Should an artist paint for himherself?
RolandKoch
When we create a work of art,
do we do it to please our own heart,
or is it better to try and please others?
**Are we being selfish if we create works without a thought to the possible
reaction of viewers?
**And what if our art is inspired by how we perceive others will respond to
it? Are we being thus untrue to ourselves?
Any comments will be appreciated. I must sort this out.
Thanks
Roland Koch
http://www.xlab.co.za
Ulrich Osterloh
satisfied both as creator as well as observer of their works
Katheryn
individuals. If we received no pleasure from what we are doing, either
in the act itself, the response we receive from doing it or in the item
we create, there would be no incentive to continue the activity, would
there? Each of us may have a different reward(s), but it is guaranteed
there is at least one.
As far as motivation is concerned and whether we are being selfish if we
paint to please ourselves alone, I would think that would depend on the
circumstances surrounding the event.
If what we produced was strictly for commercial gain or for a specific
purpose (such as a gift) we would have to take the possible buyer or
recipient into consideration while creating the piece.
If what we produced was primarily for our own pleasure and any
commercial gain a secondary consideration, the possible buyer's
preferences wouldn't matter much, if any at all.
But the bottom line remains the same. If we didn't receive some type of
reward we would not continue doing the activity. That goes for any
behavior, not just producing something artistic or creative, nor is that
true of just human behavior. It pertains to any animal behavior.
Katheryn
------------------------------------------------------
" "
somebody else is moved by the work then so much the better and, believe me,
somebody somewhere WILL admire your work eventually. So to paint with
others in mind is ridiculous and unproductive unless it is an actual
commission.
Love yourself, love your work, the world will eventually love you too.
Steve
"Katheryn" <TheLad...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10283-3AC...@storefull-234.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
RolandKoch
This IS a newsgroup with promise!
(I've only just found this NG after being with _alt.art_ for some time,
where there is a dearth of 'art' discussion, mostly website plugs.)
Thank you all for responding, your thoughtful words helped to heal my faith
in Art as an honest and transparent profession!.
GBYA
Roland Koch
http://www.xlab.co.za
" " <sbr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:dVHz6.4746$IP5.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
"RolandKoch" <rol...@netactive.co.za> writes:
>I have been pondering an 'artist's motivation' problem:
>
>When we create a work of art,
>do we do it to please our own heart,
>or is it better to try and please others?
I don't know about "we", but *I* could only create a work of art
when I please my own heart, or vent my own spleen, or whatever.
Trying to please others, as in (e.g.) accepting a commission like
the (ahem) Cysteine Chapel (obviously essential to life :-) may however
concentrate the mind most wonderfully. If "we're" happy, and the
relevant "others" are happy, then everyone that matters is happy.
But if the overriding criterion is to please others, then we've obviously
lost our natural vocation as a masseur/masseuse or roadsweeper(/ess?).
>**Are we being selfish if we create works without a thought
>to the possible reaction of viewers?
No. If we ignore others' reactions, and we therefore go bankrupt,
then it's unselfish in the extreme.
>**And what if our art is inspired by how we perceive others
>will respond to it? Are we being thus untrue to ourselves?
No. If it's inspired by something, then we're being true.
>Any comments will be appreciated. I must sort this out.
Good luck (seriously).
>Thanks
You're welcome.
>Roland Koch
>http://www.xlab.co.za
PS: I can barely believe the comments on this newsgroup.
Surely the World is big enough for Rockwell and Rothko,
Captain Beefheart and Captain & Tenielle (spelling?),
Turner and the Turner Prize (ooh contentious).
PPS: If anyone cares, I would dearly love to produce oils
like Van Gogh, pastels like Degas, gouache like Joseph Crawhall,
watercolour like Klee, and generally have the vision of Monet,
Manet, Leonardo, Pollock, Rembrandt, Picasso, or any of the above.
So sue me.
-- Ewart Shaw
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept/Staff/JEHS/
yacc - the piece of code that understandeth all parsing
lauri levanto
<st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9avpgp$bio$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
> In article <9am6es$18e$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>,
> "RolandKoch" <rol...@netactive.co.za> writes:
> >I have been pondering an 'artist's motivation' problem:
> >
> >When we create a work of art,
> >do we do it to please our own heart,
> >or is it better to try and please others?
>
> >to the possible reaction of viewers?
>
> No. If we ignore others' reactions, and we therefore go bankrupt,
> then it's unselfish in the extreme.
>
yourself,
to the extent that you ignore all social obligations,
including the care of yourself - then what in it is unselfish?
Are you sure you are such a pain in the ass thatyour extinction is a
blessing
to the society in general.
A professional chef is responsible that his/her food is palatable.
What relieves a professional artist of such responsibility.
Note, if a chef makes food that is "good enough for them"
he/she is not different from an artist that makes
intentionally sofa art.
>
> >**And what if our art is inspired by how we perceive others
> >will respond to it? Are we being thus untrue to ourselves?
>
> No. If it's inspired by something, then we're being true.
When an amateur makes art for her/his own delight,
she/he is responsible only to her/himself.
When a professional takes money (which is token for other
people work), be it sales, commission or grant,
he is obligded to return something for the favor.
Inspired by the public response. Isn't it what makes us artists!
The first violinist of Danish Radio Symphony Orchestra
used to play in the streets. Not for money but to check
if his music hits home. It takes james Joyce to write
an un-understandable novel. Too many painters try that.
> >Any comments will be appreciated. I must sort this out.
>
> Good luck (seriously).
It is a question I try to ask myself now and then.
>
> >Thanks
>
> You're welcome.
>
>
> >Roland Koch
> >http://www.xlab.co.za
>
> PS: I can barely believe the comments on this newsgroup.
> Surely the World is big enough for Rockwell and Rothko,
> Captain Beefheart and Captain & Tenielle (spelling?),
> Turner and the Turner Prize (ooh contentious).
RePs: The world is big enough for classical and heavy music.
Big enough for R & R, too. For some reason we, visual artists
are smaller and more nearsighted than others.
> PPS: If anyone cares, I would dearly love to produce oils
> like Van Gogh, pastels like Degas, gouache like Joseph Crawhall,
> watercolour like Klee, and generally have the vision of Monet,
> Manet, Leonardo, Pollock, Rembrandt, Picasso, or any of the above.
> So sue me.
> -- Ewart Shaw
>
- lauri
http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/index.html
Joseph Bennett
This idea of "artistic purity" has been ongoing for centuries, not answered
in the distant past, not answered today, and not likely to be definitively
answered in the future.
The concept of the starving artist dying true to his art is romantic, but
really quite foolish. Why waste a life when he might have flipped burgers
for minimum wage, and financed his "true blue art" in off hours, burger
flipping not really taxing any of his creativity.
In my opinion, this is one of those art issues that defies a black/white
verdict. A man or woman who seeks to earn a living at making art absolutely
must produce what the market will buy, and can do that while still infusing
into those pieces a uniqueness that is the "signature" of the artist. And
that does not make the work any less an "art." For evidence of that, I give
you the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, painted by Michelangelo under threat
of personal and career disaster at the hands of an authoritarian pope.
Certainly not what he wanted to do, but he did it, and no one with connected
neurons would call is anything but spectacular "art."
In all ages, we have a bountiful supply of hacks churning out pretty
pictures of potted plants or beached, worn rowboats, but most of them are
happy hacks, enjoying what they do and doing it quite well. So who are we
to sneer.
And in every age, we have failures who would desperately love to have their
solo shows, their glowing reviews, their steady sales to an admiring
following, but who have yet to sell a thing and are unlikely ever to sell
anything. Some of them see the reality and go sell insurance -- or flip
burgers -- and have at least the knowledge that they gave it a good try.
Then there are the others, those for whom market failure produces nothing
but bitterness, who invest groups like this with rants about commercialism
and "selling out," and for whom every success becomes just one more evidence
of "sell out." They really ought not be paid any attention, rather, shown
compassion because unlike the blissful hacks, these are not happy people.
Don't worry about rights and wrongs. If you want to sell your art see if
you can respond to the market and still keep it art. If you can, great. If
you can't, well, you have a decision to make, don't you! But don't waste
time dreaming of pursuing your own, unique, intensely personal art, while
staving off bothersome buyers who just won't leave you alone. It isn't much
likely to happen.
"lauri levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
news:DefB6.9050$cF.1...@news1.nokia.com...
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
"lauri levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> writes:
>
><st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
...
>> "RolandKoch" <rol...@netactive.co.za> writes:
...
>> >**Are we being selfish if we create works without a thought
>> >to the possible reaction of viewers?
>>
>> No. If we ignore others' reactions, and we therefore go bankrupt,
>> then it's unselfish in the extreme.
>>
>Is it really? I think it is narcicism in extreme. If you create for
>yourself,
>to the extent that you ignore all social obligations,
>including the care of yourself - then what in it is unselfish?
Maybe I overstated it, but if I tried to survive by producing art,
and persistently ignored the fact that nobody liked my work, then my
failure would be an example of evolution in action--my genes weren't
sufficiently selfish! However, maintaining this lifestyle by sponging
off family/friends etc. would be selfish (Van Gogh?!? - discuss).
I was talking solely about viewers' reactions to an artwork.
If the viewers don't like it, then they don't buy it.
>A professional chef is responsible that his/her food is palatable.
>What relieves a professional artist of such responsibility.
There have been at least two excellent vegetarian Indian restaurants
in our area. Both had to close. Were they selfish in serving only
excellent vegetarian Indian food?
...
>> >**And what if our art is inspired by how we perceive others
>> >will respond to it? Are we being thus untrue to ourselves?
>>
>> No. If it's inspired by something, then we're being true.
>
>When an amateur makes art for her/his own delight,
>she/he is responsible only to her/himself.
>When a professional takes money (which is token for other
>people work), be it sales, commission or grant,
>he is obligded to return something for the favor.
The question was whether the artist is being true to himself.
My answer simply means that if your professional artist
is inspired by his obligation, then he is being true to himself
[note that I said nothing about the uninspired professional!]
...
>- lauri
>http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/index.html
...
Thanks for your comments.
Maybe we're just using different definitions of "selfish".
My dictionary says: "selfish (adj): caring only for one's own
profit or pleasure, regardless of the feelings of others."
Maybe we're using different definitions of "pleasure" ...
Regards, Ewart Shaw
RolandKoch
works only for the purpose of
satisfying hisher own desires -selfishly- then that artist should not need
to seek public reaction, ie:
should not need to even exhibit the works! But who knows, maybe such works
will turn out to be masterpieces.
However, should the public actually see the works, then that artist should
remain sincerely indifferent to whatever reaction is provoked. That is being
'honestly selfish'. Was van Gogh like that?
Let's consider a little child, creating his first image with crayons on a
piece of paper. My 6-year old daughter does this often. I have observed her:
she is being 'honestly selfish' when she draws, it seems, but she always
brings her finished work to her mom and/or dad for approval. But I note that
she doesn't create to please her parents, she creates to please herself
first, and then seeks 'public approval'.
She needs this approval. (And I give it, equally honestly, simply because a
child cannot create an ugly work of art!) In fact, without this approval,
she could become discouraged and put down her crayons, maybe forever.
And if an artist needs the approval of the public, and seeks to earn hisher
living thereby, then heshe will create works to please that target market.
'Dishonestly unselfish'? Gad. There's a lot more to think about...
Roland Koch
http://www.xlab.co.za
<st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9b4mer$nlg$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
lauri levanto
<st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9b4mer$nlg$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
<snipped old stuff>
>
> >A professional chef is responsible that his/her food is palatable.
> >What relieves a professional artist of such responsibility.
>
> There have been at least two excellent vegetarian Indian restaurants
> in our area. Both had to close. Were they selfish in serving only
> excellent vegetarian Indian food?
>
> Thanks for your comments.
> Maybe we're just using different definitions of "selfish".
> My dictionary says: "selfish (adj): caring only for one's own
> profit or pleasure, regardless of the feelings of others."
> Maybe we're using different definitions of "pleasure"
I'm still confused, but on a deeper level.
Your example: an artist starving as he/she paints only
for his/her pleasure is unselfish according the defininition above?
-lauri
P.S. dust off your GO-project now and then,
it is good decalcification for brains.
...
Robert Wittig
> When we create a work of art,
> do we do it to please our own heart,
> or is it better to try and please others?
I can only speak for myself. I work with a great deal of discipline,
painting every day. I am not sure how I would characterise what I do in
words, beyond to say that I paint. I certainly have never thought the phrase
'creating a work of art', in reference to my work, although I am perfectly
aware that I am working in the fine visual arts. It may be simply a matter
of semantics; I tend to avoid 'artspeak' phraseology.
I think my mind (my whole mind, not simply the portion dedicated to
consciousness) knows very well what it is doing, as far as my work is
concerned, but that, like driving a car, or juggling, that overall plan,
being essentially nonverbal, is not entirely amenable to conscious control.
What this means in the context of your question, is that to some degree, no
matter what I think consciously, that I am doing when I pick up a brush, it
is impossible for me to see the entire plan, that my mind has laid down for
me. It requires an act of faith, that my mind (both thought and emotion) are
going about the business of recording whatever it is, that they are supposed
to be recording. Since fine art is a forward looking process, there is no
way for me to consciously determine whether or not I am on the 'right' path,
or just a blind alley, that will be up to the future to decide. I am quite
aware that most of artistic production will be of the blind alley variety.
I do not really paint either to please myself intellectually, and certainly
not to please others (although I hope to sell enough of my work so that I
might eat, and live in modest comfort). In reference to self-portraiture in
particular:
"When painting one's-self, the process is incalculably complicated, by the
fact that the work is self-referential, and the brain knows it, at every
level, conscious, unconscious, subconscious, ego, id, you name it, all of
those voiceless and vociferous little parts of one's-self are going to do
their best to add their 'two cents' into the final product. Once such a
piece of work is completed, or shall I say, once I have stopped working on
it, and set it aside to dry, and begun on the next task, there is little
chance of my ever being able to see the full content of what has been writ
in paint, upon canvas. As long as all the little bits and pieces within me,
that have helped guide my brush, in what I can only imagine as a great
internal war for primacy... to be heard... are satisfied enough with their
input, so that they will allow me peaceful sleep and proper digestion, then
I am satisfied. " http://www.robertwittig.com/paper16.html
While working, I try to avoid considerations of any potential audience. I do
this not out of any disdain for such an audience, but rather as part of that
'act of faith', that my mind knows what it is about, here, whether I can
consciously pin it down or not. The work will either be a success or not,
and will either be well received or not, but in either case, it will be the
genuine product that my mind set about to produce, and will either succeed
or fail as such. My conscious mind is a great tool, and very useful in
performing a lot of tasks, like writing this post. I just happen to think it
is not the proper tool for trying to express those things that exist within
me, that cry out for expression, but not in words.
> **Are we being selfish if we create works without a thought to the
possible reaction of viewers?
In my opinion, no. The fine arts are about the advancing of human mind, both
intellect and emotion; us feeling our way forward into an as yet uncharted
future. Working with too much of a mind toward one's audience (especially
critics, curators, etc.) is essentially me trying to do what I think you
want me to do. Since I can never possibly know your mind, and in fact, even
you cannot even know your own mind, any more than I can know my own, if I
adopt such a strategy, I am working in circles; not even playing 'follow the
leader', but rather playing 'follow the follower.' Advancing human mind
(thought, perception, etc.) is not likely to be well served by offering up
anything that is intended to meet expectations.
> **And what if our art is inspired by how we perceive others will respond
to it? Are we being thus untrue to ourselves?
I think it is essential to pursue my own vision... not the vision that my
conscious mind can apprehend, but more the vision that my intuition senses
to be 'right.' This is certainly no guarantee of financial or any other kind
of success, but whether it succeeds or fails, at least it will be genuine.
Imagine the possibility of abandoning your inner vision in favour of what
you thought the people, critics, curators, gallery owners, or fellow
painters might prefer, and failing??
thanks,
-wittig
Online Portfolio and Gallery: http://www.robertwittig.com/
caliban
I think you got it spot on. If I may, I'd like to take it a step farther. I
think that all creative endeavor is a way of working that involves trying to
find one's basic truths (subconscious) and filter them through one's
intellect, experience and education. Of course, this is a very precarious
way of working/being. It's so easy to loss one's concentration and lapse
into the merely clever. And I think that process takes a lot of time. So you
have to keep moving so that at some point in the future, you can look back
with an hopefully unbiased and more critical eye.
That being said, as Mary Boone said in a press release regarding the
accusation that Ross Bleckner had stolen William Wood's painting method,
"Art doesn't happen in a vacuum". You must know what the other artists are
doing. If you want a place at the table, you have to know language if you
plan to get laid.
So personally, I:
a. Work for myself
b. Work for my friends
c. Work for whatever audience that might happen to be around at the moment.
I know some of the more paranoid, conspiracy theorists contributors here
wont like this, but the truth is that neither critics, gallery owners nor
collectors decide who's work will, at any given moment, reign; it's the
artists that decide.
As for selfish, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Making art, a very ancient
act, and expecting anyone to like it is a profoundly egocentric gesture. And
then to expect to be paid for the privilege?...but that just one man's point
of view.
your friend,
cal
"Robert Wittig" <robert...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:9bgalh$6m0$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
RolandKoch
...A loaded phrase that bears much food for thought.
An artist who creates to live has no choice but to consider
those from which hisher sustenance is sought, no?
The ramifications behind the term "Starving Artist":
* An artist whose talent has not been recognised, yet?
* A thoroughly 'selfish' artist?
* An incompetent artist?
* An 'unselfish' market-minded artist who cannot judge public taste
properly?
* A successful artist who lives beyond hisher earnings.
Hmmm.
Regards,
Roland Koch
http://www.xlab.co.za
lauri levanto <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
news:ugkC6.9156$cF.1...@news1.nokia.com...
RolandKoch
this thread.
I do believe that we _should_ ponder the Who, What, How and Why of our
chosen path and be at peace in our hearts about it, no matter what the
result.
That is at least being true to ourselves.
Thank you.
Roland Koch
www.xlab.co.za
caliban <cal...@tempest.com> wrote in message
news:3adbbb2e$1...@goliath2.newsfeeds.com...
caliban
do we really have a choice?
cal
"RolandKoch" <rol...@netactive.co.za> wrote in message
news:9bggqf$2m0j$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...
Robert Wittig
> I think you got it spot on. If I may, I'd like to take it a step farther.
I
> think that all creative endeavor is a way of working that involves trying
to
> find one's basic truths (subconscious) and filter them through one's
> intellect, experience and education. Of course, this is a very precarious
> way of working/being. It's so easy to loss one's concentration and lapse
> into the merely clever. And I think that process takes a lot of time. So
you
> have to keep moving so that at some point in the future, you can look back
> with an hopefully unbiased and more critical eye.
It can be precarious, depending on the nature of the individual. Painting
isn't a team sport, so one winds up working alone, and relying on one's
judgment or instinct, unsupported. Some people have better judgment and
instincts than others, so the results are going to vary as much as the
individuals who paint (sculpt, whatever) I think that those visual arts that
are essentially solitary pursuits are those most vulnerable to the
ravages of extreme personality types. In the making of music, movies, the
performance arts in general, there is a team effort, so that the
individual's judgment is more tempered by the presence of the other
participants.
Writers (especially poets) and painters/ sculptors pursue the more solitary
endeavours, and hence address the highest risk factor, of allowing their
vision to run away with itself, and become so utterly personal that
absolutely no one but the author will know what in the world the person is
expressing, and this is magnified even more in the nonrepresentational arts,
where there is not even the skeleton of reality to begin building upon.
Still, the converse of this high risk, is that if successful, such works
are all the more noteworthy for their unique individual perspective.
> That being said, as Mary Boone said in a press release regarding the
> accusation that Ross Bleckner had stolen William Wood's painting method,
> "Art doesn't happen in a vacuum". You must know what the other artists are
> doing. If you want a place at the table, you have to know language if you
> plan to get laid.
No, art does not happen in a vacuum, and I am all for standing on the
shoulders of those who came before me (at least some of them, but that is a
matter of personal taste). More than the work of other artists enters into
this equation. We are all inextricably 'of our own time,' and it cannot be
otherwise; this is completely inescapable. You do not even have to bother
thinking about it, because it happens with or without your approval. Just
walk down any street, into any store, turn on the TV, leave the TV off, no
matter...We cannot escape our time, it is even reflected in the painting
materials we use, whether we like it or not. I prefer going with the flow,
and checking out as much of what I like that is going on around me, but not
with any particular eye towards incorporating it into my own work. When I am
not painting, I am just another observer. Also, it is a defense against my
just becoming a victim of the 'passive influences' that are inescapable,
like Burger King, McDonald's, and K-Mart, and their equivalents in every
other endeavour, that are out there trying to pound their message into my
brain with all their might. Maybe if I fill part of my brain up with cool
stuff, that I at least like, there will be less room up in there for all the
crap that society is going to throw at me whether I want it or not!<g>
> So personally, I:
>
> a. Work for myself
> b. Work for my friends
> c. Work for whatever audience that might happen to be around at the
moment.
I think that I:
a. work for myself,
b. work whoever decides they like what I am doing, and on very good days,
c. work for the advancement of whatever it is about us that art advances.
As far as the business of selling my work is concerned, I learned years ago
that there are two basic kinds of businesses, those that make what they
sell, and those that sell what they make. This is an incredibly important
distinction. For those who first sell the job, and then produce the work,
they are always focused on what the customer wants, which may or may not be
what they are the very best at doing. For those who first make what they
sell, they have at least the opportunity to decide precisely what they are
the very best at doing, and then do it, and if a niche exists for what they
are vary good at doing, then they will have a better chance at capturing
that niche, because they are not trying to live up the expectations of any
particular person, or group of people; their only concern is that they do
their absolute best, at what they love doing. It may take a longer time for
those who also love what they are doing to find them, and buy their work,
but in the end, everyone will be happier.
> I know some of the more paranoid, conspiracy theorists contributors here
> wont like this, but the truth is that neither critics, gallery owners nor
> collectors decide who's work will, at any given moment, reign; it's the
> artists that decide.
This is very gradually becoming more true than it has been in the past, but
I believe that this is a quite recent development, and that in years past,
VARPS (Various Art Related Persons) had a lot more to do with 'who would be
seen' than was healthy for the fine arts. I think the Web is beginning to
make a serious inroad into the power structure that grew up over the past 50
years. Ninety percent of all my sales are generated through my Website, much
of it probably due to my also have a fairly well distributed Newsletter, and
doing a lot of writing in theory and criticism, in addition to painting.
'Ninety percent of what?' you might ask... Well, not enough to live on, yet,
but then I have only been painting for five years, and have only been
on-line for one year.
> As for selfish, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Making art, a very ancient
> act, and expecting anyone to like it is a profoundly egocentric gesture.
And then to expect to be paid for the privilege?...but that just one man's
point of view.
Well, first of all, I think this may be as much a matter of semantics, as an
actual disagreement. Egocentric simply means self-centered, where selfish
has a lot of additional negative baggage attached to its meaning;
inconsiderate, thoughtless, grudging, greedy, etc. (Oxford Dictionary).
While I see the work itself as being quite clearly egocentric (especially
when I am painting self portraits), the rest of the 'selfishness' spectrum
does not follow. I am certainly not painting with an eye towards bettering
myself at the expense of my fellows. All my work is on display for anyone
who wants to see it, or read the articles. I do not have one of those sites
with threatening copyright notices plastered all over it, the work is there
to be downloaded for personal use, by whoever wishes. Also, I am fully
cognizant that I could be making more money if I sought another type of
work, but am willing to accept less money, to be able to do what I want.
Of course I expect to be paid, by whoever expects to purchase what I have
produced, but that is what trade is all about, and has nothing to do with
selfishness. If I made hot dogs, I would not give them away, and when one
begins to sell their work, it is a commodity, just like a hot dog. (well,
not *just* like a hot dog. Heh) Besides, people are already paying me, so I
am on the right track. I am perfectly willing to just keep working away,
until in 2 or 5 or 10 years, I have developed enough of a collector base to
make a modest living at what I want to do.
caliban
I think your right. It is a matter of semantics. Thanks for your thoughts.
BTW, have you seen anything lately in Chicago that you really liked? I have
to come out there in a couple of months and would welcome tips.
love your site...love your paintings...and when are you going to write a
book of stories? All your writing kicks butt, but the short bio part of your
cv section *really* kicks butt. I want to hear more about your grandfather.
That paragraph made me verklemp.
fyi, those dealers that you visited were rude assholes. Even though you were
totally by the book up until the cold calls, your absolutly right. They
should have looked at your portfolio. Trust me, that sort of stuff gets out
and nobody decent will work with them. Which is why they behave so badly.
It's a vicious circle. However, even if they didn't want to look at your
work right then, they should have explained their policies. Usually
galleries want you to send them slide and a self addressed envelope with
enough postage that they can return them when the are finished with them.
But you probably knew that. Besides, if your not showing with them and your
still selling work then you don't have to give them half.:)
yours,
cal
"Robert Wittig" <robert...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:9bignk$mug$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Robert Wittig
sort of stuff in particular you are interested in, and what time span your
visit will cover, and I'll see what I can find out. Chicago has a huge art
expo at Navy Pier every summer, which is way worth the cost of admission, if
you are lucky enough to be here while it is happening.
Hah! That bio is not too serious, but I honest-to-god use it as if it is
100% for real, and never mention a thing about my having written it as a
spoof.
I'm glad you enjoyed your visit to the site. I update continuously, almost
every week, since I paint and write daily.
Those older stories are sort of superceded by the newer ones. You will
notice that my attitude seems to change as you read back; I just drop the
newer stuff on top, so the oldest stories are from last year, and the ones
on top from last month. I go ahead and just write down whatever is on my
mind at the time, so it is like a chronology of all the things I do right
and do wrong, and I guess in a few years it will be sort of cool to be able
to look back and see what has changed with me.
As far as those early cold calls are concerned, that was pretty naive of me.
Since then, however, I have also gone through the proper ritual of
contacting galleries in a more appropriate way (using email, all very well
written and businesslike) but have never, not even one time ever received
even a no thank you letter, or any acknowledgement whatsoever from any
gallery that I ever approached; they simply do not respond to inquiries, in
my experience.
Then, after I gave up trying, and began focusing on my Website, and
publishing my newsletter, I started receiving inquiries myself (unsolicited)
from local galleries that were interested in showing my work. In fact I have
a show going right now that was set up this way. I'm STILL not selling any
of my work through these small shows, but at least I'm being approached.
This is really something to think about... when a painter approaches a
gallery, there is no interest, but then the galleries go on line and find
you on their own, and they come to you, instead. Go figure.
I am really not too interested in paying anyone half of the proceeds to sell
my work. When selling on-line, one can probably quadruple the number of
potential customers by simply offering the work at 50% of what a gallery
would want for the same piece. You know, a lot more than double the number
of people have half as much money to lay out for a painting... just think
about it, when the price moves from $1,000.00 to $500.00, how many more
people out there may be willing to purchase? I cannot know for certain, but
I suspect that the majority of my collectors would never have purchased my
work at gallery prices.
thanks,
-wittig
Online Portfolio and Gallery: http://www.robertwittig.com/
caliban <cal...@tempest.com> wrote in message
news:3adcf...@news4.newsfeeds.com...