Art prices questions
Mr. W.Y. Chan
Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
name of the artist?
Wah
DFRussell
In article <EssLE...@liverpool.ac.uk>, wah...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr. W.Y. Chan) writes:
|>
|>
|> Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
|> name of the artist?
At higher prices, primarly the name of the artist.
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
Robert Fusillo
Mr. W.Y. Chan wrote:
> Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
> name of the artist?
>
> Wah
Both -- with additions. An artist becomes valuable once he has
established that he paints well consistently. The level on which he is
presumed to be sets the level of his prices. Once he is "big" his prices for
his poorer works often are higher than "lesser" artists" good works.
Basically prices are based on supply and demand -- an artist gets whAt people
are willing to pay. People, however, have different motives -- some are
willing to pay just have something by a famous artist -- that keeps his
prices up. At the same time, several of our most famous modern artists have
gone out of fashion lately ((Noland, Olitski, for example) and their prices
have dropped and they don't sell much.
It is very complicated, but basically supply and demand.-- what do you
demand?
A sidenote -- some dealers in art price by "quality" of an individual
work-- a rather ephemeral and subjective but very real trait. Others,
especially in Europe (with living artists), charge by size -- a certain size
gets a certain price -- the idea being that quality is subjective.
Note: Prices depend on such things as wideness of market -- an artist
with several galleries, in several countries, tends to have more stable
prices, at least. I usually advise beginning collectors to buy a work by a
world-class artist, even if small. A Henry Moore for $50,000 is a safer buy
than a local artist for $2000. If something happens, and /or if your tastes
change, you can get back the money for the Moore, but not the local artist.
Part of the price you pay, then is for safety.
rjf
Charles Eicher
In article <6j6uid$2d1s$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, d...@nospam.com
(DFRussell) wrote:
> In article <EssLE...@liverpool.ac.uk>, wah...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr.
W.Y. Chan) writes:
> |>
> |>
> |> Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
> |> name of the artist?
>
>
> At higher prices, primarly the name of the artist.
That is simply not true. The price of anything is driven by two factors (at
a minimum) supply and demand. Reputation ("name") might drive demand, but
scarcity determines supply. Rare artworks fetch more than plentiful ones
(for example, mass edition prints by a famous artist cost less than
individual handmade paintings).
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
DFRussell
In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@207.211.168.92>, cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) writes:
|> In article <6j6uid$2d1s$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, d...@nospam.com
|> (DFRussell) wrote:
|>
|> > In article <EssLE...@liverpool.ac.uk>, wah...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr.
|> W.Y. Chan) writes:
|> > |>
|> > |>
|> > |> Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
|> > |> name of the artist?
|> >
|> >
|> > At higher prices, primarly the name of the artist.
|>
|>
|> That is simply not true.
In your wildest dreams... ;-)
|> The price of anything is driven by two factors (at
|> a minimum) supply and demand.
Yeah: the supply and demand of *recognized artists*. The actual
painting is almost irrelevant to price once you get over a
couple of grand.
|> Reputation ("name") might drive demand, but
|> scarcity determines supply.
There are lots of painters whose work is scarce. That work is
worth [almost] nothing until name-recognition occurs.
|> Rare artworks fetch more than plentiful ones
*Only* if the artist was *known*.
|> (for example, mass edition prints by a famous artist cost less than
|> individual handmade paintings).
So does wallpaper.
Katherine Allen
Mr. W.Y. Chan (wah...@liverpool.ac.uk) writes:
> Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
> name of the artist?
>
> Wah
----------------------------------
Good day Wah,
You know...if you wanted to solicit the services of a lawyer, he or she
would tell you what you will pay and if you don't like it, you can go
somewhere else. If we require a plumber or refrigerator repairman or
a car mechanic...they tell us what it's going to cost and we seldom
ever ask,
"Well...who the heck are you? I've never heard of you...you aren't
reputed to be worth dealing with, I've never seen your work. What
prestigious company represents you? How many years have you been
replacing transmissions or repairing toilet bowls? Why should I pay that?
I think you should be better known and at least work in New York for a few
years before you dare charge THAT price!"
We pay the lawyer, plumber, fridge man or mechanic, usually without
argument and as soon as we walk out their door we are at risk of loosing
our court case or witnessing our sink backing up or losing all
our frozen meats when the refrigerator dies a grizzly death...or
the mechanic replaces your extension pipe but your muffler falls
off in mid-lane.
Artists, no matter what "level," do something other people can't.
If their work appeals to an individual, that individual is quaranteed quality
upfront, and whatever the cost...and no matter how expensive or
reasonable the price...they can take it home and love it without worry
thereafter.
I believe all artists, regardless of what dealers and gallery owners
preach, should be paid for their time, materials and expenses...and if the
art lover loves it...both parties are benefitting.
Of course I am biased in my opinion...I'm an artist.
For what it's worth.....
--
Katherine E. Allen
dk...@freenet.carleton.ca
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~dk255/2.htm
http://www.giftex.com/keallen
Philip Ayers
In article <35571D74...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu>, Robert Fusillo
<rfus...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu> wrote:
: > Mr. W.Y. Chan wrote:
: >
: > > Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
: > > name of the artist?
: > >
: > > Wah
: >
: > Both -- with additions. An artist becomes valuable once he has
: > established that he paints well consistently. The level on which he is
: > presumed to be sets the level of his prices. Once he is "big" his
prices for
: > his poorer works often are higher than "lesser" artists" good works.
: > Basically prices are based on supply and demand -- an artist gets whAt
people
: > are willing to pay. People, however, have different motives -- some are
: > willing to pay just have something by a famous artist -- that keeps his
: > prices up. At the same time, several of our most famous modern artists have
: > gone out of fashion lately ((Noland, Olitski, for example) and their prices
: > have dropped and they don't sell much.
Probably true and also many biggies from the eighties.
: > It is very complicated, but basically supply and demand.-- what do you
: > demand?
: > A sidenote -- some dealers in art price by "quality" of an individual
: > work-- a rather ephemeral and subjective but very real trait. Others,
: > especially in Europe (with living artists), charge by size -- a certain size
Actually size is more important in the the US than any other factor other
than -name-, except in the secondary market (auction houses and resell)
where quaility tends to rule.
: > Note: Prices depend on such things as wideness of market -- an artist
: > with several galleries, in several countries, tends to have more stable
: > prices, at least. I usually advise beginning collectors to buy a work by a
: > world-class artist, even if small. A Henry Moore for $50,000 is a safer buy
: > than a local artist for $2000. If something happens, and /or if your tastes
: > change, you can get back the money for the Moore, but not the local artist.
: > Part of the price you pay, then is for safety.
I don't know how you can say this. If a person wants a peice by an artist
that cost 2000 and they like it better than an availiable peice by Moore
they would be stupid to buy the Moore except as a gamble that it would go
up in value. If they want to speculate that's fine but the cost of
insurance alone will be several thousand dollars over a 1/2 dozen years. $
2000 dollars isn't much to pay for something like a painting that one
really likes.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
Charles Eicher
In article <6j7bfa$1c84$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, d...@nospam.com
(DFRussell) wrote:
> In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@207.211.168.92>,
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) writes:
> |> In article <6j6uid$2d1s$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, d...@nospam.com
> |> (DFRussell) wrote:
> |>
> |> > In article <EssLE...@liverpool.ac.uk>, wah...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr.
> |> W.Y. Chan) writes:
> |> > |>
> |> > |>
> |> > |> Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of
work or the
> |> > |> name of the artist?
> |> >
> |> >
> |> > At higher prices, primarly the name of the artist.
> |>
> |>
> |> That is simply not true.
>
> In your wildest dreams... ;-)
>
> |> The price of anything is driven by two factors (at
> |> a minimum) supply and demand.
>
> Yeah: the supply and demand of *recognized artists*. The actual
> painting is almost irrelevant to price once you get over a
> couple of grand.
>
> |> Reputation ("name") might drive demand, but
> |> scarcity determines supply.
>
> There are lots of painters whose work is scarce. That work is
> worth [almost] nothing until name-recognition occurs.
>
> |> Rare artworks fetch more than plentiful ones
>
> *Only* if the artist was *known*.
>
> |> (for example, mass edition prints by a famous artist cost less than
> |> individual handmade paintings).
>
> So does wallpaper.
Look, I'm not going to argue with you over this, especially since
everything you said just proves my point. Unknown artist equals no demand.
Rare artwork times unknown artist equals no demand, just as anything times
0 equals 0. High quality makes a work more desirable and increases demand,
and can actually gain a reputation for an unknown artist. I fail to see how
your remarks are a rebuttal to my statements. There is only one basic law
of economics: the price of a thing is equal to what the buyer will pay.
This applies to the art world too.
I have plenty of inside knowledge of this situation, probably more than
you. For example, ever heard of a supposedly reputable studio that made a
series of 300 prints from a famous artist, selling for $12,000 each, but
they actually printed 500 and gave them duplicate numbers, to create the
illusion of scarcity? They sold them under the table and kept all the
profits.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Marilyn
Katherine Allen wrote:
>
> Mr. W.Y. Chan (wah...@liverpool.ac.uk) writes:
> > Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
> > name of the artist?
> >
I really enjoyed your post.
When I think of the painting skills that can be at least as refined and
as delicate as that of a dentist,
that take years to perfect and develop.
It also takes study and practice and expensive materials.
And yet the painter often barely gets minimum wage for the effort.
Being a painter is rarely even considered to be a profession.
"That ain't work, that's money fer nuthin'"
If I wasn't enjoying it so much I could get bitter.
Marilyn
Lauri Levanto
Marilyn wrote:
>
> Katherine Allen wrote:
> >
> > Mr. W.Y. Chan (wah...@liverpool.ac.uk) writes:
> > > Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
> > > name of the artist?
> > >
> > > Wah
Wellknown names are scarse, most of us can remember onlu a hundred or
so.
Quality work without wellknown name are more abundant, thus cheaper
but the risk is byuers.
Personally meaningful pieces are rare, fortunately the demand is
distributed and keeps the prices in control.
> > ----------------------------------
KA> > I believe all artists, regardless of what dealers and gallery
owners
> > preach, should be paid for their time, materials and expenses...and if the
> > art lover loves it...both parties are benefitting.
lauri If all artists were paid for their time and materials
regardless what or if they produce...
I call it social security.
Sometimes it happens here in Scandinavia, the result is not encoraging.
> > (...)
> > --
Marilyn > When I think of the painting skills that can be at least as
refined and
> as delicate as that of a dentist,
> that take years to perfect and develop.
> It also takes study and practice and expensive materials.
> And yet the painter often barely gets minimum wage for the effort.
> Being a painter is rarely even considered to be a profession.
> "That ain't work, that's money fer nuthin'"
lauri Sure, there are more skillful artists than skillful dentists.
that keeps the prices down
> If I wasn't enjoying it so much I could get bitter.
lauri Do you think dentistry is as enjoyable
maybe they deserve more compensation :-)
lauri I don't want to be bitter
that is why I remain amateur.
I get much of the fun, without risking my income
I do not need to sell, I can ask a fair price
- lauri
Mr. W.Y. Chan
Katherine Allen (dk...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: Mr. W.Y. Chan (wah...@liverpool.ac.uk) writes:
: > Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
: > name of the artist?
: >
: > Wah
: ----------------------------------
: Good day Wah,
: You know...if you wanted to solicit the services of a lawyer, he or she
: would tell you what you will pay and if you don't like it, you can go
: somewhere else. If we require a plumber or refrigerator repairman or
: a car mechanic...they tell us what it's going to cost and we seldom
: ever ask,
: "Well...who the heck are you? I've never heard of you...you aren't
: reputed to be worth dealing with, I've never seen your work. What
: prestigious company represents you? How many years have you been
: replacing transmissions or repairing toilet bowls? Why should I pay that?
: I think you should be better known and at least work in New York for a few
: years before you dare charge THAT price!"
: We pay the lawyer, plumber, fridge man or mechanic, usually without
: argument and as soon as we walk out their door we are at risk of loosing
: our court case or witnessing our sink backing up or losing all
: our frozen meats when the refrigerator dies a grizzly death...or
: the mechanic replaces your extension pipe but your muffler falls
: off in mid-lane.
: Artists, no matter what "level," do something other people can't.
: If their work appeals to an individual, that individual is quaranteed quality
: upfront, and whatever the cost...and no matter how expensive or
: reasonable the price...they can take it home and love it without worry
: thereafter.
: I believe all artists, regardless of what dealers and gallery owners
: preach, should be paid for their time, materials and expenses...and if the
: art lover loves it...both parties are benefitting.
: Of course I am biased in my opinion...I'm an artist.
: For what it's worth.....
Katherine,
From my opinion I believe people who collects arts still very
much pay for the artist's signature, that is part of the appeal of owning
a work of art. Obviosely the more famouse the artist is the greater the
value, well that is how dealers charges. In an ideal world only the high
quality work gets the top price regardless of who did it, but we live in
a less than ideal world were fame plays an important parts and to add to
that we are all unconciousely judging all artwork and admiring it for
imperfections otherwise we pay more for photographs. Fame doesnt come
cheaply and is usually done after years of hardwork, some artists whos
work became extremely valueble were not even artists at all but because of
their background (like royalty, book authors, world leaders, famouse criminals,
etc). For example when I was at school many moons ago I was best known for my
art skill and often came top of my class, one guy we know did not took arts at
all but he was the best science student our school has ever seen, anyway when he left school
and went to university he became obsessed in the destruction of the human race
and used his vast scientific knowledge to destructive use, anyway some
years later he was locked up with 5 life sentences even though he had not
killed anyone the then Home Secretary felt this guy is one of the most
dangerouse man in the country. Yes this man became famouse for the wrong reason.
Some years later while he was in jail (having escaped once already in the
country's top security prison) he did some paintings, which were not good at all
and very much reflected his twisted mind, it went on display at our local town hall,
guess what? The media attention it got was incredible and people and art critics
were queing up to buy his work. If Van Gogh hadn't gone mad and cut his own ear
off in fronts of so many French people his Sunflower paintings may not even fetch
18Fr today let alone $18 millions.
Wah
: --
Robert Fusillo
Philip Ayers wrote:
Note I said beginners – they are often carried away by a variety of impulses, and
realize down the line, as their eye begins to coalesce with their taste, that the
early purchases are things that they cannot live with for long. My fist purchase
was a Moore – I was excited about the whole prospect of buying art and by a famous
artist, etc. A few years later I realized that it was a weak piece. By then I had
two others, similarly weak. I sold them and bought a Barbara Hepworth which I have
had for over forty years, and would not part with it for a wilderness of monkeys.
Tastes develop. My suggestion was that people buy what they like ( I did not think
it necessary to say that) but by well established artists, so that, if down the road
they are sorry, they can get their money more or less back
I envy your attitude about @2000 ( a day’s pay?). I have collected widely for
close to fifty years, and average about ten thousand dollars a year in purchases. (
A twelve year old car bought used, and no new clothes in several years). But I buy
only artists whose work I have followed closely for several years, and who have
established track records and widespread markets. I don’t buy to make money – that
would be silly: ten thousand is a lot to gamble – but I try to buy safely: a
schoolteacher’s budget is not big and needs to be conservative. But I don’t dare
blow even $1000 on a local artists, no matter how much I like it.
But this is far from pricing – The problem for the young and unknown artist is that
he can’t afford to sell his work for little, but that there are substantial works by
well-known, financially safe artists out there for three and four thousand and a
bit higher. It’s rough, and I sympathize. But I am a buyer of art, not a charitable
organization.
mdeli
On Tue, 12 May 1998 14:42:24 -0400, Robert Fusillo
<rfus...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu> wrote:
My fist purchase
>was a Moore – I was excited about the whole prospect of buying art and by a famous
>artist, etc. A few years later I realized that it was a weak piece. By then I had
>two others, similarly weak.
What took you so long?
I sold them and bought a Barbara Hepworth which I have
>had for over forty years, and would not part with it for a wilderness of monkeys.
> Tastes develop. My suggestion was that people buy what they like ( I did not think
>it necessary to say that) but by well established artists, so that, if down the road
>they are sorry, they can get their money more or less back
Many well established artists of the present won't last. Prove it to
yourself by looking at 20 year old art magazines and notice all the
forgotten names. In fact if you had gone to thier shows you would see
that they weren't any worse than those whose names made it. Modern
Academic Art is a lottery; a few winners and mostly losers.
Unless he is an investor one should indeed buy what he likes. However
if its the popular modern style stuff one can buy just about the same
thing for a high as well as a low price. One can pay for the craft of
a work or add a large sum for the bullshit that goes with it if
purchased from a big name gallery.
> I envy your attitude about @2000 ( a day’s pay?). I have collected widely for
>close to fifty years, and average about ten thousand dollars a year in purchases. (
>A twelve year old car bought used, and no new clothes in several years). But I buy
>only artists whose work I have followed closely for several years, and who have
>established track records and widespread markets. I don’t buy to make money – that
>would be silly: ten thousand is a lot to gamble – but I try to buy safely: a
>schoolteacher’s budget is not big and needs to be conservative. But I don’t dare
>blow even $1000 on a local artists, no matter how much I like it.
Sounds like you blow $10,000 instead.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Katherine Allen
Hello again Mr. Chan!
Your last post was a very intriguing story. Makes me wonder what lesser
known artists and mad scientists must do in this world to get recognition!
Perhaps if all mad scientist have to do is paint...artists are just going
to have to threaten world security once or twice! :)
One thing I know for sure is, galleries are not the venue to acquire fame.
With the galleries, it doesn't matter if your work is appealing, a source
of maniacal laughter or comparable to guano...if they don't like
you...you're toast (as they say in Canada.) If they DO like you, you
forfeit 75% of your net revenues. Either way, the artist loses.
I did some research a few years ago on the profitability of cultural arts
in Canada. I discovered that in 1993-94 the literary arts industry
earned an astounding $1.5 billion in Canada alone. Not to be outdone, the
recording arts industry scraped in a whopping $2 billion. And it inspired
me to switch professions when my search revealed that the Film, TV and
Video industry...in 1995...in Canada alone...topped them all with revenues
reaching $2.5 billion.
But how about fine arts? I nearly choked when I read that the fine arts
industry earned a grand total of $85 million that very same year.
What are the galleries doing? It's been evident to me over the course of 20
years that the public loves their art just as much as they love their
music, paperback novels and 20 visits to view "Titanic" equipped with
a jumbo box of tissues.
Seems to me galleries worldwide are not the "sharpest knives in the cutlery
drawer" when it comes to business and marketing. So perhaps it's up to
artists to acquire a Masters Degree in Business before they finish art
school and approach their careers the way Celine Dion or Stephen King or
Pierce Brosnan do.
Then everyone would buy our art and we'd ALL be filthy rich and hang
around Monaco and would soon be bait for the paparazzi and our lives would
never be ours again.......hmm,m,m,m. Sounds disruptive.
I could live with that!
:)
Cheers,
Katherine
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> : Mr. W.Y. Chan (wah...@liverpool.ac.uk) writes:
> : > Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
> : > name of the artist?
> : >
> : > Wah
>
> : ----------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
--
******************************************************************************
Katherine Allen
dk...@freenet.carleton.ca
www.ncf.carleton.ca/~dk255/index.html
Andrew Werby
In article <35589810...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu>, Robert Fusillo
<rfus...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu> wrote:
. A Henry Moore for $50,000 is a safer buy
> > : > than a local artist for $2000. If something happens, and /or if
your tastes
> > : > change, you can get back the money for the Moore, but not the
local artist.
> > : > Part of the price you pay, then is for safety.
> >
[I don't see how this makes sense. If one buys at retail, then decides to
sell,
one has the choice of selling at wholesale or starting a gallery. In the case
of the Henry Moore above, no gallery would be likely to pay more than half what
it sold for, assuming the price hasn't changed in the interim. So by being
"safe" one would be out $25K. Buying the piece by an unknown local artist
because
one liked it seems a better bet. Even in the worst case one only loses 2 grand.
Also, one can often buy local art directly from the artist, so one isn't
necessarily paying twice what the artist actually charges. Even though this
artist probably won't become famous, (although there is a chance of this), if
one gets it direct, it is unlikely to go down in value. The purchase of art at
retail by "name" artists at the height of their reputations affords no such
assurance.]
I buy
> only artists whose work I have followed closely for several years, and
who have
> established track records and widespread markets. I don’t buy to make
money – that
> would be silly: ten thousand is a lot to gamble – but I try to buy safely: a
> schoolteacher’s budget is not big and needs to be conservative. But I
don’t dare
> blow even $1000 on a local artists, no matter how much I like it.
[This is the saddest thing I've read all day. I don't understand why Mr
Fusillo is buying art at all, if he's afraid to buy the art he really
likes. Why not buy safe stocks instead? If it isn't about money, then what
is it about? The fear of being "wrong"? This strategy is bound to result
in a mediocre collection of second-rate work by "Big Name" artists; just
the sort of thing that gets liquidated after ones death at a fraction of
the acquisition cost. I see these auctions all the time: Vaserely, Erte,
Miro, Alvar, Keane, Appel, Doolittle, Olivia- all artists with
"established track records and widespread markets", and all schlock. This
makes about as much sense as spending one's hard-earned money
hire-purchasing those "collectible" silver items I often buy as scrap and
melt down for use in jewelry.]
> But this is far from pricing – The problem for the young and unknown
artist is that
> he can’t afford to sell his work for little,
[Sure they can, they do it all the time.]
but that there are substantial works by
> well-known, financially safe artists out there for three and four
thousand and a
> bit higher.
[Like what- late Dali lithos?]
It’s rough, and I sympathize. But I am a buyer of art, not a charitable
> organization.
[Uh huh. I appreciate the sympathy- but I'll save mine for Mr.Fusillo's heirs.]
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
Useful Resources, Technical Tips, and Art in Various Media
Mr. W.Y. Chan
To add to the issue of price of arts and how artists got famouse.
On the news recently there was an unknown female artist who exhibit her works at
a famouse London art gallery, apparently her work was so so, while she was
introducing her work to the viewing public she offered to do a painting of unique
value for a client (who was representing a TV celebrity buyer) for #50 UKP and
in front of everyone she offered her body! Yes, she had full sex with her buyer
while she got her paint brush out and did an abstract, she claim the painting
expresses her mood at the moments of passion with a stranger and that is something
never before captured on a work of art. Having heard what happened the local
council launched an investigation on her activities, though many people
particularly men became interested in her work.
It amazing how some people earns a living.
W. Chan
Lauri Levanto
Mr. W.Y. Chan wrote:
> (...)
> she claim the painting
> expresses her mood at the moments of passion with a stranger and that is something
> It amazing how some people earns a living.
>
> W. Chan
As already stated in this thread, "name" is a significant price factor.
"Name" is a function of publicity.
Art critics is a niche in publishing industry, subject to same rules.
I believe that in media exposure and critics, two aspects
has grown out of proportion:
1 News,
like Mr Chan's example "Newer before captured.."
( A man bit a dog)
2 Personification,
Who said it counts more
than what did he say.
"Picasso's failure is an oxymoron"
A good artist may _use_ both, news and personification,
to gain artistic freedom.
But means should never replace the goal.
When these factors control publicity,
the gallery business must follow.
The victim is quality, were it classical or modern.
It is quite easy to tell apart inferior quality and
moderate quality. In Arts, unlike sports, it is really hard to spot
the top performance, that deserves the money which now goes to
News and Names
- lauri
Marilyn
Katherine Allen wrote:
in part:
"But how about fine arts? I nearly choked when I read that the fine arts
industry earned a grand total of $85 million that very same year."
You are talking about visual arts and I think we need to look at the
whole cultural picture. I saw an interview with a video artist
recently who said he could get $1500 0 $5000 for altering a video
to make it look like the person's head was blowing up. He didn't say
how long it would take him to do this on his computer.
Is this more valuable than a fine painting using archival materials?
In the visual art market, it must be, in the market place at least.
Think of the "audience" the impressionists had, those people were not
watching TV or blockbusters like "Titanic." Maybe people today are so
saturated with visual images coming at them from every direction,
advertising, TV, movies, all in colour, that they are too overwhelmed
visually to look at or appreciate what we define as fine art, visual art
such as painting, sculpture etc.
Then we learn that masterpieces are being bought and sold to launder
money... No wonder I am a cynic.
Marilyn
mark webber
On 13 May 1998, Andrew Werby wrote:
(snip bulk of discussion)
> in a mediocre collection of second-rate work by "Big Name" artists; just
> the sort of thing that gets liquidated after ones death at a fraction of
> the acquisition cost. I see these auctions all the time: Vaserely, Erte,
> Miro, Alvar, Keane, Appel, Doolittle, Olivia- all artists with
> "established track records and widespread markets", and all schlock.
Right on the money. And don't forget to include Pierre Delacroix, Dali
and Botero.
Some people thing an investment of this sort makes them a connoisseur,
saving them the trouble of research and the development of a sensiblility.
Mark
Norman Strand~
In article <35589810...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu>, Robert Fusillo <rfus...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu> writes:
|>
|>
|> Philip Ayers wrote:
|>
|> > <rfus...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu> wrote:
|> >
|> > : > Note: Prices depend on such things as wideness of market -- an artist
|> > : > with several galleries, in several countries, tends to have more stable
|> > : > prices, at least. I usually advise beginning collectors to buy a work by a
|> > : > than a local artist for $2000. If something happens, and /or if your tastes
|> > : > change, you can get back the money for the Moore, but not the local artist.
|> > : > Part of the price you pay, then is for safety.
|> >
|> > that cost 2000 and they like it better than an availiable peice by Moore
|> > they would be stupid to buy the Moore except as a gamble that it would go
|> > up in value. If they want to speculate that's fine but the cost of
|> > insurance alone will be several thousand dollars over a 1/2 dozen years. $
|> > 2000 dollars isn't much to pay for something like a painting that one
|> > really likes.
|> >
|>
|>
|>
|> Note I said beginners – they are often carried away by a variety of impulses, and
|> realize down the line, as their eye begins to coalesce with their taste, that the
|> was a Moore – I was excited about the whole prospect of buying art and by a famous
|> artist, etc. A few years later I realized that it was a weak piece. By then I had
|> had for over forty years, and would not part with it for a wilderness of monkeys.
|> Tastes develop. My suggestion was that people buy what they like ( I did not think
|> it necessary to say that) but by well established artists, so that, if down the road
|> they are sorry, they can get their money more or less back
|> close to fifty years, and average about ten thousand dollars a year in purchases. (
|> only artists whose work I have followed closely for several years, and who have
|> established track records and widespread markets. I don’t buy to make money – that
|> would be silly: ten thousand is a lot to gamble – but I try to buy safely: a
|> schoolteacher’s budget is not big and needs to be conservative. But I don’t dare
|> blow even $1000 on a local artists, no matter how much I like it.
|> well-known, financially safe artists out there for three and four thousand and a
|> organization.
|>
|>
|>
My opinion is that it would be better to buy 25 paintings by regional artists
for $2000 each, than one Henry Moore at $50,000. In Arizona there are many
unknown artists that price their painting in the few hundreds of dollars and
artists that can get $2000 for a painting allready have a reputation.
Norman Strand
This is not the opinion of intel corp.
--
Intel, Corp.
5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
Chandler, AZ 85226
Philip Ayers
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9805131...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
: > On 13 May 1998, Andrew Werby wrote:
: > (snip bulk of discussion)
: >
: > > in a mediocre collection of second-rate work by "Big Name" artists; just
: > > the sort of thing that gets liquidated after ones death at a fraction of
: > > the acquisition cost. I see these auctions all the time: Vaserely, Erte,
: > > Miro, Alvar, Keane, Appel, Doolittle, Olivia- all artists with
: > > "established track records and widespread markets", and all schlock.
: >
: > Right on the money. And don't forget to include Pierre Delacroix, Dali
: > and Botero.
: >
: > Some people thing an investment of this sort makes them a connoisseur,
: > saving them the trouble of research and the development of a sensiblility.
: >
: > Mark
Mark-
I don't agree that Botero is schlock, no not at all. His earlier
paintings before 1978? were very good and his big figurative sculptures
are great fun! He happens to be my childrens favorite artist...
& early Miro is also very good- the farm paintings are first rate.
DFRussell
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>Look, I'm not going to argue with you over this, especially since
>everything you said just proves my point.
You failed to address any point I made in contradiction to your
statements and then try to claim what I said proves your point.
Classic left-think debate tactic ;-)
>Unknown artist equals no demand.
>Rare artwork times unknown artist equals no demand, just as anything times
>0 equals 0. High quality makes a work more desirable and increases demand,
>and can actually gain a reputation for an unknown artist. I fail to see how
>your remarks are a rebuttal to my statements. There is only one basic law
>of economics: the price of a thing is equal to what the buyer will pay.
Quite true. And people pay more for names they recognize and are told
are "valuable".
Expensive art is purchased as investments -- not because anyone
actually liked it. Everyone involved has a stake in maintaining the
price and raising it.
>This applies to the art world too.
>I have plenty of inside knowledge of this situation, probably more than
>you.
The art equivalent of "my dick is bigger than yours." :-)
Spare me, not interested. Refute what I said or drop out.
> For example, ever heard of a supposedly reputable studio that made a
>series of 300 prints from a famous artist, selling for $12,000 each, but
>they actually printed 500 and gave them duplicate numbers, to create the
>illusion of scarcity? They sold them under the table and kept all the
>profits.
Well, if your knowledge is on par with your math abilities.......
300*2=600
To be blunt, you don't have a ghost of a chance of convincing anyone
sane that your position is valid.
mark webber
One thing I've noticed is that no matter how agreeable a group may be,
they don't agree on every detail.
And even if Mr. Werby, Mr. Ayers and I were to spend many hours together
in a number of museums, we wouldn't agree on the specifics of who is
schlock - not all the time.
But I've read enough by each of these guys to feel that enough of the time
I agree with them.
Personally, however, I feel Miro was very often a great painter. And
Personally I feel Botero is always a gimmicker.
This is said, of course, with all respect to Mr. Werby and Mr. Ayers.
Mark
Charles Eicher
In article <355a2636...@news.mindspring.com>, nob...@edu.gov.com wrote:
> cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
> You failed to address any point I made in contradiction to your
> statements and then try to claim what I said proves your point.
As I said, I don't intend to argue with you over this, I have nothing to
prove, especially to someone so bull-headed as yourself. However, I will
make one correction, where you twisted my words:
> > For example, ever heard of a supposedly reputable studio that made a
> >series of 300 prints from a famous artist, selling for $12,000 each, but
> >they actually printed 500 and gave them duplicate numbers, to create the
> >illusion of scarcity? They sold them under the table and kept all the
> >profits.
>
> Well, if your knowledge is on par with your math abilities.......
>
> 300*2=600
Did I say they duplicated the entire edition? No. They printed an edition
of 500. They gave the artist the entire edition of 500 to sign. Then, they
erased the edition numbers from the last 200, and renumbered them from 100
again. That way, there were two sets of prints numbered 100 through 300.
They thought the scam was more likely to be detected if two people had
prints identically numbered as less than 100, since most of the early
buyers were collectors of this particular artist's work, and were likely to
compare their prints. Unfortunately for them, the scam was discovered...
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Marilyn
Philip Ayers wrote:
>
> Mark-
> I don't agree that Botero is schlock, no not at all. His earlier
> paintings before 1978? were very good and his big figurative sculptures
> are great fun! He happens to be my childrens favorite artist...
> & early Miro is also very good- the farm paintings are first rate.
>
> Philip (never Phil) Ayers
> http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
> p.a...@mindspring.com.
Take Miro out of there but put Botero back in.
Botero is a formula painter. Sure kids love his stuff, they love Barney,
don't they?
Miro had a wonderful imagination. Not at all a schlock artist.
Marilyn
Stephen Rowley
Mr. W.Y. Chan wrote:
>
> Is the price of a work of arts a reflection of the quality of work or the
> name of the artist?
There are a few remnants of my marketing career still lurking at the
back of my brain. One is the saying...
"The value of a product is whatever the customer says it is"
The purchaser of a painting can say it was the artist or the quality of
the work, that pursuaded him to part with the money. And that is what
determined the price, so that is what it is, until...
... The next time someone buys that work.
One of the skills of the dealer is understanding what turns a particular
customer on, eg. subject, period, style, standing of the artist etc, and
finding opportunities to put appropriate work infront of him.
Strolls
mark webber
Yes, I agree.
Mark
mdeli
(Charles Eicher) who spouts more misinformation than anyone else in
this conference wrote:
someone wrote.
>> At higher prices, primarly the name of the artist.
>
>
>That is simply not true.
Partially correct.
>The price of anything is driven by two factors (at
>a minimum) supply and demand.
> Reputation ("name") might drive demand,
Right
> but
>scarcity determines supply.
Supply is supply. It can be scarce or common. Scarcity can influence
demand but not always.
> Rare artworks fetch more than plentiful ones
>(for example, mass edition prints by a famous artist cost less than
>individual handmade paintings).
This is just ain't so. Many things that are unique are utterly
worthless.
I'm sure Eicher's painted works are far rarer than those of many
blue-chip artzy-fartzies. Picasso often knocked off three a day. His
work isn't at all rare. However I doubt that Eicher's rarer paintings
are big money magnets.
mdeli
On Mon, 11 May 1998 23:52:06 -0700, Marilyn <anti...@island.net>
wrote:
>When I think of the painting skills that can be at least as refined and
>as delicate as that of a dentist,
You can think about skill all you want but what counts is whether you
have any.
>that take years to perfect and develop.
>It also takes study and practice and expensive materials.
>
>And yet the painter often barely gets minimum wage for the effort.
Most painters deserve little more because they have no skill.
>Being a painter is rarely even considered to be a profession.
>"That ain't work, that's money fer nuthin'"
Well if you are an all-around-failure at least you can claim to be an
artist.
>If I wasn't enjoying it so much I could get bitter.
Sounds like you are a bitter, rather than a merry failure..
mdeli
>
>To add to the issue of price of arts and how artists got famouse.
>On the news recently there was an unknown female artist who exhibit her works at
>a famouse London art gallery, apparently her work was so so, while she was
>introducing her work to the viewing public she offered to do a painting of unique
>value for a client (who was representing a TV celebrity buyer) for #50 UKP and
>in front of everyone she offered her body! Yes, she had full sex with her buyer
>while she got her paint brush out and did an abstract, she claim the painting
>expresses her mood at the moments of passion with a stranger and that is something
>never before captured on a work of art. Having heard what happened the local
>council launched an investigation on her activities, though many people
>particularly men became interested in her work.
>It amazing how some people earns a living.
What's so amazing about this?
Art today is judged by the novelty of the put-on. Is it any less
stupid than Christo covering the Eiffel tower with toilet paper? I
hope the illustrious prudes on the arts council are masturbating to a
video of the event.
I knew several artists who had there wives make it with one critic in
exchange for good reviews. Perhaps it was even more enjoyable than a
straight pay off. Having lived in NYC I know some far more kinkey
things than just fucking the customers.
As long as art isn't judged in terms of quality anything goes. The are
thousands of stripe painters, abstract schmierers and no-skill
realists; one no worse than the another, If that sort of crap is in
fashion someone has to be chosen.
At present its best to be gay. If you can't make it on skill anything
goes. The above is just an example of anything-goes. And getting a
teaching position often involves the same on a more continual basis.
Philip Ayers
Did you actually see his early work? They are worthy! Don't dismiss an
artist because it's popular. Botero's first show at Marborough gallery in
NYC and his 2-3 shows were full of really wonderful work. Then he started
to do his repeat himself and his painting got very flat and hard. ...but
not his early work. There are many books on him -for a good reason-!
Also there is a wonderful story about Botero that I should tell here but I
have to get to work...later.
Philip Ayers
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9805141...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
: > On Thu, 14 May 1998, Marilyn wrote:
: >
: > > Philip Ayers wrote:
: > > >
: > > > Mark-
: > > > I don't agree that Botero is schlock, no not at all. His earlier
: > > > paintings before 1978? were very good and his big figurative
sculptures
: > > > are great fun! He happens to be my childrens favorite artist...
: > > > & early Miro is also very good- the farm paintings are first rate.
: > > >
: > > > Philip (never Phil) Ayers
: > > > http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
: > > > p.a...@mindspring.com.
: > >
: > >
: > > Take Miro out of there but put Botero back in.
: > >
: > > Botero is a formula painter. Sure kids love his stuff, they love Barney,
: > > don't they?
: > > Miro had a wonderful imagination. Not at all a schlock artist.
: > >
: > > Marilyn
: > >
: >
: > Yes, I agree.
: >
: > Mark
: >
You're intitled to your opinion but again I have to ask have you seen the
early paintings?
mark webber
On Fri, 15 May 1998, Philip Ayers wrote:
(snip)
> : > >
> : > > Botero is a formula painter. Sure kids love his stuff, they love Barney,
> : > > don't they?
> : > > Miro had a wonderful imagination. Not at all a schlock artist.
> : > >
> : > > Marilyn
> : > >
> : >
> : > Yes, I agree.
> : >
> : > Mark
> : >
>
> You're intitled to your opinion but again I have to ask have you seen the
> early paintings?
>
> Philip (never Phil) Ayers
> http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
> p.a...@mindspring.com.
>
Philip,
I admit I haven't seen his early work, and you're right, it could be
brilliant. However, I think the fact that all of what I do see by him is
such insipid, formulaic pap indicates there is some validity to barring
him from the pantheon. Again, this is said respectfully, and as I've said
elsewhere, I don't expect us all to agree on everybody (except, perhaps a
certain cretin with a webpage.)
But I'd like to point out that saying that children love someone's work
doesn't exactly agree with the criteria you seem to subscribe to in
another thread on collecting; namely that of a developed sensibility. This
is only a minor element in your rebutal, I'm sure, but when, in another
thread, you said deKooning is more of a Formalist than an Abstract
Expressionist (and I very much agree with you) you were demonstrating just
this kind of developed sensibility.
In other words, I agree with you on de Kooning, collecting, and a variety
of other issues, but not Botero.
regards,
Mark
Philip Ayers
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9805150...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
: > But I'd like to point out that saying that children love someone's work
: > doesn't exactly agree with the criteria you seem to subscribe to in
: > another thread on collecting; namely that of a developed sensibility. This
: > is only a minor element in your rebutal, I'm sure, but when, in another
I use humor alot...don't forget it .& i"m not so stupid as to like
something -because- my kids like it. But I like those scultures and I'm
happy my children enjoy them too....and that's no joke. They looked very
good on Park Ave. NYC and in Washington on the MAll. Better than Richard
Serra's bombastic minimalism!
: > of other issues, but not Botero.
I never judge anything based on an -IMAGE-..especially an object like a
painting. It's against my religion! You must see the real object. If it's
the 'fat people', I don't care about that. His painting was really good in
the late 60-early 70s. Would I put him up there with Gregory Gillespie?
No. But he is as good as Alex Katz was back in 1972.
Philip Ayers
In article <355a8a0a...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
: > I knew several artists who had there wives make it with one critic in
: > exchange for good reviews. Perhaps it was even more enjoyable than a
: > straight pay off. Having lived in NYC I know some far more kinkey
: > things than just fucking the customers.
: >
This is very risky as the critic could just as easy write a bad review
even after having the spouse. The sex could have been bad and it could
turn sour with devastation consequences for everyone. I think it's more
likely that the artists prositutes themselves with a -dealer- and it has
happened but not that often.
Philip Ayers
: > Mani DeLi
: > ...no skill no art
I agree but, what -IS- skill? It takes skill to blow ones nose
properly.....& pollack's work required a lot of hours to develope just the
right speed and load on the stick. His color thinking was developed after
many hours of slinging paint. ..and the "skills" developed.
Don't go saying this isn't skill either mdeli, 'cause you know it takes
skill even just to hit the tolet bowl when "pissing the night away"
DFRussell
In article <p.ayers-1505...@ip161.princeton3.nj.pub-ip.psi.net>, p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) writes:
|>
|> : > Mani DeLi
|> : > ...no skill no art
|>
|> I agree but, what -IS- skill? It takes skill to blow ones nose
|> properly.....& pollack's work required a lot of hours to develope just the
|> right speed and load on the stick. His color thinking was developed after
|> many hours of slinging paint. ..and the "skills" developed.
|>
|> Don't go saying this isn't skill either mdeli, 'cause you know it takes
|> skill even just to hit the tolet bowl when "pissing the night away"
Get any paint crew *really* drunk, cover the floor with canvas,
give them lots of paint, ladders, and tell them someone else will
clean up their mess: Voila! A new Pollack.
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
mdeli
How the blue chip modern scam works.
The Warhol of "Mariilyn" is on an artistic level of a third rate
1950's movie poster. In fact Warhol did it with assistance. How, you
may wonder are such astronomical levels achieved? The simplistic
correct answer is, supply and demand. But there is more to it.
People imagine that auctions are what they seem. The highest bidder
takes the lot. But Blue chip prices are a product of collusion (not
illegal) among modern Art dealers.
Raising prices is done by auction pooling. (nothing new, but not
generally known) Dealers decide on a painter they want to push. They
get together and decide how much to bid up the price on what they want
to popularize. Each dealer pays part of the cost and any loss should
it occur is than shared. You can figure out the rest for yourself.
Often its not just dealers but also critics, curators and the auction
gallery who are in on it. Now the guys who have a lot of Warhols for
sale have upped the value of their stock.
From NY Times May 16,
NEW YORK -- "Orange Marilyn," Andy Warhol's iconic 1964 image of
Marilyn Monroe, broke all previous records for the artist and became
the highest-priced painting of the spring auction season so far when
it sold at Sotheby's on Thursday night for $17.3 million, more than
four times the previous record for a Warhol. Two unidentified
telephone bidders fought a tense battle for the 1964 painting, and
when it ended, the packed salesroom burst into thunderous applause.
The Warhol's price set the tone for the evening. The sale totaled
$35.6 million, above Sotheby's high estimate of $25.5 million. Of the
56 works offered, 45 found buyers.
Before the sale, contemporary-art experts said the Museum of Modern
Art was trying to buy "Orange Marilyn." So were the Andy Warhol Museum
in Pittsburgh and the Tate Gallery in London. Among the collectors
thought to be contenders were Stephen Wynn, the Las Vegas casino
owner, and the publishing magnate S.I. Newhouse Jr. All Sotheby's
would say was that it had been bought by a collector.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
On Fri, 15 May 1998 14:35:05 -0400, p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip
Ayers) wrote:
>
>: > Mani DeLi
>: > ...no skill no art
>
>I agree but, what -IS- skill? It takes skill to blow ones nose
>properly.
Perhaps with your particular nose problems .
>....& pollack's work required a lot of hours to develope just the
>right speed and load on the stick.
The load of any consequence came from Clement Greenberg not Pollock.
The only thing worth anything in a Pollock is the signature if it
happens to be real..
> His color thinking was developed after
>many hours of slinging paint. ..and the "skills" developed.
>
Mainly at drinking and fighting.
He developed his connections working as a janitor at the Guggenheim.
His color does compare somewhat with a better than average chimpanzee
painting done at any public zoo. As to any other abilities I'm sure he
could hit the bowl when he wasn't drunk.
>Don't go saying this isn't skill either mdeli, 'cause you know it takes
>skill even just to hit the tolet bowl when "pissing the night away"
This isn't skill, because any slightly aware idiot can imitate it. In
fact I have enough faith in you, to realize that even an pompous twit
of your esteemed rank can imitate a Pollock.
Marilyn
Philip Ayers wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9805141...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> : > On Thu, 14 May 1998, Marilyn wrote:
> : >
> : > > Philip Ayers wrote:
> : > > >
> : > > > Mark-
> : > > > I don't agree that Botero is schlock, no not at all. His earlier
> : > > > paintings before 1978? were very good and his big figurative
> sculptures
> : > > > are great fun! He happens to be my childrens favorite artist...
> : > > > & early Miro is also very good- the farm paintings are first rate.
> : > > >
> : > > > http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
> : > > > p.a...@mindspring.com.
> : > >
> : > >
> : > > Take Miro out of there but put Botero back in.
> : > >
> : > > don't they?
> : > > Miro had a wonderful imagination. Not at all a schlock artist.
> : > >
> : > > Marilyn
> : > >
> : >
> : > Yes, I agree.
> : >
> : > Mark
> : >
>
> You're intitled to your opinion but again I have to ask have you seen the
> early paintings?
>
No! I have not seen his early work. All those fat people got in the way,
and I couldn't get past them. : )
Marilyn
DFRussell
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>In article <355a2636...@news.mindspring.com>, nob...@edu.gov.com wrote:
>
>> cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>
>> You failed to address any point I made in contradiction to your
>> statements and then try to claim what I said proves your point.
>
>As I said, I don't intend to argue with you over this,
Then why are you replying?
> I have nothing to
>prove, especially to someone so bull-headed as yourself.
Translation: I can't think of any to pull this off so I'll result to
personal insults :-)
>However, I will
>make one correction, where you twisted my words:
Yeah. Sure. Whatever. You were misquoted.
>
>> > For example, ever heard of a supposedly reputable studio that made a
>> >series of 300 prints from a famous artist, selling for $12,000 each, but
>> >they actually printed 500 and gave them duplicate numbers, to create the
>> >illusion of scarcity? They sold them under the table and kept all the
>> >profits.
>>
>> Well, if your knowledge is on par with your math abilities.......
>>
>> 300*2=600
>
>Did I say they duplicated the entire edition? No. They printed an edition
>of 500. They gave the artist the entire edition of 500 to sign. Then, they
>erased the edition numbers from the last 200, and renumbered them from 100
>again. That way, there were two sets of prints numbered 100 through 300.
>They thought the scam was more likely to be detected if two people had
>prints identically numbered as less than 100, since most of the early
>buyers were collectors of this particular artist's work, and were likely to
>compare their prints. Unfortunately for them, the scam was discovered...
Whatever.
As I said, no one sane will agree with your premise that the name of
the artist doesn't affect the price of a painting.
Andrew Werby
> > : > > > Mark-
> > : > > > I don't agree that Botero is schlock, no not at all. His earlier
> > : > > > paintings before 1978? were very good and his big figurative
> > sculptures
> > : > > > are great fun! He happens to be my childrens favorite artist...
> > : > > > & early Miro is also very good- the farm paintings are first rate.
>
> > : > > Take Miro out of there but put Botero back in.
> > : > >
> > : > > Botero is a formula painter. Sure kids love his stuff, they love
Barney,
> > : > > don't they?
> > : > > Miro had a wonderful imagination. Not at all a schlock artist.
> > : > >
> > : > > Marilyn
> >
> > You're intitled to your opinion but again I have to ask have you seen the
> > early paintings?
> >
> > Philip (never Phil) Ayers
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
> > p.a...@mindspring.com.
>
>
> No! I have not seen his early work. All those fat people got in the way,
> and I couldn't get past them. : )
>
> Marilyn
[My point wasn't to condemn everything that the artist on my "schlock
list" ever did- I like some of Miro's early stuff too, as well as Dali's-
but to point out that buying art by the name and not by the work itself is
bound to result in a weak collection, and favors the artist as marketing
phenomenon over the artist as a maker of great art. This seems to exert a
universally corruptive influence over even the best artists, and floods
the world with second-rate lithos "hand-signed" but little more. These
amount to little more than souvenirs of the artists in question; which
people seem to love, as Picasso used to demonstrate when he'd scrawl
something on a napkin, sign it with a flourish, and use to pay his bar
tab.]
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
Useful Resources, Technical Tips, and Art in Various Media
mark webber
On 17 May 1998, Andrew Werby wrote:
(snip portion of 4-way postings)
> [My point wasn't to condemn everything that the artist on my "schlock
> list" ever did- I like some of Miro's early stuff too, as well as Dali's-
> but to point out that buying art by the name and not by the work itself is
> bound to result in a weak collection, and favors the artist as marketing
> phenomenon over the artist as a maker of great art. This seems to exert a
> universally corruptive influence over even the best artists, and floods
> the world with second-rate lithos "hand-signed" but little more. These
> amount to little more than souvenirs of the artists in question; which
> people seem to love, as Picasso used to demonstrate when he'd scrawl
> something on a napkin, sign it with a flourish, and use to pay his bar
> tab.]
>
And your point is well taken - I think it is a very valid one. I also
think there's merit to the other points being made here, and ultimately I
think they're entwined; notions about pseudo-connoisseurship, marketing,
schlock, etc....
Personally, I'm bemused when an aquaintance wants me to see the "signed
litho" he or she just bought at some cheesy art auction. They want
approbation or congradulations on their wise investment. I want to know if
they like it, and that seems a secondary consideration.
Mark
inadream
>> : > > Botero is a formula painter. Sure kids love his stuff, they love
Barney,
>> : > > don't they?
>> : > > Miro had a wonderful imagination. Not at all a schlock artist.
>> : > >
rafael also used formulas ,as did rembrandt.....I like barney!
peter
Philip Ayers
In article <355dfad6...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
: > How the blue chip modern scam works.
: > --
: > Mani DeLi
: > ...no skill no art
This is one even an idiot like mani can get right . It's a no brainer!
Your right mani congratulations.
Philip Ayers
: > Philip Ayers wrote:
: > >
: > > In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9805141...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
: > > mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
: > >
: > > : > On Thu, 14 May 1998, Marilyn wrote:
: > > : >
: > > : > > Philip Ayers wrote:
Snip
: > > You're intitled to your opinion but again I have to ask have you seen the
: > > early paintings?
: >
: >
: > No! I have not seen his early work. All those fat people got in the way,
: > and I couldn't get past them. : )
: >
: > Marilyn
Well, I would never dismiss what I haven't seen and so you have a thing
about those people depicted in Botero? I still believe an artist can paint
anything and have a it succeed as a painting. Maybe you should
reconsider your commitment to -image-? Painting isn't image!
mdeli
On Thu, 14 May 1998 13:57:06 -0700, Marilyn <anti...@island.net>
wrote:
>Philip Ayers wrote:
>>
>> Mark-
>> I don't agree that Botero is schlock,
>Take Miro out of there but put Botero back in.
>
>Botero is a formula painter. Sure kids love his stuff, they love Barney,
> don't they?
What have you got against Barney?
>Miro had a wonderful imagination.
And how does that help his painting?
> Not at all a schlock artist.
He repeats himself even more than Picasso. Every Modern Academic
Museum collection has at least one Miro ameboid Blob painting and a
collection of Miro prints of ameboid blobs along with a set of
matching hanging flat ameboid spray painted blobs by Calder.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
N
In article <p.ayers-1505...@ip188.princeton.nj.pub-ip.psi.net>,
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
<<snip>>
> You're intitled to your opinion but again I have to ask have you seen the
> early paintings?
I like Botero's early work as well. I can even recall appreciating some
works of his fat people.
As for Miro, I enjoy his work from all periods of his career. MOMA's retro
in 1993 brought it all home again.
The following is an excerpt from a critique of that exhibit:
"The prints and illustrated books are a different case. Aspects of Miro's
sensibility that don't hold up well elsewhere gain another life when the
scale and process are more intimate, or the purpose is more overtly
illustrative. The offhandedness and graphic emptiness that make much of
the work feel thin are only advantages here.
I would have liked to have seen more of the very late work. Though I doubt
that a critical consensus here will ever be in order to the extent that it
was for Picasso's late paintings, I can't escape the feeling that Miro is
being protected, and that he doesn't need it. The "Untitled" canvases of
1970-80, in the last room of the exhibition, are jarring in their
bluntness and apparent lack of structure. Some emotional and pictorial
bottom line was being approached, I think, and I want a fuller look.
- from Carrol Dunham, The Appeal of the Head Onion Peel, Artforum, Jan
1994, pg. 80.
(Dunham, BTW is a rockin' painter, and one who I believe has managed to
incorporate some of that energy and evocation of the later Miro into his
own compelling paintings.)
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.