What's the deal?
Nerd Gerl
enters the art place. Dealer says, "I can't help you." Gallery says,
"Come back in 5 years." Rep says, "Not at those prices." Every person
who has the means to place the art into the high-paying market says,
"no no no."
Hmm... let's make it REAL hard for this artist "not" to succeed. Let's
make HIM a white Christian suburbian who loves Elvis too.
Now, under WHAT circumstance would cause the above to happen? I have a
theory that suspects the archaic art (currently) exchanging hands of
today's investors is... threatened not just by art that is
"different", but ANY art.
Now how could that be? I say, the art circulating the market now are
bricks of a pyramid. Bring in a new brick, (where it isn't welcome)
and the whole (financial) pyramid crumbles. For what USED to be highly
valuable can no longer catch the mighty dollar due to this "new" art
attracting attention (and $$$).
I say the current art market (not talking about art in Joe's Gallery,
or Walmart) is a form of security. New artists threaten that security,
and those who are already in the pyramid (dealers, reps, and anyone
else who has their bank account wired to Arts-R-Us) will do their
damnest to make sure this pyramid doesn't crumble. Including the
unthinkable act of turning away perfect art.
Tell me this isn't so.
===============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
maureen
nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote in message news:<c45b61ca.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> Let's say a new artist with new ideas and "perfectly executed art"
> enters the art place. Dealer says, "I can't help you." Gallery says,
> "Come back in 5 years." Rep says, "Not at those prices." Every person
> who has the means to place the art into the high-paying market says,
> "no no no."
-------------------------
Randolph Kutz
meets certain acceptance criteria specific to the scheme, rather than just
for artistic merit.
Randy
"maureen" <mos...@uwnet.nl> wrote in message
news:e9d23c9d.02120...@posting.google.com...
walkowiak
>
> Tell me this isn't so.
I'll tell you that you're sounding pretty god damned bitter, not to
mention clueless.
G*rd*n
Now all you have to do is explain how new art _does_ come
along and become established in the h.-p.m., because some of
it does, or we would still be seeing Neolithic bison in the
galleries.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
Chris
art. Course, if it ain't on velvet, it ain't art....(BTW, does it come with
more than one bone?)
As for the gallery owners, investors, etc. There's no need to go to the
extremes of conspiracy theories & postulating such convoluted thought
processes on their part. They are probably just used to their own visual
language, while you-or-your-hypothetical-cowboy speak another. So they
probably find the artwork somewhat incomprehensible (and hence unsaleable).
Just find a new gallery, or start one on your own.
Cheers;
Chris
.
"Nerd Gerl" <nerd...@rcip.com> wrote in message
news:c45b61ca.02120...@posting.google.com...
John Rune
You might want to consider the fact that the price of an artist's work
can skyrocket following the artist's demise. In fact, there have been
quite a few attempts at faking just this sort of thing. I suppose the
theory is that every piece the deceased artist ever created is now
truly one-of-a-kind and therefore irreplaceable, thus becoming
"valuable." Funny thing is, this can happen in spite of a lack of any
perceivable value. Or perhaps because of it. Eh. <shrug>
>===============
>Naked Angel Art
>http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
John the Naked... er, Red
Nerd Gerl
This was a hypothetical drama using hypothetical art by a hypothetical
artist. How could you have missed that?
Stop talking to me.
Chris <n...@this.address> wrote in article
<y41J9.286$CA2....@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
Tina Mammoser
> Let's say a new artist with new ideas and "perfectly executed art"
> enters the art place. Dealer says, "I can't help you." Gallery says,
> "Come back in 5 years." Rep says, "Not at those prices." Every person
> who has the means to place the art into the high-paying market says,
> "no no no."
[snip]
Art is a business. The reason I see most new artists not getting into
galleries, etc, is because they 1) haven't done their research and
approached an appropriate gallery based on genre, price and style or 2)
their prices are too high. Art, like any other commodity, has value based
on it's supply and demand. New artist? No demand yet, prices must be
lower. Art galleries are just businesses that have to pay their wages and
the owner's mortgage and feed the kids. They have to take art in their
selling range that has a sales history, or if no history, that they feel
is affordable enough to introduce to their customers. Your prices can
increase as your sales because more consistent. At the same time you can
apply to new galleries for more exposure. It all goes hand in hand. It's
a career ladder like any other - the more experience you have in the
marketplace, the higher your earnings can be. Like any other job you have
to invest a lot, work really hard and long hours for little pay in the
beginning. First jobs are always small - a local show, local competition,
local art societies. You build your resume slowly and work your way up.
:)
Here in England there are some fantastic business and accounting courses
run for artists by the South East Arts Council. The courses are held in
Brighton and well worth it. (SEAC has a website I think, or you can start
at the Arts Council site and then search regional). I highly recommend
joining regional SAA groups for local group shows (www.saa.co.uk - but it
is international), looking into council (local district) run art
galleries, local libraries (many have art spaces), and entering a lot of
competitions.
Tina.
--
********************
--Colorist expressionist contemporary landscapes direct from the
artist!--
HTTP://WWW.TINA-M.COM
mailto:ti...@tina-m.com
-----Limited editions and original prints from London artists!-----
HTTP://WWW.BRIGHTNEWART.COM
mailto:ti...@brightnewart.com
********************
Nerd Gerl
Ever hear of Daniel Tennant? Edward Gordon? Douglas Wiltraut, Ed
Ahlstom? Jane Lund? If not, ask why is it that you can not recognize
those names as easily as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!
=============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in article
<at24g8$cmc$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
Chris
>
> This was a hypothetical drama using hypothetical art by a hypothetical
> artist. How could you have missed that?
>
If the artist is hypothetical and the art is hypothetical then the
conspiraciy you suggest of dealers and investors is hypothetical in which
case it sounds like you've worked yourself into a very real snit over
something that didn't happen. Hypothetically speaking, of course. I will
also agree that any sense of drama was entirely hypothetical.
> Stop talking to me.
>
Stop reading my posts.
Chris
Nerd Gerl
<3DF4E1DF...@mac.com>...
> Art is a business. The reason I see most new artists not getting into
> galleries, etc, is because they 1) haven't done their research and
> approached an appropriate gallery based on genre, price and style
No argument here. However, common sense would eventually lead the
artist to the gallery appropriate to her/him.
> or 2)
> their prices are too high. Art, like any other commodity, has value based
> on it's supply and demand. New artist? No demand yet, prices must be
> lower.
> Art galleries are just businesses that have to pay their wages and
> the owner's mortgage and feed the kids. They have to take art in their
> selling range that has a sales history, or if no history, that they feel
> is affordable enough to introduce to their customers. Your prices can
> increase as your sales because more consistent. At the same time you can
> apply to new galleries for more exposure. It all goes hand in hand. It's
> a career ladder like any other - the more experience you have in the
> marketplace, the higher your earnings can be. Like any other job you have
> to invest a lot, work really hard and long hours for little pay in the
> beginning. First jobs are always small - a local show, local competition,
> local art societies. You build your resume slowly and work your way up.
> :)
I am quoting from Caroll Michels' "How To Survive and Propser As An
Artist" 5th Edition:
Quote: "Marsha was in her forties and had a successful career as a
real estate agent, but planned to leave her job to paint full-time.
She arranged to have a one-day weekend exhibition at a suburban
library located outside of New York. In one afternoon she shold
$18,000 worth of work. The highest-priced painting sold for $5000.
Prior to the library show, she had never had an exhibition or sold
work." p69
Not a Quote: I have a very skimpy resume myself, but am able to fetch
the prices I ask for with no problem.
Quote: "The tendency of advising artists to sell work at low prices is
also reinforced by dealers and art consultants whose pricing agendas
are rarely in an artist's best interest." p70
"A primary concern of many dealers is to move work quickly, and
unfortunately, low prices are correlated with making a fast buck." p71
Now, a fast sale is a cheap sale. High paying art collectos are not
interested in cheap sales, and they look at cheap prices as cheap art.
I do not see art purchased under these conditions entering into the
pyramid I described.
> Here in England there are some fantastic business and accounting courses
> run for artists by the South East Arts Council. The courses are held in
> Brighton and well worth it. (SEAC has a website I think, or you can start
> at the Arts Council site and then search regional). I highly recommend
> joining regional SAA groups for local group shows (www.saa.co.uk - but it
> is international), looking into council (local district) run art
> galleries, local libraries (many have art spaces), and entering a lot of
> competitions.
I haven't even started on exposing the agenda behind these folks.
=============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
> Tina.
Nerd Gerl
criteria. If there isn't an artist to bind the artwork in question to
a contract, the artwork's holders can do any damned thing they want
with it - and that includes inflating its prices/value.
Well this is just awful! "The highly respectable artist (read -
valuable) artist is the dead artist."
I wish I could find some data that would show how many works of
artists suddenly went "wholesale" upon the artist's death!
=============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Randolph Kutz <kut...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<O50J9.45229$vM1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Mani Deli
NYC YES! Here's how you too can be a winner of the Modern Art Lottery
like a few megabuck artzy big names. Winners become part of the stable
in high priced Artzy Fartzy gallery.
There's no need to waste time in art schools that teach almost
nothing. No one gives a shit about the art diplomas they hand out
except academics and no one pays them any attention except naïve
students. Go to NY as soon as possible; no artistic skill necessary.
Here richy the clientele buys what the gallery owner tells them to
buy. What counts in this lottery is connections, PR, your sales pitch,
your theories, your personal attributes and lastly your work. No need
to worry about drawing, technique or craft.
It's best to work in an eccentric medium. Ordinary paint and canvas
are a bit outdated and will greatly lower your chances. Always produce
BIGGER work than anyone you imitate. Big is still in fashion. It is
imperative that your work looks like a unique put-on. This gives those
who wield power something to talk and theorize about. Your work should
make everyone who sees it feel an urge to explain your version of the
inscrutable to others. Keep an eye out for the kinky ideas before some
other idiot beats you to it.
In order to succeed in NYC fast its best to have lots of money before
you start. Get a funky loft etc. Find out who is important.
Connections and PR are everything. No one will listen to your theories
without proper connections. Try to find out where winner artists hang
out and get to know them. They are roads to the right connections.
Don't tell them your theories but always agree with theirs. Ply them
for information and remember that everyone is also trying that.
Make it your first order of business to find the important places to
hang out in. Parties are of top importance, go to them and give them.
Cultivate the distinct artzy fartzy manner that is momentarily in
fashion. However, remember if you are not sexy looking your chances of
success are drastically reduced. Sex with the right people can always
get you ahead of competitors.
You must be exceedingly polite, charming and out-going. Learn to
drink. Get a clever Anglo type name. Dress neatly with a touch of
eccentricity. Never look like a Bohemian slob, unhealthy, or
impoverished, it's out of fashion at the moment. Cultivate a unique
manner of speaking. In men a low octave voice is very helpful.
Dropping down an octave or two it makes you sound businesslike and
reassures money mavens that you are producing value and future profit.
Always give influential artzy fartzies something to talk about. If
they just want to discuss the drinks you served or golf at your
opening you're on the road to failure.
Hint at cryptic theories. Try to sound intellectual and hip at the
same time. Never speak clearly Always make sure that no one quite
understands what you are talking about. Peruse the dictionary for a
few, (not too many) abstruse words and use these frequently. Make sure
that the competition is not using these words. Try to invent aphorisms
that sound profound but lack enough meaning so that others get the
opportunity to theorize and explain what they really mean. Remember,
everyone wants to seem creative and add his two cents to the game. Be
subtly aggressive.
Richy Artzy fartzy collectors are usually powerful people who are very
insecure and passionately want their personal opinions taken
seriously. They thrive on expensive fashion with large price tags but
they must also be made to feel that their purchases have great
investment potential. Today's fashionable Modern Art has nothing to do
with artistic merit. Investment is in fashion not art. It must be
costly and have a signature recognizable by those one wants to
impress.
Good luck! And keep all the above information under your hat lest you
get even greater mountains of competition. If you don't make it within
a few years switch to something that pays like plumbing.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Nerd Gerl
the pyramid, where realist art doesn't? And if so, do you go into
extreme detail about this in your book?
My issue is with "the deal with dealers" and their hidden agendas. If
you can PROVE modern art is the culprit, and it is able to escape the
financial/promotional/emotional blockades that dealers put on (all)
artists, I would be interested in seeing the data and facts that
support your claim.
You don't think that modern art artists suffer the same run-around
that realist artists get?
I mean, just because modern art is shown all over the place, that
doesn't mean ... :-(
uh oh. light bulb
Come to think of it, I keep seeing art parties pop up everywhere
selling no other art except modern... and then there's those
competitions where "En Splashe" out wins the flawless floral
everytime.
Do you explain the reasoning behind this in your book? I mean like,
what is the philosophy behind the modern art craze? Not really
interested in reading a 300 page rant Mani. Just want the facts.
============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<3m1avug4g5p1r1rq8...@4ax.com>...
John Rune
<mwe...@xxxislandnet.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>Death as a career move? where's the job satisfaction in that?
Keep your eye on the money.
John the Red
walkowiak
> the pyramid, where realist art doesn't? And if so, do you go into
> extreme detail about this in your book?
Art' refers to a period these days, as in art up until 1950 more or
less.
The correst term these days is 'Contemporary Art'.
Class dismissed.
Nerd Gerl
<5a5f2455.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote in message news:<c45b61ca.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > Mani - do you have ***documentation*** that _proves_ modern art enters
> > the pyramid, where realist art doesn't? And if so, do you go into
> > extreme detail about this in your book?
>
> Modern art versus realist? What is this 1952? FYI - the term 'Modern
> Art' refers to a period these days, as in art up until 1950 more or
> less.
Once again, you've failed to make a point. People (today - in the 21st
century) make all kinds of art that originated in the past. For
example, there are still impressionists. Now take a wild guess at what
kind of art impressionists make. Go ahead... guess! No really. Guess!!
C'mon...
> The correst term these days is 'Contemporary Art'.
>
> Class dismissed.
>
Apparently.
Richard
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:26:07 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>Good luck! And keep all the above information under your hat lest you
>get even greater mountains of competition. If you don't make it within
>a few years switch to something that pays like plumbing.
How about a commercial art job like storyboarding, illustration,
graphic arts, animation, etc.? I'm going to go for that first and try
the gallery shit just in my part time. And no I will never resort to
being an con man instead of a real artist. Then I wouldn't be making
art. I'd just be a con man for a living. It would thwart the whole
purpose of why I'm in this thing. If for some reason I really can't
make a living in art somehow, then I guess I'll either find a vocation
I can tolerate or just blow my brains out. But I have just one life to
live and I want to put out a 200% effort to achieve my dreams before I
give up. I could go into nursing and make $100,000 to $300,000 per
year and easily get a job, but I would hate working as a nurse. They
told me that the patients yell at you a lot and don't appreciate you.
I'd be in hell.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Nerd Gerl
<20021211132054.854$l...@newsreader.com>...
> You can say anything you like. Let's let the galleries speak for
> themselves:
>
> GO AWAY. We don't want to talk to you, and we don't want to look at your
> art. We have our artists. If we want to add an artist we ask our associates
> who's hot, who would fit into our style, who is salable. We go around to
> other galleries, to alternative spaces, and go to studios if an artist is
> recommended by someone we trust, or we read about him/her in the art press.
> If we want you, we will find you and WE WILL APPROACH YOU. [This is the
> most important point.]
Got it.
> We at galleries don't intentionally snub you for no reason. We get anywhere
> from 10 to 100 sets of slides a WEEK. Artists come into our spaces
> uninvited lugging original work. Why don't we look at it all, hoping to
> find something we can sell, that fits into our style (ab ex, realism, pop,
> masters, etc.)? Because we used to spend time doing that and all we saw was
> BAD ART. Tons of it. Bales of it.
> New artists don't threaten shit. Most of the art is both bad and
> unsaleable, and there are tens of thousands of artists out there who want
> to get into galleries. Our problem is keeping them at bay while we try to
> stay in business.
>
> We are successful urban galleries. Galleries in small towns, frame shop
> galleries, etc., may welcome you.
> It is a lot worse than you thought. Sorry.
No - It's GOOD to know this!!! I mean, in other words, high profile
gallery dealers.... are leeches.
This causes great problems. Great big ol' nasty problems.
> --
> Dan
> http://www.danfoxart.com
>
Chris
"Marilyn Welch" <mwe...@nnnislandnet.com> wrote in message
news:3DF787EB...@nnnislandnet.com...
>
> In Canada we also have non-profit galleries and museums.
> You must have the same down there, right? The work is
> not for sale - the artist is paid an exhibition fee. After an
> exhibition in a non-profit gallery, the other galleries take
> notice of your work.
>
> My suggestion to someone who is exhibition ready is to invite an art
writer or
> art critic for a studio visit. They just might be curious enough to do so,
then after
> they write you up (if they do) you will be noticed by galleries.
>
Also - many places have artist societies that cater to specific interests;
for example here in Halifax we have (among other groups) Visual Arts Nova
Scotia (which is pretty general); The Khyber (the post-college/old hippie
crowd), various representationl painting groups; Dartmouth Art Student's
League, etc., all of which have group shows - sometimes open & sometimes
juried. I assume it is much the same in other urban centers (and Halifax is
small by modern standards, only 300K people); and if you pick the right
groups, they are a good place to have your work seen. (I think you have a
bunch on the left coast too..)
Chris
walkowiak
> > Modern art versus realist? What is this 1952? FYI - the term 'Modern
> > Art' refers to a period these days, as in art up until 1950 more or
> > less.
>
> Once again, you've failed to make a point. People (today - in the 21st
> century) make all kinds of art that originated in the past. For
> example, there are still impressionists. Now take a wild guess at what
> kind of art impressionists make. Go ahead... guess! No really. Guess!!
> C'mon...
Bad art, I'd say. reactionary art as well. You're in the 21st century,
so get your head out of your ass and accept it.
After checking your link, I fnd myself wondering why I even bother
replying.
My god you make some crap. Son, you can't even render! Where's you
learn your so-called skills, prison?
Oh, and the texts with your work: they're laughable!
Mani Deli
"The next myth perpetuated about Bouguereau by his critics was that he
painted just for the bourgeois in order to get rich. Let's dispel that
once and for all. He prided himself in never having to take
commissions. He painted what he loved and believed in, often laboring
sixteen hours a day, seven days a week, much like Michelangelo. His
fame became so great that his dealer, Goupil, was able to charge
$10,000 for a single canvas (equivalent to more than $300,000 today).
The bourgeois couldn't possibly buy his paintings, but they were
eagerly acquired by the wealthy: Mellons, Vanderbilts, Frick's
Carnegies and Rockafellas. Let me ask, who has been buying Matisse,
Picasso and Gauguin, or even de Kooning, Rothko and Jasper Johns? The
Mellons, Vanderbilts, Rockafellas and Carnegies, or their contemporary
equivalents. I don't hear the same critics claiming that these artists
painted just for the bourgeois in order to get rich. Certainly Picasso
was far wealthier when he died than Bouguereau at his death. Rubens,
Gainsborough, Church, Boucher, de Kooning, Warhol, and Stella all made
or are making substantial sums on their art. The fact is that most
often, it is the wealthy who collect art. "
About the Author in order to correct our conference Minister of
Misinformation Dan Fox. And he has a degree!
Fred Ross is currently Executive Administrator of the Committee to
write the Catalog Raisonné of William Bouguereau. He is Chairman of
the Art Renewal Center, and has been published or interviewed in
numerous publications. He has been a featured speaker at Sotheby's and
the Metropolitan Museum, as well as museums and universities. He holds
a Master's in Art Education from Columbia University.
Richard
Gardener changed what she wrote about Bouguereau in her Art history
book. The 30 year old version which I first read had a page or two of
mostly snide, disparaging comments about him. In the latest version of
her book, there's just a short paragraph about him which basically
says that he was technically brilliant and the most popular artist of
his time. It doesn't have any obvious negative comments about him. A
couple of people I've spoken to who have already graduated from art
schools have a negative opinion of Bouguereau and the other 19th
century realist artists. They've been brainwashed by the old
propaganda.
I think I figured out why people bashed Bouguereau and his
contemporaries so much. Like a lot of other things in modern art, I
think it was motivated by money. They bashed the old in order to help
sell the new.
Mani Deli
>I think I figured out why people bashed Bouguereau and his
>contemporaries so much.
The reason Modern Academic Art fundamentalists dislike B. is because
he represents a high point in all that is classical art, the finest in
technique, craftsmanship, and invention. He was also a contemporary of
the depessionists and lived on into the beginning of the modern era
which makes him the evil demon of 19 century art mythology as
presently taught. He is the antithesis of what Modern Academic Art
represents.
Above all the attraction of his painting is immediate; no bullshit
necessary. This confuses students who sense his superiority compared
to their utter inferiority. They know that they haven't the skill to
even copy a toe in a B. and will have to go on knocking off put-ons in
their hope of big name charlatan success.
Mani Deli
" I wish to address the myth that Bouguereau stopped the
impressionists from showing in the salons and working at the academies
and ateliers. In their youths, Monet and Renoir worked next to the
great academic artist Jean-Leon Gérôme in the atelier of Charles
Gleyre. Degas was accepted and worked successfully in the atelier of
Hippolyte Flandrin and with Ingres. Edouard Manet worked in the
atelier of Thomas Couture. And in every salon from 1873 forward there
were always impressionist paintings shown. The reason there were only
a few during the earlier years was because there weren't yet many
impressionist artists. In a typical salon show in the 1870s, of two
hundred artists perhaps ten or twelve were impressionists. It was also
untrue that van Gogh despised Bouguereau's work. Critics like to point
to one letter where van Gogh said that he would be able to sell his
paintings more readily if he painted pretty things like Bouguereau.
They always conveniently overlook another letter in which van Gogh
expresses his deep disappointment that he will never be able to draw
as well as Bouguereau. This can readily be found in the published
letters of Vincent van Gogh.
About the Author in order to correct our conference Minister of
Misinformation Dan Fox. And he has a degree!
Fred Ross is currently Executive Administrator of the Committee to
write the Catalog Raisonné of William Bouguereau. He is Chairman of
the Art Renewal Center, and has been published or interviewed in
numerous publications. He has been a featured speaker at Sotheby's and
the Metropolitan Museum, as well as museums and universities. He holds
a Master's in Art Education from Columbia University.
...no skill no art!
augart
artistic taste. Institution of Salon was supported by Napoleon III and
his coterie. After 1870 France is again declared a republic and new
ruling elites required a new art. Art is not about skill. Art is about
the taste of ruling class.
Napoleon III had imperial ambitions like his famous uncle and
Bouguereau art reflected these aspirations. Is Fred Ross also
expressing imperial ambition of his millieu?
G*rd*n
| In 1870 France had a change in ruling elites and with this change in
| artistic taste. Institution of Salon was supported by Napoleon III and
| his coterie. After 1870 France is again declared a republic and new
| ruling elites required a new art. Art is not about skill. Art is about
| the taste of ruling class.
I think that's partly but not entirely true. For one thing,
the ruling elites in a bourgeois state are rather fuzzy around
the edges. For example, one of the influences on what is held
to be the best new art in New York City are collectors who,
basically, are people with a lot of money to spend _on_art_.
These may be people like the Sculls, who owned a taxi company.
They were well off and functionally capitalists, but hardly in
the same league as the really rich and powerful people like,
say, the Rockefellers.
| Napoleon III had imperial ambitions like his famous uncle and
| Bouguereau art reflected these aspirations. Is Fred Ross also
| expressing imperial ambition of his millieu?
How do you think Bouguereau reflected imperial aspirations?
His work seems rather down-home in subject matter to me:
figures from the prettier myths, religious scenes, and peasant
girls are what I've seen on the web site and in magazines.
Agreed, these may sentimentalize the sacred Nation, but
they're hardly at the imperial front like, say, Meissonier.
(www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/meissonier_jean-louis-ernest.html)
Mr. Tudball
or so to see everyone pissing into the wind.
In any large metro area there are hundreds of gallery owners hoping
to find someone who doesn't produce crap.
Most "artists" don't have the skill necessary to make anything worth
a shit. That's why if you work at your craft and look at the market and
produce something even halfway interesting you can find a gallery to
show your work.
If you honestly work at painting by studying the great painters that
came before you and (gasp!) emulate those who inspire you but move past
being a hacky dickcheese you'll do extremely well.
There is an enormous market. Find your niche. pander to it without
betraying your sensibilities. work ceaselessly. produce.
If you're smart you'll choose the market that has the highest number
of collectors with the most disposable income. That's only if you're
smart, and most "artists" aren't.
Most "artists" are more concerned with originality than producing
something that will ultimately be used as a decoration in someone else's
home.
get over the stupidity. This is a business. Do you even have a goal?
if so what is it?
Why aren't you doing everything in your power to make it happen? It's
not that difficult.
I'd elaborate but what difference will it ultimately make. Everyone is
just waiting to take their turn to speak without using the information
that people who know what the fuck they're talking about try to give.
your artsy pal in the shiny new car and the great big house
-mr tudball
augart
> | Napoleon III had imperial ambitions like his famous uncle and
> | Bouguereau art reflected these aspirations. Is Fred Ross also
> | expressing imperial ambition of his millieu?
>
> How do you think Bouguereau reflected imperial aspirations?
> His work seems rather down-home in subject matter to me:
> figures from the prettier myths, religious scenes, and peasant
> girls are what I've seen on the web site and in magazines.
> Agreed, these may sentimentalize the sacred Nation, but
> they're hardly at the imperial front like, say, Meissonier.
> (www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/meissonier_jean-louis-ernest.html)
I will attempt to explain why Bouguereau represented imperial aspirations of
Napoleon III France.
Imperial ideology does not only concern the militery context but also
organization of society. At that time 1850-1870 industralization goes full
steam, bourgeois(capitalist)class is in power but it seems they are hard at
work to imitate the aristocracy or to somehow reinvent themselves (what do you
do with all that money and power?). That when Napoleon III comes in and
proposes them a "new empire". Like every ideology this also calls for new
narratives (images). Meissonier provides story of military conquest,
Bouguereau provides "religious" images. They are composed of a mix of Greek,
Roman and pagan iconography here and there. It seems it satisfied many people
who had influence and it was generously supported by Napoleon III. So if you
supply emperor with ideas to help him perpetuate his narrative you obviously
support his imperial aspirations. It doesn't really matter if it is about the
military stuff or about how you should organize a domestic life.
Richard
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:36:59 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>They always conveniently overlook another letter in which van Gogh
>expresses his deep disappointment that he will never be able to draw
>as well as Bouguereau. This can readily be found in the published
>letters of Vincent van Gogh.
My (now former and never to be again) painting teacher worships Van
Gogh, probably because she can't draw at all, as far as I can tell.
Maybe that's why she thinks outlines are evil: because she can't draw.