Evil Art Dealings
Andrew Werby
(Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> Having spent over $100 canadian on art supplies in the last month, I
decided to start giving my paintings away. I do all my work in oil pastel
and acrylic, using newsprint, so my expenses aren't as great as most of
you, but hey.
> I live in student residence, and I've plastered my paintings in the
hallway, along with a notice that reads: "Paintings for Sale! Only Five
Dollars!" and an explanation that I'm not in this for the money, that
there is NO way I will make a profit on this, etc. I like giving my art
> away, and I figure five bucks is a nice token amount of money.
[There is a difference between selling art- even at a loss- and giving it
away. Has anybody taken you up on this offer? If you are interested in what
the market will bear, try gradually reducing the prices until the work
actually sells. Then subtract the price of the supplies you used, and divide
by the number of hours you spent making the art. This will yield your gross
income per hour. These depressing calculations will be even more disheartening
once you leave school and have to factor in your incresed overhead costs.]
I figure such a practice might horrify some of you. Selling my
> paintings for a mere $5? "Is he mad? What's the point? Where's the
profit? And he uses NEWSPRINT for god's sakes!" (I actually *like* the
way this makes my art yellow over time, not to mention the way the paper
> becomes incredibly fragile.)
[If you are quick enough, you might make money this way. If you can produce and
sell a couple of paintings per hour you would be making better than a minimum
wage. Might I suggest a sidewalk venue?]
The whole debate of art and money, what should motivate artistic
What motivates you people doesn't really motivate me. My painting is just
> a "hobby". But I like giving my paintings away to people.
[Then why charge five bucks?]
> Because I am not motivated by profit or what is considered "good art", I
get to paint whatever the hell I want. This is, of course, incredibly
fun. I do hope that some of you out there paint whatever the hell it is
you want to paint. And people seem to like my art, because they sense
that thought is put into it, and that it is "fun".
One of the things I hate about art of ALL KINDS (poetry, prose, painting)
is that it is DREADFULLY serious. I feel that all art should contain a
> sense of humor, a sense of play, a feeling of spontaneity and joy.
>
> Serious art...? Ugh.
[Have you tried doing cartoons? Being consistently funny is hard work, though.
Maybe there's a difference between what is "fun" for the artist and for
the viewer?]
>
> The one problem I have had with ALL art classes, (all of which were in
> high school, or art classes meant for children, mind you), is that they do
> not cater to what you, personally, are doing and are interested in.
[This is a fault they share with the rest of the classes in elementary and
high school.
It's too bad, because we learn much better if the instruction is geared to
our particular
interests. Educators, however, have not generally taken much notice of
this basic
psychological fact.]
>
> "Now we're going to do still life."
>
> "Today we're all going to paint a duck."
>
> "And now class, let's work with clay."
>
> Well, why? What if I hate still life? What if I have no desire to work
> with clay? What if the only sort of painting I like to do is from
> completely inside my own head? What if all I like to paint are explosive
> messy cartoon type works? Can't I just do that, get feedback, and maybe
> change based on that feedback?
>
> Maybe art classes in high school and grade school are shitty, and some art
> classes outside that world are great.
[There are good and not-so-good classes in both worlds. If you know everything
you want to know, there's really no reason to attend them- just do your thing
if it makes you happy. Wait until there's something you want to learn, then
take a class, or just find somebody that knows whatever it is and ask them.
Most students have had education forced on them so long that they are sick of
it, and no wonder. ]
If so, I wish someone would tell me
> about them. My understanding of art school in general, is that it tends
> to be snobby, pretencious, and filled with clique bound minds.
[You can find that there, if that's what you're looking for. But you might also
find some good people who know a lot about art, if you seek them out. Not
all of
them will be teachers, either.]
>
> They say that creative writing programs (I'm a creative writing student)
> tend to breed huge groups of people who all write the same way. Does art
> school work the same way, I wonder? Do all the people who come out the
> other end of art school, all digested and wet, create art the same
> way, with the same style, and the same meaning?
[It certainly can work that way. But people often change after they leave
school.]
>
> Pardon my, what might seem like, blunt, unartistic, thoughtless, and
> arrogant questions, comments, and simmering rage.
>
> Nik
[Hey, that's what we come here for....]
>
>
>
Nikolaus Maack
Having spent over $100 canadian on art supplies in the last month, I
decided to start giving my paintings away. I do all my work in oil pastel
and acrylic, using newsprint, so my expenses aren't as great as most of
you, but hey.
I live in student residence, and I've plastered my paintings in the
hallway, along with a notice that reads: "Paintings for Sale! Only Five
Dollars!" and an explanation that I'm not in this for the money, that
there is NO way I will make a profit on this, etc. I like giving my art
away, and I figure five bucks is a nice token amount of money.
Several people walked by as I put the paintings up, and said how my
primary colour monsters have brightened up a rather dreary white hallway.
Some complimented some of my art work, suggesting I spread my paintings
out, all over the second floor of the residence building.
The reason I mention all of this:
1) I figure such a practice might horrify some of you. Selling my
paintings for a mere $5? "Is he mad? What's the point? Where's the
profit? And he uses NEWSPRINT for god's sakes!" (I actually *like* the
way this makes my art yellow over time, not to mention the way the paper
becomes incredibly fragile.)
The whole debate of art and money, what should motivate artistic
production, amuses me. Of course, I'm not really a "serious" painter.
What motivates you people doesn't really motivate me. My painting is just
a "hobby". But I like giving my paintings away to people.
Because I am not motivated by profit or what is considered "good art", I
get to paint whatever the hell I want. This is, of course, incredibly
fun. I do hope that some of you out there paint whatever the hell it is
you want to paint. And people seem to like my art, because they sense
that thought is put into it, and that it is "fun".
One of the things I hate about art of ALL KINDS (poetry, prose, painting)
is that it is DREADFULLY serious. I feel that all art should contain a
sense of humor, a sense of play, a feeling of spontaneity and joy.
Serious art...? Ugh.
"Yes, harrumph, this painting symbolizes the interaction between man and
God in a universe peopled with heathens and angry rabid animals. Note the
clever usage of aluminum foil."
2) I also figure some of you might be delighted by this. An "amateur"
giving away his work, encouraging the plebes in student residence to at
least appreciate art on some level. Even if it is primary coloured
cartoon character monsters done by a "layman" of questionable talent.
3) I also hope to start a damn conversation in this newsgroup if it kills
me. My last post resulted in one piece of email: one artschool type
telling me that what is most important about art is whether it is "good"
or not. He chose not to explain whose sense of GOOD the standard is. My
sense of good? His? Art snobs? People who buy cheezy mall art? The
artschool type also told me that I should seek out "art training".
The one problem I have had with ALL art classes, (all of which were in
high school, or art classes meant for children, mind you), is that they do
not cater to what you, personally, are doing and are interested in.
"Now we're going to do still life."
"Today we're all going to paint a duck."
"And now class, let's work with clay."
Well, why? What if I hate still life? What if I have no desire to work
with clay? What if the only sort of painting I like to do is from
completely inside my own head? What if all I like to paint are explosive
messy cartoon type works? Can't I just do that, get feedback, and maybe
change based on that feedback?
Maybe art classes in high school and grade school are shitty, and some art
classes outside that world are great. If so, I wish someone would tell me
about them. My understanding of art school in general, is that it tends
to be snobby, pretencious, and filled with clique bound minds.
They say that creative writing programs (I'm a creative writing student)
tend to breed huge groups of people who all write the same way. Does art
school work the same way, I wonder? Do all the people who come out the
other end of art school, all digested and wet, create art the same
way, with the same style, and the same meaning?
Pardon my, what might seem like, blunt, unartistic, thoughtless, and
Jonathan Clift
Nikolaus Maack <n_m...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote
amongst a whole lot of other stuff:
>
>1) I figure such a practice might horrify some of you. Selling my
>paintings for a mere $5? "Is he mad? What's the point? Where's the
>profit? And he uses NEWSPRINT for god's sakes!" (I actually *like* the
>way this makes my art yellow over time, not to mention the way the paper
>becomes incredibly fragile.)
>
I like drawing on old newspapers with felt-tipped pens. If you let the
pen stop you get a big splodge. So, you either go for the splodges and
do something with them, or you draw faster than you can think to avoid
them (the only good stuff I do almost always starts out this way).
Nothing says art has to last, though obviously galleries and buyers tend
to prefer it that way.
>The one problem I have had with ALL art classes, (all of which were in
>high school, or art classes meant for children, mind you), is that they do
>not cater to what you, personally, are doing and are interested in.
>
When I was at school the art classes consisted of drawing from plaster
casts. I hated it and couldn't give the subject up quickly enough. So,
it's not a new problem. I really wish now that someone had found an
effective way to encourage me back then. As it is I feel I've wasted 30
years. Keep doing what you're doing and find ways to explore it further
and develop it.
>
>Maybe art classes in high school and grade school are shitty, and some art
>classes outside that world are great. If so, I wish someone would tell me
>about them. My understanding of art school in general, is that it tends
>to be snobby, pretencious, and filled with clique bound minds.
>
As a generalisation, fine, but there are always exceptions, you just
have to find them. Maybe look for artists whose work you respect (but
preferably don't like) and find out whether they teach anywhere.
Rather than just doing the art yourself and presenting it to the other
students, couldn't you find ways to involve them too. Start your own
communal art school - learning together. All doing different things, but
feeding off each other's energy. Don't tell them it's "Art" though; spin
some line about it being just a bit of fun to help spark off the
creative writing (creating art from food might be an interesting
approach; but remember what Mani says about "No skill, no art", make
sure you've had plenty of training in how to use the tin opener).
>They say that creative writing programs (I'm a creative writing student)
>tend to breed huge groups of people who all write the same way. Does art
>school work the same way, I wonder? Do all the people who come out the
>other end of art school, all digested and wet, create art the same
>way, with the same style, and the same meaning?
>
To start with. I'd say that it takes artists roughly 10-15 years to
really find themselves and loose that "look" (that's just my impression
based on exhibition viewing and looking at people's CVs). Of course,
some people never loose it. But, the alternative isn't necessarily
better. You keep the raw energy and life but don't develop the other
stuff. For the moment that doesn't matter, but over time you may find
that you feel like you're walking into a dead end without a route to the
things that you ought to be able to do. You have to weigh up the pros
and cons yourself. It's like squaring the circle - there just isn't a
neat and tidy answer.
Another factor you should take into account, rather than just focusing
on the teaching, is the other students. If they are just passing the
time, and merely like the idea of being an artist, you'll end up with
classes that nod their heads in sychronicity, and produce work just like
the teacher to try and please them. That is sapping, even if you don't
conform. You need to be part of a group that's pushing and stretching
each other.
>Pardon my, what might seem like, blunt, unartistic, thoughtless, and
>arrogant questions, comments, and simmering rage.
>
> Nik
Take one American. Add a dash of imagination and a hint of a sense of
humour. Simmer gently, and the result seems to be a Canadian.
There, a recipe for the day.
I suppose I'm asking for this, but what's the recipe for a European?
--
Jonathan Clift