young art

0 views
Skip to first unread message

niem...@bvu.edu

unread,
Nov 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/7/96
to

On a recent trip to an art gallery I was told that they did not accept work
from students. The reasons were that students may change their style several
times and that it was easy to produce work without "real life" difficulties.
Isn't it also true that any artist, young or professional, may change their
style several times throughout their career. Also isn't quality work quality
even if it is painted in a classroom?
I believe if more young people had works accepted it would allow them to
take their career as an artist more seriously.


Bryan Nieman

lilyb...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/9/96
to

You are right that many, if not most artists change their styles
several times during the course of their careers. Consider Picasso!

Most galleries dont want to take chances. They want you to have a
well-defined signature style and stick with it, so your work is easy for
them to market. Their need for a predictable product is not often
challenged by artists, who for whatever reasons are content to keep
repeating themselves, making only tiny changes of content or form for each
new show, which are then responded to by critics as if they are important
breakthroughs rather than predictable reshufflings.

I am not young any more but not old either (39) and have been in the same
situation you are in. When I was younger I had to try on a lot of
different "coats" until I found myself. The pressure to settle into a
signature style/project early in your career comes not only from galleries
but also from teachers: I had more than one teacher who disapproved of my
various changes of direction. Looking back, however, I am glad I went my
own way.

You are right that "quality" work can be and is done by students as well
as professionals. But remember: You have time on your side. Dont be in
a big hurry to get gallery representation. Be most concerned with
discovering your true self, with observing what moves you, with
determining what aspects of life most concern you and about which you
truly have something to say in your art.

If you are true to yourself in your work, others will respond to your
honesty. The important thing is to bridge the gulf between one individual
and another. That can happen in many exhibition venues: artist-run
spaces, university galleries, libraries, cultural centers, cafes,
bookstores, etc, etc. Commercial galleries are only one way to get your
work before an audience.


David Harleyson

unread,
Nov 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/9/96
to

In article <19961109134...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lilyb...@aol.com says...

>If you are true to yourself in your work, others will respond to your
>honesty. The important thing is to bridge the gulf between one individual
>and another. That can happen in many exhibition venues: artist-run
>spaces, university galleries, libraries, cultural centers, cafes,
>bookstores, etc, etc. Commercial galleries are only one way to get your
>work before an audience.

How right you are. Commercial galleries are, imo, the least effective
way to get your work known. And a gallery that insists on exclusive
representation is the worst. Before giving any gallery exclusive
representation, an emerging artist should use every other avenue to
get the work shown -- both locally and abroad. D.H.


Charles Eicher

unread,
Nov 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/10/96
to

> On a recent trip to an art gallery I was told that they did not
accept work
> from students. The reasons were that students may change their style several
> times and that it was easy to produce work without "real life" difficulties.
> Isn't it also true that any artist, young or professional, may
change their
> style several times throughout their career. Also isn't quality work quality
> even if it is painted in a classroom?

I think what they're getting at is, young artists have often not 'found
their voice'.. Most artists change their styles often, but at least they
have a core identity, and its visible throughout their work, despite a
divergence of styles. Sure, you can work through a lot of different styles,
even produce 'quality' works, but until you're bringing something of
yourself to the works, its just fiddling around. There's even an art
historical term for this, "juvenalia" (that is, immature works).

> I believe if more young people had works accepted it would allow them to
> take their career as an artist more seriously.

I have rarely met a young artist who NEEDED to take their career more
seriously. In fact, the ones who take themselves the MOST seriously are
often the ones who need a series of swift kicks in the butt.


| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |

Jason A. Hutto

unread,
Nov 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/13/96
to

<niem...@bvu.edu> wrote:

>Isn't it also true that any artist, young or professional, may change their
>style several times throughout their career. Also isn't quality work quality
>even if it is painted in a classroom?

I agree with you in spirit 100%. I had the exact same experience 2 years
ago when showing my portfolio to certain galleries. One told me 'Your work
is very good, but we do not accept artists that havent been painting
professionally at least ten years..." I thought to myself, in ten years, I
won't be allowing you to exhibit my work...

I ran into this in New Orleans: "Your work is rough and urban. It doesn't
fit here' Hmmmm Then she added "This isnt that type of city". Ah. A
deluded person. This was a nice way of saying 'You just got out of
college...come back when you're bored and tired and are able to repeatedly
do work we can repeatedly sell with bruchures we only have to print
once...

What these galleries want is some sort of stylistic reliability...This
aspect and real art-making are complete opposites. One way, the gallery
way, is manufacture and the other is creativity. You can't really blame
the galleries thouogh, they are at the mercy of the public...And it is the
art buyers who are the problem...

One of my professors in school had a gallery in which he did outrageously
well..his work sold before the opning night of his exhibitions many times
selling out completely....Then he did a series in oil rather than
watercolor...He sold, but compared to previous successes, he sold
only minutely. The public expected watercolors. They didnt expect new art,
they expected new watercolors in 'his style'.

What that means, I do not know, but the artist is surely not responsible
for maintaining any one way or one medium. Best way to do it, I think, if
youre going to pursue gallery sales, is to, 1, not say that youre a
student, 2, not submit project work (regardless of quality) and 3, keep
your work as diverse as you want it and work on finding niches for each
stylistiic avenue you tread down...this might be hard, heck - It IS hard,
but it keeps your integrity intact...If your work is good, a smart
gallery-owner or dealer will take it...The smart ones know its not about
age....Look at, say....Bob Ross...how old was he? 52? A perfect example of
how age does not necessarily improve talent.

Hehe...ok that was a joke...
Truth is, obviously, that if youre talented now, and working, youll be
better in the future, and better still in the future's future...But that
doesnt mean we should wait until an artist is 95 before we consider him or
her good and salesworthy.

Nieman, mail me, ok?


Hutto
--
-----------j-a-h-1-0-@-i-s-i-s-.-m-s-s-t-a-t-e-.-e-d-u------------
<a href=http://www.wsnet.com/~alphabet><b>Brother Alphabet</b></a>
---------------------a-d-d----t-h-i-s----l-i-n-k------------------

kajoj...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/14/96
to

Your post is a good read, Jason. May I add a few points :


In article <56di19$q...@Isis.MsState.Edu>, ja...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Jason A.
Hutto) writes:

>(. . .). I had the exact same experience 2 years


>ago when showing my portfolio to certain galleries. One told me 'Your
work
>is very good, but we do not accept artists that havent been painting
>professionally at least ten years..." I thought to myself, in ten years,
I
>won't be allowing you to exhibit my work...
>
>I ran into this in New Orleans: "Your work is rough and urban. It doesn't
>fit here' Hmmmm Then she added "This isnt that type of city".

=======
As one who has been showing in New Orleans for nearly ten years and
painting for well over the requisite time frame, I think you probably got
the right scoop, However, I've seen some pretty "rough and urban" type
shows along Julia Street. (I've had the feeling it was you guys still "wet
behind the ears" that were getting all the wall space! Guess our
perspective changes.)
==========


>What these galleries want is some sort of stylistic reliability...This
>aspect and real art-making are complete opposites. One way, the gallery
>way, is manufacture and the other is creativity. >>

The way I've dealt with this is to have multiple galleries. This is not
the answer for everyone, but if you can maintain several styles at once,
having an outlet for each relieves some of the frustration. It also
generates new problems - you dilute your impact on the art world - but on
the other hand, maybe it's one of the new styles that brings the world to
your door and your can toss the old stuff.
===============


> and 3, keep
>your work as diverse as you want it and work on finding niches for each
>stylistiic avenue you tread down...this might be hard, heck - It IS hard,
>but it keeps your integrity intact..
>

See above - You suggested it - I did it.
===================


>Truth is, obviously, that if youre talented now, and working, youll be
>better in the future, and better still in the future's future...But that
>doesnt mean we should wait until an artist is 95 before we consider him
or
>her good and salesworthy.
>

Please don't wait!

This is as good a spot as any to point out my debut on the web - which
covers an evolution of styles, by the way.

http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm


~Karen Jacobs~

Traci Tant

unread,
Nov 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/14/96
to

Bob Ross is dead. You ought to see Atlanta! Good luck.

Traci Tant

unread,
Nov 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/14/96
to

I think it is more a matter of people who know little to nothing
about art controlling art exhibition due to their position in
society. What else could they say? To say more would mean knowing
what they are talking about, wouldn't it? It hard to argue with a
person claiming you need more experience. Every artist believes they
do. That is why it is a career, or a lifelong struggle. I can see
artists freezing like deer caught in the headlights. Artists can
argue aethetics till the cows come home. How do you argue against
"experience?" That's why they say it. What do you expect them to
say, "I'm a hopeless incompetant in over my head without a clue?"
Yeah, right.

Jeffery Measamer

unread,
Nov 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/14/96
to

Ouch!!!
Although I am a dealer I don't deal in contemporary work (much). I
would agree with you that some of the dealers in very commercial
galeries don't exhibit much knowledge. BUT, within my speciality (prints
and drawings, 1750-1950), probably 75% have an excellent grasp of
esthetics. Also keep in mind that dealers like me only deal in pictures
that fit our own values. That doesn't make me "over my head without a
clue", it simply means that I have found a style or period of art that I
appreciate.
Good luck to you all in your careers,
Jeff Measamer
Art Connections
http://www.erols.com/villej/alldlr/artconn/artconn.htm

kajoj...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/18/96
to

In article <3290C5...@NetVision.net.il>, Shaily Wardimon
<ward...@NetVision.net.il> writes:

>
>I want to thank you all for bringing up this very true subject. A friend
>of mine is 19 years old, which we all know is very young, especially in
>the world of art, but she is also very talented. Her last works have
>shown maturity in style and were amazingly beautiful in the opinion of
>almost every person who saw them. My friend felt that she must exhibit
>the works because, as she felt, they needed that, needed to be exhibited
>in a space suitable to their requirements. Looking through the galleries
>of Tel Aviv, The biggest city in Israel, where we live, showed that
>though most gallery owners admitted the works are good - they didn't
>want to risk dealing with such a young artist, no matter how good.
>The only thing there is to say is - I guess their loss is greater than
>my friend's,who will probably only get better.
>Shaily Wardimon.
>
>

Here's a thought - or two -

Persue gallery representation through letters and slides. Be certain that
both are presented in a "mature and professional" manner (have someone who
knows look it over.) Include a SASE for the return of your slides. Reveal
your age later.

Poor framing and matting is a dead give away for the inexperienced artist.

Have a body of like work. If the portfolio is too varied, the gallery
directors will not be interested no matter what your age.

Work on building the resume with inclusion in juried exhibitions as often
as possible and hold your own shows at alternative spaces, i.e. hospitals,
libraries, coffee shops, schools, etc.

Be realistic in selecting the galleries you wish to be represented by.
Sometimes we set our hopes higher than we are ready for.

And keep on trying.

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

Shaily Wardimon

unread,
Nov 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/18/96
to

wsparker

unread,
Nov 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/18/96
to

kajoj...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Here's a thought - or two -
>
> Persue gallery representation through letters and slides. Be certain that
> both are presented in a "mature and professional" manner (have someone who
> knows look it over.) Include a SASE for the return of your slides. Reveal
> your age later.
>
> Poor framing and matting is a dead give away for the inexperienced artist.
>
>
> Have a body of like work. If the portfolio is too varied, the gallery
> directors will not be interested no matter what your age.
>
> Work on building the resume with inclusion in juried exhibitions as often
> as possible and hold your own shows at alternative spaces, i.e. hospitals,
> libraries, coffee shops, schools, etc.
>
> Be realistic in selecting the galleries you wish to be represented by.
> Sometimes we set our hopes higher than we are ready for.
>
>


Maybe go to business school and study marketing (analyses, planning,
advertising practices) *then* work on the art.

Or perhaps just get the MBA and forget the art!

joking and slightly puzzled.

Brother Alphabet

unread,
Nov 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/19/96
to

> Maybe go to business school and study marketing (analyses, planning,
> advertising practices) *then* work on the art.
>
> Or perhaps just get the MBA and forget the art!
>
> joking and slightly puzzled.

I don't think this is as much a joke as you want it to be.
Business sense is as valuable to an artist who wants to sell
as any other tool the artist uses.

Reading up on business tactics in books and magazines
is a good practice, as well as is being aware of
corporate/economic current events. The MBA is obviously
not necessary :) Hehe...But a business sense
is vital to undertsand the workings of the business
we are in and to help the artist avoid being
ripped off intellectually and financially...

When I originally began college I was in
marketing (for the money potential) - I hated that, but I
am glad I spent the time. I learned a great deal
that I probably wouldnt have if I had gone straight into
art.

Hutto

Brother Alphabet

unread,
Nov 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/19/96
to

Brother Alphabet

unread,
Nov 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/19/96
to

wsparker

unread,
Nov 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/19/96
to

Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> > Maybe go to business school and study marketing (analyses, planning,
> > advertising practices) *then* work on the art.
> >
> > Or perhaps just get the MBA and forget the art!
> >
> > joking and slightly puzzled.
>
> I don't think this is as much a joke as you want it to be.

I think it is a pretty funny. Most of the creations I see that are
made with an intention to sell art derived from art. Or it is art as
high-priced collector investment (far beyond the scope of this
newsgroup?).


You can't get a healthy meal in a restaurant. Restaurants want people to
come back for more so they make their food taste good. The main
ingredient for good tasting food (for Americans?) is FAT! People have a
uneducated taste for fat. One wouldn't like fatty foods as much if you
saw the inside of the clogged arteries.

For the same reason you can't get good art when it is made to sell!
People will buy only the stuff they know and therefore it is bad for
them! What's worse people who make art to sell are not taking any
chances in their personal work, Real art is (/was in it's time) risky,
challenging, difficult (indigestible?) and these days therefore very,
very bloody rare!

> Business sense is as valuable to an artist who wants to sell
> as any other tool the artist uses.
>

I wouldn't call someone who operated in the above vein an "artist." I
think a better word would be "craftsperson" for they repackage,
recombine, restructure, rehash, the old style recipies and philosophies
(eg. impressionism, abstraction, whateverism) into tenderized palatable
portions for the consumer who has money to spend on decoration and
bemusement.


> Reading up on business tactics in books and magazines

> is a good practice, ...a business sense


> is vital to undertsand the workings of the business
> we are in


That's the problem, why it is funny to me, I totally disregard the
business side as having anything to do with artmaking!

Making a better widget and getting a profit is a good idea. Making
objects that look like art should be profitable if there is a market for
them to exploit.



> When I originally began college I was in
> marketing (for the money potential) - I hated that, but I
> am glad I spent the time. I learned a great deal
> that I probably wouldnt have if I had gone straight into
> art.

Are you sure you are into art? I don't know how you can say that, though
I have considered the relationship between art and craft for a while...
.

kajoj...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/20/96
to

In article <3291C3...@olympus.net>, wsparker <w...@olympus.net> writes:

>For the same reason you can't get good art when it is made to sell!
>People will buy only the stuff they know and therefore it is bad for
>them! What's worse people who make art to sell are not taking any
>chances in their personal work, Real art is (/was in it's time) risky,
>challenging, difficult (indigestible?) and these days therefore very,
>very bloody rare!
>
>
>

This particular thread weaves itself in and out of 75% of the posts here.
For the sake of enlightenment, could you please specify artists and/or
titles of work which demonstrate the point(s) you (y'all) reduntantly
underscore. I.e. "Real art is (/was in it's time) risky, challenging,
difficult."

Respectfully,

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

wsparker

unread,
Nov 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/20/96
to

kajoj...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <3291C3...@olympus.net>, wsparker <w...@olympus.net> writes:
>
> >For the same reason you can't get good art when it is made to sell!
> >People will buy only the stuff they know and therefore it is bad for
> >them! What's worse people who make art to sell are not taking any
> >chances in their personal work, Real art is (/was in it's time) risky,
> >challenging, difficult (indigestible?) and these days therefore very,
> >very bloody rare!
> >
> >
> >
>
> This particular thread weaves itself in and out of 75% of the posts here.
> For the sake of enlightenment, could you please specify artists and/or
> titles of work which demonstrate the point(s) you (y'all) reduntantly
> underscore. I.e. "Real art is (/was in it's time) risky, challenging,
> difficult."
>

I made a mistake. Instead of "real art" above I should have said "fine
art."

So we have many kinds of art. Fine art, commercial art, naive art,
industrial art, kitsch art, child art, amateur art, student art, more?
whatever else you call it it will be a derivative of: fine art.
Derivative means what it means, look it up for me.


My original point again is: when you make stuff with an eye to marketing
and selling it that's commercial art, which is a derivative of fine art.

Fine art comes out from your formal education (for most people) which
helps you remain highly alert to several things. You do a lot of
research, know art history extremely well, are knowledgeable in other
fields like philosophy, language, science, contemporary culture. You
are fluent in, though not obediant to, the current cultural phenomena of
our time: for example the postmodern condition. Most of all this stuff
is transformed into what you do best: your work.


You are doing something which scholars and thinkers are responding to,
or will respond to some time in the future. Your work is the basis for
generating further discourse among other artists of your caliber,
scholars, and contemporary thinkers.

You are a fine artist when eventually the gallery and museum comes to
you, you do not go to it (though you might send some slides to major
museums). This aggressive marketing of yourself and your art is an
import from Hollywood movie and entertainment industry where there are
thousands of unemployed actors/performers persuing their dreams.

You can't do fine art outside of major metropolitan areas without
difficulty. It is possible if you still remain in contact with the small
network of people you met in the "going concern" graduate school you
attended. They of course are still in or around the field and are
holding to the principles of fine art herein described. These original
people have met new people with similar disposition, education, and
ethos. Though it is a closed system ( like any profession) now and then
one of them sees art from an "outsider" someone who had no previous
contact with the "going concern" schools and they are given
consideration. No one gets anything by "kissing ass" it is all based on
the integrity and significance of the work.

So who are these artists? Well the ones you know from about 1985 and
before, discussed in the scholarly journals and only a handful of
magazines (artnews, and art in america *aren't* among them) you have a
pretty good chance of getting clues there. Of course all the major
artists who have withstood the test of time and are not forgotten in
the context of art history are fine artists. I'm sure there are a few
whose life-work was never "discovered" not many though, because there
are alot of art historical PhDs out there excavating everyday! The
findings are paltry, suggestive that everyone back then who has done
fine art has sent slides to museums a few times. (haha)


Who are the fine artists of today? That is most difficult. The problem
is that the field used to work quite well (see above) and then terrible
Pomo and entertainment industry ethos! Now it is all fouled up, hard to
find your way. But the commercial art, naive art, amateur art, hobby
art, whatever __remains the same__, still doesn't get anywhere except in
huge ways. Like Hollywood has taken over the art scene! Most of the big
names are commercial artists! Listen to what they say, who writes about
them. Like Siskel and Ebert contemporary (commercial) art criticism is
what it is. Anyway to answer the question: contemporary fine art is very
hard to see these days, there's too much blockbusting! I know of several
artists who do it but their names would probably be unknown to most
people.

To conclude, fine art is recogniseable but not obvious. Big-time living
artists are not necessarily fine artists. There still exists commercial
art, naive art, illustration, decorative art, amateur art, etc. They are
what they are and many artists who do it have aspirations of being
"discovered" and written about by some graduate student in a scholarly
journal or halfway decent magazine. It probably won't happen if you're
not already connected, _highly_ educated (self ed is permitted), living
near a big city where there are people who are also into fine art (as
described above). Most of all all this must support a coherent,
extended, challenging, difficult, (indigestible?) therefore risky body
of work.

Object to this all you want. This is not only my opinion. There is alot
of people who know this stuff. I guess they don't write about it
explicitly in rec fine arts or elsewhere.


Read this: I am glad there are alot of people doing charcoal drawings of
nudes, or watercolor scenes, or personal video exposes, only because it
does offer an important "spiritual" connectedness to what it means to be
human. The fact that someone assumes it will naturally be of
significant interest to someone else outside of immediate family or
friends is a major source of confusion. To attempt merge this original
spirit to commerce is impossible, and therefore the effort to do so
makes the work highly suspect.

Brother Alphabet

unread,
Nov 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/20/96
to

wsparker wrote:

> I think it is a pretty funny. Most of the creations I see that are
> made with an intention to sell art derived from art. Or it is art > as high-priced collector investment (far beyond the scope of this
> newsgroup?).

I didn't think the discussion was about making art with the intent to
sell. I thought we were talking about selling our work. There is a big
difference. Contrived for is one thing...But why should we not want to
sell our work? Is art not a career? Should we not want to earn money
for our efforts? Or are you so idealistic that you think art is
defiled by money?

> You can't get a healthy meal in a restaurant.

Who goes out to eat health food? I go out to get nasty bad-for-you
food. That's the joy of eating out. If I want tofu and wheat germ I'll
eat it in shame in my darkened kitchen. Life's too short to eat that
crap.

> Restaurants want
> people to come back for more so they make their food taste good. The > main ingredient for good tasting food (for Americans?) is FAT!

Er, no it's more likely spices. Fat isn't that bad for you if you eat
it in moderation, and very few good restaurants cook everything with
fat.

> People have a uneducated taste for fat. One wouldn't like fatty
> foods as much if you
> saw the inside of the clogged arteries.

Well, I've seen the inside of clogged arteries and I love evil foods.
I don't care if it's bad for me. The funniest part of health food is
that it wont extend your life by very long, and you will have spent
those few extra years (if you get them) eating bean sprouts while I
eat whatever i want. Most anyone alive today who is very old grew up
and lived their entire lives eating the food thats supposedly bad for
us. Meanwhile people who grew up eating hippie meals die of heart
attacks in their late 30s. Whats that telling us? That health food
causes stress because its nasty and then people keel over dead.

> For the same reason you can't get good (Ohhh....The food thing was
> an analogy) art when it is made to sell!

I agree, but that wasn't what anyone was recommending.

> People will buy only the stuff they know and therefore it is bad for
> them!

But who are we to tell someone what they can or can't spend their
money on. The strategies we discussed were about finding a way to
AVOID having to sell out. If the market you're in doesnt buy, find a
market that will instead of trying to tailor your work to the market.

> What's worse people who make art to sell are not taking any
> chances in their personal work, Real art is (/was in it's time)
> risky, challenging, difficult (indigestible?)

I don't think that artwork has to be on some sort of edge to be valid.
Most of the time the type of art you describe is the most contrived
load of poo out there.

> and these days
> therefore very,
> very bloody rare!

I would agree in part here, but how can you know what is challenging
to everyone. As an artist you are really unable to see what the
viewing public sees. You can't tell if even your own work is doing
anything...You only know what you see...Others also have that singular
view. Any sort of image may strike an individual as shocking or as
beautiful, and I think you know this quite well by now.

> I wouldn't call someone who operated in the above vein an "artist."
> I think a better word would be "craftsperson" for they repackage,
> recombine, restructure, rehash, the old style recipies and
> philosophies (eg. impressionism, abstraction, whateverism) into
> tenderized palatable
> portions for the consumer who has money to spend on decoration and
> bemusement.

Who is 'They'?
I was speaking solely for myself, and I have never been a
craftsperson, nor have I ever made repackaged impressionistic imagery
or whatever else. It's going to be a long, hard and uphill battle for
you to tell me I'm not an artist. I reccommend that you speak for
yourself as well. You go right ahead and be a complete novice in terms
of business and you work as a waiter or whatever you do, and pretend
to have morals and ethics and starve to death. As for myself, the more
I know about anything the better off i am, and if My art is truly to
be my career, I think I ought to know something about business.



> That's the problem, why it is funny to me, I totally disregard the
> business side as having anything to do with artmaking!

There was your mistake. We werent talking about art MAKING...we were
talking about art SELLING. What do you do with your works after your
done? Stick then in a closet and hope to be discovered after you die?



> Making a better widget and getting a profit is a good idea. Making
> objects that look like art should be profitable if there is a market > for them to exploit.

You need to move to a comunist country or something.
Then you can eat your potatoes and live your ideal life.
Better yet, try eating your paint.



> Are you sure you are into art?

Hmm..No....Let me think about it a second....

I paint/draw or write daily...
If I'm not doing that I am on the net researching and reading this
newsgroup...I then paint or draw or write some more...
My goal in life is to be a functional (which mean selling) painter,
Hmm...No, I guess I'm not into art at all.

> I don't know how you can say that,

It's because it's true. It's the way things happened in my life. For
some stupid reason I went to college and majored in marketing
originally...That was a mistake because I had never really wanted to
be in Marketing....But what I learned as a business major they didnt
teach in art school...how can that be a mystery to you? And, since
you're obviously so credible, have you ever studied up on, say,
business laws, copyright laws, etc? If not, how can you speak, and if
so, how has it harmed your artistic integrity?

Picasso was a millionaire. Debate the validity of his art as much as
you want, but he was a millionaire. I don't think I'm going to hide
from any kind of money. I could easily paint flower blossoms and sell
like hotcakes, but I don't. I do what I do, and I'm virtually homeless
for the effort. No idiot will ever accuse me of selling out, and I
certainly won't be chided for selling what I do.

> though I have considered the relationship between art and craft for
> a while...

Good for you. Now do something practical.


Hutto

wsparker

unread,
Nov 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/20/96
to

Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
>
> I didn't think the discussion was about making art with the intent to
> sell. I thought we were talking about selling our work. There is a big
> difference. Contrived for is one thing...But why should we not want to
> sell our work? Is art not a career? Should we not want to earn money
> for our efforts? Or are you so idealistic that you think art is
> defiled by money?

Please read my posting a little more carefully. What I am saying is
there is a difference between "fine" art and applied, or commercial or
student, or amateur art. Stuff that sells, is made to sell, art as a
career is probably not "fine" (i.e. the purest) art. There's a
difference I might consider useful.


>
> But who are we to tell someone what they can or can't spend their
> money on. The strategies we discussed were about finding a way to
> AVOID having to sell out. If the market you're in doesnt buy, find a
> market that will instead of trying to tailor your work to the market.

Sure, make all the money you want. Do whatever necessary (legally)to do
that. Also maybe realise that the art you make is subjected to these
influences, and is therefore transformed. Or, my other point, even
though you don't sell it it still may not be fine art! Could be lower
forms.

I know this sounds terrible, but if the truely open minded person bears
with me I think they will be "inspired" or at least positively
challenged by what I am trying to say.
>

> I would agree in part here, but how can you know what is challenging
> to everyone. As an artist you are really unable to see what the
> viewing public sees.


The "viewing public" is too vague for me. Who is looking at this work?
Even the best exhibitions have huge numbers of people who are very
passively involved.


You can't tell if even your own work is doing
> anything...You only know what you see...Others also have that singular
> view. Any sort of image may strike an individual as shocking or as
> beautiful, and I think you know this quite well by now.


No, I am saying if you do your homework and get very alert, informed
and intelligent, you can make some distinctions that will make a
difference for you. What is shocking to one person may be totally
unnoticed by the other since the other is not aware of the innovation
which may have provided the shock; he has no background from which to
make the assessment that something amazing has happened.


>
> > I wouldn't call someone who operated in the above vein an "artist."
> > I think a better word would be "craftsperson" for they repackage,
> > recombine, restructure, rehash, the old style recipies and
> > philosophies (eg. impressionism, abstraction, whateverism) into
> > tenderized palatable
> > portions for the consumer who has money to spend on decoration and
> > bemusement.
>
> Who is 'They'?


The person who makes art that is derivative, stuff that probably will
sell, though lots of derviative art doesn't sell.


> I was speaking solely for myself, and I have never been a
> craftsperson, nor have I ever made repackaged impressionistic imagery
> or whatever else. It's going to be a long, hard and uphill battle for
> you to tell me I'm not an artist.

I don't know what you are. I am describing what I presently think about
things.

Artist I am talking are more performers, an interpreter of an existing
idiom, they didn't innovate, they derive, recombine, reiterate. The
language of their imagery is known to me, I can read their pictures, I
have seen the basis for them in earlier historically significant work.


Nowadays most all we have is interpretation, performace of existing
scores. Sure you may be an artist, like a musician is an artist, one of
great craft, one who subjugates his own genuine insight about a piece to
the piece itself, the insight of the composer. He did not compose the
piece. Anyway I am not sure how far this analogy holds. But one may
call oneself an artist, but they may not be an innovative one, therefore
"fine" is not their art.


I am skeptical about how many artists who need to sell their work or
have a wide audience. I don't put all artists on the same level.


I reccommend that you speak for
> yourself as well. You go right ahead and be a complete novice in terms
> of business and you work as a waiter or whatever you do, and pretend
> to have morals and ethics and starve to death.


Everybody does what they have to do. Not everybody makes "fine" art. I
defined it as best as I can in my other post.

As for myself, the more
> I know about anything the better off i am, and if My art is truly to
> be my career, I think I ought to know something about business.
>
> > That's the problem, why it is funny to me, I totally disregard the
> > business side as having anything to do with artmaking!
>
> There was your mistake. We werent talking about art MAKING...we were
> talking about art SELLING. What do you do with your works after your
> done? Stick then in a closet and hope to be discovered after you die?
>

I'm talking about the relationship between art and the marketplace! How
easily corrupted that relationship is!

I am talking how funny it seems to me to make art as a "career" and
think of one's art being significant, challenging and innovative at the
same time! You are bending to influences that corrupt the process. You
are probably not doing a whole bunch of other things. See my recent
postings.


> > Are you sure you are into art?
> Hmm..No....Let me think about it a second....
>
> I paint/draw or write daily...
> If I'm not doing that I am on the net researching and reading this
> newsgroup...I then paint or draw or write some more...
> My goal in life is to be a functional (which mean selling) painter,
> Hmm...No, I guess I'm not into art at all.


Okay okay, you're into art. I'm into literature, into music, into
phrenology, into birdwatching.... How do you define what you are?
Really? Only you can decide. I asked are you sure? You don't have to
answer to me. Who said it was easy, who said it wasn't frustrating. ask:
am I sure I am doing what it is I think I am doing?


You do what you need to do; life offers all kinds of challenges. Choose
wisely.

I do not write to his stuff to greatly upset people. It is the democracy
of the net we should appreciate.

I am trying to make sense of the mess we find ourselves in since (among
other things) the marketplace appropriated the artist. The overt
acceptablility of this relationship among formerly fine "non-commercial"
artists is a fairly recent development. It is *not* recent development
for craftspeople!

wsparker

unread,
Nov 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/21/96
to

kajoj...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <3291C3...@olympus.net>, wsparker <w...@olympus.net> writes:
>
> >For the same reason you can't get good art when it is made to sell!

> >People will buy only the stuff they know and therefore it is bad for
> >them! blah blah blah...

>
> This particular thread weaves itself in and out of 75% of the posts here.
> For the sake of enlightenment, could you please specify artists and/or
> titles of work which demonstrate the point(s) you (y'all) reduntantly
> underscore. I.e. "Real art is (/was in it's time) risky, challenging,
> difficult."

I think you are assuming my posting will be the "same old stuff." I
don't intend to add to the bickering. I wanted to show, among other
things, why museum shows (as opposed to commercial galleries), and
"discovery" are usually not the fate of many artists.

My intention is not to upset people nor weakly argue a salient point
related to the insecurity of this enterprise. I want to help shed light
on the structuring of the art world, what is, how it works, and even why
it works that way.


Here, everyone seems too comfortable with the approach to selling your
art, no one seems to take to heart the serious implications of that
approach. Is it too easy to keep your rationalizations in overdrive when
there's the promise (however remote) of a check involved?

mari...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/21/96
to

In article <3292C2...@olympus.net>, wsparker <w...@olympus.net> writes:
<mondo snippo>
>So who are these artists? <snip> Of course all the major

>artists who have withstood the test of time and are not forgotten in
>the context of art history are fine artists. I'm sure there are a few
>whose life-work was never "discovered" not many though, because there
>are alot of art historical PhDs out there excavating everyday! The
>findings are paltry, suggestive that everyone back then who has done
>fine art has sent slides to museums a few times. (haha) <great snippage>

Oooh. Ouch. You're forgetting that artists who qualify as "major artists


who have withstood the test of time and are not forgotten in the context

of art history" are, the vast majority of them, white male western
europeans. This is because western society long took the view that
anybody else wasn't worthy of notice. We're looking at art history with
our own preconceived notions of what constitutes art and artists. We must
also remember that any art that has "withstood the test of time and art
history" did so because of the preconceived notions of what constituted
art and art history *at that time*.
As late as 1980, Janson's History of Modern Art (can't give the
particulars because I lost the book in a house fire) contained absolutely
*no* references to female artists.
Does this mean, by extension, that (for example) the work of medieval
women and minorities is not fine art because the prevailing societal
attitude *at that time* did not value them or their work enough to
preserve it as art? I think not.

Maricat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

Coffee: black as Hell, strong as Death, sweet as Love. --Turkish
Proverb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------

kajoj...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/22/96
to

In article <329421...@olympus.net>, wsparker <w...@olympus.net> writes:

>> This particular thread weaves itself in and out of 75% of the posts
here.
>> For the sake of enlightenment, could you please specify artists and/or
>> titles of work which demonstrate the point(s) you (y'all) reduntantly
>> underscore. I.e. "Real art is (/was in it's time) risky, challenging,
>> difficult."
>
>I think you are assuming my posting will be the "same old stuff." I
>don't intend to add to the bickering. I wanted to show, among other
>things, why museum shows (as opposed to commercial galleries), and
>"discovery" are usually not the fate of many artists.
>

Yes, I did assume the "same old stuff." And I now see that I mistook your
point.


>My intention is not to upset people nor weakly argue a salient point
>related to the insecurity of this enterprise. I want to help shed light
>on the structuring of the art world, what is, how it works, and even why
>it works that way.
>

This could be interesting...
...however...

>Here, everyone seems too comfortable with the approach to selling your
>art, no one seems to take to heart the serious implications of that
>approach. Is it too easy to keep your rationalizations in overdrive when
>there's the promise (however remote) of a check involved?
>

The promise of a check usually equates to a hassle - getting the check,
yes, I'm very comfortable with that.

How can art ever be realized without some kind of carrot on a stick? I've
long held the belief that art - like cream - will float to the top. But
to get the cream, you have to have lots of milk. (Sorry, another kitchen
analogy- two food analogies, actually)

Start over - I paint, therefore I am. What the museums decide to take is
not my concern. Nothing inhibits my inspiriation to paint more than a
bunch of old paintings stacked around with no place to go. I have to
paint and I have to get rid of them. So I try to sell them. If they
don't sell, they either go into my private collection or get recycled as
underpaintings. It's what I do - and if I don't do it - Art (with a
capital A) will not be made - for sure!

(Disclaimer - the view presented here is one derived from personal
experience and does not intend to represent everyone.)

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

Shaily Wardimon

unread,
Nov 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/22/96
to

wsparker wrote:
> "My original point again is: when you make stuff with an eye to marketing
> and selling it that's commercial art, which is a derivative of fine art."

Some of the things you're saying are not clear enough to me, for
instance - If you want or have to live from your art and need the money
- what do you do? You need the money - therefor you think about selling.
You think about selling - therefor your art becomes commercial art (?).
according to this you can't create fine art if you need the money. What
about the way things used to be - an artist had to consider his patron's
feelings and requests. Are you saying that the meaning of art has
changed since than that much? I'm not attacking you, I really want to
know...


> "Fine art comes out from your formal education (for most people) which
> helps you remain highly alert to several things. You do a lot of
> research, know art history extremely well, are knowledgeable in other
> fields like philosophy, language, science, contemporary culture. You
> are fluent in, though not obediant to, the current cultural phenomena of
> our time: for example the postmodern condition. Most of all this stuff
> is transformed into what you do best: your work.

> You can't do fine art outside of major metropolitan areas without


> difficulty. It is possible if you still remain in contact with the small
> network of people you met in the "going concern" graduate school you
> attended. They of course are still in or around the field and are
> holding to the principles of fine art herein described. These original
> people have met new people with similar disposition, education, and
> ethos. Though it is a closed system ( like any profession) now and then
> one of them sees art from an "outsider" someone who had no previous
> contact with the "going concern" schools and they are given
> consideration. No one gets anything by "kissing ass" it is all based on
> the integrity and significance of the work."

I understand what you are saying but I am wondering: where does this
leave art as a way of expression for the thinking, educated and
observing person that lives his quiet life in a small pastoral place -
maybe he has something new and interesting to show the world, a huge
visual revelation... Isn't what Gauguin and many others do relevant at
all today (and I didn't mean discussing "the truth of the nature" here,
just the concept of having to be in direct contact to the metropolitan).
Everything is turning to be so esoteric, why should fine art be such a
confined thing?
Shaily wardimon.

wsparker

unread,
Nov 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/22/96
to

mari...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <3292C2...@olympus.net>, wsparker <w...@olympus.net> writes:
> <mondo snippo>
> >So who are these artists? <snip> Of course all the major

> >artists who have withstood the test of time and are not forgotten in
> >the context of art history are fine artists.


>
> Oooh. Ouch. You're forgetting that artists who qualify as "major artists


> who have withstood the test of time and are not forgotten in the context

> of art history" are, the vast majority of them, white male western
> europeans.

I am talking about a *set of artists* wherein one characteristic of that
set, which is germane to my argument, is that it is *not* gender
specific. Though I am aware if the massive oversights you refer to I
have in no way even approached, encroached upon, the gender issue in
this thread.

You may raise that issue, but perhaps more detail is needed and you are
welcome to furnish it perhaps by starting a new thread. If I have
anything to add, I will be delighted to respond to your posting on the
issues you raise.

wsparker

unread,
Nov 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/22/96
to

Shaily Wardimon wrote:

>
> wsparker wrote:
> > "My original point again is: when you make stuff with an eye to marketing
> > and selling it that's commercial art, which is a derivative of fine art."
>
> Some of the things you're saying are not clear enough to me, for
> instance - If you want or have to live from your art and need the money
> - what do you do? You need the money - therefor you think about selling.

Who said it was easy? I am very skeptical about the connection between
art that has significance to the collective and the marketplace! It may
have significance to the buyer.

> You think about selling - therefor your art becomes commercial art (?).
> according to this you can't create fine art if you need the money.

You can create art that you can sell. The significance of that art is in
question.

Even if you don't attempt to sell it, it is in question if you make
your art in isolation.

If you make it only for yourself you have a chance of it being truly
gratifying.

If you make it only for yourself and you are in the midst of a highly
charged intellectual creative environ, withall sorts of creative people
(i.e big metro area) and/or in contact with the network you started in
graduate school, your art might amount to something bigger than our
lifetimes.

What
> about the way things used to be - an artist had to consider his patron's
> feelings and requests. Are you saying that the meaning of art has
> changed since than that much?

I don't know about the hundreds of renaissance *artistsans* whose
creative voices were quashed by the arrogant demands of their newly
rich patrons. I guess a few (the ones we know today) were able to
transcend that tyranny so prevalent.


I guess today the positively generative patron-artist relationship is
rare. Duchamp and the Arensburgs come to mind, it is very rare to have
an advocate who is supportive and has a penchant for art they don't
quite understand and is intelligent and also centered enough to support
new art. Lots of times there are such patrons but the artists they
support are charlatans! Mostly the p[atron wants art that they like, art
that reassures their perceptions, not art that challenges them.

I'm not attacking you, I really want to
> know...


Me too! I don't know where I am going with all this. I certainly don't
want anybody to feel terrible about what I am saying.


> > "Fine art comes out from your formal education (for most people) which
> > helps you remain highly alert to several things. You do a lot of
> > research, know art history extremely well, are knowledgeable in other
> > fields like philosophy, language, science, contemporary culture. You
> > are fluent in, though not obediant to, the current cultural phenomena of
> > our time: for example the postmodern condition. Most of all this stuff
> > is transformed into what you do best: your work.
>

> > You can't do fine art outside of major metropolitan areas without
> > difficulty. It is possible if you still remain in contact with the small
> > network of people you met in the "going concern" graduate school you
> > attended. They of course are still in or around the field and are
> > holding to the principles of fine art herein described. These original
> > people have met new people with similar disposition, education, and
> > ethos. Though it is a closed system ( like any profession) now and then
> > one of them sees art from an "outsider" someone who had no previous
> > contact with the "going concern" schools and they are given
> > consideration. No one gets anything by "kissing ass" it is all based on
> > the integrity and significance of the work."


>

> I understand what you are saying but I am wondering: where does this
> leave art as a way of expression for the thinking, educated and
> observing person that lives his quiet life in a small pastoral place -
> maybe he has something new and interesting to show the world, a huge
> visual revelation...

I have respect for people who can live fruitfully like you are
suggesting. I don't think that you can expect anything to come out of
it; you would be making art for your own purposes.

When you enter "the world" it gets confusing to me. As Ms. Stein said,
"99% of everything is crap," and "fame is worth a cup of spit."

So I wouldn't think about the world in relation to your personal
investigations.

So whom would I consider showing my work to? Well from your past
education you made connections with people who may still be out there
and working, contact with them and the new people they have met will
certainly compliment your work if not also your feelings of isolation
(assuming you have these feelings).

As far as getting "exposure" for your work, anyone who wants that
probably never had it and wants to try it out. I can **assure** you such
exposure doesn't add much to your already genuine intentions. I mean,
except for the *remote* chance of meeting one or two people (assuming
you don't have anyone) exposure is irrelevant to the work. Go to a few
museums or galleries and evesdrop on the conversations. Put out a blind
comment book (i.e.a box with a slot in it) and see the level of the
response to your work. Look at other comment books.

I have never seen anything in a comment book that dealt with the issues
in the work in any significant way. It is rare for people to meet thru
their work! (I'm talking about significant working relationships (not
"coffee klatch or commiseration).

Isn't what Gauguin and many others do relevant at
> all today (and I didn't mean discussing "the truth of the nature" here,
> just the concept of having to be in direct contact to the metropolitan).

What I meant there was if you want to do significant art, i.e. art that
has a good chance to be truely innovative, challenging, risky,
****probably too difficult for any existing model of seeing,*** well you
are probably only going to it from seeing alot of art, alot of
intellectuals, an excellent graduate school, a culture of literati,
alot of creative activity. Only after getting such exposure may you
develop the essential terms of your work and perhaps move away to the
desert and work thru them. I don't know what those terms may be but you
don't invent them in isolation from isolation.

> Everything is turning to be so esoteric, why should fine art be such a
> confined thing?

I believe that if you want to make (for example) an extended visual
personal diary, using whatever means you have at your disposal the
effort will be worth it. It will be personally rewarding and of interest
to family and close freinds. Forget selling it (though you may be
lucky). If you want to charcoal sketch nudes or write poety fine, no one
ever has to read it to make it more real, more significant to you. In
the end maybe your grandchildren will cherish your work!

That's what art is for. Back then (e.g.) Gaugin was doing it for
himself. I don't know the motives for the people who may have bought his
work while he was alive. But that was an entirely different era and I
have no good idea how it compares to the "professional artist" and the
"quality control" of the products s/he markets today!

!

wsparker

unread,
Nov 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/23/96
to

kajoj...@aol.com wrote:
>


>
> Start over - I paint, therefore I am. What the museums decide to take is
> not my concern.

They are doing what they do regardless of what most artists think.

Nothing inhibits my inspiriation to paint more than a
> bunch of old paintings stacked around with no place to go. I have to
> paint and I have to get rid of them. So I try to sell them. If they
> don't sell, they either go into my private collection or get recycled as
> underpaintings. It's what I do - and if I don't do it - Art (with a
> capital A) will not be made - for sure!


Sounds like you have your priorities straight. I'm curious about your
assertion that a stack of paintings inhibits your inspiration. Though
since you describe an efficient means of alleviating the problem, no
big deal... .


A few accomplished writers I know, realize it is "wrong," but they
count the words they generated each day and have personal minimum
requirements!

kajoj...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/24/96
to

In article <margeryE...@netcom.com>, mar...@netcom.com (Margery
Cohen) writes:

>The Ellsworth Kelly show at the Guggenheim (89 th st.) is one that
>shouldn't be missed.

I won't be able to see the show in person, but thanks to your in-depth
review of the show and the museum, I feel like I've at least had a
glimpse. I've always felt that Ellsworth Kelly is a class act - sounds
like you do, too.

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

kajoj...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/25/96
to

In article <3296A8...@olympus.net>, wsparker <w...@olympus.net> writes:

>
>. I'm curious about your
>assertion that a stack of paintings inhibits your inspiration. Though
>since you describe an efficient means of alleviating the problem, no
>big deal... .

No big deal...but I think the depression and mood swings many (if not
most, by some accounts) artists experience has a lot to do with their work
not being appreciated by the public - or whoever. In our paintings and
other art forms, we open ourselves to the "world." If rejected or (worse)
ignored, where is the motivation to continue? Unless, of course, your
intention is to convey the dark and morbid side of life - then a stack of
unappreciated paintings could be the source of great inspiration!


>A few accomplished writers I know, realize it is "wrong," but they
>count the words they generated each day and have personal minimum
>requirements!

I understand the value in disipline, but there's nothing like a deadline
to find out what you can really accomplish!

.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm

AB

unread,
Dec 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/1/96
to

May I stumble in?

As a forward, I dropped into this NG because I've just started to
sketch and discovered that I have enough talent to make time spent
drawing (and extensions of that...) worthwhile to me (more on that in
a moment.)
My mother studied art when I was growing up and I, being close to her
at the time, therefore have a broad, albeit somewhat vague, knowledge
of art, styles, and art history. That knowledge, combined with a few
years of college and a appetite for the spiritual (hopefully in a more
mature sense,) makes me wonder what this conversation is really about.
I mean to say - and I hope not too simplemindedly - isn't what is
important in art, "fine" or otherwise, what is gotten from it by the
artist or any appreciator?
According to my understanding of your (Parker) definitions, I would
probably fall into the category of "craft" aftist, or perhaps
"student" artist (at best,) and since I have no formal education (and
in fact almost no informal education either,) there is no chance that
I could be considered a "fine" artist. And if a "fine" artist can
only be one who brings extensive education and the skill that comes
with that (hopefully,) and create works of sublimely crafted quality,
then that makes sense. However, what is the value of that
distinction? Isn't a more important distinction that which delineates
between someone who does not connect with their work and exhibits no
soul, and someone who does?
It would be foolish to argue that years of sketching and learning from
a "real" teacher (etc., ad nauseum) would not allow me subtler tone,
deeper composition, and more intelligent complexity -- or simplicity;
And I can certainly appreciate the feeling that artists (of any kind)
must get when notoriety, fame and fortune are heaped upon those who
lack a highly refined skill set. I would also agree that a line must
be *somewhere*, but why make the elite, the true "real" artists, those
who posess "the craft," rather than those who posess the "art" - in
the sense of expression (there being, of course, a heavy overlap)?
Which leads me to commercial art -- meaning any art that is created
for the purpose of sale. Again, if the artist actually *expresses*
from somewhere deep within, rather than mechanically crafting
something, is that not an intrinsically satisfying piece/experience?
Does it matter whether the buyer ever understands or feels that, or
whether the artist knew in advance that he/she would not posess the
piece later? The art created solely for the artist him or herself, in
your world, will only be experienced by that same artist (at most an
elite few); but is that experience not the same as that felt by the
"commercial" -- but soulful -- artist who then sells the art --
whether that be to someone who appreciates it in any sophisticated and
developed way or not?
Which brings me full circle to my comment about my finding that it is
"worthwhile" for me to pursue sketching (art in general.) It is so
because I feel something deep inside that tremendously enjoys coming
out onto the paper, through whatever instrument. That, to me, makes
me an artist, a person who has discovered access to something profound
that lies within; something that indeed lies within us all -- the only
truly important distinction, in my mind, being between those who
choose to and those who choose not to find it, develop it, and express
it.
The other side of this coin is the witness. The equation can be more
complicated, the expression travel, twisted or not, into any or all of
the nooks and crannies of the culture(s) and society(-ies,) and be
experienced by anyone in any way. That too is art, no? And what does
this traveling do to the art's value as a whole? Nothing?
Certainly we can narrow the focus to the individual and purity of
expression for the purest of reasons, but you (Parker) included the
outside world yourself with the attentions of the galleries coming to
the "fine" artist; So there is an outside appreciator. There is
something more than the individual, something to be communicated...
This itself says that the value of art transcends the experience of
the creation by the creator, and that opens wide the field of value.
Again, as we have come back to the concept of transaction -- be it
priced by money or not, is not the deeper thread the value of the
experience -- by any party -- rather than the deftness of crafting?

I hope you will take this in the spirit it is intended. I do not wish
to demean the value of "fine art," but rather to include, if not
refocus on, a value that may seem too simple to be worthy of comment,
and, sadly, of experience.

On a more mundane note: as I do believe that practice is crucial, and
since I've no time for traditional schooling, can you recommend any
particular books or give any sage advice for someone in my position
(like where to SELL MY ART... just kidding)?

A. Byers


wsparker

unread,
Dec 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/4/96
to

AB wrote:

However, what is the value of that
> distinction? Isn't a more important distinction that which delineates
> between someone who does not connect with their work and exhibits no
> soul, and someone who does?

Absolutely. And if that were your effort to connect with the soul. well,
you would have your life's work cut out for you. There would be no
shortage of things to do, study, experience. Your energy is limited so
you should do well to establish the priorities in your life. You'd have
no time for nonsense. Alot of behavior in the "artworld" is nonsense!!
Nonsense? Guess what I think is artworld nonsense!


> Which leads me to commercial art -- meaning any art that is created

> for the purpose of sale. Again, if rather than mechanically crafting


> something, is that not an intrinsically satisfying piece/experience?


Absolutely, satisfying if..."the artist actually *expresses* from
somewhere deep within," problem is that they often don't expecially in
commercial art.

Think of the the difference between a marching band on parade and a
philharmonic doing Mozart.

It is all gratifying, but only a little bit is going to get you closer
to a soulfullness you describe.

> Does it matter whether the buyer ever understands or feels that, or
> whether the artist knew in advance that he/she would not posess the
> piece later?


Buyers (not friends of colleagues who "buy" or are given) are two kinds

One: they want to see you "succeed" as a human being, though they don't
really understand what you are doing, they see at some level that your
work is important for human beings to be human beings.

Two: they are ego oriented, know what they like, and you're work
appeals to them.


The art created solely for the artist him or herself, in
> your world, will only be experienced by that same artist (at most an
> elite few);


The subtlties are infinite in "fine" art. You see more in it every time
over a period of years. This takes alot of honor and dedication. Again,
a few people only!

but is that experience not the same as that felt by the
> "commercial" -- but soulful -- artist who then sells the art --
> whether that be to someone who appreciates it in any sophisticated and
> developed way or not?

Highly doubtful! I suppose it is possible but not in this world; one
where it is difficult to separate your essential humaness from a
shopping mall.

> Which brings me full circle to my comment about my finding that it is
> "worthwhile" for me to pursue sketching (art in general.) It is so
> because I feel something deep inside that tremendously enjoys coming
> out onto the paper, through whatever instrument. That, to me, makes
> me an artist, a person who has discovered access to something profound
> that lies within; something that indeed lies within us all -- the only
> truly important distinction, in my mind, being between those who
> choose to and those who choose not to find it, develop it, and express
> it.
>

I applaud you and people like you. Diligent focussed effort and the
spirit takes care of itself.

When ready, it will compell you to seek out more challenges.


The other side of this coin is the witness. The equation can
be more
> complicated, the expression travel, twisted or not, into any or all of
> the nooks and crannies of the culture(s) and society(-ies,) and be
> experienced by anyone in any way. That too is art, no? And what does
> this traveling do to the art's value as a whole? Nothing?


I don't understand really what you say here. But I guess I can say that
everything else is meaningless outside of a few friends and colleagues.
Art History, takes care of itself. I'm not sure what you are saying,
travel to Florence, Italy?


> Certainly we can narrow the focus to the individual and purity of
> expression for the purest of reasons, but you (Parker) included the
> outside world yourself with the attentions of the galleries coming to
> the "fine" artist; So there is an outside appreciator. There is
> something more than the individual, something to be communicated...
> This itself says that the value of art transcends the experience of
> the creation by the creator, and that opens wide the field of value.

The outside appreciator necessarily has a dim view! I have stated
eleswhere that very few people ever come to exhibitions and connect
there in a substantial way to the work!! The viewer is from the "fine"
artist's point of view insignificant! S/he's gonna do what needs to be
done regardless of what amount of attention lack of attention they get!!
I did say a few friends close colleagues ARE impt to the work.


as I do believe that practice is crucial, and
> since I've no time for traditional schooling, can you recommend any
> particular books or give any sage advice for someone in my position

I like these books lately

"Why Duchamp?" Gianfranco BAruchello

"Conversations before the end of time" Suzi Gablik convers. with about
20 contemp art figures about the future of art

"Homo Aestheticus, Where art comes from and Why" by Ellen Dissanayake, a
cultural anthropologist looks at artmaking, where the need comes from,
cross culturally.

Good Luck!

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages