Replies: 33 Comments
on Sunday, February 17th, fghjkl said
I'd love to be corrupted by fame and fortune
on Wednesday, February 13th, Jazzy Jan said
Here's something to ponder. Isn't it true that the best selling artists have mastered the ability to create a buzz for themselves. Sometimes it can be more the artist than the art that appeals to the audience.
on Friday, February 8th, marjan said
Did everyone deliberately ignore the visual pun? (man in photo holds shyly but desperately onto 'posterior'...)
on Saturday, February 2nd, Henry Reed said
I giveaway my art daily
on Sunday, January 27th, Dayan said
yes,
I have something to said, I saw now the work of Yuroz, and I do not like it.
on Sunday, January 27th, Dayan said
I have nothing to said,
the best advertasing is the work itself,
anyway I think art is a therapy
on Wednesday, January 23rd, walt said
Thanks Obert. Me too. I have a drawing class to teach.
on Wednesday, January 23rd, Obert said
Walt and all, Once again a stimulating discussion. I painted for years without thinking of trying to sell one or exhibit and only recently went public as it were. I have sold paintings, I make applications for art shows and exhibits, and I have my work posted on the internet. I'm not sure what a totally isolated artist who keeps his/her art to himself/herself would be doing for himself and others. I have been fortunate in many ways in my life and wonder and worry about those less fortunate people and artists who somehow manage to struggle on when there are no external rewards there for them. I think I've said enough for now. I think its time to get back to work no matter what the rewards for me or others may be.
on Wednesday, January 23rd, walt said
Obert, I don't doubt that many actually make art with little or no hope of being recognized for their talents. And there are most likely a few who do not want recognition and even a few who may even disdain it. On the other hand I also have a good friend who believes that if one doesn't make their living soley from their art they are simply not a real artist at all.. perhaps they are hobbyists or something else.
I'm not sure I accept that point of view either as I know people who simply make what they know will sell. The kind of work that has little to do with any deep sense of the truth of their world or even their own actions within the world. They simply make a product to which someone else will assign monetary value. I once made a humorous painting of a friends wife in exchange for a sailboat. There was little intent on my part to paint the truth of my existance or the truth about his wife for that matter. (By the way it was not a derogatory image of his wife but a visualization of an inside joke between the two of them.)
It may in fact be sweeter as you suggest to paint or make art from such a pure state of mind as there should be no conflict to deal with in terms of subject matter or motives. But if there is no conflict I suppose I would suspect the validity or verity of the search. By the way it has also been said that 'stolen watermelon is the sweetest'. A statement that I also doubt.
I'm not sure that it makes for better art. Many monks over time have been artists, their livelyhoods were taken care of as part of their order, their motives, although possibly intangled in the politics within their orders, are presumably clear...perhaps to glorify God or what ever diety they worshipped.
But i'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. It seems to me that an artist does not do what they do to put it in a closet for no one to see or only the select few, the chosen. Therefore I suspect those collectors who buy a work and hide it in a vault. I have a sense that art is part of the intercourse of a culture or else it is isolated from that society. And, while the work done by such a person might be great personal therapy, of what value does it have culturally? I couldn't despise such an artist but I would wonder why they choose to separate from the rest...to refuse to share what truths they feel they have found...I must admit I suspect a selfish motive. Or an embittered one.
I don't like a lot of how art is perceived or exchanged or valued in this society. But I feel this exchange of value is needed, and I feel that an artist should be part of the society to have anything of importance to say.
Forgive me if I seem to suspect the one who swears it is simply altruistic and nothing more. Maybe I am too cynical. But I will admit my skepticism. It seems a bit like the president of the United States not knowing how much a loaf of bread costs while sending young people off to defend the price of oil. It suggests that he is not one of us, not part of the country he supposedly leads. Not interested in the larger world in which he lives. And if he is not interested in that larger world how can he have any sense of either the culture he protects or the one he protects it from?
It seems to me that part of the struggle of an artist is that he(she) must grapple with the world, both the physical as well as the spiritual, the outward other and the one formed through living inside.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't seek my subjects from the landscape, or still life or portrature for the most part (with the exception of some sketches I do of people interacting and small landscapes when I travel or portraits of friends as gifts and the occasional commission).
Most of my work is done in the studio where I can have some peace and quiet and meditate on the perceptions I experience throughout the week. But this is only a temporary retreat from the world. Ultimately I create from both worlds...the inner and the outer-- a world that is always in the background of my thought and in some sense a part of the whole subject of my work. It is where my personal reality reaches up and breaks through the social filters I put up in public to survive. There it--my personal reality-- has a chance to finally meet with and touch the reality we all share. But only if I allow it to join in...co-mingle...even compete with the personal reality of others. I admit it is somewhat safer than challenging that more common reality face on. Perhaps it is a weakness in my personality. But it is also a sense that I have that since mine is as much a portion of a whole it may not be anymore important than anyone elses portion. I prefer not to put it up in any pretense that it is more important than another. That is not my call. So I paint it privately but make a good effort to show it publicly. Perhaps in some sense as a confession, as a witness, a testimony...an admission of my world view.
When I paint I don't often think about how anyone else will perceive what I do. It is first between me and God if you like or truth or the force that through the green stem drives the flower or the secret mathematics of the universe before I ever put it out in public. But I know that I will eventually put it out in public because ultimately I am speaking about what I have found, what I perceive, understand and believe about the reality of my existance. I want to play the real guitar in stead of an air guitar. I know it can have a connection to the reality we all experience at some level or another. And some feedback, especially from someone whom I respect for their veracity and credibility is a good thing in whatever form it takes whether verbal or monetary. That feedback, whether positive or negative, is needed for balance.
In the long run I don't care if my work sells or becomes famous. In the short run I do need money to feed my family and my own needs and this thing I produce might be of value in that pursuit. For the most part I make my living using what I know about art in various forms...for 23 years that has meant working primarily as a teacher which includes rewards other than monetary. But it has included a number of other art related outlets as well. As in all other professions it requires putting out the word that one is available, motivated to work and some proof of compitency. It also requires having some sense of the value of ones services and what one is willing to do in return for that value.
But if I become well known or even wealthy from what I do, would that by neccessity ruin what I've done? I suppose it depends on my own inner drives and disciplines. If I can devote myself to that higher calling and also make a living from the product of the pursuit...to get my hands dirty so to speak...and I do it altruistically and ethically all the while suffering the test and hopefully passing it...why must this corrupt my work. Isn't the metal tested before knowing it is pure?
I feel the same about a plumber who seeks excellence in his work and does his work with the same purity and clarity and excellence of an artist. I've known people in other fields who were as pure in motive as this thing we are speaking of. They seem rare these days because it is just as hard to spot them in the crowd as it is in the arts sometimes. And the news ignores them because it doesn't help them sell sell air time for advertising as well as the last crisis or crime or catastrophy.
An extreme example are those who risked their lives hiding Jews during the Nazi occupation for instance. Or those who saved the persecuted in any of the carnages we've seen more recently in Bosnia or Dafur. Some of these work for relief agencies and do get paid for their services even if it isn't much. Some make an effort to gain media attention as well, not so much for themselves but to raise consciousness.
We can never truly know anothers motives and therefore cannot judge them for the most part. Saint Paul said the worker is worthy of his wages. He wasn't speaking of everyday workers but the preachers, prophets and spiritual workers within his faith.
Of course fame and fortune can corrupt. But it can also help broadcast the truth. Or it can even strengthen ones purity. I think this plane on which we live with its physical and spiritual aspects is much more complex than our simple minds can grasp. I wonder sometimes if by neglecting or withdrawing from any given economy within which we live we are truly saving ourselves from its influence. Or are we simply hiding from the disciplines that do truly purify us?
Obert, what do you do with the art that you've made? Do you sell it? Exhibit it? I know you publish it on the web and join in the discussion from time to time.
on Wednesday, January 23rd, Obert said
Interesting discussion all around and has helped me clarify some of my own thinking. What is most fascinating to me about being creative is the drive, the absolute compulsion to create that some artists experience no matter what. Imagine the archangel Gabriel (or any other messenger from God) coming to you at the beginning and telling you something like: "Look here, you can paint (put in creative activity of your choice here) the rest of your life, but you will never sell one painting, never be exhibited, you will die unknown as an artist; you will never experience fame and fortune as an artist, only obscurity and poverty." Would you go on painting/creating anyway knowing that upfront? Some do; some have continued painting with no view of fame and fortune in sight. Is it the hope of fame and fortune that drives them on or something else? What is going on inside of them that keeps them going despite the lack of rewards, praise, fame, fortune, etc? One is free to wake up in the morning and say to oneself: "Today I will go out to the studio and begin to paint a self-portrait," and do just that. But what is that compulsion that cannot be denied, that drive to continue painting despite the ongoing lack of any worldly return? I read somewhere that only one artist in a hundred makes a living as an artist. Can that be true? Nevermind becoming rich and famous, what about just making a decent living as an artist? Why continue against such odds? Finally, a paraphrase of a Picasso story: something like if he he had no art supplies to paint with, he would draw with a stick in the dirt. If he was locked away in a prison cell, he would lick his finger and draw on the prison wall with his wet finger. That is what I am talking about when I write about not having a choice in the matter, one paints because one has to, one has no choice in the matter and one keeps on painting no matter what.
on Wednesday, January 23rd, Obert said
Interesting discussion all around and has helped me clarify some of my own thinking. What is most fascinating to me about being creative is the drive, the absolute compulsion to create that some artists experience no matter what. Imagine the archangel Gabriel (or any other messenger from God) coming to you at the beginning and telling you something like: "Look here, you can paint (put in creative activity of your choice here) the rest of your life, but you will never sell one painting, never be exhibited, you will die unknown as an artist; you will never experience fame and fortune as an artist, only obscurity and poverty." Would you go on painting/creating anyway knowing that upfront? Some do; some have continued painting with no view of fame and fortune in sight. Is it the hope of fame and fortune that drives them on or something else? What is going on inside of them that keeps them going despite the lack of rewards, praise, fame, fortune, etc? One is free to wake up in the morning and say to oneself: "Today I will go out to the studio and begin to paint a self-portrait," and do just that. But what is that compulsion that cannot be denied, that drive to continue painting despite the ongoing lack of any worldly return? I read somewhere that only one artist in a hundred makes a living as an artist. Can that be true? Nevermind becoming rich and famous, what about just making a decent living as an artist? Why continue against such odds? Finally, a paraphrase of a Picasso story: something like if he he had no art supplies to paint with, he would draw with a stick in the dirt. If he was locked away in a prison cell, he would lick his finger and draw on the prison wall with his wet finger. That is what I am talking about when I write about not having a choice in the matter, one paints because one has to, one has no choice in the matter and one keeps on painting no matter what.
on Tuesday, January 22nd, Olga said
Yuroz is Armenian. These guys help each other a lot.
There is a big Armenian community in CA, a lot of them are really reach.
Critics... those were probably not paid enough:).
Here is web site of Yuroz:
www.yurozart.com/about/index.htm
I've had a problem with dates, could not understand when and how long he was homeless...
on Tuesday, January 22nd, walt said
Oh my. I forgot we can't say the word S E X! Probably because it becomes a key word that pulls an audience we don't really want.
on Tuesday, January 22nd, walt said
Obert and Andrew, I actually think it is a bit of both. I said I played in bands. I made that choice somewhat after deciding to be an artist in one form or another. I was oriented towards visual art by the 4th grade. I decided to learn to play drums by the 6th grade and got my first set. Took some lessons, was invited to join the marching band and refused. Formed my first band instead. We moved to another city shortly after that and I formed several other bands along the way always continuing my interest in visual art, writing and some theater along with the music...but music took the front seat...I think I recall making the choice because I saw other musicians getting all the girls. The artists I knew were nerds and never had girl friends. The female artists always had boyfriends but that is another discussion.
Being in bands didn't work as far as girls were concerned for me. I eventually realized it was not what I did but who I was that attracted people to me. It wasn't long after that that I gave up music for visual art. So while I did make a conscious decision it was to choose what I already felt I was pre-wired to do.
So yes to both of you...making art is a choice...or more like an acceptance of who we are. Once all the chips slide into place we either accept or reject who we really are.
As to the purity of art for arts sake? Well that term really means something else in the art world. It is actually a much smaller idea that the one Obert has construed. It has to do more with artists selecting art as the subject matter of their work as opposed to the wider world as the subject. It refers to a particular dialog within the artist community about what art is right or wrong, what comments can one say about that art and how much one can manipulate those forms to create something new.
Ok, so we will change the basic meaning of the terminology for a moment to mean something about making art for the joy of it, perhaps widening the meaning of the cliche. Yes. It is obvious that many of us begin making art with some other reason but eventually fall in love with the art itself. I remember when I realized that being in a band wasn't going to get me women and then understanding that being an artist would not particulalry help either because of who I was and how I reacted to the opposite *** I began to realize that being in love with my muse...I know, another cliche, was more important to me and that if I found a woman that would happen when it was supposed to happen and not because I was an artist but because, and perhaps because my focus on the art had brought me closer to my real self, my time to find and be with a woman had come.
Remember I was only about 16-17 years old during this period of my life and still pretty immature. These realizations lead me to the right choice about my life and my art... an acceptance of certain internal drives.
Oh, as an aside, I did find that woman. Funny thing. She was at first infatuated with the idea that I was an artist. Ha! But I think if I had continued my pretentious ways consciously putting myself out there as this mysterious tortured artist she would have laughed at me. The fact that I was oblivious to it all just doing what I believed in was what ultimately mattered to her. My attempts to quit being an artist during our early years, a sacrifice for her sake and my children's sake largely because I could see no way of making a living by it, strengthened our relationship. But that too is another story.
on Monday, January 21st, Barney Davey said
Thanks to everyone who made a comment here. I'm happy to have ignited some debate. Yuroz is an interesting person whose passion, drive and creativity have served him well. That he is informed by the giant of 20th Century art, Picasso, has made him a target of some critics. Still, he has been enormously successful in introducing his sophisticated art to so many people who enjoy collecting it. Something that is undoubtedly a source of satisfaction for him as is being embraced by museums in his lifetime.
It's hard to be a successful artist and to escape the harsh light of criticism; well founded, unfounded, or confounded. It requires a resilence and tenacity to continue to follow a vision for art and to effectively pursue the underlying business structure that funds the efforts. That he has used his celebrity and position for charitable purposes illustrates how achieving success can be put to good use. I wonder if the collective charitable activities of his critics come close to matching the money he has raised for good deeds, or if any of their work has remotely had a profound effect on a huge body of fans and collectors? I tend to think not. His remarks about never remembering a time when there were too many artists resonates with me, and speak to the essence of the man.
on Monday, January 21st, Obert said
Of course I've got it all wrong because I'm talking about individual motivations and that's something personal with no universal truth right or wrong. I can be perfectly wrong for you and perfectly right for another. I agree that arttists create because they choose to, but what's the motivation? What drives you, not me, to create? What's wrong for one can be just right for another. It's the drives that are base or noble. Creativity is a process, becoming rich and famous is a process, being rich and famous is the sought for end. Don't confuse the ends with the motives to achieve those ends, however base or noble. Don't confuse the motives with the actions we choose freely. Of course, I've got it all wrong--for you. Pursue your own truth and your own creativity.
on Monday, January 21st, walt said
"I think museums hold a unique place now in that they can be educators of art history but contemporary work as well. "
Mark, this I agree with completely. This is what their missions usually state up front. Sometimes they are good for it.
On the other issue, the blockbuster-fundraising- popular attraction shows aside (I remember taking my son to see an Odelon Redon show in Chicago once. They were selling key chains with Redon's eyeball image on them. My son remarked-- he was about 10 or 11-- "if this was a Van Gogh show would they sell ear key chains Dad?", there is still the other shows that are put up often with artists who have generated favor not so much with the general public but with collectors, galleries, critics and other arts writers, who have gotten lots of press etc. The verdict is still out on the importance to the long history of art.
Andrew, it is a choice. I remember for years I played in blues and rock bands more often than I made visual art. It was a lovely blend of playing drums, doing light shows, stage managing and graphics for various singer songwriters and making some art on the side. I even did some songwriting collaboration. Eventually the team player aspect of being in a band and working with bands wore me down and I selected the more solitary painter path. I tried being just a welder for a while in the early 70's but found I was staying after work far too often making welded sculpture. I finally gave up trying to ingnore the art and went to art school.
on Monday, January 21st, Mark said
History, to anything, is important and most of us here probably know the history to some level, and I know my own work is influenced and inspired by the history of art. I think museums hold a unique place now in that they can be educators of art history but contemporary work as well. Trouble is your average museum goer does not generally go with the idea of art history but on an artist or type of art they like, hence the popularity of schools like the impressionists. It is not the ground breaking art that they created that draws the viewers as much as the art itself, which is not a bad thing. My point being that history aside most go to popular shows, museums see this and think lets show more of the same and there is the danger, so that artists who should be showing in museums maybe will not because they are not popularor not popular enough. As for democracy in art, there is no democracy in art or in business, one needs to fight up stream the whole way sometimes with help sometines without. None of us are voted in, but then maybe I am wrong there, for if one is popular and gets a museum show based on that, they are in truth voted in. In any case as is usual there are no easy answers and it is all very complicated, but then it is worth the struggle.
As to Yuroz having museum exceptance, here I will make no judgement. But one thinks at looking at his work that he may be just another Picasso knock-off, or he may be an artist worth the museums notice. His work is not groundbreaking (nor is mine so I make no judgement on that, I only make the statment). I will leave it at that.
on Monday, January 21st, Andrew said
Obert has it all wrong. Artists create because they choose to. While in my own work, it is true that I become restless in an environment where I can't do what I usually do, the fact is, I could find some form of creativity to follow and say the hell with you to all my relatives at christmastime if I chose to. I don't think doing that would neccesarily mean I followed a 'higher' calling. Becoming rich and famous is in itself a form of creativity. You may feel miserable and empty for a number of reasons, but one of the less noble of these is that you believe you aren't being allowed to create. Let's have a little humility here, for after all, that's what lets you improve your work and your being by learning.
on Sunday, January 20th, walt said
Mark, my comments were not so much in response to yours as deeper discussion of what (I think) are the premisses of the museum/art world system with a bit of history. I think Barney's original thread was that he was excited to see Yuroz gaining acceptance and that hopefully he would one day end up in museum shows. I don't think everyone needs to persue such ambitions. I often times feel these discussions simply gloss over so much of what is important to know and discuss. I may be too analitical for some. But I think it is important to take these things into consideration. Like it or not when we enter the world of contemporary art just as when we enter the world of contemporary business or politics, we enter a world with both a long and short history. And the future, including our own, is nothing more than history in progression.
Robert, glad you have joined us. The critics are often the least of the art world. They do more to uphold and sell the status quo (which is at this moment in question) as they do to point out the great work that is among us. I'm not sure I even mentioned critics once. I rarely do. For the most part I talk about them in other less defined terms these days. I use the term 'Arts Writers.' Myself? While I write about art I hardly consider myself a true critic. My audience is other artists not the museums, the galleries or the critics or the common folk for that matter.
As to access to beautiful art...I honestly don't know of a moment in modern history when the quote un quote common people didn't have access to beautiful art. Some of the most beautiful work done today is done by amateurs and children. And much of that could be had for just a few dollars, sometimes just for a song! If we are talking about Yuri's work then I wonder who those common people are. Yuri gets pretty good prices for his work. I mean more than two weeks pay ($1200 to $3000) for a person making $50K a year for some of his prints alone. I'm not sure that fits into my idea of the common person's ability to buy art. No. Yuri has begun to reach a level just below what I would say was the high end of the art world. He's not recognized as one of the contemporary hot buys for major collectors possibly but he also isn't in the category that many of us are in here at aa either.
Again, I am not criticizing Yuri's work or his prices. He deserves what he can get. He's worked hard to develop his skill,talent and artistic voice to speak to that vein in the market.
I do sincerely commend Yuri on his successful career as an artist...as an artist doing the work he feels is his own. I made comments about his inspirations and I acknowledge my own as we all should. My own work is as inspired by Matisse, Hans Hoffman and Richard Diebenkorn's abstraction and color, di Chirico and Magritte's , Picasso and Braque and Cezanne's structure as it is by artists like El Greco, Goya, Duccio and Giotto and Asian stencil work and Polish folk art (also a form of stenciling).
Now, can you say honestly that you don't hope that Yuri's work will one day be shown in major museums as part of his gift to posterity? Would that not be the opposite of access for the common people? Besides all this...I know artists who have been included in museum collections by one means or another and it doesn't do that much for their careers. Unless the museum is putting them forth as part of some contemporary, ground breaking movement they are just another piece in the big picture.
on Sunday, January 20th, Robert said
Prospertity vs Posterity...Marriage vs single...Having your cake and eating it too...isn't that the human desire?
While the posterity route suits the few critics, the distribution of art pleases the many, many people who own and view it daily.
If the critics are displeased with the availability of beautiful art, so be it. We common people are delighted with our access.
Kodos to YURI.
on Sunday, January 20th, Mark said
Walt I think you are making much more about my statments then I have. I only say what I have about museums (history aside)to say that perhaps we put to much importance on them. Sure it would be nice to have a museum show ones work but is it really that important? Only the individual artist can answer that, for me, it would be nice but it does not define me or my work. I agree that the artist must decide where they want to be and work toward that with the knowledge that regardless how hard one works it may not happen as planned. But then an unknown road can be exciting. So can an artist have it all? Yes but what 'have it all' meanscan be different for different artists. Most important is that one works at the best level they can, excepting thier stengths and weakness' and continue to move toward a goal.
on Saturday, January 19th, walt said
Mark I agree in part. What I should say here has more to do with the principle behind the way museums once functioned and the way they function today.
Back before the start of contemporary art museums there were some basic rules of the road. Museums were historical institutions. Their prime objectives were to collect and display the history of art.It was not in their mission statements to make history but to record and collect it. The museums and art historians worked together to build collections that noted the various time periods, highlighting the more important works and the reasons they were historically important to the history of art.
Although many of these collections began as royal collections which often collected contemporary art of the times. But once the museum format took over it began to change. One of the rules of thumb was that an artist not be included in the collection until they were something like 50-100 years dead. This gave the historians the chance to separate substance from fad.
Also, a hierarchy was slowly established in which some art and the artists who made it were considered top tier, second tier, third tier etc. Or more commonly known as Major and minor masters thereby signifying that while a minor mast may make a major work in the life of his career he was still primarily a minor master due to the over all quality of work.
Today we have museums who have been known to buy direct from the artists studio, through purchase awards via competitions, directly from brokers or collectors when the work is thought to flesh out the general breadth of a certain time period. Although the predominant method of acquisition is through donations which in general puts a little time between the original purchase of any given work in the collection and the appearance in the museum. This time period could be as much as 50 years in the case of a collection of contemporary art.
In any case, the result of all of this is not democracy in which the most popular art gets collected or shown but something more like an oligarchy in which a favored with tastes considered suitable select works which find their way to museum collections.
It is more like what the founding father of the US set up in our Republic. Land owners of means(gentlemen farmers)were essentially given the right to elect the government. All others were considered minors under their educated, well heeled care.
The current model we use today actually is a response to the call for more democracy in the museum collection and exhibition policies begun in the 50's but which reached a climax during the Viet Nam war era in the late 60's and early 70's. And this period of activism primarily hefted by the artists themselves from that period are a reflection of a similar revolution begun during the old French Salon with the Salon d'Refuses. So in effect we are once again arguing against the same kind of powerstructure which has already been toppled at least twice in recent history (150 years or more) and will probably cycle around about every 50 to 75 years or about every other generation.
But this is in effect diverging from Barney's original discussion as to whether an artist can have it all, both prosperity and posterity. The answer is "of course". But to do so requires the desire and the fortitude to push on both in the studio and against the grain as well as the knowledge of how the art world system works and whether to use it in ones favor or know how to sidestep it and/or come in another door.
But each artist must gain a perspective about their work...about what level they are functioning...so as to know if they have the artistic/aesthetic capital to wage war on the system or simply do what they can to survive comfortably and do what their heart desires with no pretensions. I don't think platitudes really help. I don't think any longer that "the cream rises" or "do what you love and success will follow."
There is a lot of work, strategy and perserverence required even if one simply wants to avoid the art world but continue making the art one has it in them to make.
on Saturday, January 19th, Mark said
Walt,
I agree with much of what you said. The ground breaking of the Impressionists, the historic value of that, is not what bring people to the museums, Most people do not understand what happened then, it is at this time based on popularity and the museums are unwilling at best to move far from that in fear of loosing visitors (perhaps a valid fear). My point is that museums as a whole rely to much on popularity and not enough on the merit of many other artists, aside from those who seem to be breaking new ground when in fact they often just use shock, a tecnique not valid enough in my mind for a museum show (that's another discussion). The museums do a disservice to the art community and the community as a whole when they narrow thier choices for shows that much. It is OK to have a big popular show but why not show some lesser known artists as well? In my last statment about popularity being a way to get a museum show was done tongue-in-cheek, I would never suggest that to anyone looking for a museum show.
on Friday, January 18th, walt said
Mark, yes when an artist becomes as popular as Wyeth, or even Norman Rockwell museums will bow if they want to raise their fund raising levels. But this is usually a last resort.
Monet and the Impressionists hardly qualify in the sense that they established themselves some time ago as bona fide historical players, by breaking that new ground I spoke of, changing the entire mentality of the Academies, the Salon and the general direction of the history of modern art. They are considered the precursors of Modernism.
Wyeth became a kind of anit-hero in the modern art world in his day and has been credited with re-establishing, or continuing-- along with some others, the figurative and narrative traditions. Wyeth was important in that he fit in at that perfect moment in time when Modernism was taking hold. In that sense he was positioned at the crux of the controversy and got so much press at the time that he couldn't help but become an important persona.
Rockwell has of late suffered a new consideration, given the modern realist and narrative movements, and has even been called the modern Vermeer by some critics recently. It is quite possible to turn the status quo on its head...just doesn't happen very often.
on Friday, January 18th, Mark said
Some artists have had big musuem shows based on thier popularity with the public. Andrew Wyeth, (whether you like what he does or not) who was a realist when abstraction was the 'in thing' and who has had very little support from critics has a huge popularity and has had mega museum shows. So museum do often base shows on popularity. Look at all the Immpressionist shows, I admire Monet, Van Gogh and so on but we do get tired of looking at them, well I do. There is a world of artists out there that museums could show but then they may not bring in the crowd. So maybe one road to a museum show is popularity by the genral public.
on Friday, January 18th, walt said
Yuri’s work is professional, high in aesthetic quality and focuses on the human form and interaction. That latter quality assures it’s popularity. Finally, it is done in a style that is now quite acceptable by the general public. He is essentially a cubist in the tradition of Picasso and Leger. In fact you could call him their heir and you can readily find many an homage to each in Yuri‘s work. And without making any negative comments about his work I understand why the museums have kept him on hold. Yuri if you’re reading this my hat is off to you. The mural is wonderful. Congrats!
As you suggested Barney, it is more complex than just democratic choice and sales records. Being popular with the general public is not enough to get the attention of the museum world or entrance into the annuls of art history. Those two worlds work primarily on different principles whether we love them or hate them. They work somewhat hand in hand. They are looking for the art that defines the age rather than the art that continues the tradition. It is in the nature of writing books. Finish the old chapter and begin the new chapter with a new topic. This has been reduced to a search for the new. And reduced even more to the simplistic shock art. And in the course of this pursuit much has been neglected.
Certainly Picasso or Leger was not popular with the general public during the days they presented their new art form just after the turn of the 19th century. In fact they were scorned by all but the elite who perhaps saw in their work something new. Not that newness is ever enough to make a work or body of work great. But theirs was a way of looking at a new century that promised to bring new and more modern ideas and problems along with it. They slowly came to represent both the century and the human spirit as it tackled the problems and joys of that new century. They ultimately became popular with the general society (as opposed to the more elite art world) because their work connected in that way. New for new rather than for its own sake.
Only a few years after Picasso and Braque and other cubists began putting their new ideas out in the world American artists, many of whom went to Europe to study art, began struggling with those ideas. Some, like Arthur Dove and Marsden Hartley, created strong fresh and original variations using cubism as a compositional tool rather than a surface stylistic guide. But the majority of artists simply adopted the look. By doing so they helped popularize that look with the general public thereby educating them to what was going on in the art world beyond them. We mostly know the ones who rose above that approach.
Arshile Gorky was a great student of Picasso. But for 10 years the important galleries in New York where he lived and worked would not show his excellent variations on Picasso’s style. NO one doubted his ability to paint. Only his originality. And he knew Picasso’s work so well. If you ever see his early works (rarely shown) you’ll think you’re looking at a lost Picasso. It wasn’t until he broke with Picasso’s style that he became something original with an original view of the days in which he lived. Then he was sought out by the “higher echelon”. Then we get the Gorky that was there at the start of the Abstract Expressionist movement that came to define the Post War Era. Di Kooning, Pollack, Rothko, Kline…they all passed through their cubist periods before defining something more non-objective. Cubism- because it codified the 2-dimensional surface, gave them the key to abstraction. But each of these realized that they would have to drop the key after entering the room or be confined to the also ran category of the art world.
Now, however, the Ab-Ex style that once overwhelmed the art world and eventually the general public with its raw emotional ambiance has been reduced to a kind of generic musak by contemporary artists who have, as Gorky did, studied the New York style to know it inside and out. Only the work from an abstract point of departure that has an air of originality is touted today. Those who look too much like Gorky, or Pollack, or di Kooning are passed over as pastiche and cliché. They grace the more public halls of corporate America and are found in the offices of junior executives. In fact the Ab-Ex style only lasted about 10 years before it was supplanted by Pop-Art with its recognizable figuration stolen from the world of…and you’ll love this…commercial art! How ironic. But Pop-Art was able to work both sides of the fence by using popular imagery to challenge the negatives of popular consumerism. In that way it appealed to the Marxist critique of American culture that had become so popular with the art elite of the day and yet still not lose the general public who are often fearful of images they aren’t familiar with or can’t understand.
Photo Realism used the same principle to supplant Pop-Art ( it was really an extension of the idea in some respects) in the 70‘s. Again, just 10 years later. By making copies of photographs in great detail while all the while arguing that really what they were doing was making abstract art they were also able to play on both sides of the road. The elite got their new vision while the popular public got something they understood and could admire for its skill.
Most artists at some point recognize, if they are being honest with themselves, that their work is within this tradition or that tradition. And while it may be an original thought of their own it may not be so original within the larger context of the art world. At that moment in time they often make the decision that making a living is more important than being famous. And who can blame them? But it is inspiring to see someone who has become successful in selling their joy who also achieved something of that other level of acceptance. Good luck Yuri. Don’t rest on the mural and the postage stamp success. Keep on pushing your work to the limit. Now maybe you have the platform to exceed those limits without damaging your sales record. You certainly have our attention.
on Friday, January 18th, Ellen said
You are right Jose, Mark, et al. I wrote my comment after a devestating disappointment yesterday. A project that I had been working on for a long time (over a year) and that was going to be showcased as part of a major show was scrapped. Not by me and without my knowledge. I found out about it by chance after assuming that the deal was a "lock." I had thought that this particular work was at the top of my ability and would garner recognition for me in a variety of ways. No go. Therefore I was perhaps a bit flip about fame. Fame is important to get one's work recognized and sold. It is also important to feed one's inner self:recognition. Yuroz, whose work is very wonderful, uses his fame in a variety of ways, some of which are very beneficial to humankind. However, as Barney tells us, Yuroz's fame does not give him everything he wants: museum recognition. That's truly sad. He is recognized in so many other areas; why not museums? Each and every day most of us put ourselves on the line. We work ourselves very hard on so many levels. There MUST be rewards, but I'm not sure what they are. Yesterday's personal disappointment will not deter me from my goals, but, after a little self pity, I redouble my efforts. Tempus fugit.
on Friday, January 18th, jose said
Barney, thanks for sharing this with us. A look at the other side of things we need to do if we want our work to reach people. Good comments too, it’s got us thinking. I don't think the intention here necessarily has to do with the pursuit of fame, though fame may be its by-product. Ultimately we do want to reach out to a broader audience [or we would be pleased to know that more people know about our work]. The shortcomings of fame on who we are and what happens to us in the process really are a result of a particular frame of mind that bring those negatives about. Fame itself isn’t at fault it’s how we fail to prepare ourselves inwardly and outwardly to deal with the imbalances it will inevitably bring about in the lives we have at the moment. For the most part we’ve found a balance [no easy feat] and we like it that way… but it isn’t the end of the road. Sometimes, and I agree with Brad Greek, there comes a time when we have to muster up the courage to get ourselves into another circle. Eventually, if we keep our heads on our shoulders, we’ll find the new balance.
on Friday, January 18th, Ellen said
I applaud the human spirit that continually strives to quench the thirst of creativity. But, one has to live also....payment is good. Years ago I thought fame would be wonderful. Now I'm not so sure. Just nurturing one's fame is a job in itself. I'd rather paint! Great blog & comments!
on Thursday, January 17th, Brad Greek said
Hello Barney, I can relate and agree to most of what has been said already. I believe it really comes down to determination to press on through thick and thin. Persistance seems to be the key to most successful people. Sure some find it quicker then others, but if you ever stop, well it guarantees that you will never find it. It took me over 30 years of playing around with creating before I realized I needed to get serious about working on building a career in it. So for the past 4 years I've been getting involved into every thing I can get a hold of. Working on creating a "Buzz" about myself and my work. Now I'm ready to step it up to the next level. Or should I say, step into a new circle. It seems to me that we all have our circles that we circulate in. That we get known in. These are great, but I think that most of these circles are not the circles that can take you further down the path. They don't usually have those "machines" that we need to reach in them. Yuroz has found those circles that took him to where he wanted to go. Congrats for him to be sure! My hats off to him. I say, enjoy the journey, I'm use to failure, am I prepared for success? I hope so.
Brad
on Thursday, January 17th, Mark said
Fame and furtune. Prosperity, posterity. I have been at this busines for over thirty years, I do not have the great success of Yuroz or many others. If it ever comes I'll greet it with a smile, if not I am content. I create for me and to create, but yes, I like others to enjoy and get something from my work. I have sold paintings and won awards and have had kind comments from a few artists who are famous. We all aprouch it as we see best, there realy is no right or wrong except for for what is right or wrong for the individual, a personal choice. The goal is to work hard, do what you can to be seen and work harder still. In time it may all come, it may not, so one must work to work, and if you need others to boost what you do, then you are in the wrong business. Enjoy the journey, you will reach some king of destination and an open mind will help you when you get there.
on Thursday, January 17th, Obert Fittje said
Regarding Prosperity versus Posterity. Let's get down to the basics, that is, the question of motivation. Why paint? Why create? What is your fundamental drive, your core motivation, to paint, to create, to pursue art? Is it to become rich and famous and only that? If so, then your motives are base and unworthy. But if your initial motivation is art for arts sake, you paint because you are compelled to paint, you have no choice in the matter, it is something you must do, you are compelled to do it or you will be miserable and feel empty. These are higher or more noble motives that start you on the path to creativity. If, along the way, you become rich and famous, achieve both posterity and prosperity through your creative work, then all the better, but fame and riches are not the main motivators to you, the main drives to your creative acts. Yes, you can have it all, but it is sweeter if your initial drives are the purer, more nobler motives so that if and when you achieve prosperity and fame, you will not honestly see yourself as a phony. And if your motives are pure in your pursuit of art, that is a consolation if your lot as an artist is obscurity and poverty rather than fame and fortune.
For nearly three years, I have been a contributing blogger here on absolutearts. It’s an absolute honor to have the opportunity. The item that has generated the most response from readers was the October 14, 2005 post titled, “Posterity or Prosperity — Can Artists Have It Both Ways?"
