What is wrong with REALISTIC art??????????/
Katherine Allen
I've been following this thread of conversation with great interest. As a
fine artist of 20 years experience, Paul's original post whisked me
back to my days in fine art school where the painting professor loved
Cezanne and if you did not paint like Cezanne...you failed.
I was a timid student back then but with as much to say as any young artist
studying a cultural art. I practised realism then to clarify my views of the
world in no vague, uncertain terms. I wanted to be understood visually
because of my reluctance to express myself verbally.
But my work was super-real and resembled Cezanne like elephant dung
resembles the Virgin Mary. (See recent news scandle involving New York's
"Senasation" art exhibit) I was tossed out onto the sidewalk after four
years of blood, sweat and acrylic medium. I didn't touch a paintbrush for six
years after that.
Luckily, my contempt for the "arta-rotti" who laughed me out of
art school prompted me to eventually develop boldness and obstinence and I
just darn well painted realism again to spite them. Still do!
But today, I paint my world, my culture, my society, my community and I
feel that if absolutely no one were to acknowledge the importance of
comtemporary super-realism as a relevent art theme that reveals the
truths of our planet today in the 1990's...well at least my work
sells and pays my rent and when a hundred years have rolled away through
this new millenium there will still be a massive audience out there that
will know and comprehend my work for what it appears to be and will not
have to be in therapy for several years before they can "interpret" it as
they would more current, contemporary abstract pieces.
As to "the art world;" I believe there is:
1. the public-funded, shock-mongering few who are taking and keeping all the
money for themselves; isolating realists and the public alike from getting too
close to them
2. the non-funded, struggling, learning, nurturing, growing
communicating, public-friendly many...
Some of the former are still telling the latter their art is irrelevant and
banal and dead and unworthy of financial support. This, to me is not only
discriminatory, but it is a form of censorship at it's most self-serving and
selfish extreme.
I love my work. Don't you just love your work Paul? Everyone else?
Isn't there something spiritual about doing what you love? Isn't it a
kick in the butt when others view your work and get pleasure from it too in
equal portions to your own? What a trip!! What a "relevant" gift.
Art is communication. If you create it and it communicates to a mass
audience and that audience comprehends it clearly...it's art. Pure and
simple. Abstract or realistic. Doesn't matter.
Great topic, Paul. Scan more of your work for us to see. Bravo.
Katherine Allen
www.ncf.ca/~dk255
-----------------------------------------------------
KlaeCW12 (klae...@aol.com) writes:
> Let me begin by saying I respect and truly love all types of art. Let me also
> make it clear that I am looking for honest answers and views, not irrational
> flames and insults. That said, I will try to voice my opinions and ask
> questions without offending anyone.
>
> First of all, I am a realistic pencil artist.
>
> It seems that realistic art has no merit in the "art community". Why is this? I
> think it's very strange that throughout grade school and high school the art
> classes emphasized learning correct perspective, human anatomy, shading, etc.
> But for some reason it seems that artists that try to take these principals and
> use them in their art are frowned upon. Realism is obviously NOT the only type
> of art, and I don't believe in a "perfect" style of art. But why would you
> teach something that will not be respected if you try to perfect it? It seems
> art teachers create artists in the classroom only to have the real world
> destroy them.
> My personal philosophy has always been one of focus. I believe an "idea" is
> only as good as it's translation...People seem to find "realism" stiff and
> impersonal. But I try to draw realistically to feel closer to the subject,
> closer to the art, it's about total understanding of the things around me.
>
> I have posted on this newsgroup inquiring about other realist artist, and how
> to find websites dedicated to realism...but all I get are snide emails, or
> replies that talk about wrapping dead bodies in plaster, or drawing with
> twigs...I hope these replies were just confused people who didn't understand my
> inquiry and NOT people trying to take shots at me for being interested in
> realism. Let me know if there is a place for realist artists, or should I just
> paint something that matches my couch?
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Paul
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/pencilartbypaul
KlaeCW12
Katherine Allen wrote:
>I love my work. Don't you just love your work Paul? Everyone else?
>Isn't there something spiritual about doing what you love? Isn't it a
>kick in the butt when others view your work and get pleasure from it too in
>equal portions to your own? What a trip!! What a "relevant" gift."
You are so right. That is one of the most rewarding things about art. It's
doing what you love, and the real magic is knowing when someone truly connects
with it.
I do love creating, and I think whenever you're are passionate about something
criticism can be taken wrong...I'm not talking about constructive criticism,
I'm a young artist still exploring techniques so I have no problems with people
offering "technical advice". I'm talking about people telling me that "realism"
is dead, and no real artist will respect what I'm doing...I guess I was getting
tired of hearing that. Many artists have told me, "Paul, I like your drawings,
BUT..." I was offended by the notion that in order to be considered an
artist, I had to compromise my means of expression. Through all of the
ups/downs of this thread, I can now sit back with some confidence and just
draw...that's all I want to do...regardless of whether or not I am a true
artist...I draw because I have to, I love to, and it's a part of me...I hope
someday my human side shines through in my work.
Paul D. Snyder
http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/pencilartbypaul
Katherine Allen
You know what I say to people when they question whether my realism is art or
not? I ask them, "Can you do this?" Naturally they say..."uh...no."
I say, "This is a painting I created from a stick of graphite and a clean,
empty sheet of vellum. There was nothing on this thing before I took it
and created a story without words. I observed something and decided
I wanted to share my vision, my ideas through this created image...to
communicate with you and all others who want to look at it. That is
creating, that is communication ...so that is art."
You know what to say when someone chooses to endow you with a criticism
of your work? You ask, "Can you do this?" Naturally, 50% of the
population will say, "well...no."
Then reply, "Then what you will offer me is your subjective "opinion"...not a
valid, significant evaluation of my work...so.. no thank you." Now if the
self-proclaimed critic CAN do what you've done, you still are under no
obligation to "take it." Because then, if you acted on their benevolent
recommendations, you would not be expressing yourself purely but
would be creating through their eyes and their perceptions.
I believe art, and realism in particular, is NOT a formula you can tell
someone else how to mix. Who would I think I was, with my 20 years of
experience, telling you, "a young artist," what you should see, what you
should show me, and how you should show it to me?
I have no right to tell you how to create. No one has that right. Once
you took up a pencil and created a person's likeness from nothing...you
were an artist. That needs no validation, license, criticism or
authorization. It's just a fact of who you are now. I can't take that
away from you and anyone who criticizes is probably just an A Type who must
assert their power to be right all the time. :>
If you ASKED me to critique your work I would still be very careful about
my assessment and my wording. And still...my eyes are not you're eyes.
My interpretation of your "story" is not yours. Despite my training, my
background, my years of experience...I, as a creator have no right to tell
you, another creator...how to create.
Okay...have I flogged that spider to death enough?
Good for you Paul. You have made the decision to follow your own path
regardless of what others think. You're free now.
I believe the art-loving, realism-adoring public deserves our art and, in
fact, more often than not, they want to embrace it and see more of it. We
owe it to this audience to give them what they want...the way we choose to
express it. No enigma. No cryptic symbolism or spit-in-the-public-face
arrogance. Just sincere, personal honesty.
You know....realism is like the oldest sibling sitting back and letting
the younger brat sibling scream and stomp and fling dung at a wall and hold
it's breath. After the brat passes out from oxygen deprivation...the
quiet, older child will step forward and say..."I'm back."
Realism is headed for a long-awaited revival in this fast-approaching new
millennium. Mark my prediction...and get ready.
Cheers,
Katherine
www.ncf.ca/~dk255
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith O'Connor
I am part of the North American culture and one of
it's problems is it's inability to tolerate value
system diversity. Some analysts argue the this
reflects the one god syndrome and caters to the
Armageddon psychosis .
Both realistic and abstract art have come to
represent opposing value systems liberal
conservative, / democratic and republican. This
has resulted in their becoming embroiled in an
emotional civil war in which one must in the end
dominate the other.
The battlefield is strewn with the damaged psyches
of artists on both sides and the public has had
it's potential for growth stunted by the
manipulations of both sides each claiming to
represent the ultimate truth and each blinded to
the concept that there is no ultimate truth in
art.
There is no end in sight.
_________________tinman end______
> I love my work. Don't you just love your work Paul? Everyone else?
> Isn't there something spiritual about doing what you love? Isn't it a
> kick in the butt when others view your work and get pleasure from it too in
> equal portions to your own? What a trip!! What a "relevant" gift.
>
Cher Ayde
says...
>I was a timid student back then but with as much to say as any young artist
>studying a cultural art. I practised realism then to clarify my views of the
>world in no vague, uncertain terms. I wanted to be understood visually
>because of my reluctance to express myself verbally.
It's wonderful to create and have the majority of
people who view your creations express appreciation.
I have been in that fortunate position ever since
my family emboldened me to enter my art in the first
little 'art in the park' show all those many years
ago (1969).
But one of the greatest lessons I learned when I
returned to school in later life, to indulge myself
in art degrees, was from my mentor Peter Saul. He
is one of the faculty of UT Austin. Peter
advised me to not worry about the negative criticism.
Rather, when someone makes negative comments about
your work, simply turn the negative to a positive
by pushing that negative aspect to the
Nth degree -- as he himself has so ably done while
winning for himself an international reputation for his
'offensive subjects' that would put to shame most stuff
seen in the current SENSATIONS show.
Sharlene
Katherine Allen wrote in message <7uef8i$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>>I say, "This is a painting I created from a stick of graphite and a clean,
>empty sheet of vellum. There was nothing on this thing before I took it
>and created a story without words. I observed something and decided
>I wanted to share my vision, my ideas through this created image...to
>communicate with you and all others who want to look at it. That is
>creating, that is communication ...so that is art."
Well done and well said. I love it.
>
One of the things I won't allow when I'm doing a portrait for someone is
interference from family members and friends, of how they think the sitter
actually looks. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who think
your work is time for a 'brainstorming' session, simply because they're
paying you. This is all printed out in my preliminary statements I hand out
at the initial conference.
>Realism is headed for a long-awaited revival in this fast-approaching new
>millennium. Mark my prediction...and get ready.
>
I'm already being faced with it. So many clients are now calling me to do
portraits_because_ I can render them with realism. We have a much richer
middle class, now, who are very much interested in having portraits done of
their families. And, they really don't want an abstract rendition. They
want something to pass down through the generations.
But, I have a different beginning history that I haven't seen, yet, on this
ng. When I first started taking classes, when we began portrait work, my
teacher would not let any of us paint a stroke until we had made physical
examples of an eye, lips, nose, ear, mouth, hands, etc. out of clay, first.
He said we couldn't possibly understand the underlying structure that
separates the best work from the average without physically sensing with our
own fingertips the construction of the body parts. We were also required to
study Gray's Anatomy (well, you get the point...) It was very difficult,
and contrary to what I thought in my youth painting was all about. But,
when faced with a really tough painting problem, I find that I am able to
resolve it after making a physical construction of that particular sitter's
body part. My brush then seems to 'remember' the construction and the
painting just flows.
Should I have tried for a less-demanding class and saved myself untold
misery? I don't know. It also helps in my abstract work, believe it or
not. Am I alone???
Katherine Allen
It was courageous of you to stick with that difficult class, Sharlene.
And when you think about it...any "misery" you endured up to this point in
your life is part of the recipe that makes up you...and your vision.
Unique on the entire planet.
"Sharlene" (sharlen...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
> Katherine Allen wrote in message <7uef8i$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>>
>>>I say, "This is a painting I created from a stick of graphite and a clean,
>>empty sheet of vellum. There was nothing on this thing before I took it
>>and created a story without words. I observed something and decided
>>I wanted to share my vision, my ideas through this created image...to
>>communicate with you and all others who want to look at it. That is
>>creating, that is communication ...so that is art."
>
> Well done and well said. I love it.
>>
> One of the things I won't allow when I'm doing a portrait for someone is
> interference from family members and friends, of how they think the sitter
> actually looks. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who think
> your work is time for a 'brainstorming' session, simply because they're
> paying you. This is all printed out in my preliminary statements I hand out
> at the initial conference.
>
>>Realism is headed for a long-awaited revival in this fast-approaching new
>>millennium. Mark my prediction...and get ready.
>>
>
> I'm already being faced with it. So many clients are now calling me to do
> portraits_because_ I can render them with realism. We have a much richer
> middle class, now, who are very much interested in having portraits done of
> their families. And, they really don't want an abstract rendition. They
> want something to pass down through the generations.
>
This turn of the century is an ideal time for portrait commissioning. I
tell everyone, "Everything you do and everything you create from this
moment until 11:59 pm on December 31st, 1999 will be precious to someone
in the future. Ten years from now kids will be asking us..."Wow, are you
like from the 20th century?"
> But, I have a different beginning history that I haven't seen, yet, on this
> ng. When I first started taking classes, when we began portrait work, my
> teacher would not let any of us paint a stroke until we had made physical
> examples of an eye, lips, nose, ear, mouth, hands, etc. out of clay, first.
> He said we couldn't possibly understand the underlying structure that
> separates the best work from the average without physically sensing with our
> own fingertips the construction of the body parts. We were also required to
> study Gray's Anatomy (well, you get the point...) It was very difficult,
> and contrary to what I thought in my youth painting was all about. But,
> when faced with a really tough painting problem, I find that I am able to
> resolve it after making a physical construction of that particular sitter's
> body part. My brush then seems to 'remember' the construction and the
> painting just flows.
>
> Should I have tried for a less-demanding class and saved myself untold
> misery? I don't know. It also helps in my abstract work, believe it or
> not. Am I alone???
>
>
You are not alone. (This sounds like a quote from "The Outer Limits.") :)
Cheers,
Katherine
Ponderable
If any of you live in NYC (or there abouts) I have a show at MB Modern (57th
street) in December.
STATE OF THE ART
Pre-Modernism, there was an arrogance among the intelligencia of the art world
which caused them to dictate that which was or was not important in art. Their
rules didn't allow them to consider anything groundbreaking.
The early modernists historically proved them wrong and so from that time on
educated people in the visual arts seemingly vowed to always be open-minded and
go out of their way to consider anything shocking or new.
Today, I see a new arrogance emerging which is the flip-side of the
pre-modernist's variety; but one which is equally stifling and narrow-minded.
The dictates of the new aristocracy is seemingly that they will only consider
"new". It would seem that "important art" is now exclusively defined as cutting
edge.
If we applied this same criteria to music, the only important music being
created today would be Techno Pop. But somehow in music, there is still room
for innovation, evolution, appreciation and respect (indeed cross-over
appreciation and respect) among the followers of Classical, Jazz, Folk, and
Rock & Roll to name but a few.
I like shocking and new as much as the next guy but I think there should be as
much room for "new" in re-exploring the styles of old, as there is in pushing
the envelope further and further (especially when the cutting-edge is currently
slicing through some mighty thin air).
Just as there are cutting-edge jazz musicians living and creating today; I see
myself as being a cutting-edge painter respective to the style I am involved
in.
I think what makes art "90s" is simply that it was done during this decade.
Beyond that, the only factor in determining value should be quality.
I believe that my work speaks for itself in that regard.
Tim Folzenlogen
October, 1998
Erik A. Mattila
A few thoughts about your statement...
Ponderable wrote:
> I'm new to this forum, but this thread brought this statement of mine to mind.
>
> If any of you live in NYC (or there abouts) I have a show at MB Modern (57th
> street) in December.
>
> STATE OF THE ART
>
> Pre-Modernism, there was an arrogance among the intelligencia of the art world
> which caused them to dictate that which was or was not important in art. Their
> rules didn't allow them to consider anything groundbreaking.
Just a note on periodization. I understand what you mean by "Pre-Modernism," but
this also suggests a continuum of art making that stretches from the turn of the
century to Alley Oop. The 'modern era' began around the time of Italian
Renaissance, and historically it is marked by secularization of society, which
somehow relates to the defeat of the Moors, Turks and the discovery of the
so-called new world. And of course in Art is the the general reorganization of
the patronage system, since there was a lot of liquid capital around Europe that
wasn't attached to the Church or the Royals. Generally, the beginnings of
modernism is the called the 'early modern era.' I think the middle modern era has
been subsumed by the term 'The Enlightenment." Late Moderism is what you are
refering too, I it seems. or rather the difference in patronage between late
modernism and the Enlightenment period. Of course it's important to understand
that we're just talking about European art here, since it often becomes confused
with the generic "Art," which has existed on different terms in other parts of the
world.
I don't know if the term 'arrogance' is interchangable with 'hegemony.' But it is
nevertheless true that there was a criteria in effect that determined 'art' from
'non-art.' This criteria was very complex, and involved the participation of
culture generally as well as the personal tastes of a ruling class, landed
aristocracy, or even the new breed of wealthy bankers. But I think it is a very
serious error to imagine a period which extends from, say, 1500 to 1900. 400
years, as an art epoch in which no 'groundbreaking' occured. This is simply
nonsense. There are thousands of examples, of course. Consider Rembrandt, since
he is so well known. His painting "The Shooting Company of Banning Cocq" (aka
"The Nightwatch") is a glaring example of innovation, where the artist exchanged
the democracy of representation (where each member of the group is equally
represented) for a dynamic composition that showed some members in half-face,
partially obscured, (which really pissed off the club members.) The aftermath
tends to support your thesis, however, since Rembrandt really suffered at the
hands of these pissed-off Calvinists, who had control of the money in the area.
But the support falls off by other of the many examples of truly radical
departures on convention that many artists successfully negotiated during these
four centuries.
> The early modernists historically proved them wrong and so from that time on
> educated people in the visual arts seemingly vowed to always be open-minded and
> go out of their way to consider anything shocking or new.
I doubt it. I don't think anyone was proven wrong. You know, guys like Picasso's
Kanweiler owed some typological ancestry to Lorenzo the Magnificent. So what
seems to have changed was the patronage systems itself, which artist were able to
take advantage of. Of course it is a sort of chicken and egg argument - did the
artist innovate first, responded to by the patrons, or vica versa, did the patrons
change, and the artist responded? What can be ascertained with certainty is that
change occured of course, but when we get down to the whys and wheres and hows,
it's very complex. It's what makes Art History so fascinating. What doesn't seem
to work successfully are axiomatic statements which seek to describe the whole,
complex history in a sentence or two.
> Today, I see a new arrogance emerging which is the flip-side of the
> pre-modernist's variety; but one which is equally stifling and narrow-minded.
> The dictates of the new aristocracy is seemingly that they will only consider
> "new". It would seem that "important art" is now exclusively defined as cutting
> edge.
Again, it is pretty obvious that art responds to the hegenomy of society. I have
a problem with the concept of dictatorship, however. It implies two agents, the
dictators and the dictatees. It just doesn't happen that way. Both agents, plus
several others that you haven't considered, operate within a structure and within
the structure exchanges are made which are meaningful. Probably a big changed
that occured in the late modern is the advent of the art museum and gallery to a
role which determines the legitimacy of art. Another factor, believe it or not,
is increased social mobility. Pre 1900 art was produced under the auspices of a
society that was much more rigid in terms of class and the possiblilty of upward
mobility, which has changed substantially since. So that means that there are a
lot more players in the art culture, as patrons, artists, educators etc. But the
picture I'm trying to paint here is one that shows some very solid consensus
patterns in effect which legitimize art. The wealthy certainly haven't been
elimated or replaced by the lumpin proletatiat, of course, but there are many new
players in the art game who do not control vast amounts of capital, and are able
to contribute to the hegemonic bulwark of art legitimization.
> If we applied this same criteria to music, the only important music being
> created today would be Techno Pop. But somehow in music, there is still room
> for innovation, evolution, appreciation and respect (indeed cross-over
> appreciation and respect) among the followers of Classical, Jazz, Folk, and
> Rock & Roll to name but a few.
And this isn't the case, correct? I think you should think about how the music
industry works, and apply it to the plastic arts industry. You might see that
some of your ideas about art history need some revision.
> I like shocking and new as much as the next guy but I think there should be as
> much room for "new" in re-exploring the styles of old, as there is in pushing
> the envelope further and further (especially when the cutting-edge is currently
> slicing through some mighty thin air).
I believe this room exists, and I don't understand why so many voice this
complaint. One thing I've never run across is a serious statistical study of
sales vs. art typology in the modern market. Does anyone know of such studies?
My hunch is that the figures would be sensational in themselves.
The first problem with such a study would be definitions, of course. It would be
easier if the study were confined to gallery sales, thus eliminating probably the
largest gross figure of art sales today, which would be commercial art. But would
we then eliminate commissions directly negotiated by a clien and artist, and
direct studio sales? But even if these are eliminated, and all that was looked at
was art gallery sales, we would come across a problem of volumn vs. high price
tags. An 8 million dollar Jasper Johns, for example, would be equalled by 320 @
$2500 paintings sold at run of the mill art galleries. Hmm. this could be
interesting. If the gallery get's half, what is the average number of $2500
paintings it would have to sell to stay in business? Let's base it on $1200 per
month space rental, salaries for three employees, say $2000 each, 8 openings a
years, averaging 5 grand each (printing, mailing, set-up etc.), telephone bill of
$400 per month. That's enough to get an idea. This totals to $131,000 per year
gross expenses. That's equivalent to the sale of almost 105 $2500 paintings a
year. So four average, run of the mill galleries would equal one Jasper Johns
mega sale of 800 million.
So if we start counting galleries in the US, and classifying them according to the
type of art they sell and the type of clientele they serve, it seems pretty
obvious that the lions share of art sales in the US would go to the type of art
work that you are claiming is repressed by an art intelligencia, arrogant
dictators of taste, etc. If there is any merit to my math (and it is really
speculative since I'm just dreaming up these figures - but they are probably not
that far off the mark), then it shows that 'safe' art, non-experimental or what
ever you want to call it, is flourishing. Where I think we get a distorted
picture is by the art magazines, which focus on their version of avant gardism and
favorite art myths. What I think is important for artists to understand is that
this represents a very small part of the art market. Yet is is sensational, full
of the illusion of significance, appeals to the artist's lust for superstardom,
and all the perqs that come with that.
> Just as there are cutting-edge jazz musicians living and creating today; I see
> myself as being a cutting-edge painter respective to the style I am involved
> in.
Sure, I agree. But going back to the begining of you statement, this is what was
happening frequently during the era you are calling 'pre-modern.' Go to the
museum and study some Turners and Constables (and pay attention to what else was
being done while these guys were painting).
I had a funny experience once. The Crocker museum in Sacramento had assembled a
terrific show on German Expressionism, but the curator also included some
pre-expressionist work for contrast. I fell in love with a Lovis Corinth
(1858-1925) painting, and it was simply the way this artist used paint. When I
was nose to nose with the canvas, it was wonderful. As I steped further back, the
globs and impasto would resolve into a very believable image. The expressionist
work, however, did not have this quality, even though I thought it was terrific
also. Anyway, I thought it was funny because I'm sure the curator wanted me to
turn my nose up at Lovis' work. I also thought that the Corinth was more
'expressionist' that the expressionist works, especially as a lot of the show was
Max Beckman, who seemed to me to have a lot of very sober intellectualisms in
front of his work.
> I think what makes art "90s" is simply that it was done during this decade.
> Beyond that, the only factor in determining value should be quality.
>
> I believe that my work speaks for itself in that regard.
Well, the idea of 'quality' is one of the things that is being used to 'push the
envelop', as you say. Kitsch still has a lot of possibilities. The problem of
making Kitsch art is intriguing.
Erik Mattila
Ponderable
Erik wrote: "An 8 million dollar Jasper Johns, for example, would be equalled
by 320 @
$2500 paintings sold at run of the mill art galleries."
Try 3,200 or $25,000 (take your pick).
So there.
(Otherwise, christ, I don't know where to begin. My head is spinning on volume
alone.)
Tim
Ponderable
Have you checked out Chelsea lately?
I think much of the distortion I experience comes from what's happening there.
All the galleries are moving there, but 98% of the art there makes no sense to
me.
Erik wrote:
"Where I think we get a distorted
picture is by the art magazines, which focus on their version of avant gardism
and
favorite art myths. What I think is important for artists to understand is
that
this represents a very small part of the art market. Yet is is sensational,
full
of the illusion of significance, appeals to the artist's lust for superstardom,
and all the perqs that come with that."
(for some reaon, my machine, this newsgroup, I can't simply highlight/reply and
have the quote appear with the little arrows>>> anybody else have this
problem?)
Tim
Ponderable
But you wanted to demonstrate what a scholar you are.
Okay.
But most people are not, and they probably understood what I meant also.
Tim
Ponderable
"What doesn't seem
to work successfully are axiomatic statements which seek to describe the whole,
complex history in a sentence or two."
But isn't it all relative?
I mean, the gist of this long response of yours is that the greater percentage
of the art market currently IS representational "safe" art. If that is true,
or if there is value in that, or if your intent is to make us safe guys and
girls feel good about ourselves.....
well then don't you think that it is probably also true that the larger part of
the people involved in this largest percentage of the art market don't
understand (or care) about the complexity of your own explaination?
And if they don't care, why should we?
There is truth in what you say, but extremely few (relatively speaking) will
ever read it or care if they did.
More will read my simple statement and, though it will not stand up to your
esoteric analysis, most will catch my drift, and there is truth there as well.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a
sound?
Tim
Erik A. Mattila
Erik
Ponderable wrote:
> Oh yeah?
>
> Erik wrote: "An 8 million dollar Jasper Johns, for example, would be equalled
> by 320 @
> $2500 paintings sold at run of the mill art galleries."
>
Erik A. Mattila
about medieval art. But the context didn't fit, and I figured it out.
But by the way, if you don't want a critique of your statement, why post
it? It's what we do here.
Erik
Ponderable
>it? It's what we do here.
>Erik
Oh, don't be like that.
I sincerely appreciate the time you gave it. Really I do.
I'm not a scholar, so I was just giving back the best I can. Those were all
honest thoughts which filtered through my own heart and head.
Tim
tomi...@hotmail.com
> There is truth in what you say, but extremely few (relatively
speaking) will
> ever read it or care if they did.
don't go like that =(
atleast for me those are important.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ponderable
speaking) will
> ever read it or care if they did.
>>don't go like that =(
>>atleast for me those are important.
Well, of course.
I'm not trying to be insulting, only logical.
Most people are not scholars. That's all. I was just pointing out the dicotomy
(is that right?) in that Erik's reply to my simplicity which, though closer to
"truth" (I'm sure), will not be appreciated by most due to it's scholarly
nature, so which serves the cause of truth more?
Where does value lie in communication? Is scholarly better? Must expression
be precise? What the hell is truth anyway, when the vast majority are
operating on feelings and know nothing of all the dates, places, personalities
and times?
Is it better to be scholarly and unread, than unprecise and appreciated?
I guess, in a way, I saw Erik's criticism as being like something one could
write about a political cartoon in a newspaper. I mean, sure, no cartoon says
everything. What about this? What about that? But then they are not meant as
scholarly thesis'.
Which doesn't mean I don't appreciate Erik's investment. I do. Really I do.
I'm just trying to give something back. I guess my own thinking runs along more
abstract lines.
Tim Folzenlogen
Erik A. Mattila
Ponderable wrote:
> Erik wrote:
>
> "What doesn't seem
> to work successfully are axiomatic statements which seek to describe the whole,
> complex history in a sentence or two."
>
> But isn't it all relative?
Relative to what???
> I mean, the gist of this long response of yours is that the greater percentage
> of the art market currently IS representational "safe" art. If that is true,
> or if there is value in that, or if your intent is to make us safe guys and
> girls feel good about ourselves.....
I didn't know how you painted, actually. But you know, what you are calling
'safe' art (and I have some sense of what you mean) in contrast to what others
call 'cutting edge' or something like that, appear to me to coexist ok in the
marketplace. But I think this is all boiling down to the desire for art
superstardome. If you want your name readily recognized as Walhol, Picasso, or
Chicago, you have to pay our dues in the 'art world' scene, and probably you have
to show in New York, Paris, London or Berlin. One the other hand, there are a
huge number of artists who have decided, for whatever reason, not to aspire to
such a lofty goal, and earn a very good livlihood in other markets.
> well then don't you think that it is probably also true that the larger part of
> the people involved in this largest percentage of the art market don't
> understand (or care) about the complexity of your own explaination?
No, I don't agree with this. I think the majority of artists who have made
decisions about their career trajectory remain interested in the issues of the art
market, including understanding the various patronage systems associated with
these. I also belive that patrons, once they commit to purchasing art, become
interested in these issues. I sincerely believe that someone who has paid 6 grand
for a duck painting may value it in part because it is not something you would
find displayed in a cutting edge gallery in New York City. Thus the symbolic
value of the work of art is enhanced, since it may be a statement of that person's
sense of individuality -- i.e. not going along with the 'crowd' that is perceived
by looking at art rags, the press, etc. The duck painting is perceived as a
symbol of conservatism. Well, these are just speculations off the top of my
head. The point is that there is a lot of choice that an artist may make, since
the market is so varied. Maybe a good parallel is in the music area, where most
musicians are continually struggling against the spectre of failure when the idea
of success is getting your picture on the cover of Rolling Stone. But every
musician I've ever known, within the discipline, has always respected the studio
musician, those many superb talents whose primary interest has been performing
rather than becoming cultural icons. Studio musicians make a good living, but are
seldom named on the record label.
> And if they don't care, why should we?
Personally, what I care about isn't dictated by a majority consensus. I would say
that each of us has the responsibility of deciding what we care about.
> There is truth in what you say, but extremely few (relatively speaking) will
> ever read it or care if they did.
Few is good, Tim.
> More will read my simple statement and, though it will not stand up to your
> esoteric analysis, most will catch my drift, and there is truth there as well.
Are you saying more will read Superman than Herman Melville? You're undoubtedly
right. The problem is that your simple statement was simply not correct (at least
as wrong as my math). If you would modify it say that the doors to art
superstardom are closed to those who don't want to engage in the whole discourse
that is manifested in art magazines, art reviews, art criticism, avant garde
galleries etc. then there would be some truth in it. This whole cultural industry
hinges on artists doing their part in the discourse -- more or less playing their
roles properly. But if you're just talking about productive artmaking, selling
work and earning a living within a conservative and'traditional' mode, there are
very good opportunities here. But the issue is a litter deeper that 'realism vs.
abstraction.' There are many realistic, or figurative, or representational
(whatever you want to call it) artists out there right on the cutting edge. A
good future thread would be to discuss what't the difference -- I mean trying to
identify what might be 'cutting edge' about a landscape, cityscape, or a picture
of ice-cream cones, and equally what is not-cutting edge about pictures of the
same that don't make the grade.
> If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a
> sound?
George Berkeley's phrase was 'essi es percepi.' (Existence is being perceived.)
So the answer in a Berkelian sense is 'no.' There would be no sound. But you
have to read the rest of the story (Berkeley) to understand the significance of
that.
But I would like to add, before jumping off, that you entered this thread when it
was well underway, and those who were participating were engaged in these
'esoteric' issues. So you can't blame me if I was just carrying on. But I
originally said "Welcome to the Monkey House." Did you ever read the Vonegut
novel of the same name?
Best,
Erik
Marilyn Welch
Erik,
I enjoyed your summation of a complex situation.
There are two nebulous terms:
'art world' and 'art market.'
No one really knows where or what they are.
And there is no logic to how these nebulous
worlds function. For example in music/the perfoming arts
the most difficult to perform in classical music is
chamber music and it attracts the most dedicated musicians.
And yet, it is the least renumerative, just by definition
it doesn't attract the crowds. Like you said though,
"few is good", or small is beautiful.
What is starting to annoy me, is the book market.
Now, it seems a writer has to be a performing artist
as well. This requires quiet people who have chosen
an introverted profession to "go public." Beside the
visual of the book cover, there is the glam pix of the
author.
Wonder if Vonnegut ever did a book tour? I've read a lot of his
stuff. How does the book you recommend relate to the art world?
I'm reading Jean Rhys right now.
Marilyn
wq...@victoria.tc.ca
Victoria BC Canada
Ponderable
things. I just be me, whatever that is.
What is me:
I have a hell of a lot of talent. Gifted. The thing that is great about my
stuff (IMHO) just is. I don't have to work for that, though I work very hard. I
paint 8 hours a day, 7 days a week.
I grew up and went to an art school in Cincinnati. Graduated in 74. Small, fine
art school connected to the museum. Skylights, nudes and philodendrons. Did
more paintings than the rest of my class combined.
Graduated. Moved into a huge loft. Didn't want to work a job, so I wrote this
guy who was rumored to be rich that I was going to be a famous artist someday
and if he would just support me until then I would really appreciate it.
Inculded some slides. He called me up three days later and said he would be
glad to.
Eventually moved to NYC. Been here for 20 years now. Been painting full time
for 18. Wife retired 4 years ago. Have adopted daughter, now 7 years old. We
are still paying the bills.
Started out showing on the street. I don't mean hustling watercolors to
tourists. First show was called The America Series. Made 30 paintings on
masonite panels of images which, to me, were representative of America. Built
two slotted crates to hold them. Stored them in the furnace room of a building
close to The Whitney Museum with a two wheeled cart. For three consecutive
weekends I lined up the paintings along the wall in front of the museum and sat
on the crates. Collected names and addresses of anyone who was interested.
Offered them for sale for $100 each on the last weekend of the show. Sold 12.
Been painting full time ever since.
Approached my first gallery with a mailing list of 100 Upper East Siders who
either bought or were interested in my work. Got in. Caught the whole East
Village wave. Did 2 or 3 sell out shows a year while the scene lasted.
When the stock/art market crashed here in the late 80s, I focused on Cincinnati
and Japan. Did lots of shows in both places. Japan was about making money. Went
there 6 times. Cincinnati was about philosophy (and making money). Cincinnati
is like a small fishbowl and, having been from there and having "made it" in
NYC, everybody knows me. So I'd do these shows about the Cincinnati art world.
One was called "Thinking About Cincinnati". Prior to the show, every other week
or so, for about a year prior to the opening I'd do postal mailings addressing
all kinds of issues relating to Cincinnati and the arts. Pressed lots of
buttons. Mailed them to all the galleries, critics, media, art schools, and
artists. Something like 120 people. The show itself was images of the
Cincinnati I grew up in. Landmarks and suburbs. The show got tons of press (8
articles in local media) and pretty much sold out.
Another show was about my spiritual quest in life. I'm a very spiritual person.
I started having vision type experiences when I was 4 years old. For that show
I wrote out the testimony of my quest in chapters (14 - 15) and mailed it at
intervals to the same 120 people. For the show I repainted important paintings
of mine from the past as well as new ones. The idea was that the paintings were
the external reflection of what I was going through internally. As I
experienced stuff and grew, the paintings changed. All the paintings in the
show (40) had a paragraph or page hanging beneath it explaining what I felt was
the internal meaning of the piece. That show was ignored by the media, but sold
pretty well.
In NY, since the East Village, I've been with Allan Stone. The first day I met
him he personally bought 14 of my paintings. But Allan has a huge DeKooning
collection and sells Thiebauds for 500 grand and I'm a small fish in his pool.
He's done some big corporate deals where he moved 20 or so paintings at a shot,
but otherwise sales are kind of far inbetween. Also, his location (East 90th),
though a beautiful space, doesn't get a lot of traffic.
But that's cool because I had Japan for my money. Was in the final stages of
preparing for a 3 city show/tour and their economy takes a dive. Business
disappears over night.
Had to scramble, Shifted gears, Started drawing and pastels, put together some
fast shows, nothing was working (sale wise) burning through our savings, end in
sight, and the director of MB Modern calls me up and tells me he has been
looking for me for 13 years (long story). I give him all my inventory and he's
been selling it very well. Solo show in December. Everybody please come and buy
stuff.
So that's the thumbnail of me. I've got this talent, I've always sold well,
kind of a charmed existence living and making it in NYC and all, very
spiritually open kinda.......
For me it's not just about art market or art scene. Though the market side has
been a real roller coaster ride, somehow I can't bring myself to even worry
about that. I've come too far. Something always happens. Somehow I keep making
the rent.
The art scene, well, have you been to Chelsea? I CAN'T play that game. It just
doesn't work with either my character or work. Water and oil.
But the thing is, I feel this HUGE sense of purpose. Like history or something.
I know I'm important. I know that somehow, some way, I'm suppose to interface
with the totality of it all.
And it will probably just work out, just like everything seems to do in my
life. I guess I don't really have to worry about it or anything.
But it's there, just like it is there for so many on this list or anywhere else
you go and talk to artists.It's not JUST about art stars and magazines. I think
it is something deeper, something intuitive that isn't so easily articulated
(especially by artists).
It's got to do with the spiritual thing and value of the individual and history
and making a living AND the entire art scene thing all rolled into one.
Something like that.
Tim Folzenlogen
Ponderable
might be interested.
TIM FOLZENLOGEN
Born: May 2nd, 1952, Cincinnati, Ohio
Graduate: Art Academy of Cincinnati, Class of 1974
ONE PERSON EXHIBITIONS:
1999
M B Modern, "Recent Work", New York City
Kerygma Gallery, "Paintings & Pastels" Ridgewood, N.J.
Allen Sheppard Gallery, Piermont, NY
Chubb Group, Warren, New Jersey
1998 Gallery Henoch, "Light & Shadow" - New York City
1997 Garden Museum, Okinawa, Japan
Ginza Gallery House, Tokyo, Japan
1996 Garden Museum, Okinawa, Japan
Finistel Gallery, Tokyo, Japan
Kerygma Gallery, "City Rhythms" Ridgewood, New Jersey
1995 Mary Ran Gallery, "Brothers" 2 person show Cincinnati, Ohio
1993 Isetan Gallery, Tokyo, Japan
Mason Fine Art Gallery, "Ideal & Reality" Mason, Ohio
Bijutsu Sekai Gallery, Tokyo, Japan
Toni Birckhead Gallery, Cincinnati, Ohio
1992 Bunkamura Gallery, Tokyo, Japan
Dumonde Gallery, NYC
Galerie Quatre Pieces, Yokahama, Japan
1991 Toni Birckhead Gallery, "Thinking About Cincinnati" Cinti, Ohio
The UPS Show, Cincinnati, Ohio
1990 Chubb Group Gallery, Warren, New Jersey
1989 RCCA, Troy, New York
Helio Galleries, NYC, May
Helio Galleries, NYC, November
1988 Helio Galleries, NYC, November
1987 Helio Galleries, NYC, October
Helio Galleries, NYC, May
1986 Helio Galleries, NYC, November
Eastman-Wahmendorf, NYC
S.R. Rage, NYC
1985 Eastman-Wahmendorf, NYC
The Macy's Exhibition, Macy's Windows, NYC
The America Series, In front of the Whitney Museum, NYC
1984 Cincinnati Art Academy, The Christy's Wedding Series, Cinti., Ohio
1983 The Soho Exhibition, Green Street, NYC
1974 The University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio
GROUP EXHIBITIONS:
1999 MB Modern, "Summer" NYC
Kerygma Gallery, Ridgewood, New Jersey
MB Modern, "Figure In - Figure Out" NYC
LewAllen Contemporary, Santa Fe, New Mexico
1998 Weiner Gallery, Cincinnati, Ohio
Allan Stone Gallery
Kerygma Gallery, Ridgewood, New Jersey
1997 Cresent Gallery, "A New World of Art", Tokyo, Japan
Allan Stone Gallery, "Talent", NYC
1996 Cresent Gallery, "A New World of Art", Tokyo, Japan
Allan Stone Gallery, Group Show
University Art Gallery, Akinlan International Group Show, Bridgeport
Conn.
1995 Allan Stone Gallery, "Talent", NYC
1994 University of Bridgeport, International Group Show
Kerygma Gallery, "The City", Ridgewood, New Jersey
1992 Northern Kentucky University, Group Show, Alexandria, KY
World Collection, Yokohama, Japan
Studio San Giuseppe, "Re-Figured", Cincinnati, Ohio
1991 Rado Gallery, Miami Beach, Florida
1990 Allan Stone Gallery, "Talent", NYC
Capitol Cities/ABC Inc. NYC
1989 Gallery Henoch, "NYC by Day / by Night" NYC
1988 Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, International Conference on the Arts,
NYC
David Adamson Gallery, "Views of New York", Washington DC
Wilcov-Goldfeder Gallery, "Landscape/Cityscape", NYC
Cincinnati Art Academy, "Homecoming", Cincinnati, Ohio
City College, "Spring Art Show", NYC
Lucia Gallery, "Benefit for New York City Symphony", NYC
1987 Cincinnati Art Academy, "Celebrate Cincinnati Painters"
Cinti. Ohio
Chidlaw Gallery, "Cincinnati Centennial", Cincinnati, Ohio
1986 Helio Galleries, "Paper, Paper" NYC
Civilisation, "Two Person Show" NYC
Weatherspoon Museum, Greensboro, North Carolina
Eastman-Wahmendorf, NYC
1985 Marilyn Pink Gallery, "Architecture, Fact & Fantasy" L.A.,
Ca.
Eastman-Wahmendorf, NYC
1972-74 Cincinnati Art Museum, "Student Exhibitions",
Cincinnati, Ohio
Iian Neill
> Erik wrote: "I understand what you mean by "Pre-Modernism,....."
>
> But you wanted to demonstrate what a scholar you are.
Speaking personally, I don't care WHY Erik shared his brief
dissertation on the origins of Modernism with us.
I am just glad that he did. It was a concise, BS-free analysis of the
problem of the word "modernism".
Cheers,
Iian Neill
______________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in fine art from its greatest masters, then feel
free to visit my art archive, the Renaissance Café.
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
http://members.spree.com/sip/gerome/index.html
Ponderable
involvement here, and that he does it well.
What do you do in life Erik? Career, job or passion wise (if that's not too
personal).
Tim
Ponderable
I guess it is true that the higher one goes in any discipline, the thiner the
air becomes, so to speak. In that way, I guess that fewer could be seen as
good, rare, excellence.
I'm cool with that. It's only obvious. Few have the time, energy or interest to
pour the years it takes to get a real grip on anything.
I think that my discontent seeps from a different animal. Elitism?
I'm not really sure how to say it. Something like, pertaining to the arts,
there is this clubby attitude. Either you are in or you are out, and the people
who are in want to keep it that way. They are not about communicating to or
even involvement with the masses, though they do a lot of posturing concerning
their importance in society. It's like they are royalty, just because they are,
and you should accept that.
Pertaining to this thread, it's the same thing that makes realistic painters
somewhat defensive about their craft by nature. It has become natural to be
so. It's just such a big part of the air you breath out there.
I'm sorry if I painted Erik with that brush in a defensive reaction, but that's
the thing. I am defensive when encountering mountains of rethoric because that
is kind of the form this stuff takes. Mountains of wordy explanations, always
having to do with art history, the conclusion of which is that they are in and
I am out.
I think any discipline, any branch, any interest, any form of expression is
cool. I'm very into diversity. Trees are cool because they have lots of
branches balancing each other out.
But the air out there isn't about diversity. It's about being in or out.
Tim
Erik A. Mattila
Ponderable wrote:
> I agree that Erik is obviously a very intelligent fellow, selfless in his
> involvement here, and that he does it well.
>
> What do you do in life Erik? Career, job or passion wise (if that's not too
> personal).
There is no personal life in the revolution! A good hunk of my time is spent
being a graphic designer, I have my own business at http://www.impix.com .
I've been doing graphic art for most of my life, in one form or another,
including a stint in the printing industry (I actually got to run a 36" Harris
for a spell - extemely kool.) I also paint, mostly acrylics, but I've not done
much this decade. I've taught art also, for about 8 years. In 1985 I decided
I had no idea what or why I was painting, so I went back to school (UC Davis)
got an undergraduate degree in Art Studio, and commenced graduate school in the
History of Art. After two years studying precolumbian art I switched to
Critical Theory. That finished me off -- CT was so abhorred by the entrenched
faculty that I eventually got expunged from the program. The conservative
element there wasn't thrilled that I was doing my Masters Thesis on comic
strips.
Passion? You mean besides computer games and Mexican ice cream? Seriously, I
am going to get back to art making just as soon as I extricate myself from my
current situation (my wife and I have our life on hold while we care for her
aging mother.) What I'm really interested in is papier mache, believe it or
not. My last series of painting tended to have their contents come off the
surface, and I want to continue with that. I'm also interested in exploiting
debased material, as a statement against the art material industry.
But mean while I continue with this graphic design business. It has been good
to me. Here I am, lost in the desert in the far southeast of California, yet
with a telephone line and computer I can earn a living. Wonder's never cease.
I don't even have to get dressed to go to work.
BTW, your cv was very impressive. Seems like you're doing well, especially if
you're 'out of the loop.' Do you have any work displayed on the www? I'm very
curious.
Best,
Erik
Ponderable
>curious.
Nope.
My computer is old so I rarely even visit the web. Takes forever for pages to
download, and then the machine often crashes.
If my next show does well, I plan on getting a new machine, a DSL (is that what
it's called? the system that operates 120 times the speed of modems) account
and a web page.
In the meantime, should anyone (USA only) be really interested, if you email me
personally, I'll send you my address. Mail me $3 worth of postage stamps and
your address, and I'll mail you a little book from my last show in Japan (30
color images) and a few recent invitations.
I'll even sign it for free. ACT NOW! OPERATORS ARE STANDING BY!!!!
If you, Erik, want to email me your address, I'll be glad to spring for your
postage.
Tim Folzenlogen
Bethany
Bethany
Erik asked Tim, "Do you have any work displayed on the www? I'm very
curious." Whereas Tim replied, "Nope."