virtual patron
Karl Zipser
create artworks to satisfy not just one patron, but a large number of
them? See the results so far at http://www.zipser.nl/vpatron.html
Bill
"Karl Zipser" <ka...@zipser.nl> wrote in message
news:1141833609.8...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Is it possible to > create artworks to satisfy not just one patron, but a
large number of
> them?
There are hundreds, maybe thousands of art works that are admired and
applauded by thousands of people. The Mona Lisa is just one. The
ceiling of the Sistine chapel is another. Your question needs no answer.
And beyond that, the rest of your post makes little or no sense either.
There is NOTHING about the world of art that suggests the basic rules of
common sense, logic and simple reasoning no longer apply. Go back to the
drawing board please, and give us something that DOES make sense.
Regards, Bill
Erik A. Mattila
But consider: When Vincenzo Peruggia stole the painting in 1911 it
became a media extravaganza - even advertisers were soon selling
everything from Mona Lisa underwear to Mona Lisa mouthwash. Before the
first Van Gogh museum blockbuster exhibit, which mass media picked up
big time, few even knew of this artist. The Sistine Chapel's popularity
was no doubt prodded by Irving Stone and Charlton Heston, no? And on
down the line...you'll find a discernable relation between popular works
of art and media. What's fascinating is to see how magic qualities
travel from mass media culture to the work itself.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Karl Zipser
many people, of course. My interest is in the intereaction between
artist and patron during the creative process itself. In my work for
patrons, I have found this to be an interesting process. Virtual
Patron is an attempt to open up the creative process to more than one
"patron". It is a simulation because the "Virtual Patrons" do not in
fact buy the picture. If you look at the site, you will see I have
posted the first rough sketch, trying to turn a "patron wish" into an
image. If you like, you can also suggest an idea for an image. Why
not give it a try?
Best, Karl
Karl Zipser
The interesting thing about the creative process of working for a
patron is that the artist has a focused goal of fulfilling a specific
"patron wish". I have found this to be an interesting way to work,
because it is confusing to try to make something to please the whole
world at once.
In Virtual Patron, I am attempting to open up the creative process a
bit wider than the way I work for a specific patron who is paying for
an artwork. The goal is not to please the whole world, but to make
something interesting for the people who want to participate in the
experiment. It has already gotten off to an interesting start. I hope
you will continue to follow the progess, or even make suggestions of a
"patron wish". Best, Karl
Bill
"Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote in message
news:bs-dncnBZdU...@adelphia.com...
>
The Sistine Chapel's popularity > was no doubt prodded by Irving Stone and
Charlton Heston, no? And on
> down the line...you'll find a discernable relation between popular works
> of art and media. What's fascinating is to see how magic qualities
> travel from mass media culture to the work itself.
>
could not pass up the Sistine Chapel with Michaelangelo's huge masterpiece
painted on the ceiling. He had to paint at night by candle light, because
the church was in use during the day. Clinging to the scaffolding and flat
on his back it took several years to complete. I couldn't help recalling his
line on meeting a chic upper class lady coming up the stairs of the church
as he's coming down after a long night's work.
He's dripping with paint and dirt and dust and plaster -in his hair on
his face and on his clothes. Every bone in his body is aching. "Tell me",
asks the lady. "Is the mass for the villani finished" ? ( Meaning the
mass for the lower classes.) "Yes," answered Michaelangelo. The mass for
the villani is finished. And the mass for the putani (whores) is just
beginning. So hurry !"
His work on the Sistine chapel is mind blowing. But his sculpture in
white Carrera marble called The Pieta is worth a trip to Rome all by ITSELF.
Incredible ! Could anyone NOT wish to ascend to the top of St Peter's
Basilica -knowing the dome was designed and built by - You guessed it:
Michaelangelo Buonarotti? Of course he did the immortal statue of David,
plus a dozen tombs for the Medicis and the medieval Popes. He was also an
architect, a poet and a writer !
Any one interested in art who does not study Michaelangelo is not paying
attention and really should seek alternate employment.
Regards,
Karl Zipser
I was recently in Rome and I saw the works by Michelangelo that you
describe. You are right of course, they are amazing. These are works
that were done for specific patrons. In fact, most of the great art of
that time was done for patrons, not for buyers on an open market. This
is part of what made me interested in exploring the artist-patron
relationship, because it has lead to so much great work. -Karl
Erik A. Mattila
Well, I sort of agree with you (but I would agree that "interest in art"
is a form of employment that one should seek an alternative to.)
Buonorotti is the original "suffering artists" that holds so much truck
in pop culture. But why not say, for example, that the study of Antonio
Poullaiuolo is equally worthy of our intention, especially considering
that he may well have had a stronger influence on subsequent Italian art
than did Buonorotti? Well, that's just one measure of how artists are
rated by the "Art World:" influence. But that may be in the providence
of Art historians and critics - not necessarily shared by the broad
public who might be more interested in the "suffering artist" syndrome
as it is circulated in popular culture.
It reminds me of an interview I read once. Yevgeny Yevtoshenko, the
Russian poet, was saying that the very conservative Soviet public was
solidly behind sending seditios artists to the Gulag for crimes against
the state, but then those incarcerated artists became enormously popular
after doing their time. Yevtoshenko explained this by pointing out that
the Russian soul cherished artists who were willing to suffer for their
work.
Personally, I'm not saying that any work of art is good or bad. I think
the dichotomy is poverty stricken. I mean, the same social forces that
fuel the production of a work or art also fuel our distinctions between
good and bad. The truth is, as regards Renaissance art, is that the
attrition rate is huge - something like 96-7% of the art that was
produced during the period has perished and is no longer with us for
either study or appreciation. So what has survived? It is a
representative example of art that interested parties who had the means
to preserve it. Bankers, Royals, Church and guild institutions etc. So
really, we have a very narrow understanding of Renaissance art. We have
quite a bit of literary reference to works of art that perished,
however. Good stuff for art historians, at any rate.
aest...@hotmail.com
to the elite; you can't have both.
Ben Hecht
Karl Zipser
The responses to Virtual Patron here are interesting because they show
how alien the idea of being an art patron has become. I have read
several opinions now, but why does no one say something like: "Karl, I
want to see a tree"? Or, "Karl, draw a mountain"? Or even, "Karl,
make a picture that shows that the rule in the art world is . . ."
Bill
But why not say, for example, that the study of Antonio
> Poullaiuolo is equally worthy of our intention, especially considering
> that he may well have had a stronger influence on subsequent Italian art
> than did Buonorotti?
Concerning Poullaiuolo, I had never heard of him. Which doesn't prove
anything. So I checked a few reference books at home and found nothing.
Again, that doesn't prove much. Next, I went to Encarta, the encyclopedia
that was included with my PC. There I found his name along with that of his
brother who apparently collaborated with him. And therein may lie the
problem. They signed under one signature making it difficult to determine
who exactly was responsible for a particular work.
There seems no doubt that Antonio Poullaiuolo was a man of many skills and
did important work as a goldsmith, sculptor and painter. But there is no
claim that his work is on a par with that of Michaelangelo. How it was
viewed during the golden age of the Medicis is difficult to say. But it
seems clear that while Michaelangelo finished pieces such as the David
statue, the Pieta, the dome of St Peter's, and the Sistine Chapel,
Poullaiulo never produced those eye catching works that make a man's
reputation and stamp him in the public mind as THE outstanding artist of his
day.
I'll agree that the public mind is a notoriously poor barometer for use in
judging merit in the world of art, (or elsewhere). It's easily swayed,
influenced by hype and changes like the weather. How else could one
explain the present position of infantile scribblers like Chagall and
Picasso in today's art world? They would not be allowed to carry the tools
of a man like Michaelangelo. Nor a man like Poullaiuolo, either. And that
says something about the sickness that has infected the world of art as we
know it today.
Regards, Bill
Thur
<aest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141977434.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>- The rule in the art world is: you cater to the masses or you kowtow
> to the elite; you can't have both.
>
> Ben Hecht
>
A world where there are forever just two choices:
either/or black/white right/wrong left/right
good/bad them/us, lazy/hardworking, coward/hero etc.
I was reading an interesting piece on Spanish painting
where a "typical" Spanish painting :of Phillip II 1575 ish
"It exhibits traits that can readily be qualified as "Spanish"
: the sombre palette, the stern expression, the rosary held
in the right hand seem to illustrate the ascetic religiosity that
art historians continue to identify as essential to Spanish
character. Yet the portrait has most recently (1977)been
attributed to an Italian- even more anaomolous- a woman,
Sofonisba Anguisola (1530's-1625)"
What are we to make of that in this world of two colour
thought?
--
Thur
Karl Zipser
I find your comments about the "world of two colour thought"
interesting. I've also been wrestling with Ben's comments (I discuss
them on the Virtual Patron site). Can you extend your analysis more
specifically to Ben's comments about "the masses" and "the elite" and
the making of art?
Thanks,
Karl
rememberallthis
for an audience.
My limited view is that the former bring about some underlying truth,
which are often times ignored by general perception. And truth and
beauty being one, it is inevitable that people would natually find this
kind of art beautiful. An example would be Mona Lisa, which makes you
pause. So creating art without an audience in mind, just being
truthful in presenting the subject, I think will ultimately arrive at
mass appreciation of the art. It could take a while for the general
public to share the same vision of the truth, but it will happen
eventually.
The latter, creating art for an audience, would inevitabily limit
oneself in the process, since the concentration would be on the
audience rather than the subject. I don't think great art can be
created this way.
Erik A. Mattila
I make my living in design - so I have "patrons" coming out of my ears.
Whether it is a web site design, or a book design, or any print job,
the process is typically an initial "inspired" idea that is hacked-up
and sabotaged by the client (patron). So in the end the aesthetic
challenge I have is to translate some very poor graphic ideas into
something that looks good. But it's ok, because I'm paid to do all that
editing, and in the end, the customer gets what he/she likes. It's just
not that fulfilling artistically.
But I'm wondering if the term "patron" means the same to me as it does
to you. I think over here in the U.S. we might use "commission" rather
than "patron" to discribe a situation where the a person pays an artist
to produce a work of art that is specified as "a painting of my garden"
or "a picture of my daughter" etc. "Patron" usuallly denotes someone
who is collecting a certain artist's work, but exercising no control
over what constitutes that work in the area of subject matter, style and
so forth.
Thur
">
<aest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141977434.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>- The rule in the art world is: you cater to the masses or you kowtow
>> to the elite; you can't have both.
>>
>> Ben Hecht
>
> How disappointing.
> A world where there are forever just two choices:
> either/or black/white right/wrong left/right
> good/bad them/us, lazy/hardworking, coward/hero etc.
> I was reading an interesting piece on Spanish painting
> where a "typical" Spanish painting :of Phillip II 1575 ish
> "It exhibits traits that can readily be qualified as "Spanish"
> : the sombre palette, the stern expression, the rosary held
> in the right hand seem to illustrate the ascetic religiosity that
> art historians continue to identify as essential to Spanish
> character. Yet the portrait has most recently (1977)been
> attributed to an Italian- even more anaomolous- a woman,
> Sofonisba Anguisola (1530's-1625)"
> What are we to make of that in this world of two colour
> thought?
--
Thur
You then wrote:-
Karl Zipser" <ka...@zipser.nl> wrote in message
news:1142016838.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Regarding the subject of your question, I do not see such a
choice between patron and artist. There can always be a successful
blend, given mutual respect.
The patron cannot expect an artist of significant repute
to sacrifice his own interpretation while the patron must expect
only a fairly loose set of demands to be set.
Unfortunately this means judgment, it relies on individual taste,
and most of all, mutual respect and full communication.
To put it another way, it is an illusion to assume anything is certain.
IMO:
The masses is in this case a term of disrespect.
The elite is a concept that must be used with care.
The feel I get from it is that artists are an elite, and patrons
come from the masses. The masses being unable to ask for
anything that an elite artist would consider useful or intelligent
or knowledgeable.
The urge to simplify it into a one of two answers is the urge to
bypass thought.
--
Thur
Karl Zipser
also for a long time. However, historically, much great art was made
for specific patrons. This suggests that, contrary to the intuitive
idea of "art for the sake of art", art made for a specific audience is
productive approach. In my own work for patrons, I sometimes react
(silently) to their requests with the thought "this could never make a
good picture". But I have found that this is often more my own
limitation than a limitation in a patron's idea. I have found the
challenge of painting other people's requests to be unexpectedly
rewarding. I also find it a nice approach, because it is in some sense
less egocentric than the normal way artists are expected to work. My
goal with the Virtual Patron experiment is to involve more than one
"patron" in the creative process.
Best,
Karl
Karl Zipser
Interesting and surprising. I expected you to associate the patron
with the "elite", because in the normal sense, the patron has got to be
able to pay the artist. I like the concept of patron, rather than
consumer of art, because a patron plays a role in the creative process.
A consumer, someone who buys a finished work, say in a gallery, has no
input. In the past, patrons made very specific requests of what they
wanted in pictures. Much great art was created under these conditions,
although it might seem odd to us today.
Communication and respect between artist and patron are essential for
the relationship to be productive. I have found, as an artist, that it
is quite easy to dismiss a patron's idea as a lousy idea for a picture.
But the real challenge is to study the patron's idea and figure out
how to make something good of it, no matter what. It is in this that I
have found a lot of pleasure and artistic discovery. To work with the
patron's ideas, rather than dismissing them, is a valuable constraint
on the creative process. It forces the artist (at least in my
experience) to confront challenges that he would not normally consider.
This is what the Virtual Patron non-profit experiment is all about.
Why not make a suggestion for the developing picture?
Best,
Karl
Karl Zipser
A patron is a person who gives a commission to an artist for a specific
work. That is the sense that I am using for "patron". The important
distinction from my point of view is between a patron and a person who
buys artwork at a gallery. The patron has a role in the creative
process, whereas the person shopping in the gallery is a consumer who
can make a selection, but not chose the direction of the work as it is
being created.
As you say, the challenge for the artist or the designer, is to
translate ideas into something that looks good. Of course, if the
patron could do this him or herself, then the artist or designer would
not get any business. The patron's designs are of course going to be
low quality, that is why they seek help from a professional. However,
what I have found is that it is a mistake to dismiss a patron's idea as
silly, simply because the patron expresses it poorly. The key thing I
have found is that patrons tend to have good ideas, but it takes some
work to appreciate them and bring them to life.
It is a modern idea that a patron should not interfere in an artist's
work. Great patrons of the past did a lot of meddling, and they
managed to commission a lot of great art. What I am testing with the
Virtual Patron experiment is whether our modern ideas about "keeping
the patron out of the studio" are perhaps misplaced.
This is a non-profit experiment. If you like, step into patron's shoes
and make some suggestions about what you would like me to make:
http://www.zipser.nl/vpatron.html
-Karl
rememberallthis
starts with a set of assumptions, which are really believes. It is not
reasoning, but rather my view\experience that truth is not generally
found in concensus. Lets take a portrait as an example. Wouldn't it
be boring if you have to paint it per others' requests of glorifying
and glossing over? Wouldn't it be more satisfying to you if you'd be
able to explore what this person really is, and paint that?
aest...@hotmail.com
The following article on conforming to Santa Barbara's architectural
criteria concludes:
- ''A lot of architects complain about the Spanish Revival criteria.
They complain it stifles creativity,'' Shelton says. ``I think the
rules make it easier. They force you to be creative.''
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/home/13944895.htm
rememberallthis
there will be a lot of creativity and novel ideas in using just the 2
colors. But is that an limitation? And will only 2 colors be able to
truthfully represent everything an artist sees and likes to recreate?
aest...@hotmail.com
photos or movies?
rememberallthis
screaming of more colors though. And to me, I have to be true to the
subjects. Otherwise, it's no point to me.