Great art verses reputation
roxan
Since there was so much controversy about the value of beads and how much
one can get for them because of their reputation, I thought this brings up
an interesting topic. Pablo Picasso once said that since most people don't
really know the difference between great art and mediocre art work, it
didn't matter to him to do great work towards the end of his life, all he
had to do was put his name on a piece of paper and it would sell for
millions. This angered him since he wanted his art to be recognized because
he was a great artist not because of his name.
I think the same would apply to jewelry makers and bead artists. If you can
get a exorbitant about of money just because you have a good reputation for
doing good beads or jewelry, what would inspire you to take the time to
continue to do great work if mediocre work would sell at the same price as
great work would. My feeling on this is that each art work should be looked
at for it's own artist creation not because someone famous make it. If you
didn't know the name of the person who made it would you pay the same price
because it was great work or would you pass it up for an unknown artist that
made equally good work but who doesn't have a well know reputation yet? I
know which one I would chose, it would be great art no matter who did it. I
know art is in the eye of the beholder which is very subjective, so for me
it comes down to what I really love and would appreciate owning no matter
who made it.
Roxan
starlia
unknowns because we love the artwork. Maybe someday they'll be famous or
maybe they already are and we don't know it. The fact remains we buy what
calls to us.
"roxan" <roxan...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:39mdnZ4Hjq3...@comcast.com...
Harry
You said what I was thinking and couldn't put into words. :)
Thank you... I love it when I have friends who help me think and
remember.
Harry
My Ebay Auctions are at http://snipurl.com/3okw
Dr. Sooz
>>at for it's own artist creation not because someone famous make it.
Yes. But people are lemmings...not all, but many of them are, anyway.
~~
Sooz
-------
"Those in the cheaper seats clap. The rest of you rattle your jewelry." John
Lennon (1940 - 1980) Royal Varieties Performance
~ Dr. Sooz's Bead Links
http://airandearth.netfirms.com/soozlinkslist.html
roxan
even ugly to others and makes it beautiful. This is why I said to you that
the shells you do don't have to be perfectly round or oval but interesting
to make it more beautiful when you embellish it with your own creativity. I
always know when one on my pieces will sell right away when my dear husband
says he doesn't like it. I say great I know it will sell then. He doesn't
have a great eye for great art. LOL
Roxan
"Harry" <harr...@Yyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v5nc30lekd7k9s06i...@4ax.com...
Margie
wrote:
>
>Since there was so much controversy about the value of beads and how much
>one can get for them because of their reputation, I thought this brings up
>an interesting topic. Pablo Picasso once said that since most people don't
>really know the difference between great art and mediocre art work, it
>didn't matter to him to do great work towards the end of his life, all he
>had to do was put his name on a piece of paper and it would sell for
>millions. This angered him since he wanted his art to be recognized because
>he was a great artist not because of his name.
>
>I think the same would apply to jewelry makers and bead artists. If you can
>get a exorbitant about of money just because you have a good reputation for
>doing good beads or jewelry, what would inspire you to take the time to
>continue to do great work if mediocre work would sell at the same price as
>great work would.
You raise an interesting topic. I submit that even a reputable artist
would eventually suffer from that mediocrity because the collectors
would stop buying after a time. Yes, I believe they would. The
general buying populace might not but they tend to be a fickle
mistress at the best of times.
>My feeling on this is that each art work should be looked
>at for it's own artist creation not because someone famous make it. If you
>didn't know the name of the person who made it would you pay the same price
>because it was great work or would you pass it up for an unknown artist that
>made equally good work but who doesn't have a well know reputation yet? I
>know which one I would chose, it would be great art no matter who did it. I
>know art is in the eye of the beholder which is very subjective, so for me
>it comes down to what I really love and would appreciate owning no matter
>who made it.
>Roxan
I agree with you to a point. I don't see it as "either/or" but "all
the above".
--
Margie
http://www.handcraftedjewelry.com/storecatalog.asp?userid=261
Christina Peterson
more interested in his signature than his art's quality, I think he must
have said, it didn't matter to his *customers* if he did great work toward
the end of his life.
Tina
"roxan" <roxan...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:39mdnZ4Hjq3...@comcast.com...
>
Christina Peterson
something meaningful. Actually, it is the artisan who is more likely to
make something beautiful.
Tina
"roxan" <roxan...@comcast.net>
> ...the great artist takes from the world that which is ordinary or
> even ugly to others and makes it beautiful.
> Roxan
Christina Peterson
if the artist is reputable, he won't be so broke that he has to sell
inferior work to put bread on the table.
Tina
"Margie" <mklau598RE...@sbcglobal.net> wrote ...
>
> You raise an interesting topic. I submit that even a reputable artist
> would eventually suffer from that mediocrity because the collectors
> would stop buying after a time. Yes, I believe they would. The
> general buying populace might not but they tend to be a fickle
> mistress at the best of times.
>
> --
> Margie
roxan
who would buy his work because they could make a mint on him no matter what
he did not necessary that it was great art. It is like the story of the
emperor who has no clothes. No one would tell him the truth that he wasn't
dressed. The difference here is Picasso knew when he wasn't being told the
truth about his work. He knew they would buy shit if it had his name on it.
Roxan
"Christina Peterson" <tinap...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1077306684.443812@prawn...
BeckiBead
>get a exorbitant about of money just because you have a good reputation for
>doing good beads or jewelry, what would inspire you to take the time to
Because that is what would make you a great artist. They don't do it because
of the monetary value of their name. They do it because they must.
Becki
"In between the moon and you, the angels have a better view of the crumbling
difference between wrong and right." -- Counting Crows
Kandice Seeber
contributer to the value of someone's beads. Personally, I don't care what
the person's reputation is. I care about quality, technique and whether the
art is pleasing to me. But usually (*usually*), if a person has created
high quality, technically good and pleasing beads, they will build a good
reputation. The two are not mutually exclusive - they can and do often work
in tandem.
--
Kandice Seeber
Air & Earth Designs
http://www.lampwork.net
Dr. Sooz
>>get a exorbitant about of money just because you have a good reputation for
>>doing good beads or jewelry, what would inspire you to take the time to
>>continue to do great work if mediocre work would sell at the same price?
>
>Because that is what would make you a great artist. They don't do it because
>of the monetary value of their name. They do it because they must.
Yes. And if you have to ask this question.......
Dr. Sooz
artists. And some folks are willing to pay for a known quantity. I know I
would, if I could. Just as I wouldn't pay for work I knew to be
less-than-good, based upon reputation (like the seller who has beautiful beads
-- really different, too -- but the holes are shockingly sharp). Reputation
exists for a reason, usually.
So people who are known "names" get more traffic, and more attention, and more
money based upon their reknown.
Comparing all this to what Picasso said about his art is kind of futile, in my
opinion. He was one of the great geniuses of the art world, period. Ever.
Comparing that to the craft and artisanship of glass beads is like comparing a
planet to a boulder.
But I do get your point, Roxan.
>My feeling on this is that each art work should be
>looked
>> at for it's own artist creation not because someone famous make it.
Sure, but this has always happened. Some people start getting attention in
whatever field you care to discuss. Some people maintain that attention, some
do not. It's not so hard to lose that attention -- all you have to do is start
resting on your laurels, a good way to commit professional suicide. It happens
all the time.
In the hothouse world of lampwork on eBay, word travels fast. If any famous
lampworker started to produce shoddy work, I think it would be noticed pretty
darn fast, and sales would be affected accordingly. And the next famous artist
would be able to get a toehold.
I know that I can't afford the famous lampworkers' work. What I look for is
the up-and-coming lampworker -- the one who tries to learn new stuff and
develops it, too. (Learning new stuff all the time is dilettantism, and cheats
the artist from deepening the work.) I try to get in on the ground floor,
because that's what I can afford.
>I
>> know art is in the eye of the beholder
No, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Beadseeker
lampworkers, but I bought them primarily because I met and liked the beadmaker
and wanted to own some of her/his work. I have a lampworked button made by Pati
Walton, which I treasure and made into a centerpiece for a necklace. I can't
afford her $350.00 beads, but I can afford this.
On the other hand, I have met some lampworkers (not a lot, but a few) whose
work I would never own (even though I may think it is beautiful), just because
of their attitude. I decided a long time ago I wouldn't contribute to anyone's
income if I did not like them personally.
Just my thoughts, don't throw bricks.
Patti
Stef
roxan <roxan...@comcast.net> wrote:
>If you can
>get a exorbitant about of money just because you have a good reputation for
>doing good beads or jewelry, what would inspire you to take the time to
>continue to do great work if mediocre work would sell at the same price as
>great work would.
Assuming getting money for your product doesn't somehow corrupt you --
and I think it corrupts some people but not everyone -- I guess you'd
continue doing your best for the same reason that many people do their
best even if they aren't getting paid at all.
I do my best at the work I get paid for because I feel more satisfied
that way. I also do my best at the work I'm not paid for because I feel
more satisfied that way.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Joshu is my favorite Zen Master. It is said that a monk once asked him,
To be holy -- what is it like?" Joshu replied, "To dump a mountain of
shit on a clean plain." -- Dick Sutphen
alex
--
Alex
http://www.jaychantell.com
Ebay ID - Jaychantell
"Stef" <st...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c1r7ga$bek$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Christina Peterson
Tina
"alex" <alex...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wda0c.428465$xy6.2501187@attbi_s02...
Kalera Stratton
think are substandard (or I sell them as seconds) BUT most of the beads
I sell I would consider simply "good work", without considering them to
be my most challenging pieces, which are what I reserve the praise
"best" for. For example; I have a set of black-and-yellow beads sitting
on the counter just waiting to be photographed. The techniques I used
weren't the most complex or difficult, so the beads are really pretty
simple... but they make me happy. I'm really pleased with them. Are they
my "best" work? Not the way I define best, no! By my definition, my most
challenging ie. best work to date are Shaman's Flowers. (which aren't
perfect beads, actually... they are the first of a style, so I will
probably produce "better" ones in the future.) They can't ALL be my
"best work", or the phrase, for me, becomes meaningless.
They *are* all produced with my best effort at craftsmanship; despite
not being my "best work", they are made as well as I can make beads,
which is, I think, how you and many others are defining "best". For
instance, again, the black-and-yellow set. Though they're simple,
they're well-made, and every time I look at them I smile. I hope someone
will buy them and feel the same way.
-Kalera