Do we get lost as an artist today? Part I
To begin let me say that a portion of what I am saying and discussing here today is partly due to my backlash against some of what people like to call the "art world". My definition of the art world includes but is not limited to:
Many times these days artists can be left to feel as though much of their work is being painted for no one to see. Now mind you that many artists, myself included would continue to make art if I were on a deserted island with my paints and brushes. However the point remains that much of what the artist creates in their life time will not be hung in a museum, art gallery or even someone else's home. So I dare say in a cliche way, if a painting is painted yet no one enjoys it was it really even painted at all?
From Critical Mess: Art Critics on the State of their Practice
ed. Raphael Rubinstein
In his essay "At the Crossroads", Peter Plagens finds that contemporary art "has abandoned its function as the visual wing of the house of poetry and has morphed... into a subdivision of the entertainment industry," losing, correspondingly, its impact and depth of statement. Other contributors declare the crisis to be the result of deep tectonic plate shifts in the art market, as well as in the "power structures" of the art world. On the one hand the market continues to globalize and become more and more intensely infused with big-business interests. On the other, the critical voice is no longer the authoritative arbiter of taste in the art world; increasingly, curators and museums received greater predominance as authorities on what is noteworthy, while at the same time the commercialization of art, its transformation into a 'consumable' rather than an expression of culture, bypasses the critic and makes its appeals directly to the public. Adding to this, venues for art criticism are scant; Eleanor Heartney notes that most 'Arts and Entertainment' sections in newspapers are given over to 'entertainment,' with only a brief nod to art.
It is interesting to look at this more closely. When we rely on someone to tell us what is quality or culturally significant art, it seems we abandon what art really is. I get a laugh at food critics. I mean we seriously rely on someone elses taste buds, personal preferences and opinion to tell is what tastes good? Why should we rely on someone elses opinion of beauty to tell us what looks good?
It appears other than in art, society loves to be told what we should enjoy. We love to listen to what people say sounds good, we have the pop charts, country charts, R&B charts, etc. that help convince people to buy music that everyone else is buying.
We have movie critics, movie ratings, movie box office receipt charts to tell us what movie we should see. Should we have art charts?
Can Art Have a Chart?
Lets look at that concept for a moment. Would that be beneficial to someone like me? a fringe artist? There could be a "Art Culture Top 40". How about a "Abstract Chart", or a "Impressionist Chart", "Commercial Art Chart", "Graphic Art Chart", "Top 40 New Artists" and more. What would this or could this be based on? That is the tougher question.
I think perhaps what is needed to move forward is an all encompassing association, conglomerate or group. Let me explain to you how it works in many professional sports when they "vote" on an MVP or all-star team. Perhaps this analogy will help set up my idea. In sports may times they have weighted voting. The press will cast votes, coaches, players and fans. Each of those votes are weighted depending on who casts them. This helps avoid "flooding" the ballot boxes and then also helps players who aren't popular in the public receive credit they deserve. However in some sports it is weighted more on the fan voting. So it all depends.
If we want art to be a focus of our culture we need to promote it as a focus of our culture. Everyone has art of some form on thier walls at home whether that be store bought posters or originals. How do we ensure that everything on everyones wall is an original? I am sure that there are enough artists with enough originals to make that happen at any price point. I shiver when I think that someone can buy a "print" of something at an art store like Aaron Brothers for $200-$400 when there are many artists who would be glad to make or sell them and original for the same price.
Is the web the answer? Possibly with many art sites up and running the possibility is coming around. But to the art buyer is a painting looked at like a pair of jeans or shoes? Don't dare buy it without seeing it in person first? That could be one effect.
With a "Hot 100" list or a "Top 250 Affordable Abstract Painters" list this could be possible. In addition I see galleries "taking chances" on all the same artists. How is that taking chances? Sure I understand they need to make money but come on how much great art isn't seen or sold because the gallery owners refuse to get someone in there without credentials. Did you know that Van Goh sold only one painting in his entire life?!
Part II coming soon...
- art critics
- gallery owners
- art proffessors or art teachers
- elitist artists
- international art "dealers"
- art agents
- pre-madonna art buyers
- unknown artists
- fringe artists
- art collectors
- museum curators and directors
Many times these days artists can be left to feel as though much of their work is being painted for no one to see. Now mind you that many artists, myself included would continue to make art if I were on a deserted island with my paints and brushes. However the point remains that much of what the artist creates in their life time will not be hung in a museum, art gallery or even someone else's home. So I dare say in a cliche way, if a painting is painted yet no one enjoys it was it really even painted at all?
From Critical Mess: Art Critics on the State of their Practice
ed. Raphael Rubinstein
In his essay "At the Crossroads", Peter Plagens finds that contemporary art "has abandoned its function as the visual wing of the house of poetry and has morphed... into a subdivision of the entertainment industry," losing, correspondingly, its impact and depth of statement. Other contributors declare the crisis to be the result of deep tectonic plate shifts in the art market, as well as in the "power structures" of the art world. On the one hand the market continues to globalize and become more and more intensely infused with big-business interests. On the other, the critical voice is no longer the authoritative arbiter of taste in the art world; increasingly, curators and museums received greater predominance as authorities on what is noteworthy, while at the same time the commercialization of art, its transformation into a 'consumable' rather than an expression of culture, bypasses the critic and makes its appeals directly to the public. Adding to this, venues for art criticism are scant; Eleanor Heartney notes that most 'Arts and Entertainment' sections in newspapers are given over to 'entertainment,' with only a brief nod to art.
It is interesting to look at this more closely. When we rely on someone to tell us what is quality or culturally significant art, it seems we abandon what art really is. I get a laugh at food critics. I mean we seriously rely on someone elses taste buds, personal preferences and opinion to tell is what tastes good? Why should we rely on someone elses opinion of beauty to tell us what looks good?
It appears other than in art, society loves to be told what we should enjoy. We love to listen to what people say sounds good, we have the pop charts, country charts, R&B charts, etc. that help convince people to buy music that everyone else is buying.
We have movie critics, movie ratings, movie box office receipt charts to tell us what movie we should see. Should we have art charts?
Can Art Have a Chart?
Lets look at that concept for a moment. Would that be beneficial to someone like me? a fringe artist? There could be a "Art Culture Top 40". How about a "Abstract Chart", or a "Impressionist Chart", "Commercial Art Chart", "Graphic Art Chart", "Top 40 New Artists" and more. What would this or could this be based on? That is the tougher question.
- Based off sales? Well that might work however a lot of art is grossly overpriced and many artists are forced to sell their work at a undervalue just to move inventory. In addition much art is sold "under the table" for cash to avoid taxes. So this may not be the answer.
- Public opinion? Hmmm...this is a tough one because of the fact that it is difficult to track. Online voting? Great visibilty, many websites, but how do you compile the numbers, and does it then fall on marketing like politics?
Not a lot of validity there. Gallery owners? How much art do they even see? How much art goes unseen? I personally have over 130 pieces in inventory some of which my own wife has never seen. This may be the best choice. - Art Competition? Unfortunately we rely on "judges" to decide who wins. Who are these judges? Other artists with an opinion of what they like and don't like. They can be inconsistent, biased and downright wrong. I have entered art in certain unnamed Festivals and Events in Orange County, not make it in, only to see less technical, less creative work being displayed. Makes you feel like there is "the good 'ol boys club".
- Combination of the above? This may be a good idea, but coordination, ratings systems, time and a common idea would be needed and that could get really messy.
I think perhaps what is needed to move forward is an all encompassing association, conglomerate or group. Let me explain to you how it works in many professional sports when they "vote" on an MVP or all-star team. Perhaps this analogy will help set up my idea. In sports may times they have weighted voting. The press will cast votes, coaches, players and fans. Each of those votes are weighted depending on who casts them. This helps avoid "flooding" the ballot boxes and then also helps players who aren't popular in the public receive credit they deserve. However in some sports it is weighted more on the fan voting. So it all depends.
If we want art to be a focus of our culture we need to promote it as a focus of our culture. Everyone has art of some form on thier walls at home whether that be store bought posters or originals. How do we ensure that everything on everyones wall is an original? I am sure that there are enough artists with enough originals to make that happen at any price point. I shiver when I think that someone can buy a "print" of something at an art store like Aaron Brothers for $200-$400 when there are many artists who would be glad to make or sell them and original for the same price.
Is the web the answer? Possibly with many art sites up and running the possibility is coming around. But to the art buyer is a painting looked at like a pair of jeans or shoes? Don't dare buy it without seeing it in person first? That could be one effect.
With a "Hot 100" list or a "Top 250 Affordable Abstract Painters" list this could be possible. In addition I see galleries "taking chances" on all the same artists. How is that taking chances? Sure I understand they need to make money but come on how much great art isn't seen or sold because the gallery owners refuse to get someone in there without credentials. Did you know that Van Goh sold only one painting in his entire life?!
Part II coming soon...
Comments