. Jackson Pollock painted with
low-grade exterior paint. Materials still do not weigh as much as intent.
Hutto
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Visit Brother Alphabet's Evergrowing List of Bad Ads
w w w . b a d - a d s - l i s t . c o m
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Hutto
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> An illustration is
> typically realistic and requires technical abilty to render.
I would rephrase that to say "typically representative". Illustration also
does not require technical ability beyond the bare minimum of skills. Any
feeb can scan a photo and use some photoshop filters to produce a
commercially viable illustration.
> "Art," on the other hand, is whatever you wish to call it at
> the moment.
This only applies to certain sects.
burnin...@my-deja.com
Hutto <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > An illustration is
> > typically realistic and requires technical abilty to render.
>
> I would rephrase that to say "typically representative".
Semantics. No issue.
> Illustration also
> does not require technical ability beyond the bare minimum of skills.
More than much of what passes for "art" requires.
> Any
> feeb can scan a photo and use some photoshop filters to produce a
> commercially viable illustration.
Semantics: I consider such to be photographs.
>
> > "Art," on the other hand, is whatever you wish to call it at
> > the moment.
>
> This only applies to certain sects.
Don't think so. The debate of what is "art" rages constantly.
This thread is another example.
Peter Nelson
Samual wrote in message <3760D476...@nospamplease.com>...
>Topic that will probably meet with some fun and angry answers:
>
>art, but could quite comfortably be in a school book? Could this be
>answered already by curators of popular galleries>>>>meaning the absence
>of such works?
Oh. not this one again.
Personally I think the distinction is purely arbitrary. Art is art.
What matters is how well it's done and how well it appeals
to or moves viewers.
---peter
william crain
Rockwell would agree: And ART defined as the opportunity to engage a
plethora of endless polemics.
<burnin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7jrq87$okt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Larry Seiler
> Tell me, what is (in your minds)the difference between illustration and
> a perfectly rendered painting of, say, wildlife?
an illustration is often merely interested in the subject or object, such
as...here it is. This is what it looks like. This is the environment it
lives.
As such....illustration does not require elements of consideration that
make it a good design. The picture does not necessarily have to have
symmetrical or asymmetrical balance, or use negative versus positive
elements to manipulate the eye throughout the picture plane. It needn't
necessarily concern itself with theories of color, or have light of the
atmosphere play upon the form.
In addition....an illustrator of wildlife may concern him/herself with what
a subject looks like...what it does, but perhaps lacks the passion that a
fine artist would have with the subject to portray the artistic insight of
that having genuine experience with the subject may bring. Putting oneself
in the northern forests constantly, and as myself being charged three
different times by whitetail bucks is not really necessary as an
illustrator say fulfilling a request to design for a coffee mug or
shirt...but, as a fine art, an artist cannot but feel emotion and it can't
but help come out in his/her wildlife fine art "painting" having unique
experiences that most individuals do not have.
In addition....the fine artist of wildlife as a subject has the same
passion for pigment...its drag and texture...its brushwork, of the effects
of color, etc., as anyone else. He/she can turn the picture upside down
and squint the eyes looking to see if the piece works as a design.
An illustrator concerns him/herself with a deadline as a matter of routine,
and such concerns dictate the outcome of the work. The fine artist would
rather lose the job than surrender integrity.
The fine artist of wildlife or any genre yet paints for the passion and joy
of it, and thinks it not a waste if it did not result in money made or a
utilical purpose reached.
> Why is one sold as
> art, but could quite comfortably be in a school book?
An athlete is gifted on the court or field....yet still looks good
photographed and found in a book.
I'll say this, I have a great deal of respect personally for the abstract
painter that understands design elements and their interplay with each
other, and their ability to manipulate the viewer's eye. While many create
with control and knowledge of such or not, I see not much difference
between such concerns that the realist whom approaches their work as "fine
art" has or the abstractist.
The abstractist that simply hurries to fulfill a rep or agent's demand, and
has some notion of what is expected is in some regards not much different
than an illustrator.
I also think illustrators that have an artist's knowledge and eye make for
much better illustrators. When they choose "artistic" concerns for design,
and when passion for medium is enjoyed....the only thing that separates
their works from fine art is a deadline and the "whys" of the work being
created.
That being said....were not many of the Dutch/Flemish painters of the
Renaissance-Baroque period painting to fulfill demands of a commission?
Were not deadlines involved? Was there not at times a stretching of the
facts and a placating to clientele? Yet....whom would succeed at calling
such works none art works and illustration only? And...was not the purpose
of their works being made for similar reasons as many illustrators? If
the element then which separates is "time"...then in time, many of the
works we thought were illustrations in our generation may be seen as
"art".....and there is a chance that that which "we" thought was art will
not be.
I think its food for thought....and I think many of us think out loud on
this issue. As such....I'll confess that I may have to recant something
I've said should someone help me think it in another light.
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
Larry Seiler
> a specific purpose.
> "Art," on the other hand, is whatever you wish to call it at
> the moment.
but....time past proves that portraits of kings...aristocrats of the Dutch
periods, of the Impressionist era are now considered art. The definitions
as you've put them make Rembrandt an illustrator....Frans Hals...Singer
Sargeant...etc;
Sargeants portraits are considered fine paintings indeed. The finest
portraitist of his day, and in the end he learned to detest them. When he
was financially secure, he forsook portraits to paint landscapes. We could
then say his portraits were illustrations, and his landscapes art?
Yet....without all that he learned doing portraits, could he have executed
his landscapes? Was he then a better landscape fine artist because of his
years of illustration experience?
we know....that this topic has no definitive absolute to it...yet, it is
amusing to talk about and good to contemplate as it relates to one's self.
peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
> boring as yesterdays news.
agreed....
> I think there is a space reserved ( in my
> mind at least ) for what I call real Art. This art causes a reaction in
> us that reaches to our most inner self.
I think newness is one cause for this. Supply and demand. Boredom can be
because we've seen tons of it. Also because no genuis of using design
elements excellently, thus a deluge of mediocrity.
One artist's insight leading to a gazillion artist's imitations and rights
to claim the same.
What may cause reaction in 1979....and genuinely reached us, is cause for
yawning 20 years later with more and more of the same.
so again.....the passing of time seems to make what we once thought of as
art, that which moved us...passe and trite. Boring.
It brings us to that inevitable impasse...that being that there is nothing
new under the sun.
Then...the god of innovation and newness that we must seek to appease,
which in and of itself becomes a type of conformity, and a yoke of slavery.
Seems....if one enjoys painting, he/she ought to become aware of the
dangers of learning too much 'ology that will bring them ultimately to the
brink of despair when they realize their joy is that trite thing of others.
Shut the world out, and paint while their yet remains joy and the spirit
of celebration to do it.
peace,
burnin...@my-deja.com
"william crain" <willia...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Geepers i would define illustrations as "disposable", As i'm sure Mr.
> Rockwell would agree: And ART defined as the opportunity to engage a
> plethora of endless polemics.
Well, I'm not sure I'd agree ;-)))))))
rdav...@my-deja.com
vision of the artist. When Picasso painted Les Desmoiselles d'Avignon
and showed it in his studio no one understood it. Even Matisse who was
in the forefront of the avantgard scoffed. Picasso put it away for many
years and now it is considered as a milestone in 20th century painting.
Talk about working under pressure: Rubens in 1621 was given the
commission to execute 21 paintings for Marie de Medici to
commemerate (illustrate) her life, each aprox. 12 feet by 10 feet, and
her life was nothing to brag about. He was given 2 years to finish
the job so they would be ready for the opening of the new Luxembourg
Palace. All were completed with the help of assistants (Rubens was
expected to paint the figures) and are considered as masterpieces of the
Baroque.
R.D.
> I think its food for thought....and I think many of us think out loud
on
> this issue. As such....I'll confess that I may have to recant
something
> I've said should someone help me think it in another light.
> Larry
>
> Larry Seiler
> artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
> WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
> http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress
> depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
>
>
Bob C
>
> > "Illustration" is used for a work-for-hire which had
> > a specific purpose.
>
> > "Art," on the other hand, is whatever you wish to call it at
> > the moment.
>
> but....time past proves that portraits of kings...aristocrats of the Dutch
> periods, of the Impressionist era are now considered art. The definitions
> as you've put them make Rembrandt an illustrator....Frans Hals...Singer
> Sargeant...etc;
>
All guidelines of what is illustration/fine art are just that:
guidelines, and not hard fast rules, because you can always find
exceptions.
I like the idea that illustration mainly serves to enhance some other
object or place rather than to stand alone entirely on its own merits.
So even when a painter is creating a portrait on commision, if there is
enough artistic merit in the work to allow it to be valued completely
independently of its function of representing the individual in
question, then it will probably be considered fine art.
Of course, the function of a work can change in different times or
circumstances. Create a painting specifically to be used on the cover of
a particular book and it is illustration. But display that same painting
in a gallery without any reference to the book and now it is fine art.
The passage of time can make many illustrations unusual or unique
enough, or the original purpose so insignificant, that we are now more
interested in the work itself and not whatever purpose it might have
once served. Thus, illustrations from the past can easily find
themselves treated as fine art.
Naturally, this type of guideline becomes highly subjective very
quickly, so it really isn't any better than any other guideline, but it
is another way of thinking about it.
When used as a criticism of fine art, however, illustration means
something else entirely; usually that the critic considers the work to
rely too heavily on the formulaic use of techniques and motifs,
something which is common (and completely acceptable) in most
illustration although by no means in all of it.
- Bob C.
burnin...@my-deja.com
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
> > "Illustration" is used for a work-for-hire which had
> > a specific purpose.
>
> > "Art," on the other hand, is whatever you wish to call it at
> > the moment.
>
> but....time past proves that portraits of kings...aristocrats of the
Dutch
> periods, of the Impressionist era are now considered art.
OK?
> The definitions
> as you've put them make Rembrandt an illustrator....Frans
Hals...Singer
> Sargeant...etc;
Please note that my definitions are not mutually exclusive.
>
> Sargeants portraits are considered fine paintings indeed. The finest
> portraitist of his day,
Possibly in any day.
> and in the end he learned to detest them.
More appropriately: he became to detest the time he spent doing them.
> When he
> was financially secure, he forsook portraits to paint landscapes. We
could
> then say his portraits were illustrations, and his landscapes art?
> Yet....without all that he learned doing portraits, could he have
executed
> his landscapes? Was he then a better landscape fine artist because of
his
> years of illustration experience?
Probably not. Sargeant exhibited a technical ability that is rarely
seen. He did portraits because people paid very well for them and
he wanted the money.
Sargeant's reaction to his portraits is actually a very good example
of my definition: he did not believe portraits -- works for hire --
were the *best* use of his time. I would agree.
>
> we know....that this topic has no definitive absolute to it...yet, it
is
> amusing to talk about and good to contemplate as it relates to one's
self.
You might try intuition in conjunction with contemplation. Often,
paintings are over-intellectualized. That is why I agree with Mani
about the length of an "Artist statement" being inversely related
to the quality of the work.
rdav...@my-deja.com
>
> You might try intuition in conjunction with contemplation. Often,
> paintings are over-intellectualized. That is why I agree with Mani
> about the length of an "Artist statement" being inversely related
> to the quality of the work.
I would also agree with that. I have been painting for 30 years and my
only way of knowing what is and what isn't has been my intuition. That
means the painting itself has to tell me if I'm a genius or I should
quit and become a lawyer. What is intuition? It is a gift perhaps but
one that I seem to have no contol over. It comes and goes as it damn
well pleases and I am left wondering how could anyone base a business on
a partner like that. I also think artistic intuition must be different
in each and every artist. How else to explain the ease in which some
artists produce and others like myself who are constantly running up
against artists block(head).
over and out
R.D.
burnin...@my-deja.com
rdav...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> >
> > You might try intuition in conjunction with contemplation. Often,
> > paintings are over-intellectualized. That is why I agree with Mani
> > about the length of an "Artist statement" being inversely related
> > to the quality of the work.
>
> I would also agree with that. I have been painting for 30 years and my
> only way of knowing what is and what isn't has been my intuition. That
> means the painting itself has to tell me if I'm a genius or I should
> quit and become a lawyer.
Precisely. Even though we currently have more lawyers than is good for
us.
> What is intuition? It is a gift perhaps but
> one that I seem to have no contol over. It comes and goes as it damn
> well pleases and I am left wondering how could anyone base a business
on
> a partner like that.
Tough to do. Good day jobs are a wonderful thing.
> I also think artistic intuition must be different
> in each and every artist. How else to explain the ease in which some
> artists produce and others like myself who are constantly running up
> against artists block(head).
Production isn't the key. It's production of *good* work. If you're
not happy with it, it should go in the discard bucket after being
shredded.
Larry Seiler
> guidelines, and not hard fast rules, because you can always find
> exceptions.
of artists working in a state of paranoia....wondering if at any given
moment they measure up to being the "exception"..... ;^)
> enough artistic merit in the work to allow it to be valued completely
> independently of its function of representing the individual in
> question, then it will probably be considered fine art.
I used to get really upset when people simply thought of my earlier
wildlife work as "illustrations"....because they knew nothing about the
complexities of my thinking...my aesthetic habits....and demands upon
myself to develop more.
I think it was a reaction on their part to the idea simply that there was
just so much wildlife "garbage" out there....people with poorer skills and
knowledge of the subject just jumping on the bandwagon to make some buck.
My work tried to tell a story.....show something unique or different about
wildlife, and respond as an artist to actual in-field experiences. Though
elk were a popular subject for marketing sake....the scope of my experience
did not include a familiarity with elk in Wisconsin, so I avoided the
promise of a sale to remain in my experience. Thus...I embraced
poverty...?? hahaha...don't let my wife know that!
The work required a great deal of discipline, and some 100-300 hours in a
finished piece. In a way now....I'm kinda glad that wildlife saw its
better day as art...because I feel free now to spread my wings. I've been
enjoying plein air painting immensely.
I got my share of calls asking for a vignette type image of wildlife for
T-shirts, cups....etc., which paid a user fee and royalties. I never
considered those art. Just a job. Nor better or worse than a guy
slapping meat on a grill at McDonald's. Yet...I was working for myself.
However....on my scenes, I "crafted" very intentional careful compositions
using design principles, and knowledge of rendering, color relationships,
depth, perspective, etc., were all important to make for a believable
image.
I find myself if not careful willing to call all my wildlife past work
"illustrative" in nature because I now enjoy my painterly landscape
realism. Just because it feels like a breath of fresh air so-to-speak.
However, I recognize that much of what feels like more intuitive thinking
in the demands of plein air painting, time limitations from disappearing
sunlight, etc., came from years of disciplined hard work doing the wildlife
stuff, that without those years...the freedom to paint more carefreely and
YET realistic just wouldn't happen.
> Of course, the function of a work can change in different times or
> circumstances. Create a painting specifically to be used on the cover of
> a particular book and it is illustration. But display that same painting
> in a gallery without any reference to the book and now it is fine art.
depends on the mileage one wants for their work, eh?
I guess though it depends on some restrictions. For example, on my
conservation wildlife stamp designs...thought has to be given as to where
the state or Feds will print their department's name and fee for the stamp.
In such areas...the artist cannot have confusing values and details.
Also....one learns what prejudices various states will have. One state
leans to favor two ducks, one male & female, with plane backgrounds
harboring no detail. Some states invite great backgrounds and allow just
one duck, etc.
In my mind....it takes a good artist to do a good illustration, and I
wouldn't stand there and argue with a fine artist on it being fine art or
not. Yet...something in me is offended knowing that often very little
understanding of what I know as an artist is ever touched upon by another
whom is VERY proud of their making REAL art....when I see little evidence
of concern for good design and composition in their work.
I think at times we all make good work and poor, and it takes the
development of an artist in us that makes the difference.
> The passage of time can make many illustrations unusual or unique
> enough, or the original purpose so insignificant, that we are now more
> interested in the work itself and not whatever purpose it might have
> once served. Thus, illustrations from the past can easily find
> themselves treated as fine art.
good and interesting point..
> Naturally, this type of guideline becomes highly subjective very
> quickly, so it really isn't any better than any other guideline, but it
> is another way of thinking about it.
I think somehow progress could be made for all of us if what an artist was
wasn't so narrowly defined. An artist takes garbage to the curb. Should
he be judged an illustrator or a fine artist? He cooks brats and steaks
for the family on a grill....an illustrator or a fine artist?
So an illustrator/artist paints freely one day....is it freedom to paint
without sense of understanding that in the end will make it fine art?
Discipline without freedom is tyranny. Freedom without discipline is
chaos.
I'm not saying fine art cannot be chaotic....but cannot an ordered way of
painting then also be fine art?
> When used as a criticism of fine art, however, illustration means
> something else entirely; usually that the critic considers the work to
> rely too heavily on the formulaic use of techniques and motifs,
> something which is common (and completely acceptable) in most
> illustration although by no means in all of it.
yeah...guess you are close to accurate here. I guess in the long run, we
ought to just enjoy what we're doing...feed the passion and yield to it as
we celebrate life....and let others determine ultimately the value of what
it is we do.
peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
ACT ministry home page-
http://netministries.org/see/charmin.exe/CM00117
Larry Seiler
> commission to execute 21 paintings for Marie de Medici to
> commemerate (illustrate) her life, each aprox. 12 feet by 10 feet, and
> her life was nothing to brag about. He was given 2 years to finish
> R.D.
Man....if that wasn't illustration huh? Wonder what Rubens would have to
say about the sense of lack of dignity implied in such work, regarded to be
non-art.
Guess we can picture him laughing, yet...we know it was hard work.
thanks for the insight....I never regarded this info concerning him.
Interesting.
Larry
Bennett
I have been quietly lurking and enjoying your discussions of art/not art,
agreeing with some of the thoughts, disagreeing with others, but most of
all, impressed by the calmness of the discussion and the thinking processes
that have gone into it. Usually, this subject incites passionate assaults,
and it was good to see that none came.
Pitching in...N.C. Wyeth, father of Andrew, grandfather of Jamie, is said to
have expressed on his deathbed profound regret that he has spent so much
time on illustration, and so little on art. He distinguished the two quite
simply: If it was ordered up to help tell a story, it was illustration; if
it was something he plain just wanted to do, it was art.
That might be a good thought for us all.
By the way, poor Rubens had double trouble with those 21 huge panels. That
lady had an ego larger than life, quite a grand opinion of herself, to
which, Rubens had to cater. So he not only was an illustrator, he was a
public relations man as well. Poor sot!
Regards to all....
Bennett
Larry Seiler
> one that I seem to have no contol over. It comes and goes as it damn
> well pleases and I am left wondering how could anyone base a business on
> in each and every artist.
I think you are right "RD".....perhaps a gift in some. But some we know in
our culture as "gifted" developed their gifts. Take Michael Jordan whom
was cut his sophomore year in basketball. That to many would-be-athlete
superstars would send the message to get another day job.
Surely in the mind of those uniquely gifted and set apart, Jordan would
stand out. Yet....as talented as he his, he would resent some suggesting it
required nothing on his part but to play.
Some of us find painting a mystery. So alluring....that the mystery has to
be understood. With years and years of painstaking self-discipline and
striving to understand that mystery.....a huge gap...a deep chasm develops
that such a person is looked at as a "gift" him/herself to humanity....that
how a person got to such a place cannot be imagined, and it is left to be
called "talent" or a "gift."
I hear many state at shows that they wish they had my talent.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!! yeah right......!!! Hardly one would
be willing to risk what I've risked....or endure what I've had to endure.
Hardly anyone would sacrifice the pleasures and promises this life offers
for immediate gratification for the lofty goals and dreams in my head.
I have made the lofty dreams seem to be in reach by believing that
understanding and application bring results.
For my good...intuition comes ALSO for the artist that for many many years
focused hard and long as well. It becomes a second nature that has learned
to trust what one understands. The way a bicyclist learns to trust his
body has developed a sense of balance so he can focus on race strategy.
A motorcyclist learns the ability to anticipate a moment of potential
disaster, and uses that even driving the family car. His experiences
sharpen another level of intuition.
Many think intuition exists separate from convergent analytical
disciplines, but I believe intuition for those disciplined and
knowledgeable of such is discovered at another level that escapes many.
After many years of striving to understand better composition and
design....I can now paint outdoors free of such concerns and tune in on
other elements such as sensitivity to color...the "spirit" of the
scene...other relationships.
In time.....those elements become intuitive.
I can now paint in 30minutes to 2 hours what would have at one time taken
me 80-150 hours. Its taken a long time (years) to get there.....but I
would argue I experience great "intuitive" confidence and freedom....and it
came by demanding control.
Again....not saying though that there is only one "right" way.....but, I
just don't want it misunderstood that intuition is a device that exists
only for certain individuals.
peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
burnin...@my-deja.com
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
> Many think intuition exists separate from convergent analytical
> disciplines, but I believe intuition for those disciplined and
> knowledgeable of such is discovered at another level that escapes
many.
Speculation. Possibly.
> Again....not saying though that there is only one "right" way.....but,
I
> just don't want it misunderstood that intuition is a device that
exists
> only for certain individuals.
You might be correct. It would be very difficult to test reliably.
However, the willingness to *rely* upon intuition does exist only
for certain individuals.
Many tests will measure that.
Bob C
>
> I think somehow progress could be made for all of us if what an artist was
> wasn't so narrowly defined. An artist takes garbage to the curb. Should
> he be judged an illustrator or a fine artist? He cooks brats and steaks
> for the family on a grill....an illustrator or a fine artist?
>
Categorization can be a very useful tool to help us organize,
understand, and describe the world around us. Unfortunately, it seems to
be human nature not to stop there, but to instead continue on and apply
the categorization to any amount of other less noble purposes. I've
certainly done it myself on enough occasions.
- Bob C.
Erik A. Mattila
Larry Seiler wrote:
> > Talk about working under pressure: Rubens in 1621 was given the
> > commission to execute 21 paintings for Marie de Medici to
> > commemerate (illustrate) her life, each aprox. 12 feet by 10 feet, and
> > her life was nothing to brag about. He was given 2 years to finish
> > the job ...
>
> > R.D.
>
> Man....if that wasn't illustration huh? Wonder what Rubens would have to
> say about the sense of lack of dignity implied in such work, regarded to be
> non-art.
> Guess we can picture him laughing, yet...we know it was hard work.
> thanks for the insight....I never regarded this info concerning him.
> Interesting.
> Larry
It seems evident that our modern view of 'art' and 'artists' is, well, very
modern. I really suspect ( in fact historical documents will bear this out)
that in the past the ideas were quite different. Rubens, Cranach, Holbein and
others (Oh, yes, Durer also) ran production shops - not to disparage the
products. But Henry VIII needed several portraits to bestow on his relatives
at Xmas, so a market for producing 10-offs was very real.
Much of the valorization of the artist in society is rather new (150 years?).
Prior to this there was more of a utilitarian attitude. Look at the
printmakers, for example. Today these are treasured works of art, but when
they were created they were commissions -- the mass media of the day. Today,
a copy of 'Der Teuche Cicero' (The German Cicero) would be a treasure due to
Hans Lionhard Schauffelein's woodcuts, but when it was published in 1540 or so
these were merely illustrations. People bought the book for the
inspiritational religious literature it contained- embellished, as it was, by
the woodcuts.
In fact, Schauffelein's carreer is appropriate to this discussion. He is
regarded by modern scholars to have regressed in the course of his career. He
began in the workshop of Durer (not as a student, but as a jouneyman).
Predictably, his own work during this period reflected Durer's - notiably very
explicit renderings of every detail of a composition - an oak leaf looked like
an oak leaf, rye grass didn't look like oats. Eventually he departed Durer's
shop and set up his own in Nordligen. After several years he changed his
style radically, and began to use very generic renderings of objects in nature
-- the leaves of trees became very stylized, for example. Why? Because he
was responding to commissions as efficiently as possible, making some artistic
decisions about time, selecting and deselecting what was important to the
scope of the work he was undertaking. Personally, I like his later work -- I
find it to be quite lyrical when compared to Durer's heavy handedness.
Schauffelein's later work leaves much to the viewer and it seems more easily
personalized. Don't get me wrong - Durer's work is magnificent -- I'm just
trying to call a spade a spade (That's a monsterous pun, by the way, for those
who don't know German. "Schauffelein" litterally means "Little Shovel," and
his monogram was just that, a little shovel).
But still, it consisted of pictures of Emporer Charles trowing a party, since
that is what he was paid to do. Illustration? Of course. The bulk of German
Woodcuts, now regarded as High Art, were the result of commercial transactions
and contracts for very specific purposes. This history certainly doesn't make
them 'Not-Art'.
Erik Mattila
rdav...@my-deja.com
burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7kbc5r$l...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Many think intuition exists separate from convergent analytical
> > disciplines, but I believe intuition for those disciplined and
> > knowledgeable of such is discovered at another level that escapes
> many.
>
> Speculation. Possibly.
disciplines. Sorry. My first encounter with what I'll call intuitive
reasoning occurred before I had any discipline (still don't). I was in
art school working on a fairly large abstact (sort of Kandinsky) really
quite mindlessly. After adding a maroon slash next to a deep green I
suddenly became aware of the whole painting and that it was complete.
Ever since then I have been forced to rely on that shift of awareness
( I sound like Carlos Castenada) in order follow the path of art.
>
> > Again....not saying though that there is only one "right"
way.....but,
> I
> > just don't want it misunderstood that intuition is a device that
> exists
> > only for certain individuals.
unto itself, and each individual painting can be thought of as a little
universe which can only be understood with a specific kind of knowledge.
>
> You might be correct. It would be very difficult to test reliably.
> However, the willingness to *rely* upon intuition does exist only
> for certain individuals.
>
> Many tests will measure that.
We have started a new thread but much more interesting.
R.D.
mdeli
Artwork is paint on canvas and etc.. Whether it attracts the viewer is
what counts, not its stylistic label. There really is no concrete
aesthetic distinction between fine art and illustration.
However the term illustration when used in a derogitory sense is the
Modern Academic Art label equivalent to blasphemy. It is also used as
a derogatory term by art teachers. "We teach Art here not
illustration." This is really an excuse used by teachers who don't
know technique and can't draw.. Thus most students end up totally
ignorant of the commercial aspects of art and a whole branch of
artwork. As a consequence art schools produce a large crop of
disgruntled failures who are able to do little more than take comfort
in the "starving artist myth."
The label "Illustration" is also given to artwork:
-done for printed reproduction
-to clarify or supplement text
- done for commercial purposes
- done for payment on comission.
Most all artwork with minor exceptions, is done for payment and in an
economic sense is commercial. Whether an art work possesses merit (is
fine art) has nothing to do with whether it is commercial,
illustration or whatever the artist's intention.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
myfan...@my-deja.com
> Tell me, what is (in your minds)the difference between illustration
and
> a perfectly rendered painting of, say, wildlife?
You are the one who believes there is a difference not me.
A "perfectly" rendered painting of wildlife would of course
go far beyond most illustration; A term that has gained a
negative connotation because of the large volume of clone
and psychologically voided renderings of things like wildlife,
but this could be argued for modern art; and abstraction as well.
> Why is one sold as
> art, but could quite comfortably be in a school book?
If it ends up in a school book --- Money!
> Could this be
> answered already by curators of popular galleries>>>
>meaning the absence
> of such works?
Galleries that appeal to the intelligenia you mean?
But what about photorealism, pop, surrealism, etc? There
is plenty of illustration in the galleries appealing to
intelligencia buyers...
> Is Skill art?
Art is a craft, skill is a word one might use to say that one
is good at that craft. The craft of art is used to express
ideas, visions, and emotions quite easily.
Creativity is not a craft, nor can really be taught since
learning can become in the hands of a bad teacher the
antithetical of creativity. However I think in the right
hands-preferably ones own- creativity can be encouraged and
fostered.
> Curious to see your answers. :O)
=(:0}>
> Sam>> an observer
Larry Seiler
> disciplines.
The mind in critical thinking is broken up into two sectors- convergent and
divergent. Convergent are those operations for which the mind thinks
linearly, step one..step two...etc., and tend to analyze each step to
arrive at a logical reasonable conclusion. It is ordered....disciplined,
etc; Mathematics and its theorems. Scientific method...left brain. The
detective looking for clues and piecing them together bit by
bit....organizing them in steps until problems are solved.
Divergent thinking is considered a higher order of thinking, and is
creative in nature. It infers....it jumps to conclusions. It looks at a
given set of circumstances and risks to assume the conclusion before lining
up all the facts. It is often visual in the mind.
For example.....sitting amongst about 60 teachers, our critical thinking
prof gave us this riddle....."John and Mary are found on the floor. John
is dead. There is fluid and broken glass on the floor as well. What
happened?"
Well....the teachers from all subject areas were allowed to ask only yes or
no questions for which the prof would respond yes or no until we as a body
of teachers discovered what happened.
It turned out that two of us out of 60 immediately pieced the mystery
together in our heads visually...divergent processes, working in reverse of
everyone else, and had the correct answer. The teacher wanting us to hold
our answer until everyone else was through figuring it out.
As it turned out....the two of us were coincidently both art teachers. We
were also both correct....while the academic teachers whom would assume
their backgrounds prepared them to be more superior thinkers than artist
"types" took an additional 15-20 minutes. Those people relied upon
convergent thinking. Step by step analysis of the facts utilizing care and
caution.
Before anyone gave the answer...the prof had me finally give the answer,
and then it was obvious to everyone for a loud sigh could be heard followed
by laughter. Teachers wanted to know why we would have known the answer so
quickly and gave the prof the lead-in for her bit on divergent processes.
One of the academic subject teachers actually voiced her surprise that
artists in particular developed this higher form of thinking for as it
turned out, we artists are not considered very "bright" by the academic
world. It was further pointed out that they thought all we taught in the
classroom to students was how to make pretty little pictures.
> Ever since then I have been forced to rely on that shift of awareness
Actually....I don't think any artist is "forced" to rely on a method.
After 20 years of painting 100-300 hours in each of my competition style
paintings....I reinvented myself to paint painterly pieces in 1-3 hours.
It all depends on the passion that drives you. What you want to do.
If you should one day see a body of work that really hits something deep
inside you done by another artist....and then investigate and find what it
would take to make that shift for yourself....you'll do what you need to if
that change will help you better express that inside that you wish to
express.
> Maybe there is a specific type of intuition for artists.
Well.....I already made us sound like superiors suggesting we access
divergent thinking....
I think we could fall prey to thinking we are special...and uh
hem.....worthy of being admonished, praised...idolized, etc;
I believe we can hone operations and skills, and develop sensitivities to
such that the non-practicing non-artist does not access. But...your
statement would not rule out that such intuition is reserved only for
artists that do a particular style of work or that it is for all. Such
being the case.....I think we by habit learn to rely on hunches and whims.
Hhhmm...."Hunches and Whims"...now, how would that sound for a business
name for an auto repair shop? Think they'd get much business???
hahahaha......sorry....just came to me... ;^)
> Art is a world unto itself,
...this gets me a little nervous I'll have to say...but that's just me
perhaps.
Like saying it is a "god onto itself" and pretty soon we can assume rank
and privileges that the rest of the world does not get to enjoy. It is a
form of communication and expression. Weight lifters sculpt their body and
have certain advantages that come with it over those of us that might do
menial tasks. We have developed certain functions that the
non-practictioner hasn't, but such are yet available to them. What gets me
nervous about it I guess, is that often growth ceases and degeneration sets
in when we think "we have arrived". A certain amount of humility is
necessary to maintain or the thing we are aware of as being special that
"we have" soon "has us." That tends to invite an imbalance and affects
attitude and our work. Pride. It destroys many.
that's my thinking on it anyway.....peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
ACT ministry home page-
http://netministries.org/see/charmin.exe/CM00117
Larry Seiler
since
> that is what he was paid to do. Illustration? Of course. The bulk of
German
> Woodcuts, now regarded as High Art, were the result of commercial
transactions
> and contracts for very specific purposes. This history certainly doesn't
make
> them 'Not-Art'.
>
> Erik Mattila
good stuff Erik......!!! I am really enjoying this "inside
stuff"....really puts the debates and endless rants into another light.
Guess the bottom line is....artists have to eat, pay bills, would like to
do what they do AND lure a potential spouse which adds to the
responsibility. Guess the issue has come to suggest some noble cause for
those that make art that offers no hope for sustaining stability.
What I find amusing though...is that a certain style of art has come under
scrutiny because it HAS found markets.....and thus it is assumed that all
such artists that do such do so for those reasons. Well....come and live
in Wisconsin...that good 'ole Green Bay Packer/beer country. The great
state of equal opportunity for artists where we can all paint any style we
want and all starve regardless ! Who's got time for art here? "C'mon
honey, get outta the way of the television.....Monday Night Football is on.
Get me a beer as long as your up!" hahaa.....
peace,
Chris Brobeck
> > I'm afraid I don't have a clue as to what are convergent analytical
> > disciplines.
>
> The mind in critical thinking is broken up into two sectors- convergent and
> divergent. Convergent are those operations for which the mind thinks
> linearly, step one..step two...etc., and tend to analyze each step to
> arrive at a logical reasonable conclusion. It is ordered....disciplined,
> etc; Mathematics and its theorems. Scientific method...left brain. The
> detective looking for clues and piecing them together bit by
> bit....organizing them in steps until problems are solved.
>
> Divergent thinking is considered a higher order of thinking, and is
> creative in nature. It infers....it jumps to conclusions. It looks at a
> given set of circumstances and risks to assume the conclusion before lining
> up all the facts. It is often visual in the mind.
Just a wee comment here - I take it your background in math is a bit weak?
Maybe if it was stronger then you'd understand that math is (perhaps) one the
most highly non-linear and intuitive of all disciplines. in it's actual
practice; it just takes a bit more training to get to an operational
level....Of course this is biased - I left art for the sciences in the early
70's, when it became apparent that the latter were far less dogmatic and far
more open to creative impulses than the arts, at that time. Think of math as
art without a canvas....
Cheers;
Chris
Sam
mdeli wrote:
>
> a derogatory term by art teachers. "We teach Art here not
> illustration." This is really an excuse used by teachers who don't
> know technique and can't draw.. Thus most students end up totally
> ignorant of the commercial aspects of art and a whole branch of
> artwork. As a consequence art schools produce a large crop of
> disgruntled failures who are able to do little more than take comfort
> in the "starving artist myth."
>
I find this hostile attitude, towards students of art and teachers,
common among those who have no idea what they are talking about, more
accurately: those who have not been to art school. To say that most
students end up ignorant of the commercial aspects of art is nonsense.
Students are given a well rounded education that includes commercialism
and selling art.
As for the final comment about disgruntled failures. All I can say is
that any profession includes people unhappy with their choice,
especially if they have unrealistic expectations about wealth Etc. I
would have to say, that art students who take their careers seriously,
can not find a better atmosphere. Instructors offer individual lessons
and techniques and experience, most of all inspiration. Through other
students and faculty you meet people in the community, (i.e. gallery
owners) that you may not have had the chance to as solo learner.
This weekend in my city, three of the top galleries feature recent
graduates of a BFA program at a local art school. Hardly failures.
At any rate, I found your comment bitter and mean. Mostly I found it to
be uneducated in reasoning.
I do not find the comment "starving artist" crosses the lips of anyone
who knows and loves art. It is a comment mostly found outside the art
community. I have my guesses why.
>
> Sam
Hutto
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Sam wrote:
> Students are given a well rounded education that includes commercialism
> and selling art.
Phooey...I must have missed that class. Most of the teachers I had
wouldn't have known where to begin telling us how to sell artwork. Only a
few of them actually bothered to pursue gallery/commissioned sales.
Besides, if any of them WERE selling, why on earth would they tell US the
secret? If *I* was a teacher, the LAST thing I would tell my students is
how I make my money...That's kind of begging for competition.
I came out of art school knowing a few more techniques than I had going
in, and a lot more concentrated practice under my belt. I won't say that I
didn't learn anything, but one thing I never heard a peep about was how to
make money by selling work. Not even the design classes got past
theoretical concepts and impractical/experimental techniques.
> Instructors offer individual lessons
> and techniques and experience, most of all inspiration.
Where did you go to school? U. of Utopia?
> Through other
> students and faculty you meet people in the community, (i.e. gallery
> owners) that you may not have had the chance to as solo learner.
Hmmm. I never met a single gallery owner through my profs, nor through my
fellows.
> This weekend in my city, three of the top galleries feature recent
> graduates of a BFA program at a local art school. Hardly failures.
Hardly top galleries.
> At any rate, I found your comment bitter and mean. Mostly I found it to
> be uneducated in reasoning.
I found it quite accurate. You must lead a blessed existence.
> I do not find the comment "starving artist" crosses the lips of anyone
> who knows and loves art. It is a comment mostly found outside the art
> community. I have my guesses why.
Hmmm. I must have left my huge income in my other life.
Please let me know where you live so that I may move there and make a
living selling my art. Until I can move to your Garden of Eden, I will
have to continue forcing myself to enjoy designing people's web pages
while painting in random moments of free time.
Hutto
SAM
Hutto wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Sam wrote:
>
>
> Phooey...I must have missed that class. Most of the teachers I had
> wouldn't have known where to begin telling us how to sell artwork. Only a
> few of them actually bothered to pursue gallery/commissioned sales.
> Besides, if any of them WERE selling, why on earth would they tell US the
> secret? If *I* was a teacher, the LAST thing I would tell my students is
> how I make my money...That's kind of begging for competition.
Must not have been a good school. I can not say without knowing more
that what you care to disclose. Perhaps it is a good thing you are not
a teacher. While the art world is competitive, any teacher with sense
knows that their students are not their competition but soon to be
colleagues . I can not speak highly enough of the instructors I had
(all practicing artists) Perhaps I was blessed.
>
> I came out of art school knowing a few more techniques than I had going
> in, and a lot more concentrated practice under my belt. I won't say that I
> didn't learn anything, but one thing I never heard a peep about was how to
> make money by selling work. Not even the design classes got past
> theoretical concepts and impractical/experimental techniques.
Well then, that is a shame, but that does not speak for the majority.
Nor can I. I do know that you can be taught methods of selling etc.
But there is no easy way, and thus no easy way can be taught.
>
>
> Where did you go to school? U. of Utopia?
I don't won't honor that statement with an answer
>
>
> Hmmm. I never met a single gallery owner through my profs, nor through my
> fellows.
Too bad. I did. many.
>
>
>
> Hardly top galleries.
Actually, yes. Top galleries.
>
>
> I found it quite accurate. You must lead a blessed existence.
I am glad you found it accurate. We agree to disagree. Insults aside.
>
e
>
> Hmmm. I must have left my huge income in my other life.
You miss my point. I am not saying that poor artists do not exist,
rather the common phrase "starving artist" seeks to make light of what
is one of the most rewarding careers: following your heart
>
> Please let me know where you live so that I may move there and make a
> living selling my art. Until I can move to your Garden of Eden, I will
> have to continue forcing myself to enjoy designing people's web pages
> while painting in random moments of free time.
>
I am sorry that luck has not been on your side so far. I have told the
truth. If my truth is your Eden. Well, thanks!
Perhaps, you can calm your bitterness to learn from people, rather than
disputing what they tell you. You cannot characterize your lack of
success as the norm for students, nor more than I can characterize my
relative success as a norm. I do know that art school has been a
successful investment for many, many, of my peers. But it did not come
without hard work. I feel it gave us an edge. my opinion.
> Hutto
Kay
:> Students are given a well rounded education that includes commercialism
:> and selling art.
Hutto wrote:
:Phooey...I must have missed that class. Most of the teachers I had
:wouldn't have known where to begin telling us how to sell artwork. Only a
:few of them actually bothered to pursue gallery/commissioned sales.
Kay writes:
I keep hearing these *sour grapes* types of experiences in this n.g. from
students or former students though the responses are NOT the majority. To
get hired as an instructor at an art school the requirements are: M.F.A.
degree as well as an extensive national/international exhibition record.
BUT, a few, certainly not the majority seemed to have discontinued their
active artmaking/sales once on tenure track position.
:Besides, if any of them WERE selling, why on earth would they tell US the
:secret?
No big secret. Lots of instructors *mentored* me, but then again, I was
receptive. I would give advice to anyone as well, since there is room for
many artists out there and the quality of the work and the dedication of the
artist to making the work will weed out the non-serious artists within an
average time of 5 years post-school.
: If *I* was a teacher, the LAST thing I would tell my students is
:how I make my money...That's kind of begging for competition.
Read above.
:I came out of art school knowing a few more techniques than I had going
:in, and a lot more concentrated practice under my belt. I won't say that I
:didn't learn anything,
School doesn't make you an artist but gives you the basic knowledge to go
out there and make your art and make yourself an artist.
: but one thing I never heard a peep about was how to
:make money by selling work. Not even the design classes got past
:theoretical concepts and impractical/experimental techniques.
You may have a point here. This is a new concept being introduced at *some*
schools - "business of art" and/or "art marketing" classes. Not many
schools, at present, have these types of classes and I agree, there is a
need for them. Most students learn after graduation through trial and
error. Some students are given this advice through *mentoring* by their
instructors. I was fortunate enough to have an instructor *mentor* me and
perhaps Sam was also. This is NOT a part of their job and any instructor
who does so goes beyond the call of duty.
:> Instructors offer individual lessons
:> and techniques and experience, most of all inspiration.
:
:Where did you go to school? U. of Utopia?
:
:> Through other
:> students and faculty you meet people in the community, (i.e. gallery
:> owners) that you may not have had the chance to as solo learner.
It sounds like Sam is speaking about experiences gained through a master's
degree program where a more intimate relationship exists between
professor/student than in undergrad since I received more guidance of the
type he speaks of in grad school (though I was *mentored as an undergrad
also).
:Hmmm. I never met a single gallery owner through my profs, nor through my
:fellows.
Have you attended *their* openings? Introductions inevitably happen. You
seem not to be doing the art opening thing. My advise is to make that part
of your marketing strategy.
:> This weekend in my city, three of the top galleries feature recent
:> graduates of a BFA program at a local art school. Hardly failures.
:
:Hardly top galleries.
A good place to get recognition. You don't usually start at the top, Hutto.
:> At any rate, I found your comment bitter and mean. Mostly I found it to
:> be uneducated in reasoning.
:
:I found it quite accurate. You must lead a blessed existence.
:> I do not find the comment "starving artist" crosses the lips of anyone
:> who knows and loves art. It is a comment mostly found outside the art
:> community. I have my guesses why.
:
:Hmmm. I must have left my huge income in my other life.
Being an artist should have nothing to do with monetary aspirations. There
are incredibly more reliable and easy ways to get an income! If a huge
income follows, that's just icing on the cake.
:Please let me know where you live so that I may move there and make a
:living selling my art. Until I can move to your Garden of Eden, I will
:have to continue forcing myself to enjoy designing people's web pages
:while painting in random moments of free time.
:
:Hutto
#1. Give yourself a 10 year plan. Not about money, but about how many
works of art you will do within specific time constraints, how many grants
you will apply for, how many galleries you will contact (I advise a 5 year
post-school wait for your work to mature on this)
#2. Start going to museum & gallery openings. Become a reliable fixture at
these things. Ask the exhibiting artists about their work. Sometimes
friendships form. People begin to look for your familiar face.
Introductions happen.
#3. Keep reading about art through whatever art periodical that your art
best *connects* with and buy some art marketing books. I think "Art
Marketing 101" is a good one.
#4. Be nice. No one likes a pouty face sarcastic complainer.
Best Wishes!
Kay
"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)
Hutto
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, SAM wrote:
> > Where did you go to school? U. of Utopia?
>
> I don't won't honor that statement with an answer
How about if I leave off the sarcastic remark?
I was actually interested in knowing where you went to school.
> > Hardly top galleries.
> Actually, yes. Top galleries.
City? Names of galleries?
Every "top" gallery I have been to since graduating has given me the same
crap - They either disregard my work because of my age, or they make
ludicrous claims about only accepting work from those painters whove been
at it "professionaly" for ten years or more...Some have even insisted that
I have an MFA before submitting work, as though that would make me a
better painter. The galleries I have gotten into are upstarts run by
younger people. 30-somethings, etc.
> > I found it quite accurate. You must lead a blessed existence.
> I am glad you found it accurate. We agree to disagree. Insults aside.
I didn't mean to insult you. I find your positivity astonishing. You are
the only person I have ever heard have such an optimistic viewpoint. It
sounds absolutely prozac-induced.
Mainly, I'd like to know how to be where you be.
> I am sorry that luck has not been on your side so far. I have told the
> truth. If my truth is your Eden. Well, thanks!
Would be to me.
> Perhaps, you can calm your bitterness to learn from people, rather than
> disputing what they tell you.
Perhaps.
> You cannot characterize your lack of
> success as the norm for students, nor more than I can characterize my
> relative success as a norm.
Well, *most* of my "collegues" aren't painting for a living.
> I do know that art school has been a
> successful investment for many, many, of my peers. But it did not come
> without hard work. I feel it gave us an edge. my opinion.
Maybe it's the difference between an actual art school and a university
art program.
Hutto
Kay
Hutto wrote in message ...
:
(snip)
:
:Every "top" gallery I have been to since graduating has given me the same
:crap - They either disregard my work because of my age, or they make
:ludicrous claims about only accepting work from those painters whove been
:at it "professionaly" for ten years or more...
If they disregard your work because of your age, you shouldn't take it
personally (though that's hard). They probably want you to have reached a
*mature* phase in your art before they commit. This sounds like an insult
and I have been known to give insults, but this isn't one! Look in any art
history book about an artist you admire. Look at his/her "early" work.
Very seldom is there a resemblance of the mature style. One thing they all
did though was keep doing their work until their *mature* style emerged.
Your art can only keep growing, maturing and getting better. Many very
young artists find this insulting, thinking "My art is GOOD now..." and
maybe this is true but another true thing is that if you keep at it, even if
it is good, it will get even better! That's what they are waiting for.
Also, way, way, way too many people quit making art for various reasons.
The majority, in fact. I'm sure you've heard this and yes, it is incredibly
discouraging, but 10 years from now, if you are still making art, you will
see by the amount of people/artists you KNEW who no longer make art that it
is very true!
:Some have even insisted that
:I have an MFA before submitting work, as though that would make me a
:better painter.
I haven't seen it hurt and I've seen it help. I think it just proves more
of a dedication into extending an education and by reflection, may indicate
more seriousness on the part of the MFA student (though this isn't always
true either). I DO know of many, many students with a BFA who didn't get
accepted to an MFA degree program and who applied to many. Maybe that's
another factor?
The galleries I have gotten into are upstarts run by
:younger people. 30-somethings, etc.
Good grief! You are young! You are building a resume. You shouldn't start
at the top. Just DO IT!
(snip)
:
:Maybe it's the difference between an actual art school and a university
:art program.
:
Hutto
I've been in both. Of course a private art school is better, but a
university art program generally has high standards as well.
Kay
:
Kay
Hutto wrote in message ...
:
:> #1. Give yourself a 10 year plan. Not about money, but about how many
:> works of art you will do within specific time constraints, how many
grants
:> you will apply for, how many galleries you will contact (I advise a 5
year
:> post-school wait for your work to mature on this)
:My work to mature....yada...I paint better than many 50-year-olds who've
:been slinging hack crap for decades...
I don't dispute that. BUT, as good as it is, it WILL get better. Not only
that, it will grow into something very different from what it is now. Most
of us who have been doing it for 10 or more years had the exact same
feelings about being ready NOW. But, after a while, when we show old work
(speaking for myself) we are a bit uncomfortable because our NEW work is
always so much more exciting. Is the work you did as a Senior in college
better than the work you did as a Freshman? Why is this rule of getting
better going to stop?
:
:> #2. Start going to museum & gallery openings. Become a reliable fixture
at
:> these things. Ask the exhibiting artists about their work. Sometimes
:> friendships form. People begin to look for your familiar face.
:> Introductions happen.
:
:I wish I could provide an adequate picture of how impossible that is in
:this hell hole of a town. No galleries, no museum...not for miles and
:miles and miles. I live 2 blocks from hell, really.
Best advice I ever got from an instructor (world-famous) when I told him
that I didn't want to move to NYC: "Take trips!" I know, you are broke. You
can get a greyhound bus ticket to anywhere in the US round trip for $100. I
think I read about a famous artist who lived on the west coast but traveled
very cheaply to NYC just for openings and to schmooz and eventually he was
just another familiar face and everyone thought he LIVED in NYC (he made the
connections he wanted this way). I have several friends in NYC who envy me
because I live in a rural area. What I have (and what YOU have) is TIME!
Do your art. Get good slides. Live cheap and travel cheap! Give it time...
:> #3. Keep reading about art through whatever art periodical that your art
:> best *connects* with...
:
:That just makes me more angry. I see the crap that people get press for
:and know for a fact that my work is better, yet I am nearly powerless - I
:cant prove myself from here...I cant afford to go elsewhere...THIS SUCKS!
You don't need to go elsewhere but you do need to quit being in such a hurry
and just do your work.
:> #4. Be nice. No one likes a pouty face sarcastic complainer.
:
:I am nice. :) In a sarcastic, pouty-faced complaining kind of way.
:
:Thanks for the pointers, though, really...I wish I could put them to good
:use. If I ever get any wealth, I will make it my mission to rescue serious
:artists from hicktown hells like this one.
:
:Hutto
I have felt the same way, but instead of leaving the hicktown I am in I
mentor those who want it and need it. You can do that too.
Kay
Hutto
> #1. Give yourself a 10 year plan. Not about money, but about how many
> works of art you will do within specific time constraints, how many grants
> you will apply for, how many galleries you will contact (I advise a 5 year
> post-school wait for your work to mature on this)
My work to mature....yada...I paint better than many 50-year-olds who've
been slinging hack crap for decades...
> #2. Start going to museum & gallery openings. Become a reliable fixture at
> these things. Ask the exhibiting artists about their work. Sometimes
> friendships form. People begin to look for your familiar face.
> Introductions happen.
I wish I could provide an adequate picture of how impossible that is in
this hell hole of a town. No galleries, no museum...not for miles and
miles and miles. I live 2 blocks from hell, really.
> #3. Keep reading about art through whatever art periodical that your art
> best *connects* with...
That just makes me more angry. I see the crap that people get press for
and know for a fact that my work is better, yet I am nearly powerless - I
cant prove myself from here...I cant afford to go elsewhere...THIS SUCKS!
> #4. Be nice. No one likes a pouty face sarcastic complainer.
I am nice. :) In a sarcastic, pouty-faced complaining kind of way.
Larry Seiler
weak?
> Maybe if it was stronger then you'd understand that math is (perhaps) one
the
> most highly non-linear and intuitive of all disciplines.
Actually....I am well aware of its abstract properties....
I believe you are speaking of a unique level of math understanding though
whereas your typical classroom sees the teacher spending 60% of their time
disciplining students ....environments that are conducive of such...and I
was talking about middle school and high school students/teachers. Such
experiences are step one.....step two.....step three. Rarely is enough
math absorbed and appreciated..then synthesized to get to that "artistic"
level you speak of. There were math teachers as well as social studies,
English...etc., in this body of teachers that attempted to solve the riddle
convergently.....step by step.
If students miss a number of days of school from sickness....get behind,
(and I've seen it as a substitute teacher), they have a great deal of
difficulty keeping up with the class. There is a definite dependency
evident in the classrooms on a practical level that if each step is not
kept up with and understood, the student will fall behind. If we are
honest....many kids struggle with math.
Perhaps it is more difficult, or requires more effort to develop oneself to
experience higher order thinking mathematically....while a higher order
thinking comes with less struggle in the arts. I wouldn't know. It sure
seems that kids have mental blocks with math....and it always seems that
teachers in trying to correct or overcome such blocks go back to processes
and examples and point out the step one.....step two... then step three
hoping it "clicks."
> Think of math as art without a canvas....
Actually....the real art would be getting kids to cooperate and engage long
enough that some sense of deeper thought would be possible at any level.
Perhaps the arts do not require the longevity of involvement before
divergent forms of thinking begin to evidence themselves...that would be my
guess.
The point is....the prof used the fact that artistically trained people
solved this riddle almost immediately....while others did not. This
critical thinking teacher used this situation without regard to my math
skills being strong or weak. I would have liked the math teachers solving
it right away, for then perhaps the prof could have clued us in to the
practical example of it....as well as the why.
peace,
Larry
Alison A Raimes
>At any rate, I found your comment bitter and mean. Mostly I found it to
>be uneducated in reasoning.
Sam: you will always find Mani's comments bitter and mean and he is
incapable of reasoning, so it is futile to argue with him. I am sure he
has good reason for being so. However, on this occasion I have to agree
with him - I do think that at BFA level students are not, on the whole,
prepared for post graduate life. Hutto, on the other hand, graduated
from Mississippi State University only two years ago and should be at
his most enthusiastic and productive era. Clearly his school has failed
to prepare him for life on the outside. His self acclaimed greatness and
his constant contradictions as he wallows in self pity are, as Mani
quite rightly points out, the fault of his poor art education. Hutto
believes art is about *competing*, as he has clearly shown in his latest
post, and can not, under those circumstances, use art for personal
development and passionate pursuit of a life long journey into the
realms of the unknown. A couple of weeks ago he was boasting about how
he has gallery representation and yet now he is complaining that he is
being refused on the basis of age. This inconsistency is the only
consistent thing about Jason Hutto.
Kay made some excellent analogies of life after school. I wonder if any
artist ever truly believes that their work is *mature*. As one
constantly evaluates ones art it becomes clear that, if the process of
learning is at work, developing and changing are intrinsic and
inexplicably entangled in the progress of an artist. That, I think, is
what makes it so exciting. Without that, and with the idea that one has
reached *greatness*, I fail to see how any artist can work.
This, in my opinion, would be the difference between art and
illustration.
Regards.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Chris Brobeck
First, let me apologise if my previous response seemed a little curt! It wasn't
justified.
Larry Seiler wrote:
>
> Actually....I am well aware of its abstract properties....
I guess there's that, but I think that it's greates value is it's ability to
open one's mind to new concepts, to new ways of thinking - just like art - and
force one to challenge one's own assumptions. I think to that in one area it
exceeds art - which is that is less subject to the whimes of fashion or
political control. Not enirely, but significantly less so.
>
> I believe you are speaking of a unique level of math understanding though
> whereas your typical classroom sees the teacher spending 60% of their time
> disciplining students ....environments that are conducive of such...and I
> was talking about middle school and high school students/teachers. Such
> experiences are step one.....step two.....step three. Rarely is enough
> math absorbed and appreciated..then synthesized to get to that "artistic"
> level you speak of.
This is so sad - but I guess I'll leave the thrashing out of the problems of
education to others...except to point out that it is really unfortunate that it
is still being taught as a 1-2-3 process of problem solving.. In reality
solving a math problem is far more like solving a jigsaw puzzle - does this
work, does that work? but with the added tools of logic and memory, so it is
not a random process.. I'm glad to see it being taught this way more in the
elementary schools, at least in this area.
> There were math teachers as well as social studies,
> English...etc., in this body of teachers that attempted to solve the riddle
> convergently.....step by step.
>
If it's any consolation, at a company I used to work for I was criticised for
taking a divergent approach to problem solving, though I took that as a
compliment :) The convergent ones were computer scientist...
>
> Perhaps it is more difficult, or requires more effort to develop oneself to
> experience higher order thinking mathematically....while a higher order
> thinking comes with less struggle in the arts. I wouldn't know. It sure
> seems that kids have mental blocks with math....and it always seems that
> teachers in trying to correct or overcome such blocks go back to processes
> and examples and point out the step one.....step two... then step three
> hoping it "clicks."
I don't know; I think we each have separate talents that make the one or the
other easier....
> Actually....the real art would be getting kids to cooperate and engage long
> enough that some sense of deeper thought would be possible at any level.
>
Always a challenge! (being a parent of a 9 yr. old makes me more than
sympathetic.)
>
> Perhaps the arts do not require the longevity of involvement before
> divergent forms of thinking begin to evidence themselves...that would be my
> guess.
>
Now I'll probably get some criticism for this, but frankly I think that
divergent & convergent thinkers are pretty much scattered through all realms of
activity and skill levels, and that they tailor their activities to suit their
abilities. Just as you'll find math people who are divergent in their thought
processes, you'll find artists who are convergent in theirs. From my
perspective, this would tend to indicate that both are probably inherent rather
than acquired, though I am no psychologist (and I have severe reservations
about this sort of catagorization anyway.)
Cheers;
Chris
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>You may have a point here. This is a new concept being introduced at *some*
>schools - "business of art" and/or "art marketing" classes. Not many
>schools, at present, have these types of classes and I agree, there is a
>need for them. Most students learn after graduation through trial and
>error. Some students are given this advice through *mentoring* by their
>instructors. I was fortunate enough to have an instructor *mentor* me and
>perhaps Sam was also. This is NOT a part of their job and any instructor
>who does so goes beyond the call of duty.
Kay: you speak words of wisdom which illustrates that you have been
through the *system* and I know, been a very receptive student. From
observations tutors seek out students like yourself, because that is the
rare reward from teaching - to know you have influenced someone's course
in life.
In Britain at MFA the students are taught a programme of marketing and
promotional skills which include how to write successful applications
for sponsorship and government grants. My friend here in the next studio
studied MFA at the Royal College of Art and has just received an 8,000
pound travel award. This afternoon I am going to the MFA degree show of
one of my friends from undergraduate days in London - she learned
yesterday that she has won a major British printmaking award. Last week
another undergrad friend just gained her MFA at the Royal College of Art
and has a scholarship to do a residency in the USA.
Most of the students from my BFA days are not doing anything related to
art ... just going off to meet some of them and drink copious amounts of
alcohol to celebrate our friends successes ... but the committed ones
are all involved in exciting futures as artists. The lesson that should
always be taught at undergrad is that the you have to go out and make it
happen, wouldn't you agree ?
Happy painting ... hope it is going well.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
rdav...@my-deja.com
Larry, I posted a reply to your letter on critical thinking but it seems
to have gotten lost in cyberspace. Anyways thanks.
This thread harkens to the idea that art is a reflection of the times.
I know I have stated that art is a world unto itself. Cezanne: " art is
a harmony that runs parallel to nature." As such it is separate yet
holds within it the ideals of the times it is produced in. The greater
the art the more perfect the mirror. The artist of course is not aware
of this wonderful attribute, he's thinking what's for supper? Whether or
not artists are put up on pedestals or considered as working class joes
doesn't worry Art.
R.D.
Get one for yourself, honey.
> peace,
>
> Larry
> Larry Seiler
> artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
> WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
> http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress
> depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
>
>
Dan Fox
Sam - I like your posts - please email me at dan...@erols.com.
my comments follow ....
Dan
> mdeli wrote:
<snip>
... art schools produce a large crop of
> > disgruntled failures who are able to do little more than take comfort
> > in the "starving artist myth."
Mani's been saying this for years. He's like a broken record.
> >
> I find this hostile attitude, towards students of art and teachers,
> common among those who have no idea what they are talking about, more
> accurately: those who have not been to art school. To say that most
> students end up ignorant of the commercial aspects of art is nonsense.
> Students are given a well rounded education that includes commercialism
> and selling art.
Mani may or may not have gone to arts school - if he did, it was long
ago, I think. He has a vision of what art *should* be; the fact that much
of what is hailed as great art of the last 100 years does not fit
his definition drives him crazy and results in silly statements such as
the ones you're reacting to.
Like the rantings of any demagogue, such
statements contain a grain of truth: some art schools provide poor
education. Some art teachers are indeed no-talent schmucks hiding out with
tenure. It is the same in any field. Mani simply generalizes it to all art
schools and all teachers and all students.
> As for the final comment about disgruntled failures. All I can
> say is that any profession includes people unhappy with their choice,
> especially if they have unrealistic expectations about wealth Etc. I
> would have to say, that art students who take their careers seriously,
> can not find a better atmosphere. Instructors offer individual lessons
> and techniques and experience, most of all inspiration. Through other
> students and faculty you meet people in the community, (i.e. gallery
> owners) that you may not have had the chance to as solo learner.
> This weekend in my city, three of the top galleries feature recent
> graduates of a BFA program at a local art school. Hardly failures.
This has been my general experience. There is also a well-known art
school in my city that used to be excellent but has gone down hill in
the last ten years or so. As you say, this is the same in any field.
My daughter is entering her sophomore year at School of Visual Arts in
New York, and I couldn't be more pleased with the quality of instruction.
Her work shows it, too, and one of her instructors is showing her portfolio
around New York (Okay, I'm a father. I'm entitled to brag!). I would not
want to pay the staggering cost otherwise.
Mani has an answer for all such comments - in my case it is that I am a
no-talent artzy fartzy with no grasp of the fundamentals - so how could I
judge anything? (He made this determination *before* seeing any of my work
- that's what you're up against, Sam.) So how come I've been able to show
in galleries great and small for 25 years? Easy. I'm part of a vast cabal
known as *The Artzy Fartzies*, a world-wide conspiracy to promote and
sell bad art. (Sound familiar?)
In Mani's world, Cezanne, Matisse, Picasso, and so on, are incompetent
fakes. Norman Rockwell and Walt Disney (seriously) are the great artists
of the time.
> At any rate, I found your comment bitter and mean. Mostly I found it to
> be uneducated in reasoning.
Mani is an uneducated failure with time on his hands. This has made
him both bitter and mean.
> I do not find the comment "starving artist" crosses the lips of anyone
> who knows and loves art.
Of course. People like Mani have no idea what's going on in the art world -
nor do they care.
>It is a comment mostly found outside the artcommunity. I have my guesses
>why.
I think it's mostly the public's reaction to the life of Van Gogh, as well
as the Henri Murger novel, La Vie de Boheme, later made into the opera
La Boheme. The art world is and was a very different place - but those
outside it, like Mani, don't know what the world of the artist is like
any more than I know what the world of a dentist or a cop is like.
> >
> > Sam
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
www.danfoxart.com
Dan Fox
> > works of art you will do within specific time constraints, how many
> > grants you will apply for, how many galleries you will contact (I
> > advise a 5 year post-school wait for your work to mature on this)
>
> been slinging hack crap for decades...
I haven't seen your work and so can't comment on this.
>
> > #2. Start going to museum & gallery openings. Become a reliable
> > fixture at these things. Ask the exhibiting artists about their work.
> > Sometimes friendships form. People begin to look for your familiar
> > face. Introductions happen.
>
> I wish I could provide an adequate picture of how impossible that is in
> this hell hole of a town. No galleries, no museum...not for miles and
> miles and miles. I live 2 blocks from hell, really.
Then move. Duh!
> > #3. Keep reading about art through whatever art periodical that your
> > art best *connects* with...
>
> That just makes me more angry. I see the crap that people get press for
> and know for a fact that my work is better, yet I am nearly powerless - I
> cant prove myself from here...I cant afford to go elsewhere...THIS SUCKS!
Complaining about the quality of successful art is the quickest way to
oblivion. Instead, try to figure out why the art is successful. Not to
imitate it, but to learn about the art world and what makes it tick.
>
> > #4. Be nice. No one likes a pouty face sarcastic complainer.
>
> I am nice. :) In a sarcastic, pouty-faced complaining kind of way.
>
> Thanks for the pointers, though, really...I wish I could put them to good
> use. If I ever get any wealth, I will make it my mission to rescue
> serious artists from hicktown hells like this one.
I taught art in Kansas City for a couple of years. (Talk about nowhere
places!). Several of my grad students and some young local artists were
quite good. There's nothing much for them in KC, but they all had very
good reasons why they couldn't move. Except one. She knew she had to go
to the east coast and get more education before moving on - so after I
moved back east she called me out of the blue for a reference.
She's 26, had a job, a boyfriend, had never been out of Kansas, etc, all
the reasons everyone else stayed put. She got loans, quit her job, dumped
her boyfriend, gave away her dog, sold her car. She's here, now, going to
school, waitressing, getting someplace. She went from a nice apartment to a
tiny room and a cot, but she's happy. (and also one of the best students
I've ever had).
I grew up in rural Pennsylvania - my neighbors were all farmers
who never heard of art. You just have to want it bad enough.
>
> Hutto
Wes
sam...@nospamplease.com wrote:
> Topic that will probably meet with some fun and angry answers:
>
> Tell me, what is (in your minds)the difference between illustration
and
> art, but could quite comfortably be in a school book? Could this be
> answered already by curators of popular galleries>>>>meaning the
absence
> of such works?
>
>
> Curious to see your answers. :O)
>
>
Sam, As a wildlife artist and an illustrator I can tell you the lines
are blurred. To me illustration is art created for the specific
purpose of visually telling a story. My fine art may also fall into
that category but for me it is more of a reflection of the reality I
have encountered in the field. Personally, illustration is a lot of
work trying to please everybody else. With my work I only have to
please myself and occasionally a buyer! Is skill art? Ha! Tag along
with a judge at an art show and then listen to the public comments
after the awards go out. There are some extremely skilled artists
making bad art and plenty of novices discovered as art geniuses all the
time.
--
mailto:sieg...@okeechobee.com
View our realistic wildlife art and learn more
about us at: http://home.okeechobee.com/siegrist/
Hutto
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> Hutto, on the other hand, graduated
> from Mississippi State University only two years ago and should be at
> his most enthusiastic and productive era. Clearly his school has failed
> to prepare him for life on the outside.
Had I known all I had to do to be a painter was spill paint everywhere, I
would have been a ship's cook until I was old enough to be presumed
talented.
> Hutto
> believes art is about *competing*, as he has clearly shown in his latest
> post, and can not, under those circumstances, use art for personal
> development and passionate pursuit of a life long journey into the
> realms of the unknown.
I didn't know personal development and competition were mutually
exclusive. You are wrong about that, anyway. I do not believe that ART is
about competition, I believe that being an ARTIST - the art BUSINESS - is
about competition.
> A couple of weeks ago he was boasting about how
> he has gallery representation...
I wasn't BOASTING, I was defending myself against yet another of your ill
informed boo-hoo posts.
> and yet now he is complaining that he is
> being refused on the basis of age. This inconsistency is the only
> consistent thing about Jason Hutto.
That and my consistently low regard for hacks like you.
Hutto
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Visit Brother Alphabet's Evergrowing List of Bad Ads
w w w . b a d - a d s - l i s t . c o m
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Hutto
On 19 Jun 1999, Dan Fox wrote:
> Then move. Duh!
Costs money to move. Wanna buy some paintings?
> Complaining about the quality of successful art is the quickest way to
> oblivion.
Unless you do it loud enough, often enough, and in the presence of the
right people. If I must be hurled into oblivion to successfully change the
scene's tolerance of worthless crap, I'll do it. Better I remain a nobody
than another useless feces-painter make it big.
> Instead, try to figure out why the art is successful. Not to
> imitate it, but to learn about the art world and what makes it tick.
Well, that's why I run my mouth...:)
> I taught art in Kansas City for a couple of years. (Talk about nowhere
> places!).
If you think Kansas City is nowhere, you would suffocate from the
vacuum created by this success-vortex of a village.
> She's here, now, going to
> school, waitressing, getting someplace. She went from a nice apartment to a
> tiny room and a cot, but she's happy. (and also one of the best students
> I've ever had).
Good for her. It's easy to say "just move" when you're already somewhere
that affords you the life.
It isn't as though I PLANNED to be stuck in this place. However, I also do
not plan on using my degree to wait tables. Screw that. No one "gets
someplace" waiting tables...I did manage to learn that much from school. I
might not get to paint for a living for a number of years, but I can at
least go and get a "real job" with my "marketabke skills" -
The thing is that I can't stand doing anything but painting. It's all a
torture of one sort or another. Making pictures is all that matters to me.
> I grew up in rural Pennsylvania - my neighbors were all farmers
> who never heard of art. You just have to want it bad enough.
I want "it" pretty bad. In fact, being a painter is all I have ever wanted
to be as far back as I can recall...I am quite sure many of my energies are
misfocused. Why should I care about bad art? I should be able to just let
the hacks keep hacking and go about my own work...I don't know why it
always feels like an injustice when a no-talent gains some success. For
some reason, I care about the quality of anything called "art".
Is there anything you could offer that's more reasonable for someone who
can't feasibly uproot and move to a major city at this juncture?
Hutto
Hutto
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Hutto wrote:
> least go and get a "real job" with my "marketabke skills" -
Er...one of those skills apparently isn't spell-checking.
Hutto
SAM
Hutto wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Hutto wrote:
>
> > least go and get a "real job" with my "marketabke skills" -
>
> Er...one of those skills apparently isn't spell-checking. (we all make errors)
For someone who only wants to paint you find a lot of time to sit at
your computer and answer posts. hmmmmm could it be -->time management
is all you need?
Just wondering,
SAM :o)
>
> Hutto
Hutto
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, SAM wrote:
> For someone who only wants to paint you find a lot of time to sit at
> your computer and answer posts. hmmmmm could it be -->time management
> is all you need?
That's probably it.
Hutto
Chris Brobeck
from time to time in a non-art newsgroup, or just put a pointer to it in your sig
file.
It's not hard - and it really isn't expensive - I'm learning as I go & could have
saved myself a fair amount of $$ & time by asking questions first & shooting film
after, bit that's alot less fun! . Getting 15-20 images on-line (if you are
willing to do it yourself) will cost you something like 15 dollars in developing
costs, if you can wrangle a 35mm somehow - even less with a digital camera...Web
space is free if you want to go non-commercial at someplace like geocities; & you
can offer to arrange sales by way of Safebuyer escrow (which deals with the
credit card problem, etc.), though I doubt that much art gets sold directly over
the net like that.
What it does do is get significant samples of your work to people with money (the
netizen median income and education being significantly higher than that of the
general population, and it seems to encompass the most acquisitive populace in
the history of the world :) - and be sure that you make it known you are would be
glad to accept visitors at your studio.That's where your greatest sales potential
is (depending on the nature of your work, your personality, and your sense of
hygiene, of course..). I'm lucky here - Nova Scotia is a tourist mecca - I don't
know about your area...
Cheers, & good luck.
Chris.
FWIW, I don't have a clue to where msstate is - missouri? mississipi?, but if you
move to Atlantic Canada, I'll put your stuff on free..http://www.gammarat.com. I
just started this up, do it in my spare time, and want to use it (to a large
extent) to vent my crank political views; yet I have two works reserved & a
(formal) request for a visit from it already. Gotta love this medium!
Kay
Hutto wrote in message ...
:
(snip):
:> Complaining about the quality of successful art is the quickest way to
:> oblivion.
:
:Unless you do it loud enough, often enough, and in the presence of the
:right people.
Complaining about the "unfairness' of not gaining recognition will never,
never, never EVER get you anything positive - but you will get noticed, and
be avoided and discounted.
: If I must be hurled into oblivion to successfully change the
:scene's tolerance of worthless crap, I'll do it.
So now the art scene consists of worthless crap? Which art scene? How is
your art NOT worthless crap? Maybe you should make it worthless crap to
gain the success and recognition you seek. Changing the existing scene?
Sorry, you can't do it, you haven't paid enough dues to have any power.
: Better I remain a nobody
:than another useless feces-painter make it big.
Those shock artists are few and far between. Get that crap off of your
mind. Nobody? What does that mean? You haven't been in Art Forum? You
haven't been in an international Biennelle? You don't show in a top NYC
gallery? You don't show at a local gallery? You don't show at all? You
don't do any work? Success is largely self-defined and the problem that you
seem to be having is the unrealistic desire to begin at the top.
:> Instead, try to figure out why the art is successful. Not to
:> imitate it, but to learn about the art world and what makes it tick.
:
:Well, that's why I run my mouth...:)
Can't hurt (here, not in front of people you want to impress). But reading
about art and the art *scene* you wish to enter is more productive, though
blowing off steam helps at times. When it is a continual thing, you need
help...
:> I taught art in Kansas City for a couple of years. (Talk about nowhere
:> places!).
:
:If you think Kansas City is nowhere, you would suffocate from the
:vacuum created by this success-vortex of a village.
People pay money to go to the middle of nowhere to get their art done. Are
you doing your art? How many works do you have done from this year? Last
year? Realize that a Gallery is a business and they want to make money.
Are you productive? How many "good" works do you produce a year?
:It isn't as though I PLANNED to be stuck in this place.
Well, I don't think you are a friggin refuge who is in the middle of a war
zone with families dead or disappeared and nothing to call your own except
the clothes on your back. You aren't stuck in the damn place and if you are
do some damn art and quit complaining!
: However, I also do
:not plan on using my degree to wait tables. Screw that. No one "gets
:someplace" waiting tables...I did manage to learn that much from school. I
:might not get to paint for a living for a number of years, but I can at
:least go and get a "real job" with my "marketabke skills" -
Substitute teaching? Listen to others with EXPERIENCE. We have all had the
same feelings and have had to learn to pay our dues, set our own priorities
and don't whine about lack of success at 28 years old! The PERFECT job for
art is being a waiter, waitress or some other *no-brainer* job that you
don't think about when you go home. If you get a job you like you'll get
ambitious about that job and start blowing off your artistic ambitions.
:The thing is that I can't stand doing anything but painting. It's all a
:torture of one sort or another. Making pictures is all that matters to me.
:I want "it" pretty bad. In fact, being a painter is all I have ever wanted
:to be as far back as I can recall...I am quite sure many of my energies are
:misfocused.
Write that last sentence 100 times. Then pay attention to it.
: Why should I care about bad art? I should be able to just let
:the hacks keep hacking and go about my own work...I don't know why it
:always feels like an injustice when a no-talent gains some success. For
:some reason, I care about the quality of anything called "art".
:
These are things that have no bearing whatsoever on your own career
ambitions. Frankly, at 28 years of age and a BFA, you will certainly change
your tastes in what you consider bad and good art. Why would you care about
the quality of art except your own at this point?
:Is there anything you could offer that's more reasonable for someone who
:can't feasibly uproot and move to a major city at this juncture?
:
:Hutto
Work, work, work. You better not go to a gallery until you have at least 30
FANTASTIC pieces of your RECENT work. Keep learning. Quit complaining, it
serves no purpose. Be nice to people when possible, it comes back to you.
Kay
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
(snip)
:
:In Britain at MFA the students are taught a programme of marketing and
:promotional skills which include how to write successful applications
:for sponsorship and government grants.
A friend of mine here in the states (San Francisco) just took a class like
that, but, it was for her Museum Studies masters degree. I don't think it
is standard in a MFA degree here. But, being in a co-operative is a good
place to learn.
My friend here in the next studio
:studied MFA at the Royal College of Art and has just received an 8,000
:pound travel award.
Wow! I got a $750 travel award a couple of years ago which is about
1/1000th of hers. Where is she going to travel to?
: This afternoon I am going to the MFA degree show of
:one of my friends from undergraduate days in London - she learned
:yesterday that she has won a major British printmaking award. Last week
:another undergrad friend just gained her MFA at the Royal College of Art
:and has a scholarship to do a residency in the USA.
:Most of the students from my BFA days are not doing anything related to
:art ...
I remember the instructors telling us that 90% or 95% of us wouldn't be
making art 5 years after graduation. We hated that so much! Now, I have
very few friends who continue to make art and some of them were so
incredibly talented, but life gets in the way unless you learn to be quite
selfish (IMO). So, that is similar here.
just going off to meet some of them and drink copious amounts of
:alcohol to celebrate our friends successes ... but the committed ones
:are all involved in exciting futures as artists. The lesson that should
:always be taught at undergrad is that the you have to go out and make it
:happen, wouldn't you agree ?
Absolutely! And success, to me, isn't based on money (though I LIKE money)
but rather upon the acceptance and recognition of your peers and a continued
productivity. But to go out and make it happen... that is a tale I'd like
to address at some point - complete with my own horror stories! Fumble and
fall (trick is to learn how to keep getting up).
:Happy painting ... hope it is going well.
:
:Alison
: ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
: http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
It's going great and I'm treating myself to a day or two of goofing off :-)
Kay
Jillian
ja...@isis.msstate.edu says...
>That's probably it.
>
>Hutto
Another suggestion -- get an agent.
Please don't ask me for one's name though.
Seriously, I knew a guy when I lived in the
NW who did nothing but go around representing
various regional artists. He was very
selective about who he took on and it was
considered a real advantage to be in his
'stable.' Those who were could concentrate on
producing while he chased around to all the
various art galleries, competitions etc with
their works. Mutually rewarding arrangement.
Jillian
says...
>A friend of mine here in the states (San Francisco) just took a class like
>that, but, it was for her Museum Studies masters degree. I don't think it
>is standard in a MFA degree here. But, being in a co-operative is a good
>place to learn.
I didn't get anything by way of 'art business' courses until
I WAS in my MFA program. I personally think it should be
in the BFA program as well, or at least as an introductory
course. Those starry-eyed freshmen need to know what they
are facing if they are pursuing a BFA thinking they are going
to be an exception to the rule.
>I remember the instructors telling us that 90% or 95% of us wouldn't be
>making art 5 years after graduation. We hated that so much! Now, I have
>very few friends who continue to make art and some of them were so
>incredibly talented, but life gets in the way unless you learn to be quite
>selfish (IMO). So, that is similar here.
I don't know if you've been around long enough to have
read the article I quoted here from a survey done several
years back wherein the author polled previous MFA students
from one graduate class to find out how many of them were
still producing art several years later.
Turned out that only one or two out
of a class of about 25 were using their MFA degrees to
any extent -- ie: teaching. The rest were only peripherally
involved with art in any way and about half the class
were no longer producing anything artistic.
Dan Fox
> On 19 Jun 1999, Dan Fox wrote:
Well, since you asked (in your last paragraph) ...
> > Then move. Duh!
>
> Costs money to move. Wanna buy some paintings?
I'll talk about things you can do without moving later. Sure, it costs
money to move. I know many people who put a few bucks in their pockets
and took the Greyhound to New York. One waitress/artist I met in the
Village told me she was from Ireland, with no parental support. (she was
about 21-25). 'I've been here two weeks and I have a job and a place to
live,' she said. You are young, and I presume unattached, with no severe
physical handicaps, right? It takes more guts and determination than
money to make a big change, which is, I suppose, why most people never
do it.
>
> > Complaining about the quality of successful art is the quickest way to
> > oblivion.
>
> Unless you do it loud enough, often enough, and in the presence of the
> right people. If I must be hurled into oblivion to successfully change
> the scene's tolerance of worthless crap, I'll do it. Better I remain a
> nobody than another useless feces-painter make it big.
This attitude is absolutely wrong, and is guaranteed to keep you out of
galleries and other spaces. Nobody wants to hear that shit. You don't
have to kiss ass, but you do have to be reasonable and polite, and treat
others in the art world with respect - even if you don't like their
work. Remember, the gallery owner has put his money on the artists he
shows. If you trash them, will he want to have your sorry ass around?
There's a lot of art out there that I don't personally like. If asked
directly by a gallery owner, I'll say that it doesn't appeal to me, and
have a valid (rather than emotional) reason for it. Occasionally I'm asked
directly about art that I think is bad, and I say so. You don't have to
lie. Mostly, however, nobody will ask you. So don't volunteer your
dislike.
Silly, trendy art has always been with us and always will be. Bouguereau
(sp) was a revered salon painter 100 years ago, very rich and successful.
Feces artists are the Bouguereaus of today. It is all tomorrow's crap, so
to speak. Who cares? Why alienate yourself by trashing art you don't like.
Again: nobody in the art world gives a rat's ass what you think; you only
hurt yourself for nothing.
>
> > Instead, try to figure out why the art is successful. Not to
> > imitate it, but to learn about the art world and what makes it tick.
>
> Well, that's why I run my mouth...:)
Try shutting your mouth and learning with an open mind. You don't have to
like everything you see in the art world. I don't. But you have to know
about it and understand how it works if you want to succeed.
One thing you must realize is that galleries are in business to make money,
not to advance the cause of art. The best ones try to combine both, but
they still have to pay the bills. There are some good and decent gallery
owners out there, but most are 'passive agressive schmucks who are out to
screw artists even at their own expense.' (quote from Matt Gleason).
There are thousands of artists for every gallery. These are the odds we
work with. The score will ALWAYS be, Gallery 1, Hutto 0. Get used to it
and stop whining.
>
> > I taught art in Kansas City for a couple of years. (Talk about nowhere
> > places!).
>
> If you think Kansas City is nowhere, you would suffocate from the
> vacuum created by this success-vortex of a village.
Oh, Boo Hoo. Where I grew up there were no colleges or galleries, no
museums and no artists, good or bad. Nobody had ever heard of art. The farm
louts I went to school with had sex with barnyard animals. Jasper Johns
grew up in the south under similar circumstances. I slept on the floor and
ate oranges to live in New York, and painted on discarded materials. But I
was happy. Others have had it much harder than me, but it was something
they had to do.
> > She's here, now, going to
> > school, waitressing, getting someplace. She went from a nice apartment
> > to a tiny room and a cot, but she's happy. (and also one of the best
> > students I've ever had).
>
> Good for her. It's easy to say "just move" when you're already somewhere
> that affords you the life.
I don't quite understand this.
>
> It isn't as though I PLANNED to be stuck in this place. However, I also
> do not plan on using my degree to wait tables. Screw that. No one "gets
> someplace" waiting tables...I did manage to learn that much from school.
> I might not get to paint for a living for a number of years, but I can at
> least go and get a "real job" with my "marketabke skills" -
You're talking yourself out of what you want. If you're too good to do
menial work you'll never make it. Waiting tables is a great day job for
two reasons: you can usually get flexible hours, thus have time to paint,
go to openings, etc. Second, if you get a job where alcohol is served you
can make very good money in tips.
You can do what you have to do - or you can be above all that. In
Mississippi. Nobody plans to get stuck in a shithole town. But some of us
leave no m matter what.
> The thing is that I can't stand doing anything but painting. It's all a
> torture of one sort or another. Making pictures is all that matters to
> me.
>
Me, too. But for most of my life I had to do work I disliked to support
my painting. Unless the tooth fairy comes around and unloads a trust
fund on your ass, you will too.
> I want "it" pretty bad. In fact, being a painter is all I have ever
> wanted to be as far back as I can recall...I am quite sure many of my
> energies are misfocused. Why should I care about bad art? I should be
> able to just let the hacks keep hacking and go about my own work...I
> don't know why it always feels like an injustice when a no-talent gains
> some success. For some reason, I care about the quality of anything
> called "art".
Yes, you should let it go. The world is full of injustice. So what? Other
people's art has nothing to do with yours, except that you can learn from
art you relate to.
> Is there anything you could offer that's more reasonable for someone who
> can't feasibly uproot and move to a major city at this juncture?
If you absolutely can't bring yourself to move, you can send slides to
galleries and enter good exhibitions. There are some problems here. First,
galleries don't select artists from slides sent in. That's a myth. It
can happen, but you could win the lottery, too. They select artists by
seeing their work in other places, or by referral from a gallery artist or
museum director they respect, then they contact you. Most exhibitions are
a waste of time if you have to ship work. Select only major exhibitions
with a named juror with prestige, like: 'juried by Joe Smith, curator of
painting at the Museum of Modern Art. If you hit there, you've got
something.
There is a lot more to this, but it may help - and may help others in this
group who read it. You've got to do something. Otherwise you'll end up like
Mani - a bitter old man whose life is spend bitching about successful
artists.
Dan Fox
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.10.99061...@ra.msstate.edu>,
>
>
> Another suggestion -- get an agent.
> Please don't ask me for one's name though.
> Seriously, I knew a guy when I lived in the
> NW who did nothing but go around representing
> various regional artists. He was very
> selective about who he took on and it was
> considered a real advantage to be in his
> 'stable.' Those who were could concentrate on
> producing while he chased around to all the
> various art galleries, competitions etc with
> their works. Mutually rewarding arrangement.
That's an option I missed in my post. I use agents in California,
Chicago, and New York and get lots of action and sales. You have to be
very careful here, though (and I'm sure Jillian would agree) - the good
agents are indeed very selective about whom they represent, but there are
phony agents out there who will take you on for a big fee - they make
their money on fees, not on placing your work. At your stage it's uncertain
whether you could land a good agent.
Also, post your work on the web. I could probably give you some pointers
if I knew what it looked like.
Alison A Raimes
<dan...@erols.com> writes
>That's an option I missed in my post. I use agents in California,
>Chicago, and New York and get lots of action and sales. You have to be
>very careful here, though (and I'm sure Jillian would agree) - the good
>agents are indeed very selective about whom they represent, but there are
>phony agents out there who will take you on for a big fee - they make
>their money on fees, not on placing your work. At your stage it's uncertain
>whether you could land a good agent.
Dan: a bit confused here ... agents takes you on for a *fee* ??? I never
heard of this. I guess those are the phoney ones, yes ? I think I have
been very, very lucky. I had three agents take me on their *books* this
year. Two didn't really come through with anything concrete but one is
incredible. She is so motivated and *high flying*. Within three weeks of
visiting my studio she had placed five paintings on *lease* in a West
End office block. The income from that five months has paid the two
hundred pounds a month rent on my studio for those same months, and the
work still belongs to me. She *valued* the work at over twice what I
would have, charged the clients ten percent per month of the value, and
paid me within four weeks. Through that I have had made several contacts
regarding sales and she regularly visits the studio.
I keep saying it was *luck* when my peer group ask me, but I do believe
that a lot of this is to do with the relationship you build up from day
one. Agents are very *aloof* and it can be very intimidating when you
are the new kid on the block ... one tends then to erect a wall to
prevent them thinking they can exploit you. I presented myself as a
*business person* to her and I feel sure that she has, and is, treating
me exactly as that - which is a world *she* understands.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Dan Fox
> In article <19990620141729.050$3...@newsreader.com>, Dan Fox
<snip>
>
> Dan: a bit confused here ... agents takes you on for a *fee* ???
Only the shady ones. I tell artists to remember one thing: you don't pay
them to look at your art. They pay you.
I never
> heard of this. I guess those are the phoney ones, yes ?
Yep - and there are a lot of them out there.
I think I have
> been very, very lucky. I had three agents take me on their *books* this
> year. Two didn't really come through with anything concrete but one is
> incredible. She is so motivated and *high flying*. Within three weeks of
> visiting my studio she had placed five paintings on *lease* in a West
> End office block. The income from that five months has paid the two
> hundred pounds a month rent on my studio for those same months, and the
> work still belongs to me. She *valued* the work at over twice what I
> would have, charged the clients ten percent per month of the value, and
> paid me within four weeks. Through that I have had made several contacts
> regarding sales and she regularly visits the studio.
>
I don't think luck has anything to do with it, but you're a modest person
(smile). Getting ahead in art involves making terrific work that you
believe in, then working your ass off getting people to look at it. You
have to put up with the arrogance, idiocy, etc., of the art world to find
people like your agent. But they are there. And if your work is for them,
they can sell it.
I detest marketing and would rather stay in my studio. But I can't. I
regularly take time away to visit galleries, call or email people, etc.
My web site was one of my agents' idea. I think she was right, but I
probably wouldn't have done it on my own.
So, give yourself credit! You done good.
> I keep saying it was *luck* when my peer group ask me, but I do believe
> that a lot of this is to do with the relationship you build up from day
> one.
Agents are very *aloof* and it can be very intimidating when you
> are the new kid on the block ... one tends then to erect a wall to
> prevent them thinking they can exploit you. I presented myself as a
> *business person* to her and I feel sure that she has, and is, treating
> me exactly as that - which is a world *she* understands.
Pay attention, aspiring artists - this is how you do it.
> Alison
Kay
Jillian wrote in message
:(snip)
:I didn't get anything by way of 'art business' courses until
:I WAS in my MFA program. I personally think it should be
:in the BFA program as well, or at least as an introductory
:course. Those starry-eyed freshmen need to know what they
:are facing if they are pursuing a BFA thinking they are going
:to be an exception to the rule.
:
:>I remember the instructors telling us that 90% or 95% of us wouldn't be
:>making art 5 years after graduation. We hated that so much! Now, I have
:>very few friends who continue to make art and some of them were so
:>incredibly talented, but life gets in the way unless you learn to be quite
:>selfish (IMO). So, that is similar here.
:
:I don't know if you've been around long enough to have
:read the article I quoted here from a survey done several
:years back wherein the author polled previous MFA students
:from one graduate class to find out how many of them were
:still producing art several years later.
:Turned out that only one or two out
:of a class of about 25 were using their MFA degrees to
:any extent -- ie: teaching. The rest were only peripherally
:involved with art in any way and about half the class
:were no longer producing anything artistic.
No, I wasn't here when you posted that. The percentages you quote are
actually more optimistic than I've encountered in my own friends and
acquaintances and many who begin teaching become involved in so many faculty
meetings and committees that they quit making art as well. I think part of
the problem is that when a person is in school, they are surrounded by the
act of making art and by others doing the same as well as meeting required
deadlines. After graduation, the deadlines are self-imposed and the amount
of people giving feedback decreased dramatically. Some people just can't do
it. Lots aren't used to rejection and crumble at the first experience of
it - or second - or third. Instant success is expected by most and probably
sought by all. Another factor might be that people aren't willing to keep
doing their art with an open mind to allowing their own art to grow and
mature as they produce the work.
Kay
"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)
Marilyn Welch
At Emily Carr College on Granville Island, Vancouver BC,
many art students ended up selling vegetables in the market
beside the college. The student newspaper would publish
their photos just to keep present-day students in touch
with the real world. I believe that this ties in with
what Dan was saying about the willingness to do other
work to support the art work, if necessary.
Yesterday on the CBC radio there was a discussion about
the necessity of education in the visual arts & music.
It was stated that the high-tech industry is not searching
among techies for big positions but rather among those
educated in the arts & music. They believe that they
have the imagination and the logical thinking needed in the high
tech industry. So they were basing the utility of an
art/music education on that demand.
Also:
A question I had about "disposing" of one's work is
do you care who ends up buying your work? For example if
your agent were to get your work rented into the boardroom of
a chemical corporation which had just killed a river.
Would you care?
Marilyn
Jillian
says...
(snipped a large part)
>Another factor might be that people aren't willing to keep
>doing their art with an open mind to allowing their own art to grow and
>mature as they produce the work.
I think the problem of what to do after obtaining
an art degree is more basic than you suggest. It
comes down to being able to earn a living -- enough
of a living so that most people can support not
only themselves but begin raising families. It takes
a LOT of sacrifice and selfishness to become an
artist right out of college, if you're someone of
normal college graduate age. *OR* -- as many are --
you need to be lucky enough to marry well or be
independently well-off otherwise.
Hutto
Ok...hmmm...
It looks like I'm just being a chicken. I seem to be making alot of
namby-pamby excuses for not succeeding. Geez. I never would have thought
myself the type.
It *IS* a scary thought - going to a huge place like Chicago with nothing
in my pockets and no job to start.
I know that there is no law that says I have to stay in this place...and
it really isn't this town's fault that I am not making a living from my
art...
What I need to do is get past being intimidated by the unknown...As bored
and restless as I usually am, such a challenge should be just the right
kind of thrill...
So why do I keep spinning my wheels?
I hear these good ideas, yet am immobile. I do not act.
Hutto
Charles Eicher
says...
>What I need to do is get past being intimidated by the unknown...As bored
>and restless as I usually am, such a challenge should be just the right
>kind of thrill...
>
>So why do I keep spinning my wheels?
>
>I hear these good ideas, yet am immobile. I do not act.
A possibly wise philosopher, and certainly a very intelligent one, once said
something to the effect that "Power is at its most powerfulness when it REFUSES
to act."
mdeli
>Mani may or may not have gone to arts school - if he did, it was long
>ago, I think. He has a vision of what art *should* be; the fact that much
>of what is hailed as great art of the last 100 years does not fit
>his definition drives him crazy and results in silly statements such as
>the ones you're reacting to.
Anything that disagrees with Fox's farts results in silly statements
according to Fox.
>
>Like the rantings of any demagogue, such
>statements contain a grain of truth: some art schools provide poor
>education.
A grain of truth? What's this Dan? Agreeing with me?
>Some art teachers are indeed no-talent schmucks hiding out with
>tenure.
Much like you, the no-talent schmuck part.
> Mani simply generalizes it to all art
>schools and all teachers and all students.
I never did.
There are excellent teachers around and its the business of the
student to seek them out. However they are rare and if they paint
anything like you or Miss Blowbag Raimes. My advice is go elsewhere
fast.
>My daughter is entering her sophomore year at School of Visual Arts in
>New York, and I couldn't be more pleased with the quality of instruction.
>Her work shows it, too, and one of her instructors is showing her portfolio
>around New York (Okay, I'm a father. I'm entitled to brag!). I would not
>want to pay the staggering cost otherwise.
>
>Mani has an answer for all such comments - in my case it is that I am a
>no-talent artzy fartzy with no grasp of the fundamentals - so how could I
>judge anything?
You can judge anything you like.
What counts for an artist is what's on the wall and your stuff is
run-of -the-mill-square- mile office-deco abstract crap. For anyone
who wins the Modern Academic Art lottery on this sort of ersatz there
are thousands of losers whose last hope is the "starving artist's
myth. That's my point.
If you don't know your craft you have to rely on bullshit. That can
win you a fortune in art but its unlikely.
Every city I know here and in Europe has an artzy fartzy sections.
These contain a few winners and mostly losers who can paint as well
as you and spend their lives wondering why one guy makes it and the
rest are poor misunderstood geniuses.
Tell us it ain't so Fox!
>-(He made this determination *before* seeing any of my work
>- that's what you're up against, Sam.)
I had my doubts when I read your stuff and your artwork confirmed the
matter.
> So how come I've been able to show
>in galleries great and small for 25 years? Easy. I'm part of a vast cabal
>known as *The Artzy Fartzies*, a world-wide conspiracy to promote and
>sell bad art. (Sound familiar?)
Not at all. You're a minor schmuck who, if you made it, you did so
through bullshit and connections.
>Mani is an uneducated failure with time on his hands. This has made
>him both bitter and mean.
The usual psychobabble.
I went to art school almost tuition free on scholarships.
I sold my work as a student because I learned technique and drawing .
I won a McDowell grant to study in Europe. One of the award jurors who
gave me his vote for a big schmier I did was the fuhrer of modern
academic art at the time, Clement Greenberg.
As to art school (the first one I attended was a top NY artsy-fartzy
academy) although I didn't learn much there I had a great time.
For all its lack of teaching the place provided great sex, good
parties and fun company. Even the teachers were very nice although
most were very ignorant. True, I annoyed them and they expelled me;
which was also great because I next attended the Art Students League,
a place where one could learn something if on chose to and where one
could avoid teachers who schmiered like you.
There, it was the students who judged the teacher. That was even more
fun.
I love to hang around artzy-fartzies. They were such a relief from
all those rod-up-the-ass squares.
Art has always been good to me. That's why I'm "bitter and mean, "
according to Mr. (Ass kissing compliments if you agree with him) Fox.
>Of course. People like Mani have no idea what's going on in the art world -
>nor do they care.
Of course not. Read my article on my web page about Blue Chip Modern
Art and how the system works or my economics chapter in my book and
see if your'e teachers ever taught you that.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Jillian
wq...@victoria.tc.ca says...
>Also:
>A question I had about "disposing" of one's work is
>do you care who ends up buying your work? For example if
>your agent were to get your work rented into the boardroom of
>a chemical corporation which had just killed a river.
>Would you care?
First of all, did they kill the river out of negligence
or was it an accident? I ask this question because
you could ask the same thing of selling a work of art
to an individual who later goes out and kills a carload
of family while DWI. Do you refund that person their
money and take back your work of art?
I have had the GREAT good fortune (???) of having my
work 'commissioned' to decorate McDonald's restaurants
before (years ago). But I hate all fast foods and
especially McDonald's -- so am I a hypocrite? Sue me...
Alison A Raimes
<hug...@interlog.com> writes
>There are excellent teachers around and its the business of the
>student to seek them out. However they are rare and if they paint
>anything like you or Miss Blowbag Raimes.
A good blow job would probably do you the world of good, dear thing...
you should have just come right out and said it - always happy to give
to the needy ;-)
Hutto
Eww.
Hutto
Kay
Hutto wrote in message ...
:
:
:
:It looks like I'm just being a chicken. I seem to be making alot of
:namby-pamby excuses for not succeeding. Geez. I never would have thought
:myself the type.
:
:It *IS* a scary thought - going to a huge place like Chicago with nothing
:in my pockets and no job to start.
That's how my parents went there... How did most of our ancestors come to
this country (knowing they would, most likely, never see their old country
or left-behind friends and family again)... Look, in a big city, jobs are
easier to get and art is easier to see, show, sell. I DON"T think art is
easier to MAKE in a big city, though.
:
:I know that there is no law that says I have to stay in this place...and
:it really isn't this town's fault that I am not making a living from my
:art...
I still think you are being premature to want this two years after
graduation and you don't answer the question "How many post-grad works have
you done, you know, museum quality?"
:What I need to do is get past being intimidated by the unknown...As bored
:and restless as I usually am, such a challenge should be just the right
:kind of thrill...
::So why do I keep spinning my wheels?
:II hear these good ideas, yet am immobile. I do not act.
:
:Hutto
:
Just DO IT!
Kay
Kay
Marilyn Welch wrote in message ...
(snip)
:
:Also:
:A question I had about "disposing" of one's work is
:do you care who ends up buying your work? For example if
:your agent were to get your work rented into the boardroom of
:a chemical corporation which had just killed a river.
:Would you care?
:Marilyn
Tough question for me to answer. I know your position on this and I know
that you wouldn't sell. For me, did they accidently kill the river? Are
they making restitution? Lots and lots of factors. I drive a car, so I am
killing the air (I'm not joking, I always feel guilt at this) - so, to me, I
have to divide it into categories such as environmental abuse, spousal
abuse, political abuse, economic abuse, child abuse, dishonesty, corruption,
graft (I'm not sure what that is but it sounds evil!) I've learned that I
can't give my attention or my heart to ALL causes, so I'll not sell to the
child abuser or wife abuser. If my politician is NOT dishonest, I'll not
vote for him/her again. To the others, to earn some money which will free
me from work, yes, I'll sell. If I sell a LOT, then I'll do work like Sue
Coe and attack visually the people who have supported me financially but
whose practices I don't respect. (She helped a lot of people decide to
become vegetarians, didn't she?)
Kay
Kay
Jillian wrote in message <376e5...@oracle.zianet.com>...
:In article <qNkb3.70211$_m4.4...@news2.giganews.com>,
Jillian, I've addressed this issue repeatedly. Yes, people need to earn a
living to survive. Frequently, though, they don't do art because they get
caught in the consumerist trap and find they *need* more and more and more.
Do we *need* $50,000 vehicles? Do we *need* Indoor/Outdoor carpeting? Do
we *need* to replace our tile/cabinets/carpets/etc.? This kills art more
than rejection - our need to buy, obtain, own!
Kay
:
:
myfan...@my-deja.com
Alison A Raimes <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> In article <376df5f0...@news.interlog.com>, mdeli
> <hug...@interlog.com> writes
> >There are excellent teachers around and its the business of the
> >student to seek them out. However they are rare and if they paint
> >anything like you or Miss Blowbag Raimes.
> A good blow job would probably do you the world of good, dear thing...
> you should have just come right out and said it - always happy to give
> to the needy ;-)
LOL! What? Are you serious?
Why don't you photograph the job and post it on the internet.
Perhaps you can both dress up as teenagers and sell it as
kiddy porn...
Of course she's serious!
Ciao
Bryn (maybe someday phil) Ayers...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Alison A Raimes
>LOL! What? Are you serious?
Would I say anything I was serious about ?
>
>Why don't you photograph the job and post it on the internet.
>Perhaps you can both dress up as teenagers and sell it as
>kiddy porn...
>
Your father's a lawyer ... ask him if that would be legal and if yes,
well certainly.
>Of course she's serious!
Of course !
>
>Ciao
>
Ciao back
>Bryn (maybe someday phil) Ayers...
Only with a sex change right ?
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Marilyn
Yes, Sue Coe is a specialist in that sense.
The truth is, we really don't have much control
of the work once it leaves our studio. Many
impressionist works have ended up in a villa
in Japan in pink rooms.
The idea of putting your life's blood, sweat and
tears into something and then sending it off...
can be agonizing but one has to let go. I would
like to think my work would move around, change
hands.
If your art work ended up in the home of a serial
killer, maybe it would have a positve affect on him,
make him give himself up.
Marilyn
Marilyn
M.
Hutto wrote:
>
> Ok...hmmm...
>
> It looks like I'm just being a chicken. I seem to be making alot of
> namby-pamby excuses for not succeeding. Geez. I never would have thought
> myself the type.
>
> It *IS* a scary thought - going to a huge place like Chicago with nothing
> in my pockets and no job to start.
>
> I know that there is no law that says I have to stay in this place...and
> it really isn't this town's fault that I am not making a living from my
> art...
>
> What I need to do is get past being intimidated by the unknown...As bored
> and restless as I usually am, such a challenge should be just the right
> kind of thrill...
>
> So why do I keep spinning my wheels?
>
Jillian
says...
>Jillian, I've addressed this issue repeatedly. Yes, people need to earn a
>living to survive. Frequently, though, they don't do art because they get
>caught in the consumerist trap and find they *need* more and more and more.
>Do we *need* $50,000 vehicles? Do we *need* Indoor/Outdoor carpeting? Do
>we *need* to replace our tile/cabinets/carpets/etc.? This kills art more
>than rejection - our need to buy, obtain, own!
>Kay
Of course. You are saying the same thing as me, just
in a different way. I don't know if our materialistic
society in the USA is a universal one or not though.
Seems it is. When I say that an artist must be selfish
in order to get into it as a business right out of
school, I'm referring to the need to NOT involve oneself
with raising a family and imposing poverty upon them
too. It's a catch-22 situation for the young who have
no other means of support and want to be professional
artists. I followed a much different course in my life.
I don't think I'm unique but I am certainly an exception
to the general rule.
Dan Fox
> In article <376df5f0...@news.interlog.com>, mdeli
> <hug...@interlog.com> writes
>
> >There are excellent teachers around and its the business of the
> >student to seek them out. However they are rare and if they paint
> >anything like you or Miss Blowbag Raimes.
>
> A good blow job would probably do you the world of good, dear thing...
> you should have just come right out and said it - always happy to give
> to the needy ;-)
LOL! ROTFL! and all that! I needed a good laugh this morning! (A good
blow job never hurts, either.) Alison, you are too much!
Larry Seiler
> > and selling art.
>
> Phooey...I must have missed that class. Most of the teachers I had
> wouldn't have known where to begin telling us how to sell artwork. Only a
> few of them actually bothered to pursue gallery/commissioned sales.
> Besides, if any of them WERE selling, why on earth would they tell US the
> secret? If *I* was a teacher, the LAST thing I would tell my students is
> how I make my money...That's kind of begging for competition.
I'm sure everyone has different experiences...but I'd have to agree with
you based on my experience! My profs hammered the point of art having a
higher calling such that making money would have been selling out. Of
course, they never spent any time admitting they earned a salary and could
comfortably make art knowing their bills would be paid.
They also knew the truth that after 4-5 years of majoring in studio art,
that unless you got a teaching degree...there would be no job to be found
by you!
Now...some 20 years later, many colleges offer graphic art divisions or
departments...and often hire profs whom were successfully earning a living
in the work world. With the learning of computer graphic arts become
almost mandatory now....the idea of earning an income has come back to many
art departments. It really needed to to maintain its place of existence as
a department.
I visited a college in central Wisconsin and was personally very impressed
with the life anatomy drawings of the students hanging on the wall. I was
about to voice my pleasure with such when the prof came over and knowing I
was an art teacher began to apologize for it all. She then said that there
was a new pressure on many art profs to begin giving students what they
wanted in order to draw them to their school. That students were becoming
more selective and money/admissions more competitive.
Since this generation seems to value materialism, investments, security,
etc., I think the trend for schools to include more on making money will
continue. Kind of the extreme opposite of when I went to school. The old
pendulum swing of extremes before any balance is found I suppose.
peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
ACT ministry home page-
http://netministries.org/see/charmin.exe/CM00117
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
Larry Seiler
> Do we *need* $50,000 vehicles? Do we *need* Indoor/Outdoor carpeting?
Do
> we *need* to replace our tile/cabinets/carpets/etc.? This kills art more
> than rejection - our need to buy, obtain, own!
> Kay
You've got a point here Kay. I mean...perhaps it is our struggle to make
ends meet that assures constant attitude adjustments for us as artists. It
causes us to contemplate upon the plight of other hurting people.
In a way....we become somewhat servants of society, culture, etc., by the
plight of our own struggles, striving then to be heard or become a
conscience of the plunderers and hoarders.
I suppose if we all became quite comfortable living...as artists, that we
would grow numb and callouse to human experience and need.
yet the paradox is....I'd rather paint and make money than add to the
wealth of some company whose product I personally could care less about.
Larry Seiler
> Larry, I posted a reply to your letter on critical thinking but it seems
> to have gotten lost in cyberspace.
happens....
> The greater
> the art the more perfect the mirror.
interesting. No comment....have to kinda muse on it for awhile.
> The artist of course is not aware
> of this wonderful attribute, he's thinking what's for supper?
Not always though. Like the shrink whom needs a shrink....does he freely
go in for counsel and pour his guts out, and does he naturally determine
the direction his counsel is taking the discussion?
The artist may surely be aware, YET....sense he is getting hungry!
hahaha..
> Whether or
> not artists are put up on pedestals or considered as working class joes
> doesn't worry Art.
Art will survive as long as humans survive.....
now....whether or not it maintains any level that calls for public interest
or value is another question....and may appear as though it fell off the
end of the earth.
peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
Hutto
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Marilyn wrote:
> Are you paralyzed by the fear of rejection. It's a big one.
Naw...I get rejected all the time. I have built up an unhealthy shield of
delusional infallibility and arrogance so that I may easily disdain anyone
who cares not for my work.
Since yesterday, I have been rejected for 5 out of 74 jobs I have applied
for around the world. Those 5 companies are obviously worthless
tax-evading incompetent halfwits who couldn't produce quality web
publications with guns to their heads and how-to books in front of them.
As long as I chant that kind of thing repeatedly and take my medication I
can manage to feel good about myself long enough to get hired...I just
hope I can get hired prior to the impending nervous breakdown.
I adopt the same attitude when soliciting galleries. :) For
example, one New Orleans gallery director told me my work didn't fit the
mood of her gallery, which is in a prime location in uptown, because it
was too "raw and urban" (if you have never been to New Orleans, you might
miss the irony). The truth was that my work was too large and I was
too young and I didn't paint anything close to trendy (New Orleans trendy
is way different than other cities...I'm sure it's like that
everywhere...). She couldn't price it right, and I had no gallery
exhibition history, and she really needed the space for blown-glass bowls
and sculptures made of cigar boxes, and collage from some guy in Boston.
Back then my work was abrasive in color and texture - I was working in
thick impasto with knives and not brushes...I was using collage elements
like rope and twine, corrugated cardboard, twigs and grass, etc. Hehe. I
was making a mess, getting paint all over myself and having fun, but I
wasn't painting anything that meant too terribly much to me. Still, I had
sold a few of the pieces from the series, and had been asked many times
for the others. I had even won awards for two of the pieces in the series,
and had 2 others selected for an invitational show. I figured - what the
hey.
Originally, I met with this gallery director (she was also the owner of
the place) and showed her my slides. She liked them immediately and told
me that she had a show coming up that they would fit nicely into.
Freaky...The first place I go to in New Orleans, and she likes the
work. She wanted me to bring her some originals to look more closely at. I
think this is when she was shocked. I had told her the dimensions of the
works, but I don't think she was able to envision what that actually
meant. Hehe. The work pretty much dwarfed everything on her walls. I had
to get help bringing just one of them in to show. She did the
usual...looked at the work, right side, left side, across the room...She
asks if she can touch it, she touches it, makes remarks about how it looks
like it's breathing, that it's 3d, etc. Yawn. (It was SO easy painting
nonobjectively). I wished I'd been like Ernst - hehe - There's the story
about Ernst putting razor blades in his impastos :) Hehe.
I could tell by the look on her face that she was in the process of
changing her mind. She took the weakling route and decided to reject me
from a distance. She requested that I call her on the following Monday. I
showed up in person instead and requested the return of my slides. She
kind of frowned and said she was sorry to have gotten my hopes up, but my
work was just too "raw and urban" - I still wish she hadn't felt the need
to explain.
I get a little mad or maybe even a little hurt at being rejected,
but I am shortly able to take advantage of mild mental dysfunctions and
allow myself to blame the rejections on the incompetence of the rejectors.
I try not to get my hopes up too much. While I also try not to go
into a new place THINKING I'll be rejected, I try to keep my mind on
reality. It is LIKELY that I will be rejected for a number of reasons.
Local/regional galleries want work from further away. Bigger galleries
want work from more established painters. Many galleries these days seem
to be specialists, and only deal with works from specific schools,
specific time periods, etc. So on and so forth. The only gallery that was
in my town has folded up. I don't know if they're moving or out of
business. Regardless, all they seem to want to sell is outsider crap. The
owner is a friend of mine and also a former classmate...A damn good
painter, too. Still, he openly admits to hanging what sells just because
it sells. He will then claim to also like the work he does hang. Maybe he
does...I guess it could be similar to a fondness for tribal
artifacts...However, our tribe members tend to have much better things to
offer when educated...most of the time, anyway. Really, I might give
people a hard time about their work, but I'd take an Alison Raimes over a
Mose T any day. At least people like Alison *care* about art and think
it's important. Really, I should not even give Alison et al a hard time,
because regardless of what I think of their STYLE, their PASSION is
admirable, even enviable. Besides, my work could be just as laughable to
any number of others...though that is only a remote possibility...Well,
Mani Deli hated it...Anyway - Mose T is a drunkard who only cares about
exploiting the stupid white folk who'd pay lots of money for his signed
underwear and even more for his "paintings".'Outsider' he may be,
uneducated he is not. He knows enough to know to keep up appearances, to
intentionally reverse the "s" in his signature, to teach his daughter to
carry on the family business.
Was I talking about something? Oh, fear of rejection. No, I don't fear it.
I *dislike* it. I am growing TIRED of it. I do not fear it, for it is part
of the process. I *am* afraid to fail, though. That is close, but not the
same. I am afraid to go to a huge city. What if I can't find a job? I
don't want to be homeless in the streets of a large city...that just isn't
healthy. Kay, or someone, was talking about the colonists settling America
as though that were a valid parallel. I was born in 1971! I grew
up with air conditioning, grocery stores, etc. I don't think too many
people alive today could cut it if they woke up on an untamed frontier. I
don't have a problem with WORKING for something, but I'd rather not have
to play the survival of the fittest game. I have to function within the
meek boundaries of my comfort zone. I have gone hungry, and I have gone
without a number of niceties - But I have never gone without at least a
roof and a shower. I really don't want to know what that's like. So, if I
*DO* "just do", I'll have to do according to my own criteria.
I would be interested, though, in hearing the tales of anyone's career
path. If any of you guys did the homeless thing before getting where you
are now, I'd like to hear the story.
Hutto
P.S.
These last couple of days of posts, at least the ones related to artistic
survival, have been the most useful I have seen on R.A.F. in years.
Dan Fox
> >
> > A good blow job would probably do you the world of good, dear thing...
> > you should have just come right out and said it - always happy to give
> > to the needy ;-)
>
> Eww.
>
> Hutto
Hey, Jason, have you ever *had* a blow job? No wonder your're so
unhappy! (JUST KIDDING!)
Your gallery experience in New Orleans was pretty typical - and the
dealer was nice, as dealers go. [Is this work posted anywhere? I'd like
to check it out.] Putting up with silly and cruel dealers is part of the
game. We all do it all the time, our entire careers. Laugh it off and
go to the next gallery, and the next.
You have to paint what you want, but you should know that large works no
longer sell very well. I find that anything over about 36" x 48" tends
to stay in my studio, but I still paint big when I feel like it.
Kay
Marilyn wrote
(snip)
:
:
:Yes, Sue Coe is a specialist in that sense.
:The truth is, we really don't have much control
:of the work once it leaves our studio. Many
:impressionist works have ended up in a villa
:in Japan in pink rooms.
:
:The idea of putting your life's blood, sweat and
:tears into something and then sending it off...
:can be agonizing but one has to let go. I would
:like to think my work would move around, change
:hands.
:
:If your art work ended up in the home of a serial
:killer, maybe it would have a positve affect on him,
:make him give himself up.
:
:Marilyn
I think my work might make him want to kill again! Seriously, I wonder
about the people who bought the works of Chicago area serial killer John
Gacy (given a show by Chicago's Art Institute which I will never forgive nor
forget)?
Kay
"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)want to kill
again!
Marilyn
>
> Marilyn wrote
> (snip)
> :
> :
> :Yes, Sue Coe is a specialist in that sense.
> :The truth is, we really don't have much control
> :of the work once it leaves our studio. Many
> :impressionist works have ended up in a villa
> :in Japan in pink rooms.
> :
> :The idea of putting your life's blood, sweat and
> :tears into something and then sending it off...
> :can be agonizing but one has to let go. I would
> :like to think my work would move around, change
> :hands.
> :
> :If your art work ended up in the home of a serial
> :killer, maybe it would have a positve affect on him,
> :make him give himself up.
> :
> :Marilyn
>
> I think my work might make him want to kill again! Seriously, I wonder
> about the people who bought the works of Chicago area serial killer John
> Gacy (given a show by Chicago's Art Institute which I will never forgive nor
> forget)?
> Kay
>
Think of all the talented non-lethal people who don't get
that opportunity. We have a law up here whereby a criminal
may not profit from his crimes. You probably have the same
law, so Gacy won't get any money. It is sick. There should
be no attention paid to these people because it is so
offensive to the relatives of the victims. They should
be banished to obscurity forever.
We know an artist who is making a killing (excuse the expression)
painting images of abused babies. There is a demand for this
work, that's something to wonder about. We live in insane times,
the Pandora's box has been opened...
Marilyn
Marilyn
a lot of stuff, snipped for brevity.
Seems to me that you knew you were taking your work
out of context by bringing it into that restaurant.
Like, ask yourself if you were not setting yourself up
(so to speak). There is so much art work out there,
and the majority of people have a cliche image of what
art is supposed to be. If your work is very current,
contemporary, it will only be appreciated in that context.
Many artists are doing 2 streams of painting, one which is
saleable, and one which is more experimental-which they know
the larger public will not appreciate. One of my instructors
pulled off plant studies, put them in a tube, shipped them
to a fancy conservative gallery on Sherbrooke St. Montreal,
and they sold immediately. There was the boredom factor on
her part. She also had her own pursuits, magic realism, mystery
type paintings.
Anyway, hope you figure it out, sounds like you are at
a cross-roads.
Marilyn
mdeli
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> mdeli writes
>
>>There are excellent teachers around and its the business of the
>>student to seek them out. However they are rare and if they paint
>>anything like you or Miss Blowbag Raimes.
Miss Raimes failed to quote the complete statement which ends, " My
advice is go elsewhere fast."
>A good blow job would probably do you the world of good, dear thing...
I know that for you to get anywhere with your type of schmiering
giving good blow jobs is a professional necessity. I fully understand
why you imagine that it's a cure all for others, especially when your
paintings suck.
>you should have just come right out and said it - always happy to give
>to the needy ;-)
Too bad most curators who count are gay. Guess you'll have to keep
trying for needy galleries.
Try learning how to draw toots, it might save you a lot of wear and
tear.
Kay
Marilyn wrote in message <376FEE...@bc.ca>...
:Hutto wrote:
:
:a lot of stuff, snipped for brevity.
:
:Seems to me that you knew you were taking your work
:out of context by bringing it into that restaurant.
:Like, ask yourself if you were not setting yourself up
:and the majority of people have a cliche image of what
:art is supposed to be. If your work is very current,
:contemporary, it will only be appreciated in that context.
Good point Marilyn, that I and others have definitely overlooked! Finding
the right market for the work is an absolute must. If he does political
art, i.e. racism, sexism, etc. the South will NOT be receptive. If he does
environmental issues, a manufacturing town will NOT be receptive. If he
does ANYTHING contemporary, he needs a large northern city with a very large
contemporary art scene. The net is a wonderful place to look up galleries
to see if one's work has a *fit* with the gallery being sought.
(snip)
Kay
:
:Marilyn
:
Alison A Raimes
<hug...@interlog.com> writes
>I know that for you to get anywhere with your type of schmiering
>giving good blow jobs is a professional necessity. I fully understand
>why you imagine that it's a cure all for others, especially when your
>paintings suck.
Will that be cash or credit card then sweet pea ????
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay
Dan Fox wrote in message <19990622133013.975$D...@newsreader.com>...
:Hutto <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
:
:> >
:> > A good blow job would probably do you the world of good, dear thing...
:> > you should have just come right out and said it - always happy to give
:> > to the needy ;-)
:>
:> Eww.
:>
:> Hutto
:
:Hey, Jason, have you ever *had* a blow job? No wonder your're so
:unhappy! (JUST KIDDING!)
:
:Your gallery experience in New Orleans was pretty typical - and the
:dealer was nice, as dealers go. [Is this work posted anywhere? I'd like
:to check it out.] Putting up with silly and cruel dealers is part of the
:game. We all do it all the time, our entire careers. Laugh it off and
:go to the next gallery, and the next.
Yup! Thick skin a requirement.
:
:You have to paint what you want, but you should know that large works no
:longer sell very well. I find that anything over about 36" x 48" tends
:to stay in my studio, but I still paint big when I feel like it.
Liar, liar, pants on fire, Dan. I paint large and get told to paint larger.
Also, the recent shows I've attended have sold the very largest works, some
188' x 10'. Most people who buy art for a decent price HAVE the space for
these sizes and WANT the work, in its massiveness to overwhelm the viewer.
Look at your art mags and see the sizes of the paintings... Actually a very
wise person told me once that people should do art in the size they feel
comfortable with, large or small. I've seen success at both extremes.
Kay
:--
Kay
Marilyn wrote:
:Think of all the talented non-lethal people who don't get
:that opportunity. We have a law up here whereby a criminal
:may not profit from his crimes. You probably have the same
:law, so Gacy won't get any money.
Yes, we have the same laws but there are ways around it. Say Marilyn kills
x amount of people and gets tried and convicted. Then she *volunteers* her
story for a TV- Movie of the Week and a bestselling novel. No, Marilyn
cannot receive money, but her best friend, Kay can negotiate payment to Kay
and Marilyn can OK the deal and Kay can give Marilyn all the money!
Besides, Gacy was executed (crying at the end like his victims cried,
begging for mercy like they did)...
It is sick. There should
:be no attention paid to these people because it is so
:offensive to the relatives of the victims. They should
:be banished to obscurity forever.
It makes them so incredibly famous! Did you know that when you buy bubble
gum and get baseball trading cards of favorite players (don't know if they
have that in Canada) they now have trading cards of serial killers?
:We know an artist who is making a killing (excuse the expression)
:painting images of abused babies. There is a demand for this
:work, that's something to wonder about. We live in insane times,
:the Pandora's box has been opened...
He probably gets much publicity for this, perhaps a lot of criticism, not
much attention is paid to his *talent* most likely. What the papers should
do is NOT feature the painter in this case, but print a list (repeatedly) of
the PURCHASERS of these works and their addresses, businesses, etc. I don't
know where the law stands on this, too new for anyone to have thought that
we NEEDED laws against this type of horror.
Kay
:
:Marilyn
Dan Fox
<snip of fellatiatory comments>
>
> Liar, liar, pants on fire, Dan. I paint large and get told to paint
> larger. Also, the recent shows I've attended have sold the very largest
> works, some 188' x 10'. Most people who buy art for a decent price HAVE
> the space for these sizes and WANT the work, in its massiveness to
> overwhelm the viewer. Look at your art mags and see the sizes of the
> paintings... Actually a very wise person told me once that people should
> do art in the size they feel comfortable with, large or small. I've seen
> success at both extremes. Kay
I stand corrected. In the urban northeast, where I make most of my
sales (also in Los Angeles), real estate is so expensive that few
collectors have the space for really big work, anymore (unless their name
is Trump). Or not much of it. However, I remember that in Kansas City the
need was for bigger work - the well-to-do there have huge houses, since
costs are much lower. I imagine this it true for a lot of the country as
well.
I must've repressed my time in Kansas.
~Artist~
The younger and newer collectors tend to start a little smaller 48 x 60
or so...but
I did do a market survey in NYC and there seems to be with the
emerging artists smaller works more popular to the tourists as 2 x 2
fits in the old suit case.
Mattison
~Artist~
>
> Are you paralyzed by the fear of rejection. It's a big one.
>
Just *f*M and paint.
Dan Fox
> Marilyn wrote:
<snipping YOUR posts!>
The only brush I knowingly have had with this was a few years ago. A dealer
I was showing with called me up excitedly and told me that John Sununu
was interested in one of my pieces. It gave me pause, but in the end
I decided that if I put my work out for sale to the public that I gave
up the right (probably legally, too) to decide who bought it. Sununu
never bought the piece, but I had night visions of my work hanging in
his house, him looking at it with those little pig eyes.
What do you think when a monster likes what you do?
Sort of like being named Hitler's favorite composer, or Reagan's favorite
cook.
In a related vein, Mani (who is NOT a monster, I hasten to add) detests
my work, which is as it should be: This
puts me in the same category (at least with him!) of Cezanne, Picasso,
Matisse, Rothko, and so on. If Mani loved my stuff, it would put me
in the same category as Bouguereau, Rockwell, and Walt Disney.
Who else has dealt with this?
Dan
(Who confesses: He has sold work to Republicans.)
> Kay
> :
> :Marilyn
rdav...@my-deja.com
ca...@email2me.com (Jillian) wrote:
> In article <wYDb3.71548$_m4.5...@news2.giganews.com>,
scarl...@theriver.com
> says...
>
> >Jillian, I've addressed this issue repeatedly. Yes, people need to
earn a
> >living to survive. Frequently, though, they don't do art because
they get
> >caught in the consumerist trap and find they *need* more and more and
more.
carpeting? Do
> >we *need* to replace our tile/cabinets/carpets/etc.? This kills art
more
> >than rejection - our need to buy, obtain, own!
> >Kay
>
> in a different way. I don't know if our materialistic
> society in the USA is a universal one or not though.
> Seems it is. When I say that an artist must be selfish
> in order to get into it as a business right out of
> school, I'm referring to the need to NOT involve oneself
> with raising a family and imposing poverty upon them
> too. It's a catch-22 situation for the young who have
> no other means of support and want to be professional
> artists. I followed a much different course in my life.
> I don't think I'm unique but I am certainly an exception
> to the general rule.
I was told this by one of my profs, namely to move to major center and
forget about marriage and children, (this was in 1972, my god where did
the time go). When I think about it now this was lousy advice even
though he was a very successful artist.
We think at first that marriage, kids, pets (we just bought a horse for
my oldest daughter) are going to rob us of our precious time and money
that we need. This domestic life however has taught me to be less
selfish and I think a more rounded artist. In other words to not be
obsessed with ourselves and our unique gifts.
I am however not a successful artist so perhaps I have failed but I have
always been true to myself.
a house full of creatures
R.D.
Larry Seiler
very
> wise person told me once that people should do art in the size they feel
> comfortable with, large or small. I've seen success at both extremes.
> Kay
Much of this indicates something about the climate of potential sales for
sure.
For example.....where home walls are already cluttered with many
things...smaller paintings assure that "oh well, I suppose we could always
find a space for this!"
Smaller verticals like 12" x 24"....smaller yet....just to find a niche
for possible sales. Galleries in such places are scratching their own
heads looking for ways to increase sales for their own survival. Such
concerns tells me its time to find a few more galleries much farther away.
Must not be any new homes going up needing decorating.
Its nice to know such galleries are around though, as I like doing my plein
air paintings as studies for larger ones....and plein airs tend to be no
larger for me than about 12" x 16". Many galleries are showing they like
these spontaneous painterly thick oils and acrylics done on location.
However....in some parts of the country being taken over by Californians
building 1-2 million dollar homes thinking they are getting a real estate
steal of the century.....they have space. In fact....they wouldn't for the
most part even look twice at something that didn't shout "I'm
expensive....therefore important!"
Inviting their friends over from their million dollar homes to bib some
wine and walk around to look at latest important acquisitions. Not just
any piano...but a classic grand. Not just a small sculpture, but a $20,000
bronze. Not a $400 framed print.....but a $12,000 original.....etc;
In such places.....art equals status, although some definitely love art,
but then again....some simply love status.
I met a guy one year flying around in his own private plane...surveying and
buying art for his guest house. More to please those he hired that kept
the house up on his estate. Didn't buy anything of mine. My name wasn't
big enough....nor my work! <smile>
space enough for everyone if the place, time is right.
Also if its expensive enough to say its important enought to assure gained
status. Crazy world huh?
Larry Seiler
--
> sales (also in Los Angeles), real estate is so expensive that few
> collectors have the space for really big work, anymore (unless their name
> is Trump). Or not much of it. However, I remember that in Kansas City the
> need was for bigger work - the well-to-do there have huge houses, since
> costs are much lower. I imagine this it true for a lot of the country as
> well.
and I guess here....either time spent in the barn means so little time
spent in the house to bother enjoying art...so why buy it? Or....the
paintings don't seem to go with the little Packer dolls and the bobbing
weaving heads and other Packer memorabilia and posters.
I love the scenery.....but this place is killing my potential to grow!
EeeeeiiiooOOouu.
<smile>
Larry
Jillian
says...
>Liar, liar, pants on fire, Dan. I paint large and get told to paint larger.
>Also, the recent shows I've attended have sold the very largest works, some
>188' x 10'. Most people who buy art for a decent price HAVE the space for
>these sizes and WANT the work, in its massiveness to overwhelm the viewer.
>Look at your art mags and see the sizes of the paintings... Actually a very
>wise person told me once that people should do art in the size they feel
>comfortable with, large or small. I've seen success at both extremes.
>Kay
I think size related to subject matter may be the issue
rather than size in and of itself. Many newer homes
in Yuppy Valley have high ceilings and much larger rooms
than homes built 20 or 30 years ago. I know artists
who paint ONLY for decorators and they are definitely
painting in large sizes, but usually either abstract
or exremely simple subject matter that will 'fit the
decor' of the room it's to be the centerpiece for.