Colin McCahon
BR
I have seen better art on street corners made by glue sniffers with
spray cans.
What sort of a idiot would pay more than a mill for a picture that
could have been done by a four year old towing a house painting brush
behind his tricycle?
It seems that there a lot of people around who have much more money
than they have imagination to think of a good way of spending it.
The emperor hasn't even got his underpants on.
Cheers.
Bill.
Sarndra
BR <spam...@noonehome.com> wrote in message
news:373aa895...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
> What the hell is all the fuss about?
>
> I have seen better art on street corners made by glue sniffers with
> spray cans.
Yep...can't understand it myself....it's all such depressing looking (f)art...
Cheers
Sarndra
Colin Francis
Makes one less inclined to leave any artifacts to any institution doesn't it tho
?
..
Col ..
"640K ought to be enough for everybody."
- Bill Gates, 1981.
Kerry
>
>BR <spam...@noonehome.com> wrote in message
>news:373aa895...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
>> What the hell is all the fuss about?
>>
>> I have seen better art on street corners made by glue sniffers with
>> spray cans.
>
>
>Yep...can't understand it myself....it's all such depressing looking (f)art...
Ever stood in front of it and really looked? Ever thought about it
and looked and thought some more? Ever tried to understand it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;
Teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Geoff McCaughan
> On Thu, 13 May 1999 22:42:34 +1200, "Sarndra" <su...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >
> >BR <spam...@noonehome.com> wrote in message
> >news:373aa895...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
> >> What the hell is all the fuss about?
> >>
> >> I have seen better art on street corners made by glue sniffers with
> >> spray cans.
> >
> >
> >Yep...can't understand it myself....it's all such depressing looking (f)art...
>
> Ever stood in front of it and really looked? Ever thought about it
> and looked and thought some more? Ever tried to understand it?
Yeah, been there, done that.
That people are prepared to pay huge sums for childish daubs indicates how
completely bankrupt most of the 'art' scene really is.
It's truly a case of the emperors new clothes 95% of the time.
Kerry
wrote:
Children can;t do what McCahon did, you obviously didn;t look.
>
>It's truly a case of the emperors new clothes 95% of the time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kerry
<tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>I think Colin McCahon is a great artist and his works are very significant
>contributions to New Zealand. I am sad that his wishes that the work be
>kept by the university as part of the deed of gift have not been honored and
>the painting is destined to be hidden away in private ownership.
Hear hear. They belonged to me as a student of Victoria University,
and anyone else who wanted to go and see them in that public place,
for free!
>
>
>Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <7hf5pd$ft6$8...@thoth.trimble.co.nz>...
>>Kerry (ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 May 1999 22:42:34 +1200, "Sarndra" <su...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >BR <spam...@noonehome.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:373aa895...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
>>> >> What the hell is all the fuss about?
>>> >>
>>> >> I have seen better art on street corners made by glue sniffers with
>>> >> spray cans.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Yep...can't understand it myself....it's all such depressing looking
>(f)art...
>>>
>>> Ever stood in front of it and really looked? Ever thought about it
>>> and looked and thought some more? Ever tried to understand it?
>>
>>Yeah, been there, done that.
>>
>>That people are prepared to pay huge sums for childish daubs indicates how
>>completely bankrupt most of the 'art' scene really is.
>>
Geoff McCaughan
>
> Children can;t do what McCahon did, you obviously didn;t look.
I looked. I just don't buy into the "he's a 'name' so any rubbish he churns
out must be good' attitude.
Graeme Butler
contributions to New Zealand. I am sad that his wishes that the work be
kept by the university as part of the deed of gift have not been honored and
the painting is destined to be hidden away in private ownership.
WAAAH
Yeah the arty farty people are totally fakers.
They glorify McCahons paintings - creating a totally false market with bloated prices
for McCahon art. 1 million for this and 2 million for that????
For what?
What a joke.
Amy Gale
> Hear hear. They belonged to me as a student of Victoria University,
> and anyone else who wanted to go and see them in that public place,
> for free!
The painting sold had not been on public display for a long time.
You're not thinking of Gate III are you?
I agree with lots of people in this thread. I think the painting
should not have been sold, but I also don't get a lot out of McCahon's
paintings. I've seen Gate III almost every weekday of my life for
the last 8 years, I've spent a lot of time trying to see something in
it and never have. The university owns a third McCahon, with the
Agnus Dei text (I'm not entirely certain of its name), I've seen that
many, many times also and never been moved by it in any way. There
was a McCahon in the "Exhibition Of The Century" and that didn't do
anything for me either.
I'd like to see the university buy some Len Lye work. One of those
vicious kinetic sculptures with twenty foot whirling steel blades. We
could throw students in when they misbehaved.
Amy "not speaking for her employer" Gale
Kerry
wrote:
>ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz (Kerry) writes:
>
>> Hear hear. They belonged to me as a student of Victoria University,
>> and anyone else who wanted to go and see them in that public place,
>> for free!
>
>The painting sold had not been on public display for a long time.
>You're not thinking of Gate III are you?
That and the other McCahon. I think I have seen the painting, rather
than a picture of it. How long is a long time? I'm rather old ;-)
>
>I agree with lots of people in this thread. I think the painting
>should not have been sold, but I also don't get a lot out of McCahon's
>paintings. I've seen Gate III almost every weekday of my life for
>the last 8 years, I've spent a lot of time trying to see something in
>it and never have. The university owns a third McCahon, with the
>Agnus Dei text (I'm not entirely certain of its name), I've seen that
>many, many times also and never been moved by it in any way. There
>was a McCahon in the "Exhibition Of The Century" and that didn't do
>anything for me either.
>
>I'd like to see the university buy some Len Lye work. One of those
>vicious kinetic sculptures with twenty foot whirling steel blades. We
>could throw students in when they misbehaved.
>
>Amy "not speaking for her employer" Gale
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kerry
wrote:
>Kerry (ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz) wrote:
Before I knew he was a 'name' I found the works around the university
thought provoking
ta...@xtra.co.nz
<tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>I think Colin McCahon is a great artist and his works are very significant
>contributions to New Zealand. I am sad that his wishes that the work be
>kept by the university as part of the deed of gift have not been honored and
>the painting is destined to be hidden away in private ownership.
Why do you think he is a great artist?
*****
I have a great diet. You're allowed to eat anything you want,
but you must eat it with naked fat people.-Ed Bluestone
*****
ta...@xtra.co.nz
(Kerry) wrote:
>On Fri, 14 May 1999 08:29:00 +1200, "Graeme Butler"
><tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>I think Colin McCahon is a great artist and his works are very significant
>>contributions to New Zealand. I am sad that his wishes that the work be
>>kept by the university as part of the deed of gift have not been honored and
>>the painting is destined to be hidden away in private ownership.
>
>Hear hear. They belonged to me as a student of Victoria University,
>and anyone else who wanted to go and see them in that public place,
>for free!
Please tell me why you like his work.
Kerry
>On Thu, 13 May 1999 21:10:25 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>(Kerry) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 May 1999 08:29:00 +1200, "Graeme Butler"
>><tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>I think Colin McCahon is a great artist and his works are very significant
>>>contributions to New Zealand. I am sad that his wishes that the work be
>>>kept by the university as part of the deed of gift have not been honored and
>>>the painting is destined to be hidden away in private ownership.
>>
>>Hear hear. They belonged to me as a student of Victoria University,
>>and anyone else who wanted to go and see them in that public place,
>>for free!
>
>Please tell me why you like his work.
I like his religious themes, I like trying to work out what he is on
about. They make me think.
I wouldn't want a copy of one in my own home, I don't think its that
kind of art, I like it big and I like it real. But sitting on a bench
in front of one and just thinking, attempting to understand what was
being conveyed was a nice way to spend some time.
Kerry
>On Fri, 14 May 1999 08:29:00 +1200, "Graeme Butler"
><tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>I think Colin McCahon is a great artist and his works are very significant
>>contributions to New Zealand. I am sad that his wishes that the work be
>>kept by the university as part of the deed of gift have not been honored and
>>the painting is destined to be hidden away in private ownership.
>
>Why do you think he is a great artist?
I wonder why he is regarded as one. I find his work interesting, but
I have no idea what makes one artist great and another apparently
mediocre. I just know what I find beautiful/interesting/moving. And I
enjoy attempting to work out what made the artist do what he/she did.
What 'they' say I suppose.
ta...@xtra.co.nz
(Kerry) wrote:
>>Please tell me why you like his work.
>
>I like his religious themes, I like trying to work out what he is on
>about. They make me think.
>
>I wouldn't want a copy of one in my own home, I don't think its that
>kind of art, I like it big and I like it real. But sitting on a bench
>in front of one and just thinking, attempting to understand what was
>being conveyed was a nice way to spend some time.
That's reasonable. I often wonder why people like this artist or that.
Actually, I wonder why people like every artist they like. If it makes
you stop and think instead of just passing by, then it probably has
some emotive power that isn't conveyed very well by the photos on the
net.
Don Mackie
> That's reasonable. I often wonder why people like this artist or that.
> Actually, I wonder why people like every artist they like. If it makes
> you stop and think instead of just passing by, then it probably has
> some emotive power that isn't conveyed very well by the photos on the
> net.
Some years ago I wandered into a McCahon exhibition at the old Wellington
museum. The reaction was partly emotional, partly novelty (I had never
seen anything like that before) and partly the thought-provoking challenge
of working out what was going on.
It all boils down to "I know what I like" I'm afraid - same as for all the arts.
--
There is no substitute for a complete lack of preparation
- someone wittier than me
Enkidu
Colin McCahon expresses somthing purely NZ, possibly in the lighting,
possible also in the subjects, maybe in both...
Cliff
--
Cliff Pratt, CAP Consulting
Web build, web design. HTML, Javascript, CGI, ASP, Web Consulting
Email: cli...@cliffs.co.nz Phone: 025 246 7747
Enkidu
>
DO IT!
(copyright Cliff Pratt 1999)
Arty Farty, Pasty Wasty,
Why is something art, something rubbish?
You take your choice, amd you choice is measured,
Measured against others, other opinions.
Colin McCahon, artist who encompasses,
Encapsulates the NZ experience.
Puts it in a rectangular frame,
And still transcends it,
Diptypch, triptych,
Mould and decay,
Storage for our national emotions.
Graeme Butler
of our New Zealand community. In his later years Colin was pretty much a
recluse. He once said something to the effect that when people appreciate
his paintings they will have an acceptable attitude toward soil, forest,
water, life and an ideal relationship with nature.
He was motivated by a deep concern about nature and [especially about the
unsustainable nature of human expectations. He introduced religious icons
and used words to add the human element and to separate humanity from nature
in his depiction's. The somberness experienced by people viewing his works
may be the conflict he recognised between people and their place.
His art, like the land is given freely with no reward asked but the public
reaction justified his concerns
He had the right to paint, he produced works he considered gifts to society.
He never set the price for his work. His paintings have meaning to many, no
meaning to others.
The denigration that he received, including all the totally un original
jibes about children doing better at kindy, drove him to become a recluse
and confirmed his worst fears about the future of New Zealand forest,
rivers, coastline, air, water and earth being in the hands of people who
will ultimately destroy it.
McCahon, to me anyway, was a man very in tune with the precarious nature of
our existence and the collective menace our society presents to all of
nature.
I like him because he was truly honest in all his paintings and his art.
Like most visionaries he had to suffer being crucified and alienated. His
pain at this never interfered with his commitment, he never stopped
delivering his message.
Cheers
ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote in message <373b6bb6....@enews.newsguy.com>...
>On Fri, 14 May 1999 08:29:00 +1200, "Graeme Butler"
><tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>I think Colin McCahon is a great artist and his works are very significant
>>contributions to New Zealand. I am sad that his wishes that the work be
>>kept by the university as part of the deed of gift have not been honored
and
>>the painting is destined to be hidden away in private ownership.
>
>Why do you think he is a great artist?
Charles Eggen
his art, I thought I would make it possible, for those that might be
interested, to view four samples of it as was presented by NZ Post
with stamps issued two years ago. They are from paintings that can be
viewed at either the Auckland Art Gallery or the Tongarewa collection
at the Te Papa museum in Wellington. If you want to purchase the
stamps, I would think that most NZ stamp dealers can assist. If you
want to know their locations, check within my website for a list of
them. The cover, with a photo of McCahon can only be viewed by the
following URL, as I do not have it set up with clickable access, as I
do with the other covers now available for viewing at the site.
http://www.teleport.com/~cne/may7a.html
Chuck
New Zealand Stamp First Day Covers
http://www.teleport.com/~cne/
ta...@xtra.co.nz
<tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>Colin's paintings are sombre portrayals of the land in tormoil in the hands
>of our New Zealand community. In his later years Colin was pretty much a
>recluse. He once said something to the effect that when people appreciate
>his paintings they will have an acceptable attitude toward soil, forest,
>water, life and an ideal relationship with nature.
<snip>
>I like him because he was truly honest in all his paintings and his art.
>Like most visionaries he had to suffer being crucified and alienated. His
>pain at this never interfered with his commitment, he never stopped
>delivering his message.
Thank you, Graeme, that was an interesting analysis. I'll take it with
me in my head when I go see the works in real life.
Geoff McCaughan
> The denigration that he received, including all the totally un original
> jibes about children doing better at kindy, drove him to become a recluse
> and confirmed his worst fears about the future of New Zealand forest,
> rivers, coastline, air, water and earth being in the hands of people who
> will ultimately destroy it.
Someone needs to separate two distinct things here.
I have enormous respect for the NZ coastline, air, earth, water and
particularly forests, and will do my utmost to preserve the unspoilt areas
of this country.
I also think his paintings are deary crap and the religious stuff turns me
right off.
To equate appreciation of ones own work with respect for nature demonstrates
monumental hubris.
Graeme Butler
Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <373e3...@ihotnews.ihot.com>...
Jonathan Stone
|> ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz (Kerry) writes:
|>
|> > Hear hear. They belonged to me as a student of Victoria University,
|> > and anyone else who wanted to go and see them in that public place,
|> > for free!
|>
|> You're not thinking of Gate III are you?
which one did get sold? the one that used to be in the Library in the
early 80s?
|> I agree with lots of people in this thread. I think the painting
|> should not have been sold, but I also don't get a lot out of McCahon's
|> paintings. I've seen Gate III almost every weekday of my life for
|> the last 8 years, I've spent a lot of time trying to see something in
|> it and never have.
You're not the only one.
|> I'd like to see the university buy some Len Lye work. One of those
|> vicious kinetic sculptures with twenty foot whirling steel blades. We
|> could throw students in when they misbehaved.
Where'd you exhibit it? Overdue returns desk at the library?
Nick Smith
ta...@xtra.co.nz
Smith) wrote:
>Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
a big have? What the heck does that mean?
*****
"If you're going to stay home from school today,you
can help me shave my armpits."
--"Juanita" from "Billy Madison"
patr...@netaccess.co.nz
Smith) wrote:
::Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
Agreed , and Colin McCahon is a number one example.
Did you read Frank Haden's very good piece on Colin's trash in last
Sunday's Star Time.
Frank got it spot on
patricK
Pain we HAD, Gain we TAKE
Geoff McCaughan
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 05:54:28 GMT, nick....@team.xtra.co.nz (Nick
> Smith) wrote:
>
> >Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
>
NZ idiom. "A big have" == "A big con".
Doug
asserted:
>On Wed, 26 May 1999 05:54:28 GMT, nick....@team.xtra.co.nz (Nick
>Smith) wrote:
>
>::Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
>
>Agreed , and Colin McCahon is a number one example.
>
>Did you read Frank Haden's very good piece on Colin's trash in last
>Sunday's Star Time.
"Frank Haden" and "very good piece" are mutually exclusive terms.
DC
Graeme Butler
I think.
But if he believes modern art is a have that's fine he won't clutter up the
galleries and disturb my viewing pleasure.
ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote in message <374c5589....@enews.newsguy.com>...
>On Wed, 26 May 1999 05:54:28 GMT, nick....@team.xtra.co.nz (Nick
>Smith) wrote:
>
>>Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
>
>a big have? What the heck does that mean?
Marty Faville
patr...@netaccess.co.nz wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 05:54:28 GMT, nick....@team.xtra.co.nz (Nick
> Smith) wrote:
>
> ::Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
>
> Agreed , and Colin McCahon is a number one example.
Quashing the notion that art is in the eye of the beholder.
> Did you read Frank Haden's very good piece on Colin's trash in last
> Sunday's Star Time.
Frank Hade-had-ha-hhahahahahahahaha! Pompous fucking windbag, that boy.
Marty.
Sarndra
Geoff McCaughan <geo...@trimble.co.nz> wrote in message
news:7ihro9$fi$3...@thoth.trimble.co.nz...
> ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 May 1999 05:54:28 GMT, nick....@team.xtra.co.nz (Nick
> > Smith) wrote:
> >
> > >Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
> >
>
A big con = a big ripoff
a big ripoff = taken for a ride
taken for a ride = der what a dickhead
der what a dickhead = sheesh i've parted out money for crap
sheesh i've parted out money for crap = ........
Sarns :-)
Dal Segno
wrote:
>In article <374c5ccc...@news.netaccess.co.nz>,
>patr...@netaccess.co.nz wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 May 1999 05:54:28 GMT, nick....@team.xtra.co.nz (Nick
>> Smith) wrote:
>>
>> ::Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
>>
>> Agreed , and Colin McCahon is a number one example.
>
>Quashing the notion that art is in the eye of the beholder.
>
>> Did you read Frank Haden's very good piece on Colin's trash in last
>> Sunday's Star Time.
>
>Frank Hade-had-ha-hhahahahahahahaha! Pompous fucking windbag, that boy.
>
Maybe. But he's one of the few jurnos who talk straight and talk
sense. The polarising of opinion generated by his articles only goes
to show that he's not only right on the button but also a thorn in the
flesh of his opponents and critics.
We need more Frank Hadens.
Dal.
Dave Joll
>On Wed, 26 May 1999 05:54:28 GMT, nick....@team.xtra.co.nz (Nick
>>Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
>a big have? What the heck does that mean?
A con. A ripoff. Selling some mug the Otago Harbour
Bridge is "a big have". The "have" may come from the
phrase "to have one on" (= "to pull one's leg").
Personally I think a lot of the fun of "modern art" is
seeing this sort of carry on. I'm fairly sure McCahon
would be laughing his head off to see all this fuss.
I still agree with the Wizard's attributed quote on the
subject: "Art is what you can get away with".
Enkidu
>
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 05:54:28 GMT, nick....@team.xtra.co.nz
> (Nick Smith) wrote:
>
> >Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
>
> a big have? What the heck does that mean?
>
sweeping statement damning everything from Picasso (Guernica)
to Andy Warhol to the daubing of a 6 year old, isn't worth
arguing with. (Not to mentioncats who paint).
Enkidu
>
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 05:54:28 GMT, nick....@team.xtra.co.nz
> (Nick Smith) wrote:
>
> ::Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
>
>
> in last Sunday's Star Time.
>
>
Anyone who thinks FH is spot on obviously has a problem. Anyone
who can't see the sheer artistry in a Colin McCahon painting is
obviously seriously deficient in the aesthetic area.
If you don't see it, you will NEVER see it. If you don't have
taste, you can't LEARN it.
Simon Pleasants
Nick Smith wrote in message <374b8c7e....@news.xtra.co.nz>...
>Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
Why? Who does it fool?
And why "for the most part"? Of which examples of modern art do you
approve? What makes them categorically different from other examples of
modern art?
Do you approve of all non-modern art? If so, do you approve of post-modern
art?
Weta
"Art is the lie that makes us realise the truth"...Picasso
Dal Segno
wrote:
>patr...@netaccess.co.nz wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 26 May 1999 05:54:28 GMT, nick....@team.xtra.co.nz
>> (Nick Smith) wrote:
>>
>> ::Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
>>
>> Agreed , and Colin McCahon is a number one example.
>>
>> Did you read Frank Haden's very good piece on Colin's trash
>> in last Sunday's Star Time.
>>
>> Frank got it spot on
>>
>Anyone who thinks FH is spot on obviously has a problem. Anyone
>who can't see the sheer artistry in a Colin McCahon painting is
>obviously seriously deficient in the aesthetic area.
>
>If you don't see it, you will NEVER see it. If you don't have
>taste, you can't LEARN it.
>
Taste is a matter of. And it seems too often to be an elitist term
used by those who would have the rest of the world know that they are
somehow uniquely endowed with it. Taste and snobbery are habitual
bedfellows.
Dal.
patr...@netaccess.co.nz
wrote:
::If you don't see it, you will NEVER see it. If you don't have
::taste, you can't LEARN it.
::
I know rubbish when I see it and McCahon is rubbish
WAAAH
artistry"? "McCahon"? I dont think so. Gimme DaVicni any day.
Enkidu wrote:
> Anyone who thinks FH is spot on obviously has a problem. Anyone
> who can't see the sheer artistry in a Colin McCahon painting is
> obviously seriously deficient in the aesthetic area.
>
> If you don't see it, you will NEVER see it. If you don't have
> taste, you can't LEARN it.
>
Justin
Your brush is too broad. I'm sure there are books and films that you
like and enjoy. There are lots of forms of modern art, and only a small
minority (but _highly_ publicised) is a big have IMHO. Unfortunately,
the Big Have stuff is often so hyped that it's easy to think that that's
all there is to modern art.
Wanna hear a conspiracy theory?
Modern art, specifically, the small section that is the "big have" you
refer to, is very poor art. But that's not the point - the point is that
it is something that is worthless yet _expensive_, ie an irresisible
lure to those who derive social status by the flaunting of their wealth
(this is largely an American thing, but there are a few here in NZ :)
What better way to show your wealth than by buying these things with
enourmous price tags but no merit, putting them on display in your house
demonstrating you have money to burn by the bucketload...
That so many of the artists that produce these pieces are ex-salesmen is
also a clue. Actually, I lie, they're _still_ salesmen, but have
switched their merchandise, and are doing very well for themselves...
:-)
This also ties in with why these artworks both need to be hyped (so
people know how much you payed for it) and have the financial backing to
pay for the hype (so that people will hear how much it's worth and buy
it)
So my conclusion is that Modern Art is, for a small part, a big have.
But there is much more to it than the highly publicised "I'm obscenely
wealthy" industry (which is largely almost a _seperate_ art world, due
to the screwed up principles on which it turns, thus preserving the
integrety and dignity of Mordern Art of actual _merit_ :-)
ta...@xtra.co.nz
<ja...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>That so many of the artists that produce these pieces are ex-salesmen is
>also a clue. Actually, I lie, they're _still_ salesmen, but have
>switched their merchandise, and are doing very well for themselves...
In defense of my fellows I must point out that unless you're a damned
GOOD salesman, you can't sell art. Do you have any idea how difficult
it is to make a success in the world of Fine Art? It's not good enough
to be technically sound and have personal and artistic depth, you also
have to be able to bullshit with people, to be able to express
yourself well, make friends easily...and dammit, if you could do THAT,
you wouldn't need the fucking paint brush. Have you any idea how HARD
it is to tell people, "You should buy my stuff because I'm good and
someday your investment will be worth something?" How uncomfortable
that is for most artists? (including myself believe it or not) You
have to be able to convince people of YOUR value when there are dozens
of people just waiting in line who are of equal or greater value. I
admire anyone who can do it, just because they've beaten the damned
system. It's extremely hard. I don't WANT to go to openings. I go
because I HAVE to. This is a very personal business and the only way
to succeed is to get your name around and let people know you're in it
for the long haul and that you have something of value to say....and
pray.
Tarla
*****
Inside some of us is a thin person struggling to get
out, but she can usually be sedated with a few pieces
of chocolate cake.
*****
Graeme Butler
on donated art works. Not sure how it worked but something like this.
A group of business people buy several paintings each from an up and coming
artist.
They then attend a public auction where a work is sold,
they club together and bid an exorbitant amount of money to acquire the
painting.
This sets a value for the artist's work increasing substantially the value
of his works.
Paintings are then donated to public galleries and a tax credit claimed on
the new value.
Don't know what remedy was put in place if any at all.
Justin wrote in message <374F26...@student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
>> Modern Art is, for the most part, a big have.
>
>Your brush is too broad. I'm sure there are books and films that you
>like and enjoy. There are lots of forms of modern art, and only a small
>minority (but _highly_ publicised) is a big have IMHO. Unfortunately,
>the Big Have stuff is often so hyped that it's easy to think that that's
>all there is to modern art.
>Wanna hear a conspiracy theory?
>Modern art, specifically, the small section that is the "big have" you
>refer to, is very poor art. But that's not the point - the point is that
>it is something that is worthless yet _expensive_, ie an irresisible
>lure to those who derive social status by the flaunting of their wealth
>(this is largely an American thing, but there are a few here in NZ :)
>What better way to show your wealth than by buying these things with
>enourmous price tags but no merit, putting them on display in your house
>demonstrating you have money to burn by the bucketload...
>That so many of the artists that produce these pieces are ex-salesmen is
>also a clue. Actually, I lie, they're _still_ salesmen, but have
>switched their merchandise, and are doing very well for themselves...
ta...@xtra.co.nz
<tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>There was some tax scam uncovered years ago. It had to do with tax credits
>on donated art works. Not sure how it worked but something like this.
>
>A group of business people buy several paintings each from an up and coming
>artist.
>
>They then attend a public auction where a work is sold,
>
>they club together and bid an exorbitant amount of money to acquire the
>painting.
>
>This sets a value for the artist's work increasing substantially the value
>of his works.
>
>Paintings are then donated to public galleries and a tax credit claimed on
>the new value.
How can I meet these guys?
Graeme Butler
you, daub blue and yellow splotches over about 40% so that 60% of your body
remains red,
Make a hat out of old vacuum cleaner tubes, paint them silver and bronze.
Put on a pair of sun glasses
Try and convince a famous artist to photograph you, success would depend on
your age, shape of your body and the state of sobriety of the artist.
Or you could boldly walk into a famous gallery and declare yourself
happening. It is likely that someone will speak to you, who knows it just
may be one of the idle eccentric rich.
I tried it but I am old and fat and the only people that spoke to me were a
couple of hippies who told me I hadn't got my color harmonies right.
Sigh
ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote in message <3751ff5a....@enews.newsguy.com>...