how to sell a painting
jha...@om.com.au
people out of one hundred liked my paintings I was suitably glowing in my
acceptance of their accolades. Unfortunately none of the ninety nine liked
the paintings enough to purchase them. Sometime later, perplexed, I exhibited
a few paintings I had painted for myself. They were almost universally hated
but two people needed them so much they actually purchased them. They said
they wanted them for reasons I did not dispute as the money was, at the time,
fortitutious. I was mystified and perplexed. Do I paint for the ninety nine
or the one or two who will buy? Or should I just paint for myself? John Hagan
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Iian Neill
> people out of one hundred liked my paintings I was suitably glowing in my
> acceptance of their accolades. Unfortunately none of the ninety nine liked
> the paintings enough to purchase them. Sometime later, perplexed, I exhibited
> a few paintings I had painted for myself. They were almost universally hated
> but two people needed them so much they actually purchased them. They said
> they wanted them for reasons I did not dispute as the money was, at the time,
> fortitutious. I was mystified and perplexed. Do I paint for the ninety nine
> or the one or two who will buy? Or should I just paint for myself? John Hagan
It depends on what your goals are. If you are out to make a lot of money very
quickly, then you may wish to paint subjects the buying public is likely to pay
for - and paint them in a style that they find agreeable. However, if artistic
integrity is your goal, then you would be best to paint works which satisfy
yourself, regardless of whether the themes are the "in thing", or whether people
find your technique to cold and precise or two warm and loose.
In the end, artistic integrity will probably be more satisfying to anyone who
seriously pursues the art.
Remember, art is a fundamentally selfish activity. The artist paints what he
wants, in the style he wants, when he wants to. This doesn't mean that a
commission isn't as 'ethical' as a non-commissioned work - in this case, the
painter has set boundaries, and has to achieve those goals. But, like the pianist
who is asked to play Chopin, surely there is infinite space within these
limitations to create work of quality and true self expression.
The artist who paints only to please other people is not putting himself into the
work - because he has had to compromise his standards, his ideas, and taste. When
the artist has sacrificed his integrity - even for the best of causes - then the
work suffers.
Art is a selfish activity which people enjoy more, the more selfish it is. This
doesn't mean you are obliged to paint abstract canvases which only have 'meaning'
to you; expressing yourself may, instead, connote crafstmanship and aesthetic
clarity. An art work isn't necessarily more self-expressive if only one person
out of a million understands it ; that just makes it obscure. An art work isn't
necessarily more self-expressive when you eliminate perspective, accurate
rendering and life-like colours ; that just makes it technically deficient. An
art work IS self-expressive when others feel what you intended them to feel. If
you painted a tragic scene with the intention of conveying sadness, and then your
audience laughs in derision at your weak drawing skills, sloppy colour or
constipated composition, then you know for sure that you haven't achieved your
goals - and when those goals aren't achieved, the art work is a failure.
Now ... what are the proper goals for art? Ahhhh ha! This should be a nice
contentious issue to raise.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
"All art constantly aspires to the condition of music."
-- Walter Pater
Andrew Werby
> As a young artist I wanted to be universally accepted and if ninety nine
> people out of one hundred liked my paintings I was suitably glowing in my
> acceptance of their accolades. Unfortunately none of the ninety nine liked
> the paintings enough to purchase them. Sometime later, perplexed, I exhibited
> a few paintings I had painted for myself. They were almost universally hated
> but two people needed them so much they actually purchased them. They said
> they wanted them for reasons I did not dispute as the money was, at the time,
> fortitutious. I was mystified and perplexed. Do I paint for the ninety nine
> or the one or two who will buy? Or should I just paint for myself? John Hagan
[An instructive anecdote, John. Thanks for sharing it. There is something
mystical about the force which draws people's money out of their wallets.
I think you are perfectly justified in painting for the few who like your
work enough to pay this material tribute, instead of for the many who will
express lukewarm appreciation in words only. This is doubly fortunate if it
happens to accord with your own predelictions.
But what if the situation were reversed? What if you painted "easy" pictures
that sold well, but the "difficult" ones sailed right over people's heads,
and nobody liked them- or bought them? Would you perservere in the unpopular
vein, leading horses to water they won't drink, or go with the flow, as it
were? Or would you compromise, painting some money paintings to keep yourself
alive for the struggle? What ratio would you arrive at, I wonder? I recall
reading that Picasso dealt with this dilemma by churning out a flood of
sellable paintings, while keeping back works like his "Demoiselles d'Avignon"
until the world was ready.]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
Philip Ayers
>
> In article <6u262o$9pq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jha...@om.com.au wrote:
>
> > As a young artist I wanted to be universally accepted and if ninety nine
> > people out of one hundred liked my paintings I was suitably glowing in my
> > acceptance of their accolades. Unfortunately none of the ninety nine liked
> > the paintings enough to purchase them. Sometime later, perplexed, I exhibited
> > a few paintings I had painted for myself. They were almost universally hated
> > but two people needed them so much they actually purchased them. They said
> > they wanted them for reasons I did not dispute as the money was, at the time,
> > fortitutious. I was mystified and perplexed. Do I paint for the ninety nine
> > or the one or two who will buy? Or should I just paint for myself?
This whole idea is bogus! It just isn't possible to "decide to", or
"decide not to" make money from your work. Even an s.o.b. like that
s.o.b. 'can't remember that s.o.b.'s name who does chrome shit for
idiots, *had the "right" networks* apriori. The truth is, selling work
has a lot less to do with the kind & quality of a given person's work,
than who the artists and artist's friends & dealer are!, it's the
network stupid. What's ironic is that the National Endowment For the
Arts artist's fellowship application was an amazingly fair process & it
-did- to a large extent depend on the "kind of" & to a lesser degree,
the "quality" of work an artist did. This is not a simple world but it
is the only world!
jha...@om.com.au
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> In article <6u262o$9pq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jha...@om.com.au wrote:
>
> > As a young artist I wanted to be universally accepted and if ninety nine
> > people out of one hundred liked my paintings I was suitably glowing in my
> > acceptance of their accolades. Unfortunately none of the ninety nine liked
> > the paintings enough to purchase them. Sometime later, perplexed, I
exhibited
> > a few paintings I had painted for myself. They were almost universally hated
> > but two people needed them so much they actually purchased them. They said
> > they wanted them for reasons I did not dispute as the money was, at the
time,
> > fortitutious. I was mystified and perplexed. Do I paint for the ninety nine
Hagan
>
> [An instructive anecdote, John. Thanks for sharing it. There is something
> mystical about the force which draws people's money out of their wallets.
> I think you are perfectly justified in painting for the few who like your
> work enough to pay this material tribute, instead of for the many who will
> express lukewarm appreciation in words only. This is doubly fortunate if it
> happens to accord with your own predelictions.
>
> But what if the situation were reversed? What if you painted "easy" pictures
> that sold well, but the "difficult" ones sailed right over people's heads,
> and nobody liked them- or bought them? Would you perservere in the unpopular
> vein, leading horses to water they won't drink, or go with the flow, as it
> were? Or would you compromise, painting some money paintings to keep yourself
> alive for the struggle? What ratio would you arrive at, I wonder? I recall
> reading that Picasso dealt with this dilemma by churning out a flood of
> sellable paintings, while keeping back works like his "Demoiselles d'Avignon"
> until the world was ready.]
>
> Andrew Werby
>
Andrew, The reason I posted that message was due to a recent visit from a
young and talented artist. He showed me some of his works which were very
competent imitations of the style of three well known and successful
practicing artists. He was having difficulty making a living selling the
paintings and could not understand the reason. He knew the paintings were
technically good, as good as the paintings he imitated. But still no one
would buy. This was not the first time I have come across this problem so I
felt I needed to make a comment that may help resolve the situation. I asked
him if he had any work of his own. He looked embarrassed and said no. I then
questioned him as to what he would paint if given the freedom to paint what
he wanted. He looked at me as if I had just stepped of a mars space probe. I
then pointed out that since his present endeavours were not working he might
as well leap into the unknown and do something for himself then try and sell
it. What was the risk? What was there to lose? It turned out he really wanted
to paint more recognisable paintings but felt afraid to try. He was
frightened of ridicule of other artists if the work looked to realistic too
'traditional' to quote his words. I told him courage was the first step in a
long journey..... regards, John Hagan.
Marilyn Welch
"it's the network stupid."
I'll try to remember that
in my art-marketing hell.
ps: my son just told me he would rather be sued than
try to sell art work.
Marilyn
so...@shikoku.or.jp
selling art. Recently, I've begun selling my stuff. It's nice. It's really
has been a nice time in my life. If you want to see your stuff sell, you
really do have to get out there and make sure people have the opportunity to
see it. As you show your stuff, some people will love it. Those people, if
they become your friends, will go out and help you do sales, voluntarily,
without you even asking them.
You should read the book "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. In the book she
talks about an architect who refuses to conform to the current stylistic
standards of architecture. He ends up offending almost every other architect
he comes in contact with because his attitudes concerning architecture
basically disapprove of their styles. Everyone sees him as a threat and
therefore hates him. Several people though, very few, love his stuff
desperately and give him business. Afterwards, those people adamantly defend
and support him. Eventually, those people bring him other business and
eventually he becomes successful, but it takes a very long time. It's
probably one of the ten most important books I've ever read in my life.
You really should check it out.
In article <3606FA...@mindspring.com>,
Philip Ayers <p.a...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Andrew Werby wrote:
> >
> > In article <6u262o$9pq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jha...@om.com.au wrote:
> >
> > > As a young artist I wanted to be universally accepted and if ninety nine
> > > people out of one hundred liked my paintings I was suitably glowing in my
> > > acceptance of their accolades. Unfortunately none of the ninety nine liked
> > > the paintings enough to purchase them. Sometime later, perplexed, I
exhibited
> > > a few paintings I had painted for myself. They were almost universally
hated
> > > but two people needed them so much they actually purchased them. They said
> > > they wanted them for reasons I did not dispute as the money was, at the
time,
> > > fortitutious. I was mystified and perplexed. Do I paint for the ninety
nine
> > > or the one or two who will buy? Or should I just paint for myself?
>
> This whole idea is bogus! It just isn't possible to "decide to", or
> "decide not to" make money from your work. Even an s.o.b. like that
> s.o.b. 'can't remember that s.o.b.'s name who does chrome shit for
> idiots, *had the "right" networks* apriori. The truth is, selling work
> has a lot less to do with the kind & quality of a given person's work,
> than who the artists and artist's friends & dealer are!, it's the
> network stupid. What's ironic is that the National Endowment For the
> Arts artist's fellowship application was an amazingly fair process & it
> -did- to a large extent depend on the "kind of" & to a lesser degree,
> the "quality" of work an artist did. This is not a simple world but it
> is
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
setai
Marilyn Welch wrote in message ...
>
>"it's the network stupid."
>
>in my art-marketing hell.
>
>ps: my son just told me he would rather be sued than
>try to sell art work.
>
>Marilyn
>
marilyn
i have to agree with your son, i really hate selling my art. when i was in
school one of my mentors sold one of her larger hand built pieces for $8,000
to a women who used it as a bird bath. her ceramics are internationally
known and some soulless monster bought it so her pretty birds could shit in
it. i admire the artist who have the tough skin i could never grow to sell
their art.
t aubuchon
setai
so...@shikoku.or.jp wrote in message
>You should read the book "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. In the book she
>talks about an architect who refuses to conform to the current stylistic
>standards of architecture. He ends up offending almost every other
architect
>he comes in contact with because his attitudes concerning architecture
>basically disapprove of their styles. Everyone sees him as a threat and
>therefore hates him. Several people though, very few, love his stuff
>desperately and give him business. Afterwards, those people adamantly
defend
>and support him. Eventually, those people bring him other business and
>eventually he becomes successful, but it takes a very long time. It's
>probably one of the ten most important books I've ever read in my life.
>
>You really should check it out.
i completely agree with you, i recently reread Fountainhead and got so much
more out of it the second time. On the synopsis you missed an important
part, he never change his views or art with or without the success. Roark
was true to himself when it meant getting kick out of school, losing
buildings, having to work menial jobs, being ridiculed, being praised.
Unwavering commitment to your art, to yourself.
t aubuchon
Iian Neill
> talks about an architect who refuses to conform to the current stylistic
> standards of architecture. He ends up offending almost every other architect
> he comes in contact with because his attitudes concerning architecture
> basically disapprove of their styles. Everyone sees him as a threat and
> therefore hates him. Several people though, very few, love his stuff
> desperately and give him business. Afterwards, those people adamantly defend
> and support him. Eventually, those people bring him other business and
> eventually he becomes successful, but it takes a very long time. It's
> probably one of the ten most important books I've ever read in my life.
Is one of the other ten "Atlas Shrugged", by any chance? They're both splendid
novels, in any case.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
if...@my-dejanews.com
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> In article <6u262o$9pq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jha...@om.com.au wrote:
>
> > As a young artist I wanted to be universally accepted and if ninety nine
> > people out of one hundred liked my paintings I was suitably glowing in my
> > acceptance of their accolades. Unfortunately none of the ninety nine liked
> > the paintings enough to purchase them. Sometime later, perplexed, I
exhibited
> > a few paintings I had painted for myself. They were almost universally hated
> > but two people needed them so much they actually purchased them. They said
> > they wanted them for reasons I did not dispute as the money was, at the
time,
> > fortitutious. I was mystified and perplexed. Do I paint for the ninety nine
Hagan
>
> [An instructive anecdote, John. Thanks for sharing it. There is something
> mystical about the force which draws people's money out of their wallets.
> I think you are perfectly justified in painting for the few who like your
> work enough to pay this material tribute, instead of for the many who will
> express lukewarm appreciation in words only. This is doubly fortunate if it
> happens to accord with your own predelictions.
>
> But what if the situation were reversed? What if you painted "easy" pictures
> that sold well, but the "difficult" ones sailed right over people's heads,
> and nobody liked them- or bought them? Would you perservere in the unpopular
> vein, leading horses to water they won't drink, or go with the flow, as it
> were? Or would you compromise, painting some money paintings to keep yourself
> alive for the struggle? What ratio would you arrive at, I wonder? I recall
> reading that Picasso dealt with this dilemma by churning out a flood of
> sellable paintings, while keeping back works like his "Demoiselles d'Avignon"
> until the world was ready.]
This is a valuable point, Andrew, I'm glad you brought it up. How many
'Picasso's' do we have today, how many would do what he did? Who's not
tempted to sell out? (I'm not saying that there aren't any today)
As an artist I'd be very suspicious if a majority of people liked my
paintings. Knowing human psychology and human tendency to like the "easy",
the recognisable I'd know then that I'm going on a wrong track. It's a sad
fact of life, but IME few people are capable of perceiving new, original art.
It's been always like that, that's how people are. We feel uncomfortable when
we don't see in the painting something that we can relate to, something
familiar..we need associations or something and we freak out when we can't
find any.
IMO, the Artist's task is to try to transcend the obvious, the accepted, the
norm; he has to be constantly on guard not to succumb, not to fall prey to
pride, self-love and material power.
Art is not a mere decoration, it's not something that we can just add to our
vanity. True Art is always Sacred, because it's concerned with the truth
about the existence, it's a Divine blessing, it is to help us in our
transformation, on our way to light. It's a Guide for the sensitive, the
honest, the brave..but there're pitfalls too.
But this is not a dilemma - what to paint, for whom to paint, for how much to
sell.. for the true artist is devoted to his vision and is always ready to
sacrifice everything else for his art.
And it always pays off.
> Andrew Werby
>
> UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
> http://unitedartworks.com
> New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
best
ifree
so...@shikoku.or.jp
hand. I must admit though that not mentioning that part did kind of feel
like a sin. It's nice to see examples of people willing to sacrifice
everything for a worthwhile cause...I'm not so sure that architecture or art
are causes worth sacrificing all for though. (Insert new and highly
emotional disscussion here) Still one of the ten best books I've ever read.
In article <6u9lrn$s...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>,
"setai" <se...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> so...@shikoku.or.jp wrote in message
>
> >You should read the book "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. In the book she
> >talks about an architect who refuses to conform to the current stylistic
> >standards of architecture. He ends up offending almost every other
> architect
> >he comes in contact with because his attitudes concerning architecture
> >basically disapprove of their styles. Everyone sees him as a threat and
> >therefore hates him. Several people though, very few, love his stuff
> >desperately and give him business. Afterwards, those people adamantly
> defend
> >and support him. Eventually, those people bring him other business and
> >eventually he becomes successful, but it takes a very long time. It's
> >probably one of the ten most important books I've ever read in my life.
> >
> >You really should check it out.
>
> i completely agree with you, i recently reread Fountainhead and got so much
> more out of it the second time. On the synopsis you missed an important
> part, he never change his views or art with or without the success. Roark
> was true to himself when it meant getting kick out of school, losing
> buildings, having to work menial jobs, being ridiculed, being praised.
> Unwavering commitment to your art, to yourself.
>
> t aubuchon
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
so...@shikoku.or.jp
name. It was very short and it was about a man who secretly crept away at
night from his town to discover and invent. The town was handicapped
technologically by the laws and attitudes of its other citizens. The man
though continued to work and discover in spite of pressure from the
authorities. Later he escapes the town and finds an old home in the forest
and lives there with a woman that he encounters along the way. I just
remember one scene where he's looking at a painting of several men all
gathered around a candle. They were the men who all worked together on the
same team to invent the candle. Anyone feel like telling me the name of this
book?
It was ok. But it seemed so much like the Fountainhead in spirit, I didn't
really think it was worthy of becoming a book on its own.
Here's my list of the my 10 best books: You're welcome to debate with me
about it, but it's probably best to do it via e-mail.
The Bible
The Book of Mormon
The Fountainhead
The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit (They count as one)
The Federalist Papers
Dracula
Frankenstein
Ender's Game (Orson Scott Card)
Mere Christianity (CS Lewis)
How to Make Friends and Influence People (Dale Carnegie...I may have written
the title incorrectly)
Before everyone jumps around and starts screaming, yes, I know that you may
disagree with my choices. I'd be happy to hear your other comments concerning
my choices though.
In article <3608DA58...@student.uq.edu.au>,
Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > You should read the book "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. In the book she
> > talks about an architect who refuses to conform to the current stylistic
> > standards of architecture. He ends up offending almost every other
architect
> > he comes in contact with because his attitudes concerning architecture
> > basically disapprove of their styles. Everyone sees him as a threat and
> > therefore hates him. Several people though, very few, love his stuff
> > desperately and give him business. Afterwards, those people adamantly
defend
> > and support him. Eventually, those people bring him other business and
> > eventually he becomes successful, but it takes a very long time. It's
> > probably one of the ten most important books I've ever read in my life.
>
> Is one of the other ten "Atlas Shrugged", by any chance? They're both splendid
> novels, in any case.
>
> Regards,
>
> I
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Andrew Werby
> > You should read the book "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. In the book she
> > talks about an architect who refuses to conform to the current stylistic
> > standards of architecture. He ends up offending almost every other
architect
> > he comes in contact with because his attitudes concerning architecture
> > basically disapprove of their styles. Everyone sees him as a threat and
> > therefore hates him. Several people though, very few, love his stuff
> > desperately and give him business. Afterwards, those people adamantly
defend
> > and support him. Eventually, those people bring him other business and
> > eventually he becomes successful, but it takes a very long time. It's
> > probably one of the ten most important books I've ever read in my life.
>
> Is one of the other ten "Atlas Shrugged", by any chance? They're both splendid
> novels, in any case.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
[ I might have known- a lot of Iian's rhetoric was sounding awfully
familiar somehow. This Ayn Rand stuff sits heavy on the stomach until
digested. Does anybody know of a literary antidote? Henry Miller? Celine?
It's okay to be influenced by something, but when this dogma starts taking
over it calls for corrective measures- and maybe a dose of humor.]
setai
so...@shikoku.or.jp wrote in message
>I would have mentioned it, but it seemed to not apply to the conversation
at
>hand. I must admit though that not mentioning that part did kind of feel
>like a sin. It's nice to see examples of people willing to sacrifice
>everything for a worthwhile cause...I'm not so sure that architecture or
art
>are causes worth sacrificing all for though. (Insert new and highly
>emotional disscussion here) Still one of the ten best books I've ever read.
i that would depend on what art or architecture(let us keep it to art for
this forum) meant to you. Where as to an observer art might not hold more
than an aesthetic value, to the artist this is a much more interesting
question. i believe being an artist(only for myself mind you) is about
existence not product. every image, sound, page, and sensation is paint for
my canvas. impossibly intertwined is the art and the artist. Marilyn wrote
that life was what made paintings a series, not similar objects or style...
how true. i am not an artist because i create art, i create art because i
am an artist, it is a voice, a familiar hand gesture, it is part of being.
i am not stating that this is necessary to be an artist or that it is even a
good idea for ones own sanity, it is just the way i(and many peers) feel
about being an artist(visual, literary,musical). in this kind of existence,
it is the ultimate cause, the one unflawed element of a desecrate universe.
it gives life focus, meaning, it makes you strive not only to create the
perfect work, but to deserve the vision of perfection that rest in your
soul. Art( in its Platonic form) is Truth in a world where everything is
illusory and conditional.
i would be interested in what you think about sacrifice for art and what is
worth sacrificing all for.
t aubuchon
Iian Neill
> > > eventually he becomes successful, but it takes a very long time. It's
> > > probably one of the ten most important books I've ever read in my life.
> >
> > Is one of the other ten "Atlas Shrugged", by any chance? They're both splendid
> > novels, in any case.
>
> familiar somehow.
In this case you do not know, Andrew. I read "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged"
sometime this year, long after my views on art were formulated. I agree with some of
the points Rand had to make, but I do not consider myself an Objectivist. In any
case, what she had to say on matters artistic has had no influence on any of my
'rhetorical' contributions; the books are obviously well-written from a literary
standpoint, and at the very least express a positive view of Man's potential.
> This Ayn Rand stuff sits heavy on the stomach until
> digested. Does anybody know of a literary antidote? Henry Miller? Celine?
Perhaps Michel Foucault? Jean-Paul Satre?
> It's okay to be influenced by something, but when this dogma starts taking
> over it calls for corrective measures- and maybe a dose of humor.]
What corrective measures were you considering? And where has it taken over? My
impression was that Rand's philosophies were very unpopular amongst academics.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski
"Art is a jealous mistress" my teacher often quoted. Art goes beyond
craftsmanship (which is painting pictures for sale) and demands that you
give your absolute uncompromising best to it - that you dedicate
yourself to it. You can stop short of that and remain an amateur, a
hobbyist, or a crafter, but if you cannot be satisfied with anything
less than the maximum that you can drag out of yourself, then you are an
artist. Everything else becomes secondary: the agony and ecstasy of
making art are what you live for.
Paul W
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski
>
> As an artist I'd be very suspicious if a majority of people liked my
> paintings. Knowing human psychology and human tendency to like the "easy",
> the recognisable I'd know then that I'm going on a wrong track. It's a sad
> fact of life, but IME few people are capable of perceiving new, original art.
> It's been always like that, that's how people are. We feel uncomfortable when
> we don't see in the painting something that we can relate to, something
> familiar..we need associations or something and we freak out when we can't
> find any.
An artist must follow his/her vision wherever it leads. However, if an
artist also wants to be understood, if he/she cares for the "benighted
masses" that have no way to comprehend and appreciate something that's
totally out of their range of experience, then I think the artist should
make an effort to make his work accessible to the common man by
providing links to the common experience. I am thinking now of George
Bernard Shaw who managed to slip original and difficult ideas into
people's heads by presenting them in contexts that most people could
readily recognize and comprehend. Not only that but he left them
laughing... and wiser.
While an artist may not have the resources to establish such a
connection, to build such a bridge to allow common, aesthetically
handicapped people approach and appreciate (if only in part) his work,
if he/she can and is willing to do it, he/she is only the greater artist
for it. It does not diminish a great work of art if it is also popular -
it makes it greater. Not being able to make one's work accessible, at
least in some measure, to the common man, I think is an unfortunate
limitation. Being unwilling to do it, even when one has the resources, I
think is irresponsible and silly besides.
> IMO, the Artist's task is to try to transcend the obvious, the accepted, the
> norm; he has to be constantly on guard not to succumb, not to fall prey to
> pride, self-love and material power.
But it does no good to do all that transcending if no one can follow
you. I think the task of the artist is not only to transcend but also to
point the way.
> Art is not a mere decoration, it's not something that we can just add to our
> vanity. True Art is always Sacred, because it's concerned with the truth
> about the existence, it's a Divine blessing, it is to help us in our
> transformation, on our way to light. It's a Guide for the sensitive, the
> honest, the brave..but there're pitfalls too.
But not all the sensitive, honest and brave souls have the equipment to
reach your sublime heights. You must offer a ladder, a rope, a helping
hand. You have to start where they are and go on from there. If you
start from miles ahead they'll never even see you.
>
> But this is not a dilemma - what to paint, for whom to paint, for how much to
> sell.. for the true artist is devoted to his vision and is always ready to
> sacrifice everything else for his art.
> And it always pays off.
Amen. I think I just said that, in another posting and above.
Paul W
echi
>
> "Art is a jealous mistress" my teacher often quoted. Art goes beyond
> craftsmanship (which is painting pictures for sale) and demands that you
> give your absolute uncompromising best to it - that you dedicate
> yourself to it. You can stop short of that and remain an amateur, a
> hobbyist, or a crafter, but if you cannot be satisfied with anything
> less than the maximum that you can drag out of yourself, then you are an
> artist. Everything else becomes secondary: the agony and ecstasy of
> making art are what you live for.
>
> Paul W
then art is a sort of drug?
martin
Iian Neill
"Art is a jealous mistress, and if a man have a genius for painting, poetry,
music, architecture or philosophy, he makes a bad husband
and an ill provider." -- Ralph Emerson
> Art goes beyond
> craftsmanship (which is painting pictures for sale) and demands that you
> give your absolute uncompromising best to it - that you dedicate
> yourself to it. You can stop short of that and remain an amateur, a
> hobbyist, or a crafter, but if you cannot be satisfied with anything
> less than the maximum that you can drag out of yourself, then you are an
> artist. Everything else becomes secondary: the agony and ecstasy of
> making art are what you live for.
I couldn't agree more.
Regards,
Iian Neill
Irma Dillo
>then art is a sort of drug?
>
>martin
ABSOLUTELY and you don't need Absinthe or
any other... Just an example, if I may be so
forward... Yesterday I stopped to piddle with a
painting I'm currently working on as I was going
out the door for a bike ride. That was about 10:00am.
When I stopped piddling it was 4:00 pm, the bike
was still standing unused, and other matters
required my immediate attention. Soooo, no exercise
AGAIN yesterday... Irma Dillo
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski
>
> S. W. Paul Wyszkowski wrote:
> >
> > craftsmanship (which is painting pictures for sale) and demands that you
> > give your absolute uncompromising best to it - that you dedicate
> > yourself to it. You can stop short of that and remain an amateur, a
> > hobbyist, or a crafter, but if you cannot be satisfied with anything
> > less than the maximum that you can drag out of yourself, then you are an
> > artist. Everything else becomes secondary: the agony and ecstasy of
> > making art are what you live for.
> >
>
> then art is a sort of drug?
>
> martin
By drug, I take it you mean an addictive substance to which the addict
becomes a slave. Art is perhaps more like a psychedelic, mind-expanding
drug. I don't think the artist becomes helplessly addicted to art and
must do art whether he will or no. It is more like a love relationship,
with all it's pain and pleasure, a deliberate act of will, a commitment,
based on one's appreciation and admiration of the loved one. The artist
isn't necessarily driven to do art - he/she delibrately chooses to do
art, and makes that choice each and every time a new project is
undertaken, often in spite of weariness, discouragement, fear, etc. But
because the artist is in love with art, and it is his/her greatest love,
all other relationships and tasks take the back seat.
Paul W
setai
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski wrote in message
>An artist must follow his/her vision wherever it leads. However, if an
>artist also wants to be understood, if he/she cares for the "benighted
>masses" that have no way to comprehend and appreciate something that's
>totally out of their range of experience, then I think the artist should
>make an effort to make his work accessible to the common man by
>providing links to the common experience.
i agree with this to an extent, but the solution should not be to alter
one's work, but to deal with the fact you might not be understood. much
great art has links to the common experience, since the artist comes from
the same sociological and genetic pool. other art has to pull the viewer to
the comprehension, not does not make the more cryptic art "better" than the
more understandable art, just different.
>While an artist may not have the resources to establish such a
>connection, to build such a bridge to allow common, aesthetically
>handicapped people approach and appreciate (if only in part) his work,
>if he/she can and is willing to do it, he/she is only the greater artist
>for it.
just as inaccessible art is not greater for its elitist viewership,
accessible art is not greater for the quantity of its viewership. i
understand where you are coming from, but this line of logic leads to the
same market devaluation of art that over priced underpainted ab ex art does.
> It does not diminish a great work of art if it is also popular -
>it makes it greater. Not being able to make one's work accessible, at
>least in some measure, to the common man, I think is an unfortunate
>limitation. Being unwilling to do it, even when one has the resources, I
>think is irresponsible and silly besides.
i can not agree with the statement that the popularity of art enhances
anything but its market value.
to corrupt your vision of art to make it more accessible for the masses, or
more cryptic for the market value is irresponsible. art is at its best if it
is honest, whatever that might mean to the artist.
>But it does no good to do all that transcending if no one can follow
>you. I think the task of the artist is not only to transcend but also to
>point the way.
i contend that any social value from art is only a side effect of its true
cause, none-the-less extremely important. historically, not only in art,
there is room for both pointing the way and raising the bar for society.
>But not all the sensitive, honest and brave souls have the equipment to
>reach your sublime heights. You must offer a ladder, a rope, a helping
>hand. You have to start where they are and go on from there. If you
>start from miles ahead they'll never even see you.
there has to be those visionaries(in all aspects of creativity, arts,
science,politics) who strive forward and put out the beacon and start the
hearth for those who will arrive latter.
to give the proper respect to representational art(and yes i do understand
that in recent history it has not received it) one must not forget all other
art. if you go too far to the left or to the right, you end up in the same
place just spouting slightly different rhetoric.
t aubuchon
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski
> ...much
> great art has links to the common experience, since the artist comes from
> the same sociological and genetic pool. other art has to pull the viewer to
> the comprehension, not does not make the more cryptic art "better" than the
> more understandable art, just different.
>
> anything but its market value.
> to corrupt your vision of art to make it more accessible for the masses, or
> more cryptic for the market value is irresponsible. art is at its best if it
> is honest, whatever that might mean to the artist.
I agree completely with the last sentence. However, I did not mean to
imply that the artist should in any way corrupt his/her vision for sake
of being popular. It's not popularity but accessibility that is in
question here. It may be that your vision takes you into a territory
where no one can follow you, at least not yet. Your art is doomed to be
misunderstood, perhaps by everyone, in your lifetime. Perhaps you don't
care. Perhaps the process of creating your art is enough to make your
life worthwhile in your own eyes, even though you are isolated from the
rest of humanity by being so far ahead of everybody else.
Myself, if I found myself in that position, my nature would lead me to
try, to the best of my ability to help others see what I have wrought,
to lead them to an appreciation of my work, to help them understand it.
I might fail, but I would try.
In a less extreme case, it may be that your art is difficult for your
contemporaries to comprehend and appreciate but not impossible, with
some help from the artist. Whatever it's future worth may be,
unintelligible art has no present value (I'm not referring here to
price) unless it can be made intelligible. Unless you are content to
work for the future generations or for nobody (in which case your art
has value only to yourself and no one else) you need to provide accress
to your art (assuming this is possible) if you want it valued by others
in your own lifetime.
> i contend that any social value from art is only a side effect of its true
> cause, none-the-less extremely important. historically, not only in art,
> there is room for both pointing the way and raising the bar for society.
Well, there is the possibility that your art has no social value or only
incidental social value. Then it's primary value is to yourself alone
and you are under no obligatoion to make it accessible to anyone, ever.
> >But not all the sensitive, honest and brave souls have the equipment to
> >reach your sublime heights. You must offer a ladder, a rope, a helping
> >hand. You have to start where they are and go on from there. If you
> >start from miles ahead they'll never even see you.
>
> there has to be those visionaries(in all aspects of creativity, arts,
> science,politics) who strive forward and put out the beacon and start the
> hearth for those who will arrive latter.
I agree, but there may not be anyone arriving at the hearth unless they
catch some glimpse of your vision. You need to do whatevcer can be done
to open the doors they need to go through to get to the hearth you have
kindled for them.
My argument is that if it is possible to make your art [more] accessible
without compromising your vision, and I believe this is possible in many
if not most cases, then doing it can only enhance the value (not
necessarily the price) of your art and your success as an artist.
> to give the proper respect to representational art(and yes i do understand
> that in recent history it has not received it) one must not forget all other
> art. if you go too far to the left or to the right, you end up in the same
> place just spouting slightly different rhetoric.
I am not contending that to be accessible art needs to be
representational. But it needs to connect with something recognizeable
by the general public. For example, symmetry, rhythm, and harmony are
all within the experience of the common man, however abstracted, and can
be intuitively appreciated by most people.
Paul W