Art as a Commodity
Larry Boswell
Just a comment which will probably ruffle the usual feathers...why
is it that there is a problem seeing art as a form of commodity?
Talking about producing work and then destroying it inorder to
move on amazes me. What a luxury! How lovely if all members of
society could have that option--work all day then destroy the output
just to clear the way for the next day's work...
Is it the public/corporate grant system? Does accepting tax-based
funds make one think that art is not ultimately a commodity?
Survival in the arts depends on selling what is produced, whether
to the public, corporations, or those who decide where the grants
go. Wouldn't art be more vibrant, and stronger if the grant systems
were taken away? Those who say that art would 'die' if the
public lifelines were cut are wrong. They do not understand what
drives artists to do what they do.
But there is a definite bias evident against any artist who tries
to survive by actually producing work designed to sell. Horrors!
How tacky! Wake up. Even in science, there is no such thing
as 'pure research'. Someone has paid for what comes out of research,
or the researcher teaches on the side to pay his/her way, or whatever.
Producing marketable work does not mean that the artist cannot
pursue more 'pure' work as well, in fact, the selling of work is
just a means of self-financing that endeavour.
I've accepted grants in the past, and would do so again for a
specific project. I try to give back something of value for
the public funds accepted. I've always found it tougher to return
to the 'real' world after the grant cushion is taken away.
I value my individuality too highly.
Larry Boswell
--
Doug Quarnstrom
: Just a comment which will probably ruffle the usual feathers...why
: is it that there is a problem seeing art as a form of commodity?
I think that the commodification of the art by corporations in ways
that the author did not intend is what bugs me. There is nothing
wrong with the artist wanting to make a buck. But as in the
example I gave of Nike using _revolution_ to sell shoes, I think
that corporate coopting of art to serve a purpose almost antithetical
to the intent of the author is rather distasteful.
doug
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom) says:
>
>I think that the commodification of the art by corporations in ways
>that the author did not intend is what bugs me. There is nothing
>wrong with the artist wanting to make a buck. But as in the
>example I gave of Nike using _revolution_ to sell shoes, I think
>that corporate coopting of art to serve a purpose almost antithetical
>to the intent of the author is rather distasteful.
>
I agree with your Nike example, though there is a certain irony
in taking a song from the sixties and using it for corporate advertising
in that many of those who it appealed to back then are now consumers
with a vengeance.
Glad to hear there is nothing wrong with an artist trying 'to make a
buck'--how about an artist trying to make a buck to keep going at
what she/he is doing?
as for revolution, take a look at who owns the rights ... (now if
we could just get the Stones "you only get what you need" off the
commercial treadmill...)
Larry Boswell
--
Andy Pearlman
>Just a comment which will probably ruffle the usual feathers...why
>is it that there is a problem seeing art as a form of commodity?
>Talking about producing work and then destroying it inorder to
>move on amazes me. What a luxury! How lovely if all members of
>society could have that option--work all day then destroy the output
>just to clear the way for the next day's work...
Well, because to use me as an example, my art is not a commodity. If I sell
my work, it is to friends who are not planning to sell it and to cover costs
of materials/time spent(around $100 usually). I tend to sell my skills, not
my art.
>Is it the public/corporate grant system? Does accepting tax-based
>funds make one think that art is not ultimately a commodity?
>public lifelines were cut are wrong. They do not understand what
>drives artists to do what they do.
As someone who has never been on the public dole, there is a distinct
problem when you eliminate it - it becomes extremely difficult for
some artists to survive. Wetting my fingers, so as to steal pigments...
I am a lousy salesperson and that seems to be the requirement to survive
directly off of your artwork, regardless of how good you might be.
>But there is a definite bias evident against any artist who tries
>to survive by actually producing work designed to sell. Horrors!
>How tacky! Wake up. Even in science, there is no such thing
>as 'pure research'. Someone has paid for what comes out of research,
>or the researcher teaches on the side to pay his/her way, or whatever.
A friend of mine in college was getting paid $12K per year to take
classes for free. No strings attached. Theorectical physics. Didn't have
to teach, either. I figured his living expenses were around $6K per year.
Not a bad profit.
Andy Pearlman
--
Andy Pearlman
apea...@panix.com
"Someone stole all the paintings in a museum, leaving a building as a ransom
note." "What did it say?" "I don't know, the writer's a deconstructionist."
Thoms Scott
>Larry Boswell (al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
>
>: Just a comment which will probably ruffle the usual feathers...why
>: is it that there is a problem seeing art as a form of commodity?
I don't. How many of those paintings that match your Mom's friends couch have
you seen. I don't think most people understand that there is a difference
between painting, and art.
One of my Prof's was asked to do a piece that would match the couch of this office. So, he made a giant colour photo (life size) of the couch, and framed it
over the origianl. snicker snicker.
Malgosia Askanas
ma:
>: I would say that there are two problems with art as a commodity.
>: One: commodified art tends to get distributed and used
>: in certain rather restricted ways. Most people can't afford it,
>: and its public accessibility is controlled by the owner.
Doug Quarnstrom:
>Yeah, maybe in general, but I just ordered a catalogue from
>a place that sells good reproductions of greek and roman sculpture
>for fairly cheap. Most people could probably afford to buy ONE
>if they wanted to. This is a commodification, and I appreciate it
>as it will allow me to put even more sculptures in my house.
>
>So commodification is not all bad. Or is it?
Well, this is a slightly different notion of commodification
than what Larry was talking about. The commodity here is not
the original artwork but something else, an object to which
the original artwork -- or its myth -- yields a certain aura.
There are several things going on here. In some sense art is
being made more widely accessible. The aura and the myth
associated with the original are being exploited for profit.
At the same time they are being mocked, since something that
can be in everyone's house, like a TV set, hardly deserves
to have an aura associated with it. Something that inspired
awe because of its rareness and difficulty of execution
is shown to be neither rare nor difficult. The authority
of Art is being undermined.
I actually think that this is all good, because I believe that
the myth, aura and authority of Art need to be mocked and negated.
The only catch is that while these cheap sculptures mock the
holy triad, they rely on it for their saleability. I am not sure
about the ramifications.
Doug Quarnstrom
: ma:
: >: I would say that there are two problems with art as a commodity.
: >: One: commodified art tends to get distributed and used
: >: in certain rather restricted ways. Most people can't afford it,
: >: and its public accessibility is controlled by the owner.
:
: Doug Quarnstrom:
: >Yeah, maybe in general, but I just ordered a catalogue from
: >a place that sells good reproductions of greek and roman sculpture
: >for fairly cheap. Most people could probably afford to buy ONE
: >if they wanted to. This is a commodification, and I appreciate it
: >as it will allow me to put even more sculptures in my house.
: >
: >So commodification is not all bad. Or is it?
: Well, this is a slightly different notion of commodification
: than what Larry was talking about. The commodity here is not
: the original artwork but something else, an object to which
: the original artwork -- or its myth -- yields a certain aura.
Yes, ok, this would explain why I am choosing the Laocoon over
a plastic, revel model of a velociraptor. The aura of myth.
I will grant that even though I would have thought it was
just the beauty of the sculptures. I do admire that, but there
is also the aura deal...
: There are several things going on here. In some sense art is
: being made more widely accessible. The aura and the myth
: associated with the original are being exploited for profit.
: At the same time they are being mocked, since something that
: can be in everyone's house, like a TV set, hardly deserves
: to have an aura associated with it.
To be fair, even these cheap sculptures don't find their way
into EVERYONE's house, but I agree with you that if they DID,
my motivation to have them in mine would probably go down for
the reason you state, lack of aura.
: Something that inspired
: awe because of its rareness and difficulty of execution
: is shown to be neither rare nor difficult. The authority
: of Art is being undermined.
Well, in this sense, one might say that the entire focus of
the twentieth century is to undermine the authority of art,
it seems that even artists are hell bent on this. Perhaps
we have seen not just the commodification of art, but more
importantly, of artists. Why else would the art world be
so enamored of the common and the easy?
: I actually think that this is all good, because I believe that
: the myth, aura and authority of Art need to be mocked and negated.
Ok, why?
: The only catch is that while these cheap sculptures mock the
: holy triad, they rely on it for their saleability.
Yeah, I think that there is at least some truth in this.
I MIGHT buy them if they were just what they look like, but
the fact that they are famous and greek and roman increases
the likelihood that I, and others, will have them in their home.
: I am not sure about the ramifications.
Maybe we can just enjoy the irony...
doug
Andy Pearlman
>In a previous article, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) says:
>Andy--like it or not, what you produce is a commodity the minute you
>sell it to anyone. It's not your skills your friends are purchasing,
>it's what your skills have produced. Why is it so important that you
>not call it a commodity? A commodity is simply something offered for
>sale, nothing more, nothing less. Calling it that does not devalue
>your art.
I don't offer it for sale - every piece of art that got sold was where the
individual who wanted it came up to me directly and asked to buy it. You
are also not using the dictionary definition of commodity. The short
version is 'turning something to your advantage'. Also, it implies that I
would sell a painting to just about anyone. If you are not a friend of mine,
you can't get one. And I simply recover costs.
>art <G>). I think that's a problem with many artists, and yet it's
>something that can be overcome given a little information and advice.
>Finding that info can be difficult, but there are alternatives.
>A little teamwork between artists could go along way to replacing
>reliance on the commercial gallery and art grants systems.
This implies that I want to sell my paintings. I couldn't care less about it.
And I am at the point where my work gets noticed.
>>A friend of mine in college was getting paid $12K per year to take
>>classes for free. No strings attached. Theorectical physics. Didn't have
>>to teach, either. I figured his living expenses were around $6K per year.
>>Not a bad profit.
>The strings were there, in the form of corporate/government grants
>supporting the university. In the future someone will reap the investment
>by hiring him and exploiting his training. Sooner or later he has
>to leave the classroom... Some artists never make the jump, that's
By this definition, going to elementary school has strings attached.
Meaningless.
>come from grants is miniscule, and that's ok. Living off one's art
>means accepting a low standard of living for a long time, possibly
No, it doesn't imply accepting a low standard of living. I get paid quite
nicely for using my art skills in computer graphics. I'm making more than
accountants with the same amount of time out of college.
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, tho...@server.uwindsor.ca (Thoms Scott) says:
>
>can seem to agree on. Most artists feel it's okay to go on welfare, and make
>their works, but to sell one in order to feed yourself.. BLASPHEMY!
>The artists with the integrity problem, usually don't want to become the
>least bit confused with the likes of poster-makers, and sheisters.
>I sell my work. When the studio gets crowded, I have a sale. That rubs a LOT
>of artists the wrong way.>
Integrity is undermined the minute you are reliant on any form of financial
support--I suppose it's a matter of how much independence you want, or
can survive with.
>those grants don't even come close to supporting the artist. Most times the
>grant will only cover materials, gallery, gallery repair, licensing, insurance,
>etc.. Lemme put it this way, you wouldn't be seeing much quality, perhaps just
there are a lot of artists who reject the grant system, they do a range of
work (and yes, some don't actively sell what they do, but acquire incomes
through other means than their art). these artists aren't sinking. have
a little faith that people can be creative and innovative when it's
necessary for survival.
>>
>
>When you design it to sell, you're not making art. You're forgetting the
>intellectual/spiritual side of the pursuit. Designing works to sell is
>craftsmanship, or simply kraftwerks, NOT art. But, if what you made CAN sell
>at it's genuine, there isn't a problem (as far as I'm concerned, but I'm a
>black sheep in this area).
>
No, I think you're wrong--all artists work at different levels, some work
would never sell, or at least would never be offered for sale. When I'm
working on something which is eventually to be offered for sale, I'm aware
of the limitations that imposes on me but I'm certainly not producing
kraftwerks. I may sell what I do, but I haven't lost all of my integrity.
The creation of a work and it's subsequent potential to create income
are seperate processes.
>
>
>
--
Peter MacLeod
: In article <CJyA1...@freenet.carleton.ca> al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Larry Boswell) writes:
[stuff deleted]
: When you design it to sell, you're not making art. You're forgetting the
: craftsmanship, or simply kraftwerks, NOT art. But, if what you made CAN sell
: at it's genuine, there isn't a problem (as far as I'm concerned, but I'm a
: black sheep in this area).
So, then is working on a commission art? Or is it "craft"?
Then, is the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel Art?
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) says:
>
>Well, because to use me as an example, my art is not a commodity. If I sell
>my work, it is to friends who are not planning to sell it and to cover costs
>of materials/time spent(around $100 usually). I tend to sell my skills, not
>my art.
Andy--like it or not, what you produce is a commodity the minute you
sell it to anyone. It's not your skills your friends are purchasing,
it's what your skills have produced. Why is it so important that you
not call it a commodity? A commodity is simply something offered for
sale, nothing more, nothing less. Calling it that does not devalue
your art.
>
>As someone who has never been on the public dole, there is a distinct
>problem when you eliminate it - it becomes extremely difficult for
>some artists to survive. Wetting my fingers, so as to steal pigments...
>I am a lousy salesperson and that seems to be the requirement to survive
>directly off of your artwork, regardless of how good you might be.
>
I wouldn't go so far as to call arts grants the public dole, though
some artists have treated it as such... I'm a lousy salesperson myself,
in that I tend to go easy on price in direct proportion to how much
an individual likes something or other (flattery definitely gets a
discount--sorry shouldn't use a term like that in connection with
art <G>). I think that's a problem with many artists, and yet it's
something that can be overcome given a little information and advice.
Finding that info can be difficult, but there are alternatives.
A little teamwork between artists could go along way to replacing
reliance on the commercial gallery and art grants systems.
>
>A friend of mine in college was getting paid $12K per year to take
>classes for free. No strings attached. Theorectical physics. Didn't have
>to teach, either. I figured his living expenses were around $6K per year.
>Not a bad profit.
>
The strings were there, in the form of corporate/government grants
supporting the university. In the future someone will reap the investment
by hiring him and exploiting his training. Sooner or later he has
to leave the classroom... Some artists never make the jump, that's
my point. By the way, one of the first steps to living off of one's
work is seeing the work as something that can be sold--no wonder
most artists are lousy at promoting their work when they refuse to
even admit that it is an object which is for sale, a commodity.
I accept grants, but it isn't something I care much for, accept for
the boost in income it brings. The percentage of my income which has
come from grants is miniscule, and that's ok. Living off one's art
means accepting a low standard of living for a long time, possibly
for a whole lifetime. If more artists combined their talents (for
promoting each other) maybe that standard of living would at least
be tolerable.
LARRY
--
Malgosia Askanas
>Just a comment which will probably ruffle the usual feathers...why
>is it that there is a problem seeing art as a form of commodity?
>Talking about producing work and then destroying it inorder to
>move on amazes me. What a luxury! How lovely if all members of
>society could have that option--work all day then destroy the output
>just to clear the way for the next day's work...
People (including artists) don't usually destroy their work "just to
clear the way for the next day's work". But they do destroy it
(in the sense of discarding) when they decide that it is not
good enough to be used, or no longer good enough to be used.
I don't see this as a luxury.
I would say that there are two problems with art as a commodity.
One: commodified art tends to get distributed and used
in certain rather restricted ways. Most people can't afford it,
and its public accessibility is controlled by the owner.
If one wants to reach an audience who neither buys art nor
frequents museums, this may be very unsatisfactory. Two:
unlike in the case of most professional endeavors,
art naturally encompasses in its realm the activity of
social, cultural, moral and political critique.
For some critical art, being a commodity creates a conflict
with the art's content, with its critical stance. This can well
be a problem: there is a kind of a built-in hypocrisy at the
very root of this situation.
>Is it the public/corporate grant system? Does accepting tax-based
>funds make one think that art is not ultimately a commodity?
I agree that public funding does not in any way remove art from
the realm of commodities. But, if used intelligently (IF!), it
could alleviate the restricted-access problem -- which is why I
personally favor such funding.
Thoms Scott
>is it that there is a problem seeing art as a form of commodity?
>Talking about producing work and then destroying it inorder to
>move on amazes me. What a luxury! How lovely if all members of
>society could have that option--work all day then destroy the output
>just to clear the way for the next day's work...
Well, I agree with you. I'm a fourth year BFA student, and have been working asan artist for a few years now. Artistic integrity is a tough issue that no one
can seem to agree on. Most artists feel it's okay to go on welfare, and make
their works, but to sell one in order to feed yourself.. BLASPHEMY!
The artists with the integrity problem, usually don't want to become the
least bit confused with the likes of poster-makers, and sheisters.
I sell my work. When the studio gets crowded, I have a sale. That rubs a LOT
of artists the wrong way.>
>Is it the public/corporate grant system? Does accepting tax-based
>funds make one think that art is not ultimately a commodity?
That feels a lot like patronage (a good thing), and the source is faceless.
Also, there is no sale, therefore your work will not become a collectable.
>Survival in the arts depends on selling what is produced, whether
>to the public, corporations, or those who decide where the grants
>go. Wouldn't art be more vibrant, and stronger if the grant systems
>were taken away? Those who say that art would 'die' if the
>public lifelines were cut are wrong. They do not understand what
>drives artists to do what they do.
Well, I know that there are several artists who would simply sink. Remember
those grants don't even come close to supporting the artist. Most times the
grant will only cover materials, gallery, gallery repair, licensing, insurance,
etc.. Lemme put it this way, you wouldn't be seeing much quality, perhaps just
a few crap watercolours (blech!)
>
>But there is a definite bias evident against any artist who tries
>to survive by actually producing work designed to sell.
When you design it to sell, you're not making art. You're forgetting the
intellectual/spiritual side of the pursuit. Designing works to sell is
craftsmanship, or simply kraftwerks, NOT art. But, if what you made CAN sell
at it's genuine, there isn't a problem (as far as I'm concerned, but I'm a
black sheep in this area).
Horrors!
>How tacky! Wake up. Even in science, there is no such thing
>as 'pure research'. Someone has paid for what comes out of research,
>or the researcher teaches on the side to pay his/her way, or whatever.
>Producing marketable work does not mean that the artist cannot
>pursue more 'pure' work as well, in fact, the selling of work is
>just a means of self-financing that endeavour.
Just signing off here
Kids, don't forget to document your work well. Money spent on slide film is
worth it. Then get your trolley, and sell, sell, sell. Remember, when you're
making real art, the idea and the making are the important part. The rest is
just gravy..
Doug Quarnstrom
: Larry Boswell wrote:
:
: >Just a comment which will probably ruffle the usual feathers...why
: >is it that there is a problem seeing art as a form of commodity?
: >Talking about producing work and then destroying it inorder to
: >move on amazes me. What a luxury! How lovely if all members of
: >society could have that option--work all day then destroy the output
: >just to clear the way for the next day's work...
: People (including artists) don't usually destroy their work "just to
: clear the way for the next day's work". But they do destroy it
: (in the sense of discarding) when they decide that it is not
: good enough to be used, or no longer good enough to be used.
: I don't see this as a luxury.
: I would say that there are two problems with art as a commodity.
: One: commodified art tends to get distributed and used
: in certain rather restricted ways. Most people can't afford it,
: and its public accessibility is controlled by the owner.
Yeah, maybe in general, but I just ordered a catalogue from
a place that sells good reproductions of greek and roman sculpture
for fairly cheap. Most people could probably afford to buy ONE
if they wanted to. This is a commodification, and I appreciate it
as it will allow me to put even more sculptures in my house.
So commodification is not all bad. Or is it?
doug
Eric Benvenue-Jennings
> I don't offer it for sale - every piece of art that got sold was where the
> individual who wanted it came up to me directly and asked to buy it. You
> are also not using the dictionary definition of commodity. The short
> version is 'turning something to your advantage'. Also, it implies that I
> would sell a painting to just about anyone. If you are not a friend of mine,
> you can't get one.
So you're an elitist. As to the dictionary definition try this on for size:
commodity [ME., & OFr. commodite, benefit, profit] 1. any useful thing 2.
anything bought and sold; any article of commerce 3. [Archaic] personal
advantage or convenience
You may well argue that your art does not fit the first definition above
in that it may be difficult to prove usefulness. I suppose #'s 2 and 3
are open to interpretation in your case. I would say that the minute
money exchanges hands the art has been commodified, regardless of price.
> And I simply recover costs.
Of all the artists I know who sell their works none of them can ever hope
to see a profit and many don't even cover their time invested. Certainly
there are some living artists whose work fetches hefty sums but the
average working artist here in Atlanta makes less than minimum wage off
their art and most have some kind of day job or public assistance from
time to time.
> This implies that I want to sell my paintings. I couldn't care less
> about it. And I am at the point where my work gets noticed.
You can say it doesn't matter but the fact is that you DO sell your
paintings. It doesn't matter if you actively market them or not. You give
them to people in exchange for dollars. That's nothing to be ashamed of.
> >come from grants is miniscule, and that's ok. Living off one's art
> >means accepting a low standard of living for a long time, possibly
> No, it doesn't imply accepting a low standard of living. I get paid quite
> nicely for using my art skills in computer graphics. I'm making more than
> accountants with the same amount of time out of college.
Are the computer graphics you create owned by you? Do you consider them art?
Could you live as comfortably off the sales of your paintings alone? I am
a Dance/Theatre Lighting Designer and I occasionally make money doing
corporate or business related lighting designs. The process is similar in
both cases but I definitely don't consider the corporate work art. My
primary motivation for creating such work is financial.
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) says:
>I don't offer it for sale - every piece of art that got sold was where the
>individual who wanted it came up to me directly and asked to buy it. You
>are also not using the dictionary definition of commodity. The short
>version is 'turning something to your advantage'. Also, it implies that I
>would sell a painting to just about anyone. If you are not a friend of mine,
>you can't get one. And I simply recover costs.
so you have a preferred client list--they still walk away with a work in
return for cash--whether you use that money for costs or whatever is
irrelevant. I recover costs too, the costs of eating and shelter and
whatever are legitimate costs which allow me to continue doing what I do.
>
>No, it doesn't imply accepting a low standard of living. I get paid quite
>nicely for using my art skills in computer graphics. I'm making more than
>accountants with the same amount of time out of college.
>
nothing wrong with having an outside source of income, don't get me wrong.
But it makes it easy to take your attitude towards the selling of your
non-computer graphic work. Your merely subsidizing your friends.
If your work continues to get noticed, demand for it will arise, and
the good old market forces will creep round your door, commodomizing
your art. You'll find that these friends are happy indeed to turn
around and make a profit some day and your preferred client list
(friends) will merely become middlemen between those who want your
work (but are denied it by you) and yourself. You'll soon tire of
seeing all the dirty old lucre going to others--How long would you
sell works to 'friends' at low cost if you saw the interest in your
work was generating good profits for them. hmmmmmm.....
Larry Boswell
--
Andy Pearlman
>In a previous article, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) says:
>so you have a preferred client list--they still walk away with a work in
>return for cash--whether you use that money for costs or whatever is
>irrelevant. I recover costs too, the costs of eating and shelter and
>whatever are legitimate costs which allow me to continue doing what I do.
I recover solely costs of the canvas, oil paint, gesso, and something usually
on the order of $2-3/hr. And no, they will not walk away with a work for
cash.
>>No, it doesn't imply accepting a low standard of living. I get paid quite
>>nicely for using my art skills in computer graphics. I'm making more than
>>accountants with the same amount of time out of college.
>nothing wrong with having an outside source of income, don't get me wrong.
>But it makes it easy to take your attitude towards the selling of your
>non-computer graphic work. Your merely subsidizing your friends.
There is no reason at all that any artist could not do what I did. I graduated
with a painting & drawing degree having taken 1 computer art class.
>If your work continues to get noticed, demand for it will arise, and
>the good old market forces will creep round your door, commodomizing
>your art. You'll find that these friends are happy indeed to turn
>around and make a profit some day and your preferred client list
>(friends) will merely become middlemen between those who want your
>work (but are denied it by you) and yourself. You'll soon tire of
>seeing all the dirty old lucre going to others--How long would you
>sell works to 'friends' at low cost if you saw the interest in your
>work was generating good profits for them. hmmmmmm.....
If those friends are happy to do that, then they won't be friends of mine
anymore and they won't be able to buy my paintings. Pretty simple, no?
In any case, generally a friend owning one painting is enough in my eyes,
so if that friend sells it, he/she isn't getting another one. Hard to act
as a middleman in such a situation.
Andy Pearlman
>Andy Pearlman (apea...@panix.com) wrote:
>So you're an elitist. As to the dictionary definition try this on for size:
>commodity [ME., & OFr. commodite, benefit, profit] 1. any useful thing 2.
>anything bought and sold; any article of commerce 3. [Archaic] personal
>advantage or convenience
>You may well argue that your art does not fit the first definition above
>in that it may be difficult to prove usefulness. I suppose #'s 2 and 3
>are open to interpretation in your case. I would say that the minute
>money exchanges hands the art has been commodified, regardless of price.
American Heritage Dictionary does not agree with number two nor with number
one. To point out the simple problem with your definition - the sun is a
useful object. Great, where can I buy it? Number 2 has the problem in that
what the dictionary actually means is that the object is *bought* and *sold*,
usually continuously and commerce implies trade among nations/large companies.
The 3rd is archaic.
>> This implies that I want to sell my paintings. I couldn't care less
>> about it. And I am at the point where my work gets noticed.
>
>You can say it doesn't matter but the fact is that you DO sell your
>paintings. It doesn't matter if you actively market them or not. You give
>them to people in exchange for dollars. That's nothing to be ashamed of.
Who said I was ashamed about it. I simply don't care. But, giving away
paintings away for free is generally wrong in my eyes(if only for the reason
that some people will start asking for large quantities of work)
>> No, it doesn't imply accepting a low standard of living. I get paid quite
>> nicely for using my art skills in computer graphics. I'm making more than
>> accountants with the same amount of time out of college.
>
>Are the computer graphics you create owned by you? Do you consider them art?
>Could you live as comfortably off the sales of your paintings alone? I am
>a Dance/Theatre Lighting Designer and I occasionally make money doing
>corporate or business related lighting designs. The process is similar in
>both cases but I definitely don't consider the corporate work art. My
>primary motivation for creating such work is financial.
I don't own the computer graphics in most cases, except in the sense of
'can be put into my book to demonstrate ability'. I don't consider them
art, though they do tend to have more of a fine arts look as opposed to
strict design. I have no idea if I could live as comfortably on my paintings,
because I have never gone to the galleries to try it - And that is really the
only avenue open if you wish to live comfortably on sales of paintings. I
have no desire to become part of that world.
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) says:
>strict design. I have no idea if I could live as comfortably on my paintings,
>because I have never gone to the galleries to try it - And that is really the
>only avenue open if you wish to live comfortably on sales of paintings. I
>have no desire to become part of that world.
>
galleries are a necessary evil, there are reputable ones, but when things
go bad out come the lawyers and a lot of frustration and wasted effort
extracting works/payment--I spent eight months fighting everyday to
recover a pile of work, not fun at all. My gallery dealings now have a
good, air-tight legal agreement signed first--a dealer is a dealer
whether she/he deals in drugs, used cars, or art.
no one would use them if there were alternatives which didn't
consume all of one's time in business negotiations and promotional
side-lines.
Larry
--
Malgosia Askanas
Doug Quarnstrom writes:
>Well, in this sense, one might say that the entire focus of
>the twentieth century is to undermine the authority of art,
>it seems that even artists are hell bent on this. Perhaps
>we have seen not just the commodification of art, but more
>importantly, of artists. Why else would the art world be
>so enamored of the common and the easy?
I would say that the undermining of the authority
of art in this century has to do with a decay of authority
in general, with the decline of the usefulness
of High Art as an instrument of propaganda, and with the
increased perfection of technologies for cheap copying and
dissemination of images. The art world, to the extent to
which it is a world with its own interests and institutions,
reflect, articulates, lives within and lives off of
the developments of the culture within which it exists.
ma:
>: I actually think that this is all good, because I believe that
>: the myth, aura and authority of Art need to be mocked and negated.
dq:
>OK, why?
>
In my opinion, these things are a legacy of art's alliance
with various institutions of political and economic power.
A continuation of this legacy is at odds with how I see art
and what I would like it to be.
Andy Pearlman
Well, it depends on what your ultimate goals of your art are - mass
distribution, for yourself, fame, fortune. Unless you are going for fame,
there doesn't seem to be a good reason to be going to galleries. Fortune
can certainly be had elsewhere.
However, in about 15 years, one should be able to bypass this structure
without even slowing down. As long as you haven't sold your electronic
rights to your works...
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, m...@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Malgosia Askanas) says:
>In my opinion, these things are a legacy of art's alliance
>with various institutions of political and economic power.
>A continuation of this legacy is at odds with how I see art
>and what I would like it to be.
>
how is art seen and what should it be--these are questions often suggested
but rarely does anyone flesh them out. Would you expand you personally
see art, and what you would like it to be, because a lot of people
are struggling with related questions and a discussion of it might
be very worthwhile.
Larry
--
Eric Benvenue-Jennings
> American Heritage Dictionary does not agree with number two nor with number
> one. To point out the simple problem with your definition - the sun is a
> useful object. Great, where can I buy it? Number 2 has the problem in that
> what the dictionary actually means is that the object is *bought* and *sold*,
> usually continuously and commerce implies trade among nations/large companies.
> The 3rd is archaic.
OK< I'll concede that quoting a dictionary can be less than effective
because we all know definitions vary by publisher. I was merely trying to
point out to you that your previous statement that a writer was
unfamiliar with *the* dictionary definition of "commodity" was a very
weak argument.
> >> This implies that I want to sell my paintings. I couldn't care less
> >> about it. And I am at the point where my work gets noticed.
> >
> >You can say it doesn't matter but the fact is that you DO sell your
> >paintings. It doesn't matter if you actively market them or not. You give
> >them to people in exchange for dollars. That's nothing to be ashamed of.
> Who said I was ashamed about it. I simply don't care. But, giving away
> paintings away for free is generally wrong in my eyes(if only for the reason
> that some people will start asking for large quantities of work)
I said you were ashamed of selling your art. If you are distibruting your
paintings to a very select group of people whose sole interest is to
possess your work and not resell it, then why on earth would it be wrong
to give it to them? If you can trust them not to commodify the art by
selling it why couldn't you trust them to not take advantage of you by
asking for large quantities. And if they are so purely interested in your
work for it's own sake and not for the potential monetary value why
wouldn't you want them to possess quantities?
--
jen...@wps.com
Eric Benvenue-Jennings
> Well, it depends on what your ultimate goals of your art are - mass
> distribution, for yourself, fame, fortune. Unless you are going for fame,
> there doesn't seem to be a good reason to be going to galleries. Fortune
> can certainly be had elsewhere.
Can you reconcile the above with the following which is from an earlier
post by you?:
> I have never gone to the galleries to try it - And that is really the
> only avenue open if you wish to live comfortably on sales of paintings.
Perhaps one good reason to have your work in a gallery is merely that it
will get seen. You don't have to be looking for fame or fortune to want
an audience for your work.
Malgosia Askanas
Larry Boswell says:
> how is art seen and what should it be--these are questions often
> suggested but rarely does anyone flesh them out. Would you expand
> you personally see art, and what you would like it to be, because
> a lot of people are struggling with related questions and a
> discussion of it might be very worthwhile.
I think we discuss these questions, indirectly, almost every time we
discuss any but the most narrowly technical aspects of art. And I
personally think that this is how these questions are best discussed:
indirectly. Somebody said "If it _looks_ like art, it probably isn't".
While I would not propose to defend such an extreme formulation on the
net, I think it contains a deep truth. Similarly, if something looks
like it captures my vision of art, it probably doesn't. Or, worse
still, it does precisely that: _capture_ it, and thus falsify it.
I would also imagine that a lot of people are struggling with related
questions. That's why I find it utterly puzzling that so few people
initiate or join these kinds of discussions on this newsgroup.
Sometimes I hypothesize that maybe this newsgroup is only read by
seven or eight people. But there is occasional evidence to the
contrary, so maybe the truth is that nobody but a handful of people
_does_ struggle with these questions.
Andy Pearlman
>> American Heritage Dictionary does not agree with number two nor with number
>> one. To point out the simple problem with your definition - the sun is a
>> useful object. Great, where can I buy it? Number 2 has the problem in that
>> what the dictionary actually means is that the object is *bought* and *sold*,
>> usually continuously and commerce implies trade among nations/large companies.
>> The 3rd is archaic.
>
>OK< I'll concede that quoting a dictionary can be less than effective
>because we all know definitions vary by publisher. I was merely trying to
>point out to you that your previous statement that a writer was
>unfamiliar with *the* dictionary definition of "commodity" was a very
>weak argument.
To put it in blunt terms, the definition of commodity that you used still
requires the use of thought. As an example, if I percieve a painting that
you refuse to sell as useful, it is therefore a commodity. That's a
meaningless definition, which means you have to look up the definition of
commerce and find out what common usage of commodity is. None of which
supports that viewpoint.
>> Who said I was ashamed about it. I simply don't care. But, giving away
>> paintings away for free is generally wrong in my eyes(if only for the reason
>> that some people will start asking for large quantities of work)
>
>I said you were ashamed of selling your art. If you are distibruting your
>paintings to a very select group of people whose sole interest is to
>possess your work and not resell it, then why on earth would it be wrong
>to give it to them? If you can trust them not to commodify the art by
>selling it why couldn't you trust them to not take advantage of you by
>asking for large quantities. And if they are so purely interested in your
>work for it's own sake and not for the potential monetary value why
>wouldn't you want them to possess quantities?
Let's see, it costs about $30-50 in material costs per oil painting. Let's
say I have 20 friends, all of whom want an oil painting. Each painting takes
me roughly 20 hours to complete. So, if I give every friend an oil painting,
it costs me $600-$1000 and 400 hours of work(1/5 of a work year or with a
full time job about 1/2-1 work year). By selling the work for $100, I have
a friend who doesn't feel obligated to get me a gift in return or feel that
he/she should be doing especially nice things for me than usual. Both of
which I hate.
However, let's put it another way - I do not see why someone should own more
than one of my works(or any artist for that matter). If you don't understand
why I could have that view, then obviously your artworks have no personal
meaning to you anymore. Pretty tragic.
Andy Pearlman
i.e. you want people you have never met seeing your work. That's called
fame. And please tell me what you plan to do if someone offers to buy your
work, hence removing the audience from being able to see your that work?
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, m...@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Malgosia Askanas) says:
>I think we discuss these questions, indirectly, almost every time we
>discuss any but the most narrowly technical aspects of art. And I
>personally think that this is how these questions are best discussed:
>indirectly. Somebody said "If it _looks_ like art, it probably isn't".
>While I would not propose to defend such an extreme formulation on the
>net, I think it contains a deep truth. Similarly, if something looks
>like it captures my vision of art, it probably doesn't. Or, worse
>still, it does precisely that: _capture_ it, and thus falsify it.
You're right that it's a question which is discussed indirectly,
underlying much of what is said here, and it has become (or maybe
always was) an illusive concept. And maybe that's best, because
who would want art limited to any concrete definition. The barricades
would be up overnight.
>
>I would also imagine that a lot of people are struggling with related
>questions. That's why I find it utterly puzzling that so few people
>initiate or join these kinds of discussions on this newsgroup.
>Sometimes I hypothesize that maybe this newsgroup is only read by
>seven or eight people. But there is occasional evidence to the
>contrary, so maybe the truth is that nobody but a handful of people
>_does_ struggle with these questions.
>
or even worse, a large majority may have come to comfortable
conclusions about this and other matters, which is fine, but
not something I can do. I'm not sure it matters much any longer
just what is art and what isn't. I've seen a lot of Third
World 'craftwork' which has more of an essence of 'art' about
it than some of the best work in North America. Personally,
I don't strive to create 'art', and if I did it probably wouldn't
fit anyone's definition of art anyway. I try to satisfy a
personal agenda, that's all. I think we should throw up a
hard and fast concept of art periodically, just so it can be
smashed down the next day. (are there really more than 7 or 8
people reading this? <G>, I didn't think there were that many <G>)
Larry
--
Doug Quarnstrom
: dq:
: >OK, why?
: >
: In my opinion, these things are a legacy of art's alliance
: with various institutions of political and economic power.
: A continuation of this legacy is at odds with how I see art
: and what I would like it to be.
Good answer. I had not considered it this way. I will think about
it.
doug
Pamela JS. Thomas
--
>questions. That's why I find it utterly puzzling that so few people
>initiate or join these kinds of discussions on this newsgroup.
>Sometimes I hypothesize that maybe this newsgroup is only read by
>seven or eight people. But there is occasional evidence to the
>contrary, so maybe the truth is that nobody but a handful of people
Actually I'm just now reading this thread on Monday. So, I wasn't able to jump
in on Fri, Sat, and Sunday. I do have a few comments on the subject.
My husband is now a professional artist. He said that he always thought that
this would be his final/retired career. He's always painted and drawn for
family, friends and bosses (who'd give him a charge number) that needed a quick
sketch or poster. Every couple of years he'd go into a producing frenzy. The
last producing frenzy produced the "Luncheon Ladies" limited edition print.
He's about 30 years from retirement age.
The change to professional artist was gradual. He decided that he disliked
corporate life. He wanted to own his own business. He wanted to have control
over his product. He wanted to releive stress. So, he focused on portraits and
scenes that depict people.
Since he was apart of corporate life (I still am) he has already been trained to
"deal with a customer". In the beginning, he had part-time selling jobs to
supplement his income. They taught him how to sell.
So now, he's an artist, who is emotionally attached to his artwork, but has
business sense. It's wierd. He doesn't quite fit in at galleries. He asks too
many questions. (he's also studied law, no degree (yet)). He came up with price
lists for basic art services: graphite or oil portraits and residential
watercolors. Anything extra costs more. He is continously *fighting* the urge
to do alot extra for free. He can't help doing extra. That's the artist in him,
the emotional attachment to the work, the quality built into the work...
The business sells directly to the public through two community newspaper ads.
(The people in the art association we belong to didn't beleive that this would
work.) We belong to the Chamber of Commerce, two art associations and this
February we'll have an ad in the yellow pages. We also, do a mail order for our
prints. From the newspaper ads, we are reaching people who don't normally go to
museums or galleries, but have always wanted original art. Wierd, huh. We are
also getting referrals. My husband shows locally but **all** of the business
income has come from the newspaper ads.
Are we living off of this? No. Not yet. Is it profitable? Yes. Is it
lucrative? No, not yet. I suppose a "NAME" can command more for portraits.
That, however takes time to build. So, we're looking into other ways to market
the generic artworks.
I could say more, but this is getting a bit long.
Pamela
Creative Consultant [wife :)]
Creative Designs by Keith Roy Thomas
Portraits and Other Art Works
P.O. Box 19487, Raleigh, NC 27619
1-919-847-8939
******************************************************
Voice: 919-850-6567 Fax:919-850-5588
tho...@aur.alcatel.com / 84 318i, 70 2000A
******************************************************
Pamela JS. Thomas
--
The only galleries my husband will show his work are the ones operated by the art
associations we belong to or ones that sponsor juried shows. His opinion is
similar to a posting eariler. A dealer is a dealer.
My opinion is that galleries are like corporations. They want you to own you and
your work, but they don't want to pay you for the work that you do. Therefore,
many of them end up keeping the people that don't do work and driving away the
people who do.
(I suppose this doesn't apply to all galleries, corporations or people. But if
the shoe fits ...)
Pamela
Eric Benvenue-Jennings
> Let's see, it costs about $30-50 in material costs per oil painting. Let's
> say I have 20 friends, all of whom want an oil painting. Each painting takes
> me roughly 20 hours to complete. So, if I give every friend an oil painting,
> it costs me $600-$1000 and 400 hours of work(1/5 of a work year or with a
> full time job about 1/2-1 work year). By selling the work for $100, I have
> a friend who doesn't feel obligated to get me a gift in return or feel that
> he/she should be doing especially nice things for me than usual. Both of
> which I hate.
> However, let's put it another way - I do not see why someone should own more
> than one of my works(or any artist for that matter). If you don't understand
> why I could have that view, then obviously your artworks have no personal
> meaning to you anymore. Pretty tragic.
Why do I feel like ROTFL? If you don't understand why I say that then
obviously you have begun to babble and are no longer able to understand
what we were talking about. Let me just say that I think you've got some
pretty odd opinions. As for my own artworks - they are transitory. My
discipline is performance. Now you see it, now you don't. Following your
logic I must be approaching sainthood.
Eric Benvenue-Jennings
> i.e. you want people you have never met seeing your work. That's called
> fame. And please tell me what you plan to do if someone offers to buy your
> work, hence removing the audience from being able to see your that work?
I don't want to get into another round about dictionaries but, no, I do
not consider the desire to have an audience a desire for fame. In
response to your question, I don't want everyone to see the work just
someone.
John Clemens
>Andy Pearlman (apea...@panix.com) wrote:
>--
>jen...@wps.com
I too don't consider that a desire to have one's work seen is a desire for
fame. I want my work in as many places as possible, just so more of it
sells. And not because I want fame of any sort. I want to be able to
sell enough paintings to allow me to continue to paint. I think it's very
odd that there's any question at all about whether or not selling one's
art is "allowable" for a fine artist. Would anyone ask this question of a
musician? I make art because I love to make art. IF someone else finds
a painting of mine compelling enough to buy it, great! If someone wants
87 of my paintings, even better! When I look at other artists' work,
what appeals to me is something that lets me see a piece of the world from
another angle, from someone else's point of view. To maybe see something
that I perhaps had never noticed (and I mean metaphorically as well as just
visually). If a painting I've done can provide this sort of insight for
someone else, wjhy whould that person not have it?
It's true, there are some paintings I truly miss, and I think of them often.
BUt one has to let go of things.
-ellie (not John Clemens)
Andy Pearlman
>Andy Pearlman (apea...@panix.com) wrote:
>
>obviously you have begun to babble and are no longer able to understand
>what we were talking about. Let me just say that I think you've got some
>pretty odd opinions. As for my own artworks - they are transitory. My
>discipline is performance. Now you see it, now you don't. Following your
>logic I must be approaching sainthood.
The tragic part is from you assuming I must be ashamed to sell my work. If
you feel free to make completely hypothetical and unwarranted assumptions, why
shouldn't I?
And, following my logic, I have said absolutely nothing about how time regards
artwork, except that if it doesn't last due to lack of technical skill, then
I usually don't have much respect for that artist.
Stop reading between the lines and read the lines.
Thoms Scott
ification is taking a normal, mundane object, and placing it in a context
in which it becomes art.
Knock off Roman, and Greek sculpture is simply commodity.
Thoms Scott
defintion of art continues to change in the subconcious of artists, whereas
if something has been done in sciences or disproven, the old theory is
dropped. When advents are made in art, people don't seem to realize that the
definition changes, and the art world is expected to become more progressive
(and I'm speaking that things must become more progressive over generations,
not necessarily during an individual artists lifetime). The art of the past
CAN NOT continue to make of defintions, and our arguments about art.
Pamela JS. Thomas
--
jcle...@world.std.com (John Clemens) wrote:
> It's true, there are some paintings I truly miss, and I think of them often.
>BUt one has to let go of things.
We take pictures and have a photo album. It's not quite the same thing but it
helps the pain.
John Clemens
>Ellie (not John Clemens) writes:
>> When I look at other artists' work,
>> what appeals to me is something that lets me see a piece of the world from
>> another angle, from someone else's point of view. To maybe see something
>> that I perhaps had never noticed (and I mean metaphorically as well as just
>> visually). If a painting I've done can provide this sort of insight for
>> someone else, wjhy whould that person not have it?
>It is true that the purchase of a painting may be proof that the
>painting has made, and will continue to make, an impression on someone.
>On the other hand, the purchaser, by buying the painting, is
>also buying the right to control access to the painting.
>In some cases, this means that *more* people will
>be seeing it and will have a chance to be affected
>by it; in some cases it means just the reverse. I am definitely
>*not* arguing against selling one's art; but it is simply not true
>that selling art and the desire to cause new insights through one's
>art lead a peaceful coexistence; they are often in direct conflict.
Not such a great conflict, I think. If an artist makes a point of not
selling art, then no one gets to see it. If only one person who likes
one of my paintings gets to see it, that's still better than keeping
the painting under my bed.
-ellie
Malgosia Askanas
Ellie (not John Clemens) writes:
> When I look at other artists' work,
> what appeals to me is something that lets me see a piece of the world from
> another angle, from someone else's point of view. To maybe see something
> that I perhaps had never noticed (and I mean metaphorically as well as just
> visually). If a painting I've done can provide this sort of insight for
> someone else, wjhy whould that person not have it?
It is true that the purchase of a painting may be proof that the
Malgosia Askanas
>If an artist makes a point of not
>selling art, then no one gets to see it. If only one person who likes
>one of my paintings gets to see it, that's still better than keeping
>the painting under my bed.
Why does one have to sell something in order to have people see it?
One could, for example, display it in a Greyhound bus terminal.
YORATH, ERIC G.
>Malgosia Askanas (m...@bogart.camb.inmet.com) wrote:
>
>: ma:
>: >: I would say that there are two problems with art as a commodity.
>: >: One: commodified art tends to get distributed and used
>: >: in certain rather restricted ways. Most people can't afford it,
>: >: and its public accessibility is controlled by the owner.
>:
>: Doug Quarnstrom:
>: >Yeah, maybe in general, but I just ordered a catalogue from
>: >a place that sells good reproductions of greek and roman sculpture
>: >for fairly cheap. Most people could probably afford to buy ONE
>: >if they wanted to. This is a commodification, and I appreciate it
>: >as it will allow me to put even more sculptures in my house.
>: >
>: >So commodification is not all bad. Or is it?
>
>: Well, this is a slightly different notion of commodification
>: than what Larry was talking about. The commodity here is not
>: the original artwork but something else, an object to which
>: the original artwork -- or its myth -- yields a certain aura.
>
>Yes, ok, this would explain why I am choosing the Laocoon over
>a plastic, revel model of a velociraptor. The aura of myth.
>I will grant that even though I would have thought it was
>just the beauty of the sculptures. I do admire that, but there
>is also the aura deal...
>
>: There are several things going on here. In some sense art is
>: being made more widely accessible. The aura and the myth
>: associated with the original are being exploited for profit.
>: At the same time they are being mocked, since something that
>: can be in everyone's house, like a TV set, hardly deserves
>: to have an aura associated with it.
>
>To be fair, even these cheap sculptures don't find their way
>into EVERYONE's house, but I agree with you that if they DID,
>my motivation to have them in mine would probably go down for
>the reason you state, lack of aura.
>
>
>: Something that inspired
>: awe because of its rareness and difficulty of execution
>: is shown to be neither rare nor difficult. The authority
>: of Art is being undermined.
>
>Well, in this sense, one might say that the entire focus of
>the twentieth century is to undermine the authority of art,
>it seems that even artists are hell bent on this. Perhaps
>we have seen not just the commodification of art, but more
>importantly, of artists. Why else would the art world be
>so enamored of the common and the easy?
>
>
>: the myth, aura and authority of Art need to be mocked and negated.
>
>
>: The only catch is that while these cheap sculptures mock the
>: holy triad, they rely on it for their saleability.
>
>Yeah, I think that there is at least some truth in this.
>I MIGHT buy them if they were just what they look like, but
>the fact that they are famous and greek and roman increases
>the likelihood that I, and others, will have them in their home.
>
>: I am not sure about the ramifications.
>
>Maybe we can just enjoy the irony...
>
>doug
Might I suggest that the implications and activities surrounding
the 'mechanical reproduction' of the art type do infact effect
the dilema that s is now casualy reffered to as the
'commodification issue', but that it also deals with so many other
dilemmas within social political culture of the contemporary world,
that the subject really doues deserve it's own critique.
To throw in my own two-bits worth, I would like to suggest that
the problem of 'commodification' does not infact lie with the
simple sale of product to client, butr rather after the art object
leaves the artists incubative guardianship, and loses itself in
a constantly fluctuating vacume, the perameters of which are such
institutions as the gallaries, museums, dealers and critics who
make it their job to effect nothing other than the value of the art object.
It is around such traditions as the 15% commision or royalty
the artist may expect apon every sale of the work, lonkg after he
or she has seen the last of it. And the stipulations and clauses
within contracts of art objects that secure the authority of
presentation, photographic reproduction, and maintenance, to the
artist. It is out of these 'traditions' that the so called 'aura'
of the art object is kept alive and well, but to what expence?
exit
John Clemens
Yes, photos do help, and I often take them. But right now I'm selling
several paintings a month through a co-op gallery, and I often just don't
have time between painting them and getting them to the gallery.
But still, in a previous existence, I used to breed horses, and to me it
was heart wrenching to sell those beautiful little foals. Selling a living,
animate, feeling creature is much much worse than selling a painting.
BUt this was an interesting phase in my life. It involved a lot of
visceral reality -- pain, muck, blood, death, birth and joy. It put
lots of other things in perspective. Made a lot of previous concerns
seem quite petty and trivial.
-ellie
Malgosia Askanas
>I think you also misunderstand the definition of commodification. Commod-
>ification is taking a normal, mundane object, and placing it in a context
>in which it becomes art.
No. Commodification means making something into a commodity.
What you describe is making something into _art_. That's not
commodification; that's _artification_.
John Clemens
>Ellie wrote:
Yes of course this is true. But few places are willing to display
artwork unless it is either for sale, or they own it. There are exceptions,
naturally. A local bank lets artists display paintings (or photos) in their
lobby for a month at a time. It's a popular scheme, and they have quite a
long waiting list. The public seems to appreciate it too; people frequently
go there just to see the paintings.
-ellie
Andy Pearlman
>>Andy Pearlman (apea...@panix.com) wrote:
>>> i.e. you want people you have never met seeing your work. That's called
>>> fame. And please tell me what you plan to do if someone offers to buy your
>>> work, hence removing the audience from being able to see your that work?
>fame. I want my work in as many places as possible, just so more of it
>sells. And not because I want fame of any sort. I want to be able to
>sell enough paintings to allow me to continue to paint. I think it's very
>odd that there's any question at all about whether or not selling one's
>art is "allowable" for a fine artist. Would anyone ask this question of a
The more fame you have, the more paintings you will be able to sell. Pretty
direct correlation, especially in the art world. I don't care if you want
to sell your work or not(Okay, Eric is right, I am ashamed that you sell your
work :-) For me, personally, with my own paintings, I don't consider it a
'right' thing to do. If you want to hold yourself to my twisted set of
ethics, you are perfectly welcome to do so, but I find that odd.
However, to ask a pointed question, suppose you were living comfortably with
the sales of your paintings, to the point where you could paint to your
heart's desire, and the implication was that you could raise prices and live
better. Would you?
>visually). If a painting I've done can provide this sort of insight for
>someone else, wjhy whould that person not have it?
Very nice and all, but I prefer to know that the insight is not the kind
that goes:"Gee, I think <artist x's> works will become really valuable and
go nicely with my couch."
Andy Pearlman
Not true. The artist gets to see the work and all his/her friends do. Quite
a few collectors seal paintings in climate controlled cages and no one looks
at them. There is actually a point system where it is possible to sell a
painting based on points, with no one except one's art history expert looking
at the work to verify authenticity.
Andy
John Clemens
>there is a snobbery about art, and that's fine, though I wouldn't
>want to operate under that set of rules
OA>I always lower prices if I sense that the individual sees a personal
>attachment between something in their own life and the painting
>(or whatever).
snip snip snip
Yes, Larry. I agree completely. And since the co-op I'm in doesn't get
a commission on what I sell, I have the "luxury" of lowering prices if I
want to. If someone falls in love with a painting, I think it becomes
more theirs than mine at that point, and will make it easier for them to
buy it (I've been known to give away paintings too....)
Maybe the art mavens would not consider my art "art" either. I mean it's
not political, and not usually angry. I yawn luxuriantly at their
opinions. 8-Q
-ellie
John Clemens
>thinking about a process like this as commodification when perhaps it is
>not.
>I have purchased was commodified when a price was put on it by the
>artist. (Most was purchased directly from the artist - not a gallery)
>Can something be both art and commodity?
It strikes me as odd that an artist would worry so much about labels. If
you do art, you just do it. If someone wants to call it art, fine. If
someone else wants to call it commodity, fine. Whose opinion of you art,
and whose labels for it, except your own, could possibly have any
importance?
-ellie
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) says:
>
>However, to ask a pointed question, suppose you were living comfortably with
>the sales of your paintings, to the point where you could paint to your
>heart's desire, and the implication was that you could raise prices and live
>better. Would you?
>
Andy--I'm in the process of doing the reverse, lowering prices to widen
who can buy them, how does that fit into your scheme? Mind you, it's
not pure altruism, as much as recession-induced necessity.
>Very nice and all, but I prefer to know that the insight is not the kind
>that goes:"Gee, I think <artist x's> works will become really valuable and
>go nicely with my couch."
>
that's an arrogant attitude, but if you don't dirty your hands by dealing
with the great unwashed then you wouldn't realize that most people who
buy original art (at great expense--from an established artist, not a
student, or factory artist) are not thinking of it as a decorator
item. Haven't met one yet that asked me to change the frames to
match the decor--and I have pretty unsettling taste in frames <G>
Larry
--
Andy Pearlman
>Andy Pearlman (apea...@panix.com) wrote:
>> >visually). If a painting I've done can provide this sort of insight for
>> >someone else, wjhy whould that person not have it?
>If you knew someone was thinking that and they asked to buy a painting from
>you would you refuse to sell to them?
Yes.
>Assuming you are financially solvent (not rich but comfortable) would
>your answer be different if you were desparately poor?
My answer would be the same. But that really isn't an answerable question -
I almost always spend within my means and it is hard for me to stay unemployed.
I can type at the professional level, which with three days work/week pays
my rent and expenses. Not that I like doing that, but that work is always
there.
>Forgetting our somewhat petty asides this whole thread is interesting to
>me. Fine art is so different from performance art yet I tend to think of
>them as the same. Maybe this needs to change. In my field people pay
>money to witness the creation (or re-creation, in some cases) of a work
>of art. An analogous situation to a painter like yourself would be if
>people paid you a fee to watch you paint and then everybody goes home and
>the painting is tossed in the dumpster. If that were the case I suspect
>you would want to get as many people as you could comfortably fit in your
>studio to drop in on the weekend and give you lots of money. I have been
>thinking about a process like this as commodification when perhaps it is
>not.
Ick. I absolutely hate when people watch me paint. It is a private thing for
me.
>I also happen to own a lot of artwork: primarily paintings and a few
>sculptures. I admit I am pleased that the value of some of them has gone
>up considerably since I bought them but that had nothing to do with my
>decision to acquire them nor do I intend to sell them. In my mind the art
>I have purchased was commodified when a price was put on it by the
>artist. (Most was purchased directly from the artist - not a gallery)
>Can something be both art and commodity?
Sure, why not?(I just don't want that situation happening with my work)
Andy
Andy Pearlman
>In a previous article, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) says:
>>However, to ask a pointed question, suppose you were living comfortably with
>>the sales of your paintings, to the point where you could paint to your
>>heart's desire, and the implication was that you could raise prices and live
>>better. Would you?
>>
>Andy--I'm in the process of doing the reverse, lowering prices to widen
>who can buy them, how does that fit into your scheme? Mind you, it's
>not pure altruism, as much as recession-induced necessity.
You did sort of answer that question :-). The person in question was
stating that she painted so she could continue painting. My question
back to her was, assume you are comfortable and you can raise prices, do you?
>>Very nice and all, but I prefer to know that the insight is not the kind
>>that goes:"Gee, I think <artist x's> works will become really valuable and
>>go nicely with my couch."
>that's an arrogant attitude, but if you don't dirty your hands by dealing
>with the great unwashed then you wouldn't realize that most people who
>buy original art (at great expense--from an established artist, not a
>student, or factory artist) are not thinking of it as a decorator
>item. Haven't met one yet that asked me to change the frames to
>match the decor--and I have pretty unsettling taste in frames <G>
No, it means I don't want most people, I want all people who own my work to
be owning for the right reasons. It just isn't worth it to me to sell.
Andy Pearlman
>apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) writes:
>>In article <CK8zv...@world.std.com> jcle...@world.std.com (John Clemens) writes:
>>Not true. The artist gets to see the work and all his/her friends do. Quite
>>a few collectors seal paintings in climate controlled cages and no one looks
>>at them. There is actually a point system where it is possible to sell a
>>painting based on points, with no one except one's art history expert looking
>>at the work to verify authenticity.
>idea of enjoying art. 8^) Who gets to assign the points, anyway?
It is based on value, think trading cards. "I'll trade a Willie Mays for
your Picasso." "Well, only if you toss in a Nolan Ryan rookie card."
Andy Pearlman
John Clemens
>In a previous article, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) says:
>>
>>However, to ask a pointed question, suppose you were living comfortably with
>>the sales of your paintings, to the point where you could paint to your
>>heart's desire, and the implication was that you could raise prices and live
>>better. Would you?
>>
>Andy--I'm in the process of doing the reverse, lowering prices to widen
>who can buy them, how does that fit into your scheme? Mind you, it's
>not pure altruism, as much as recession-induced necessity.
Hi Larry --
I've done the same thing, and it has started me thinking about the idea
of getting a larger audience in touch with original art. I think it's
wierd that the average person thinks of paintings as something only rich
people buy. When and how did artists become so separated from ordinary
people? How can an artist be the voice of a culture if the culture speaks
a different language? SOmeone who buys a painting today because it "goes
with the couch" may buy a painting next year because it "really says
something". And if they never move to that stage, so what anyway? I mean
are thay to be taken out and shot or something? Anyway, I have this idea
of purposely trying to get the "average person" more in touch with art.
I work one day a month in the co-op gallery I'm in. Well, when I was there
last month a young mother came in, with three small children. She was
obviously not affluent, and probably not well educated. But she wandered
around and looked at everything for a long time. Then she came over to
me and said she loved to come into the gallery because she "ain't never
seen so many beautiful things". Why shouldn't art be within the means of
people like her? It's not simply the rich who have aesthetic feelings.
-ellie
John Clemens
>In article <CK7pA...@world.std.com> jcle...@world.std.com (John Clemens) writes:
>>>Andy Pearlman (apea...@panix.com) wrote:
>>>> i.e. you want people you have never met seeing your work. That's called
>>>> fame. And please tell me what you plan to do if someone offers to buy your
>>>> work, hence removing the audience from being able to see your that work?
>>I too don't consider that a desire to have one's work seen is a desire for
>>fame. I want my work in as many places as possible, just so more of it
>>sells. And not because I want fame of any sort. I want to be able to
>>sell enough paintings to allow me to continue to paint. I think it's very
>>odd that there's any question at all about whether or not selling one's
>>art is "allowable" for a fine artist. Would anyone ask this question of a
>The more fame you have, the more paintings you will be able to sell. Pretty
>direct correlation, especially in the art world. I don't care if you want
OB>to sell your work or not(Okay, Eric is right, I am ashamed that you sell your
>work :-) For me, personally, with my own paintings, I don't consider it a
>'right' thing to do. If you want to hold yourself to my twisted set of
>ethics, you are perfectly welcome to do so, but I find that odd.
>However, to ask a pointed question, suppose you were living comfortably with
>the sales of your paintings, to the point where you could paint to your
>heart's desire, and the implication was that you could raise prices and live
>better. Would you?
Sure; why not. I don't find falso poverty becoming, and I never went in for
hair shirts. If someone wants to buy a painting of mine for $100, that's
fine. If they want to buy it for $1000 that's even better.
>>visually). If a painting I've done can provide this sort of insight for
>>someone else, wjhy whould that person not have it?
>Very nice and all, but I prefer to know that the insight is not the kind
>that goes:"Gee, I think <artist x's> works will become really valuable and
>go nicely with my couch."
I care little for someone else's reason for liking or not liking one of
my paintings. If something in a painting struck a chord somewhere, that's
fine with me. I paint what I like, and my paintings are usually attampts
to catch something that intrigues me at the time -- light on the telephone
poles, light on the backs of horses, the way my hayfields look in the
hot sun. I paint them because I get some sort of "education" from each
one. This is my own low-budget art school, I guess. I feel that I progress
and mature as an artist with each thing I paint. But I digress....
If someone's only approach to art is deciding what to hang over the sofa,
who am I to say that they don't "deserve" one of my paintings? I don't
like to be that judgemental about other peoples lives, motives or tastes.
And I'm no longer young enough to worry about this sort of thing anyway.
I have a very simple view of my art world. I paint what I want to; I try
to sell it; if someone buys it, I couldn't care less what their reasons
are.
I don't think there is any "right" or "wrong" in this view or your view.
I don't like phrases like "you should" or "you shouldn't"....
-ellie
John Clemens
>In article <CK8zv...@world.std.com> jcle...@world.std.com (John Clemens) writes:
>>m...@bogart.camb.inmet.com (Malgosia Askanas) writes:
>>>Ellie (not John Clemens) writes:
>>Not such a great conflict, I think. If an artist makes a point of not
>>selling art, then no one gets to see it. If only one person who likes
>>one of my paintings gets to see it, that's still better than keeping
>>the painting under my bed.
>Not true. The artist gets to see the work and all his/her friends do. Quite
>a few collectors seal paintings in climate controlled cages and no one looks
>at them. There is actually a point system where it is possible to sell a
>painting based on points, with no one except one's art history expert looking
>at the work to verify authenticity.
Gee, I'm so glad I didn't go to art school, where it seems everyone loses the
idea of enjoying art. 8^) Who gets to assign the points, anyway?
-ellie
>--
Pamela JS. Thomas
--
jcle...@world.std.com (Elllie) writes:
>It's not simply the rich who have aesthetic feelings.
My thoughts exactly.
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) says:
>
>No, it means I don't want most people, I want all people who own my work to
>be owning for the right reasons. It just isn't worth it to me to sell.
>
on that we agree completely, though I've never been able to pre-select
the people who would 'own the work for the right reasons'. Usually,
though, when I put something out for sale it's because I'm tired of
it, or even sick of it, and want it out of my sight. At that point,
hopefully, it finds its way to someone who wants it. I've often
seen a work months later (after the tension of working on it has
faded) and found I can view it a little more sympathetically.
Here I'm off-track completely, but I wonder how many artists work
on something until the point where they can no longer tolerate
the sight of it? I'd say I work that way half the time, I'm a
perfectionist maybe, or have a goal which wasn't satisfied in
a given work... it's a joy to work on a piece from time to time
that I actually feel comfortable with, one that paints itself...
Larry
--
Andy Pearlman
>In a previous article, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) says:
>>No, it means I don't want most people, I want all people who own my work to
>>be owning for the right reasons. It just isn't worth it to me to sell.
>>
>on that we agree completely, though I've never been able to pre-select
>the people who would 'own the work for the right reasons'. Usually,
>though, when I put something out for sale it's because I'm tired of
>it, or even sick of it, and want it out of my sight. At that point,
>hopefully, it finds its way to someone who wants it. I've often
>seen a work months later (after the tension of working on it has
>faded) and found I can view it a little more sympathetically.
>Here I'm off-track completely, but I wonder how many artists work
>on something until the point where they can no longer tolerate
>the sight of it? I'd say I work that way half the time, I'm a
I tend to work that way, and it usually gets hidden behind a couple of other
paintings for a while, then ends up on a wall or destroyed. I have a big
advantage in that as far as 'physical' space goes, most of my work exists
only in the memory of a machine. I have to worry(not much) about filling
up my hard drive. Given the physical limits of my machine at present, I can
store around 150 paintings without trouble, and can download more to disks,
both to backup and store. I still do oil paintings(hopefully, I'm going to
continue working on a series this weekend - I need to get more canvas, gesso,
and stretchers though - very fast process, but only doable once every two
days or so, and needs to be done about twenty times. So, it is best to work
en masse, and not have to clean up the brushes longer than one paints.
Andy
Eric Benvenue-Jennings
> >visually). If a painting I've done can provide this sort of insight for
> >someone else, wjhy whould that person not have it?
> Very nice and all, but I prefer to know that the insight is not the kind
> that goes:"Gee, I think <artist x's> works will become really valuable and
> go nicely with my couch."
Questions:
If you knew someone was thinking that and they asked to buy a painting from
you would you refuse to sell to them?
Assuming you are financially solvent (not rich but comfortable) would
your answer be different if you were desparately poor?
Forgetting our somewhat petty asides this whole thread is interesting to
me. Fine art is so different from performance art yet I tend to think of
them as the same. Maybe this needs to change. In my field people pay
money to witness the creation (or re-creation, in some cases) of a work
of art. An analogous situation to a painter like yourself would be if
people paid you a fee to watch you paint and then everybody goes home and
the painting is tossed in the dumpster. If that were the case I suspect
you would want to get as many people as you could comfortably fit in your
studio to drop in on the weekend and give you lots of money. I have been
thinking about a process like this as commodification when perhaps it is
not.
I also happen to own a lot of artwork: primarily paintings and a few
sculptures. I admit I am pleased that the value of some of them has gone
up considerably since I bought them but that had nothing to do with my
decision to acquire them nor do I intend to sell them. In my mind the art
I have purchased was commodified when a price was put on it by the
artist. (Most was purchased directly from the artist - not a gallery)
Can something be both art and commodity?
Malgosia Askanas
Eric wrote:
> Fine art is so different from performance art yet I tend to think of
> them as the same. Maybe this needs to change. In my field people pay
> money to witness the creation (or re-creation, in some cases) of a work
> of art.
This discussion has made me think about this too. In particular, it
made me think about the degree to which one's "global" artistic
choices -- the media, the kind of art one makes, how and to whom one
sells it -- are embodiments of one's view of art. Painting and
performance are immensely different, in terms of product vs process,
collaboration vs solitary creation, public creation vs private,
ephemerality vs permanence, immediate impact vs repeated
contemplation, and so on.
What is absolutely astounding is that we ever agree. Miraculous,
I would say.
Eric Benvenue-Jennings
While our choices and processes may be vastly different I suspect that we
share a similar creative urge behind it all. I suppose everybody may
share the urges but not everyone acts on them.
Malgosia Askanas
>But again, so what? What do any of these words or ideas really have to do
>with making art? They may be of interest to art critics, or art groupies,
>but not to artists.
Which words and ideas do you think _have_ to do with making art?
John Clemens
>Ellie said:
None. I'm thinking about visual arts, here, not writing of course.
When I'm making art, I don't think in words; I think in pictures, I guess.
As a visual artist, the words are always external to the process of art
for me. But, in reference to this "art as Commodity" theme, I'm mystified
why anyone cares what labels others assign to their art.
Do you think that the use of the word "commodification" has an effect on
an artist? If so, so what?
-ellie
Cynthia Gromelski
>hopefully, it finds its way to someone who wants it. I've often
>seen a work months later (after the tension of working on it has
>faded) and found I can view it a little more sympathetically.
>Here I'm off-track completely, but I wonder how many artists work
>on something until the point where they can no longer tolerate
>the sight of it? I'd say I work that way half the time, I'm a
In article <CK7pA...@world.std.com> <CKAK4...@freenet.carleton.ca>
Andy Pearlman writes:
>I tend to work that way, and it usually gets hidden behind a couple of other
>paintings for a while, then ends up on a wall or destroyed. I have a big
>advantage in that as far as 'physical' space goes, most of my work exists
>only in the memory of a machine. I have to worry(not much) about filling
>up my hard drive. Given the physical limits of my machine at present, I can
>store around 150 paintings without trouble, and can download more to disks,
>both to backup and store. I still do oil paintings(hopefully, I'm going to
I often find myself beginning a painting and not having a clue as to
how it will end. Many times, I hate it, put it away for a year or
two, and then either learning something that allows me to complete it
so that I do like it, or realizing it's beyond repair and using that canvas
for my next painting.
I've also found myself loving a painting I've created, only to look at it
a year later and think, what a piece of trash! But I find that in almost
all of my paintings, there's some element I can learn from it.
As a matter of fact, that's what I love about painting in oils, it's
the process of discovering a painting... (or a piece of trash!)...
But to me, the process is what is most exciting.
Thoms Scott
Sorry, I was just using the ArtForum definition, and the widely accepted definition out of artists' handbooks everywhere. Sorry, I stepped into your little
world.
John Clemens
THis is interesting. So "commodification" means a trend wherein art becomes
or at least includes objects made from commodities. This is different from
what was being discussed, and I for one had no idea about this definition
of the term. (I just look at the pictures in ArtForum" 8^)...). So we have
the complementary processes of making commodities into art and of making art
into a commodity. Again it strikes me as odd how words carry so much
unwarranted power in these discussions.
INteresting to think about the idea of making art out of commodities. What
art can be made out of something other than commodities? I use paint, canvas, clay, paper. All are commodities, no?
But again, so what? What do any of these words or ideas really have to do
with making art? They may be of interest to art critics, or art groupies,
but not to artists.
-ellie
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, tho...@server.uwindsor.ca (Thoms Scott) says:
>
>Sorry, I was just using the ArtForum definition, and the widely accepted definition out of artists' handbooks everywhere. Sorry, I stepped into your little
>world.
>
An ARTIST'S HANDBOOK!! We're all saved!! quick, tell me where I can
get a copy, I won't lift a brush until I have guidance!!
and definitions, and ArtForums, and everything!! I can come in from
the wilderness at last, there is a burning bush!!
thankfully
Larry Boswell
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Larry Boswell
Malgosia Askanas
>But, in reference to this "art as Commodity" theme, I'm mystified
>why anyone cares what labels others assign to their art.
>
>Do you think that the use of the word "commodification" has an effect on
>an artist? If so, so what?
No, of course the use of the word by itself does not have an effect; but
the process that the word refers to (in its non-ArtForum use) does
have an effect: it has to do with how, by whom and to whom
art is sold and the ramifications of this for art's
accesibility, mode of distribution, and control; its ramifications
for existing art institutions, the livelihood of artists,
the way art is perceived by the public, etc.
I don't think we are discussing labels: we are discussing the effects
of the processes which the labels name.
Eric Benvenue-Jennings
> I have been desperate for money before. My actions tend to get odd, but I
> don't do things that violate my ethics. Call it a feature or a bug, your
> choice. :-)
Feature. It'd be a bug if it wasn't intentional. I guess you'll never be
a politician (cause of the ethics, I mean).
Andy Pearlman
>Andy Pearlman (apea...@panix.com) wrote:
>> >Assuming you are financially solvent (not rich but comfortable) would
>> >your answer be different if you were desparately poor?
>> My answer would be the same. But that really isn't an answerable question -
>
>actually been so poor as to not have money for food or rent. If you were
>desparate your answer might very well be different. Hunger can create a
>very strong incentive. However, the question wasn't realy a fair one and
>I withdraw it (Kind of like asking a question in court that you know will
>be objected to but you ask anyway cause you want it heard ;-) sorry 'bout
>that ;-)
I have been desperate for money before. My actions tend to get odd, but I
don't do things that violate my ethics. Call it a feature or a bug, your
choice. :-)
>> Ick. I absolutely hate when people watch me paint. It is a private thing
>> for me.
>
>Yah, I feel the same when writing or rhearsing something. It is only as
>the project nears completion (even a draft) that I get into showing it.
>The analogy was imperfect.
I don't mind people seeing the inbetween stages - just when I'm painting, it
really ticks me off. Most people start staring and are afraid to talk to you
or they talk too much. And almost by definition, they are behind you...
Gordon Fitch
| THis is interesting. So "commodification" means a trend wherein art becomes
| or at least includes objects made from commodities. This is different from
| what was being discussed, and I for one had no idea about this definition
| of the term. (I just look at the pictures in ArtForum" 8^)...). So we have
| the complementary processes of making commodities into art and of making art
| into a commodity. Again it strikes me as odd how words carry so much
| unwarranted power in these discussions.
|
| INteresting to think about the idea of making art out of commodities. What
| art can be made out of something other than commodities? I use paint, canvas, clay, paper. All are commodities, no?
|
| But again, so what? What do any of these words or ideas really have to do
| with making art? They may be of interest to art critics, or art groupies,
| but not to artists.
It depends on whether the artists consider themselves to be
political beings, or not. There was recent notice in alt.-
postmodern, where I have dared to crosspost this, about the
fact that artists have served fascism, dictatorship, and
other bad masters. "Art decorates the empire." Artists,
like scientists, academics, and businessmen, can deny the
politics of their enterprises. Whether this is a good thing
or not depends, I suppose, on the particular artists in
question.
Related to this, I find the emotional weight around
"commodification" interesting. The original meaning of
commodification was, of course, to make art, possibly a
highly spiritual enterprise, into a commodity, that is, to
cause it to submit to capitalism. One can almost hear the
snort of bohemian, radical, and aristocrat alike at this
ugly business. And yet, ugly compared to what? What was
the Muses' last address before they submitted to the
bourgeoisie?
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
Andy Pearlman
That among other things. I tend to find power pretty boring. I mean, suddenly
you have all these people wanting to be your friend, because of this power you
have.
And I would insist on making friends with people I found interesting, slightly
weird, and cool - and ignore the rest. Kinda like I do in real life.
Frank Kolwicz
: i too have been desperate for money. but i am a small woman, who has gotten
: arrested for decent exposure when my comrades also naked were arrested for
: indecent exposure. sigh. i do not sell my body or prostitute my art but i
: have done stand-up improv in dives and smokey bars for a cut of the door to
: pay for art supplies. and i have mastered the art of living in object poverty.
: i do not have the possessions i might desire but i have a full belly in part
: because my friends do not mind setting an extra plate for me.
: right now i have someone who is wanting to buy all of my art as an investment.
: i am hesitating........tooo much bounty can be scarey.
*** Too much bounty is bad for the soul. The bounty, in the form of money,
becomes the message instead of the medium. The tool, money, becomes more
precious than the work. Time is wasted on maintaining, managing and
manipulating it instead of creating real wealth.
Too little bounty has similar effects for different reasons.
Frank
Frank Kolwicz
: In a previous article, kol...@badlands.NoDak.edu (Frank Kolwicz) says:
: >*** Too much bounty is bad for the soul. The bounty, in the form of money,
: >becomes the message instead of the medium. The tool, money, becomes more
: >precious than the work. Time is wasted on maintaining, managing and
: >manipulating it instead of creating real wealth.
: >
: >Too little bounty has similar effects for different reasons.
: >
: Have you personal experience of being inunduated by wealth generated
: by art, or are you repeating the myths about wealth (of which there
^^^
*** Not art, but yes, both. FHK
: are probably as many as there are for poverty)?
: Fear of success is a phobia like any other--
: rejection of success is probably the safer route, leaving intact
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*** What does success have to do with money? That idea is part of the
money trap. FHK
: the familiar challenges of surviving day to day...but once success
^^^^^^^
*** See above. FHK
: is offered and rejected, those old challenges quickly grow more
: tedious and tiresome than they were before... and those around
: you who were happy to come to your aid are not so quick to
: throw life preservers when they realize you've intentionally
: flung yourself back into the same old pond, one more time...
*** Are you speaking from experience or repeating myths of the money
world? FHK
: success offers access to material goods etc, but that is
: secondary, it also opens new and exciting (and independent)
: opportunities for creating new dimensions in one's work
: which may not reappear in the future--
*** As I said, an EXCESS of bounty is bad for the soul and likewise
poverty. One of the first signs, I'm told, is the equating of success
with large quantities of money.
Frank
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, kol...@badlands.NoDak.edu (Frank Kolwicz) says:
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>*** What does success have to do with money? That idea is part of the
>money trap. FHK
>
Agreed, but money often follows 'success'--I've rarely seen it offered
for unsuccessful outcomes (except in the grants system). My comments
didn't link the idea of success with $$$ solely rather I was trying
to suggest that there is often a fear of the changes which success
can bring (personal changes above and beyond the $$$). You have
linked success to money in a way that I didn't intend...
That said, however:
Part of the definition of 'success' is "the gaining of wealth, fame,
rank,etc" (Webster) but of course you can accept or reject what
success means, you can redefine it anyway you want, hell, let's
all make up new meanings for any word in the lexicon which we
aren't comfortable with... hey, you might as well start with
'success'...
>: the familiar challenges of surviving day to day...but once success
> ^^^^^^^
>*** See above. FHK
likewise. LB The whole spectrum of change which success brings
may or may not be limited to effects brought on by change in
$$$$. Success creates a new set of criteria which are hard to
bury, and which create expectations in the artist and others...
No matter how hard some seem to want to deny it, all art is made
for others, art created for the artist alone (and never destined
to be seen, felt, touched, smelled by any other human observer/
participant) is something other than art. Self-indulgence maybe.
I said (LB): >
>: is offered and rejected, those old challenges quickly grow more
>: tedious and tiresome than they were before... and those around
>: you who were happy to come to your aid are not so quick to
>: throw life preservers when they realize you've intentionally
>: flung yourself back into the same old pond, one more time...
>
You said:
>*** Are you speaking from experience or repeating myths of the money
>world? FHK
Ahhh, from experience, most unfortunately as I sit at the bottom
of a dry well which I dug myself thinking I knew how to handle
it better than anyone else. But, hey, I got enough money to
buy some rope!! (and if I don't hang myself talking about
definitions of success, I just might start climbing back up <G>)
>
>*** As I said, an EXCESS of bounty is bad for the soul and likewise
>poverty. One of the first signs, I'm told, is the equating of success
>with large quantities of money.
>
sure, let's redefine success as something we all decide on
unique, personal terms--gawd, I'm happier already!
success ($$$ or whatever) maybe bad for your soul, it
(the money) part makes no difference to mine, but then I
was never some kind of (art) holy man, anyhow. There's a
certain arrogance about intentionally choosing poverty
in a world where many can't ever even so much as dream
of any option but POVERTY. Having earned some well
deserved praise for one's work ( and for most artists it
comes after a LONG period of hard work and frustration)
what's wrong if that means a little money, too. Between
inactivity and the challenge of dealing with success
lies mediocrity. Remember success for most artists
(the so-called bounty) often means just enough money to
keep at it, or at least to pay the creditors...
(should have said "often brings just enough money")
because there often long gaps between 'paydays'...
and that's probably for the best...I've seen a lot
of successful artists whose best work preceded their
'success' (you fill in your own definition....)
--
________________
Larry Boswell
gary l. schroeder
>>Here I'm off-track completely, but I wonder how many artists work
>>on something until the point where they can no longer tolerate
>>the sight of it?
> I often have a visual goal in my mind. When I reach that goal I
>stop. Other times I work until I get to a point where I feel that if I
>touch it again it will be trash. (This could be a problem if things get
>to be too precious to me I may not push them that extra mile to make it
>into something that's really great as opposed to something really nice)
>I also have been experimenting with more unconcious ways of working
>where I work until no further images present themselves, or I simply
>become too tired to continue.
The question of "when to stop" is pretty universal, I think. I faced
the issue last night. I was working on a pen and ink drawing using
washes and such. I got all the blank spaces filled in very nicely
with all the appropriate shades when I decided that I wanted the
sky to be an ever-so-light grey so that it wasn't dazzlingly bright
against the rest of the drawing. Well, I blew it; the wash didn't
come out smooth at all and I ended up with heavy dark grey brush
strokes in the sky. So I went too far. I should have left well
enough alone. It's truly a drag to "ruin" what you were feeling
pretty proud of only a few minutes ago by going that extra mile
for the fnishing touches.
On the other hand, I just finished an oil painting that I've been
working on for the last five months. Many times I wanted to leave
an area looking simple and plain for fear of ruining all the hard work
I had put in up to that point. Fortunately, I had the courage to
press ahead and take some risks. The painting was much better for it,
too. It turned an otherwise average painting into a real eye-grabber.
There were times, however, when things didn't go right, and I thought
"well, that's it! You just blew it, Mr. Perfectionist. Happy?".
Then again, that's one of the main advantages to oil. You can always
paint over it, unlike watercolors, inks, and a lot of other things.
--
--------------
Gary Schroeder
schr...@bnlux1.bnl.gov
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Charles Eicher
Kolwicz) wrote:
>
> *** As I said, an EXCESS of bounty is bad for the soul and likewise
> poverty. One of the first signs, I'm told, is the equating of success
> with large quantities of money.
>
"Nothing exceeds like excess."
-Oscar Wilde
-------------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@halcyon.com
-------------------
Larry Boswell
In a previous article, schr...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) says:
>come out smooth at all and I ended up with heavy dark grey brush
>strokes in the sky. So I went too far. I should have left well
>enough alone. It's truly a drag to "ruin" what you were feeling
>pretty proud of only a few minutes ago by going that extra mile
>for the fnishing touches.
in the latter stages of any work sometimes it's better to shelve
it for overnight when an urge to do something 'extra' arises--
the impulse to make a change like that usually comes when things
are going well--I jot down the change I'm thinking of making
and put the thing away. (sometimes though that 'change' is
the magical one which makes the work come together... but if
an impulse appears when things are going well, I let things lie
for awhile, and if the idea persists over time then...)
It is a drag to ruin something you were happy with, but it's
all grist for the mill...
>
>I had put in up to that point. Fortunately, I had the courage to
>press ahead and take some risks. The painting was much better for it,
>too. It turned an otherwise average painting into a real eye-grabber.
>There were times, however, when things didn't go right, and I thought
>"well, that's it! You just blew it, Mr. Perfectionist. Happy?".
>Then again, that's one of the main advantages to oil. You can always
>paint over it, unlike watercolors, inks, and a lot of other things.
>
that's why I work in acrylics--I can threaten the work with any
number of reworkings <G>...I like to throw countless thin layers
of pigment on it, and scrape down through them with anything
sharp, or use steel wool or sandpaper--I work on wood panels
or masonite so when I don't care much for something or something
doesn't work well, I get great satisfaction (and relief of
frustration!) by removing all trace of whatever bothered me,
right down to the bare surface... I do work on canvas or
with watercolors from time to time as a counter technigue--
once through, no change allowed, but it's not as much fun
as being able to 'have at it' when things get out of hand...
--
________________
Larry Boswell
Andy Pearlman
><lots of interesting discussion on when to stop deleted>
>i agree that determining when a piece is finished is difficult... per-
>haps one of the greatest dilemmas that an artist faces.
A very interesting book is Love is Hell by Matt Groening. One of the pages has
a list of artist types - how to recognize, burning question, how to annoy.
Anyway, how to annoy a painter - say, "That's not finished yet, is it?"
Laura Mars
(gary l. schroeder) writes:
Always take the risk. If you dont, you will never know where you could have
gone.
Not taking the extra step is cheating your own process, your own consideration
for what art could come from within you.
Greatness was never achieved by mediocrity.
Explore yourself .......from within.
that is what an artist lives for.
lauramars
(its not easy for me either....but hey....if i dont take that extra step ill
never know what it feels like....and that would mean i havent lived life to the
fullest .
that to me would be entirely unsatisfactory, as if i havent lived my life
totally.
do it.