Re no education = no skill, no art?
Nerd Gerl
Niall <aTAKEcaTHIS...@iol.ie> wrote in article
<DnJG9.14692$cP3....@news.iol.ie>...
> D'ya like my punchy attention grabbing header!?
> (Good advice from John the Red ;-)
>
> Anyway..
>
> I am an amateur painter
> with no art education whatsoever.
A lot of artists do.
> Is it possible for me to succeed
> doing my abstracts.
Yes.
>
> I work on a "I like the way it looks" system
> Is the art world always more complex than that
>
Yes.
> If I was to exhibit and when asked "what does this painting represent"
> And I reply "nothing, i just like it" Am I liable to be riduculed and
> ignored
Yes. You won't be taken seriously as an artist. Therefore, no one
serious about your *life* as an artist will invest in you. Being an
artist for art sake is fun. Supporting yourself as an artist, however,
is a different ballgame.
> ...but on the other hand...
> If I was to lie and say "its my troubled past" would I get more merit
>
No. People can see through lies. People who buy art (the ones who
*invest* in art) buy the artist more than they buy the art. These
collectors keep tabs on you and your progess. Lie and its over.
> Dont get me wrong, I am not shunning art education,
> I am likely to do classes when finances & time constraints allow
> but was just curious as to the extent of elitism in the art world
>
Elitism has nothing to do with it.
> Can someone succeed solely on the merit of the work
> and not the merit of their education and who they know
>
Yes. It's not who you know. It's what you know, and where you show.
=============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
> Ciao
>
> Niall
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard
On 2 Dec 2002 09:17:34 -0800, nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
>No. People can see through lies. People who buy art (the ones who
>*invest* in art) buy the artist more than they buy the art. These
>collectors keep tabs on you and your progess. Lie and its over.
Yea they don't give a shit about art and are just playing some kind of
game I guess. I don't give a fig about those people. I want to be a
succesful illustrator like Larry Elmore, Keith Parkinson, etc. They're
highly skilled and people like their art for their art, not because
someone promoted them or because they did a good job of playing the
modern art con game. I recently saw a job ad for an illustrator. It
payed $75,000 to $100,000. That's what I want to do, unless I can
actually make a good living by just painting what I personally want to
paint.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Nerd Gerl
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> On 2 Dec 2002 09:17:34 -0800, nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
>
> >No. People can see through lies. People who buy art (the ones who
> >*invest* in art) buy the artist more than they buy the art. These
> >collectors keep tabs on you and your progess. Lie and its over.
>
> Yea they don't give a shit about art and are just playing some kind of
> game I guess. I don't give a fig about those people. I want to be a
> succesful illustrator like Larry Elmore, Keith Parkinson, etc. They're
> highly skilled and people like their art for their art, not because
> someone promoted them or because they did a good job of playing the
> modern art con game. I recently saw a job ad for an illustrator. It
> payed $75,000 to $100,000. That's what I want to do, unless I can
> actually make a good living by just painting what I personally want to
> paint.
>
I didn't say they didn't give a shit about art, Richard. What I should
have said, is that art is more than a picture. But yes, investing in
art is a game. So is this artifical thing we call "life". Does that
make it bad?
Oh, and this illustration job you keep referring to... Did you know
that there's no snowball chance in hell you'll get a job like that -
unless you're "in the game?"
===============