Bad Art Advice

[Artyczar]

Anne, I am a big believer in art being communication, so thanks for pointing that out.

Kay, I'm so sorry you had to go through all that tough learning from your printer/artist dad before finding yourself more in your work. I can see you are still finding yourself more and more and am happy to witness the results.

triss, I knew that Bartc may have been referring to Banksy, which is fine (I get him as a graffiti artist and the shredding as performance). My response still counts, and I actually like Tracey Emin and her bed. IMO, that was refreshing and meaningful. That was a number of years ago now. The Saatchi artists are all highly contemporary and, at times, almost "shocking." Typically, they have done things never seen before, like Hirst's shark, etc. At the time, that was pretty weird stuff.

The prices of these things never bothered me. I realize they bother other artists (for whatever reason), but that doesn't lessen their purpose, value, or right to be popularized as art. It is what it is. Likable or not. "Good" or not. Van Gogh's Sunflowers are not everyone's favorite. Some people think that painting stinks and it sure sold for a ton of money. The same goes for Basquiat, or Twombly, or any other work that has sold for very high prices that many people feel is far "too much" money, but the people who paid for these certainly didn't think so. Hardly anyone is angry at other people who pay up the ass for their mansions and sportscars. For some reason, it's usually artists that are angry about art they don't like selling for millions of dollars. Meanwhile CEOs make billions of dollars at less than ethical corporations. It often bewilders me.

Kat, I used to have a studio that was a storefront in an iffy neighborhood and every time I arrived there was gang writing on my window and all over the front of my door, below the window on the nice brick, etc. I had to keep extra paint nearby, and a razorblade to take the stuff off my storefront window. I mean every time I got there. It was such a pain in the ass. It was not what I'd consider "graffiti." It was gang tagging. Nothing colorful or artistic or anything of the sort. It was symbolism to mark territory for other gangs to see "this is our corner. Stay off!" That sort of thing. And even if it was the kind of graffiti that some individuals do with stencil and spray can, it is not for sale. It's just different. It would depend on where and what it was.... I'd have to then decide what I'd want to do with it.

I was taught by a real graffiti artist how to do spray can techniques, and it is not easy at all! Lettering is difficult enough, and making images is even more difficult. You have to use pieces of cardboard to block out areas where you don't want the paint to go. And these artists do it all in the dark, and super fast as to not be caught by the police. It's actually unbelievable what they can do. It's incredible.

Anyway, sorry this is getting so long. But I got "lessons" from a guy in Hollywood a few times and he showed me how to use the bottom of the spray can to make the highlights on parts of the letters and block stencil a face. No paint brushes. It took me forever in comparison to how he would have done it hanging off the side of a freeway sign in the middle of the night. I could never do such a thing. I did it on a large piece of illustration board. Most people will be happy to know I only got a couple thousand dollars for it, if that, not millions.

 

[KatShealy]

I must say, I do like the idea of bands of 'marauding artists' roaming the land and cityscapes....
It has a kind of Douglas Adams/Terry Pratchett vibe to it!

Oh, yeah. Want to collaborate on a novel?

 

[Bartc]

OK, so some of you may like those forms of art. I don't, as I've made clear.

I've also always made clear here and elsewhere that I recognize art as the process of expression, not necessarily what you end up viewing, even when I don't particular understand or like the style. So you may be taking my comments in inadvertent directions and a lot farther than I intended them.

But I do feel artists like Banksy, the guy with the duck taped banana, and even Basquiat are being sold literally and figuratively at way beyond anything I would consider worth the money or the attention. It's just my personal opinion (worth exactly what you paid for my opinion.) How about the guy who recently sold the blank canvases to the museum? "Take the Money and Run". Ahem....

Ironically, one of my favorites that I point out to folks was a jocular piece of sculpture in the 1960s: a grocery store pyramid stack of tin cans, each labeled in a different language the translation of "artist shit". I got it and still chuckle. I would see it in a museum too, but I wouldn't buy any of those cans.

I apologize if any of you think I'm denigrating your personal art efforts in any way. I would not do that ever. I would encourage you to continue your exploration, and if someone other than me were willing to buy it from you, take that as the validation vote rather than my taste or anyone else's who doesn't buy it (literally or figuratively.)

It's just very sad to me that so many of us/you/them who pour hearts out into our artwork get so little if any appreciation in the art market place by comparison. That's all I'm saying.

What I see passing as great art in auction houses and museums includes a lot of stuff I wouldn't pay a nickel to see. Many people said the same thing about the Impressionists, the Post-Impressionists, and everyone after them in any of the "modern" movements. Some of you might find what I like far from your own taste, including what I produce. Those are just a matter of personal taste, not a reason to have an argument. YMMV

 

[Hannah]

If we are made in God's image, yet God cannot be seen because he is a spirit, then what part of Him do we resemble? Maybe a little of His spirit in us would be this innate desire to create.

Oh, @KatShealy you put me into a predicament here. I don't want to be the person to say, please don't talk about your God here, because that sounds bad.

But please don't talk about your God here.

Why? Because God and religion are just like politics, in that no good can come from discussing or mentioning, or alluding to either one of them.


Now if you'll forgive me, I have to go find a way to make the other half of the world dislike me. Wish me luck!

 

[KatShealy]

OK, so some of you may like those forms of art. I don't, as I've made clear.

I've also always made clear here and elsewhere that I recognize art as the process of expression, not necessarily what you end up viewing, even when I don't particular understand or like the style. So you may be taking my comments in inadvertent directions and a lot farther than I intended them.

But I do feel artists like Banksy, the guy with the duck taped banana, and even Basquiat are being sold literally and figuratively at way beyond anything I would consider worth the money or the attention. It's just my personal opinion (worth exactly what you paid for my opinion.) How about the guy who recently sold the blank canvases to the museum? "Take the Money and Run". Ahem....

Ironically, one of my favorites that I point out to folks was a jocular piece of sculpture in the 1960s: a grocery store pyramid stack of tin cans, each labeled in a different language the translation of "artist shit". I got it and still chuckle. I would see it in a museum too, but I wouldn't buy any of those cans.

I apologize if any of you think I'm denigrating your personal art efforts in any way. I would not do that ever. I would encourage you to continue your exploration, and if someone other than me were willing to buy it from you, take that as the validation vote rather than my taste or anyone else's who doesn't buy it (literally or figuratively.)

It's just very sad to me that so many of us/you/them who pour hearts out into our artwork get so little if any appreciation in the art market place by comparison. That's all I'm saying.

What I see passing as great art in auction houses and museums includes a lot of stuff I wouldn't pay a nickel to see. Many people said the same thing about the Impressionists, the Post-Impressionists, and everyone after them in any of the "modern" movements. Some of you might find what I like far from your own taste, including what I produce. Those are just a matter of personal taste, not a reason to have an argument. YMMV

I always use the masters as my reference point. People like Rembrandt just seem otherworldly. How....do....they....do....that? It was a serious discipline.

 

[Bartc]

Early in my painting exploration I was eager to try everything. So I got a spray painting set. Wow was that hard! Went to a demo and got the basics of the technique, but never again tried it. I've seen great art on walls and crap, and everything in between. No, I am not speaking of tagging when I say I don't appreciate graffiti (though there are some very skilled taggers out there wasting their time and others' property, unfortunately.)

There is art out there that is what to me is "message art", meant to make a statement of some position or other. Some I might find interesting, some just another person's demons to work out, some just text blown up. Yes, I appreciate good text, good calligraphy, etc., but that doesn't mean I need to love everyone's particular statement. It's their art, even if it's not mine nor to my taste.

The "artist shit" cans are not great art in my book, just a clever statement (and one I might be agreeing with here!) I didn't love Warhol's soup cans, but years later I would look at some of his works for their visual effort and impact alone and they looked better to me. Many people look at Wayne Thiebaud's lunch counter paintings as in the same class, which to me when I see the technique involved are brilliant. These are statements of taste, not written on stone tablets brought down from a mountain. My taste is no better nor worse than anyone else's, though I hold fiercely to my own.

You know the old line about not accounting for taste and it's very true. It's not accurate if used as a definition of "art" in my book, however, but personal taste you have a right to.

What pains me, as I said earlier, is what I read in the messages on this thread in places: Our art, our expression not being appreciated and even dissed. Did I misread what at least some of this thread is about? So I am suitably annoyed and saddened when I see what is being paid attention and money in the art market, when I see so much expressive material being produced by so many of us that never gets either.

 

[Artyczar]

OK, so some of you may like those forms of art. I don't, as I've made clear.

I've also always made clear here and elsewhere that I recognize art as the process of expression, not necessarily what you end up viewing, even when I don't particular understand or like the style. So you may be taking my comments in inadvertent directions and a lot farther than I intended them.

But I do feel artists like Banksy, the guy with the duck taped banana, and even Basquiat are being sold literally and figuratively at way beyond anything I would consider worth the money or the attention. It's just my personal opinion (worth exactly what you paid for my opinion.) How about the guy who recently sold the blank canvases to the museum? "Take the Money and Run". Ahem....

Ironically, one of my favorites that I point out to folks was a jocular piece of sculpture in the 1960s: a grocery store pyramid stack of tin cans, each labeled in a different language the translation of "artist shit". I got it and still chuckle. I would see it in a museum too, but I wouldn't buy any of those cans.

I apologize if any of you think I'm denigrating your personal art efforts in any way. I would not do that ever. I would encourage you to continue your exploration, and if someone other than me were willing to buy it from you, take that as the validation vote rather than my taste or anyone else's who doesn't buy it (literally or figuratively.)

It's just very sad to me that so many of us/you/them who pour hearts out into our artwork get so little if any appreciation in the art market place by comparison. That's all I'm saying.

What I see passing as great art in auction houses and museums includes a lot of stuff I wouldn't pay a nickel to see. Many people said the same thing about the Impressionists, the Post-Impressionists, and everyone after them in any of the "modern" movements. Some of you might find what I like far from your own taste, including what I produce. Those are just a matter of personal taste, not a reason to have an argument. YMMV

I'm not "arguing" at all. I'm also stating my opinion, just like you are. Maybe in hopes you can widen yours?

I don't agree that the kind of art you do get less attention or sales in the art market in comparison, that is all. There are plenty of famous traditional works of art that sell for millions of dollars. I can "argue" that it's quite the opposite in the median market most definitely. More familiar work that appeals to the masses sells more regularly. Familiar scenes of realism sell way more often and are acknowledged for being "good" than contemporary works. The opposite is not even considered "art" half the time. I can't tell you how many times I have been invalidated for my work because of how it looks. It's not funny and it's down right insulting for being told my career is based on "who I know" or "luck" or because the contemporary art world is "unfair" "not art, "or full of shit, etc., ad nauseum. I can't count the excuses for what traditional artists have mentioned or implied as to why I sell for as much as I do, gained awards, or exhibit, etc. It has given me a complex as big as Jupiter and made me feel like I don't even belong on this planet.

And all artists pour their hearts and souls into their work.

 

[Artyczar]

I always use the masters as my reference point. People like Rembrandt just seem otherworldly. How....do....they....do....that? It was a serious discipline.

How do you know contemporary artists haven't used the Masters as their references? I closely studied those artists and respect them deeply.

 

[KatShealy]

I don't know that. I have a very naive and uneducated eye. When I see a piece of art it's all about chemistry between me and that painting, something that cant be forced. I am very aware of how unsophisticated I am. That's why I joined this forum. I want to know what's behind the art.

 

[Artyczar]

That is nice to hear.

 

[Bartc]

Look, Arty, I don't even know your style, so I'm certainly not criticizing it. And I wouldn't if I did. I don't know who you know nor have I said anything to that effect here about how your art might be valued by the market. I'm sorry that something I said buried in a long supportive ramble has tweaked your concern.

My tastes and appreciation for styles and techniques are a whole lot wider than how you interpret my remarks here. And they are very varied.

My comment is my expression of the negative emotion the art market evokes in me when ordinary artists of any skill or style end up feeling as you expressed, while things I see as of far less value (my own opinion) are being elevated. I'm offended by "starving artists" being in our vernacular at all.

Somehow you appear to be interpreting my remarks as just the opposite and I do not know why. But please rest assured that they were meant to be supportive, not the opposite.

 

[Artyczar]

I didn't think you were criticizing me specifically, and I do not doubt that you probably have a much wider appreciation of art that it might seem like I'm giving you credit for, but my remarks are also not necessarily directed towards you personally.

I would like to ask you why you are offended by "starving artists" being in our vernacular at all. What does this mean? I was a starving artist most of my life. I lived on nothing and literally ate crackers for many years of sacrifice. Do you mean that you think artist should not starve? That artists should all be paid a fair wage? Then we finally agree on something!

I only interpret your remarks probably in the same way you are mine--the negative emotions I also feel when these subjects come up, and not at YOU personally. Please don't take it personally. If I am challenging you a bit, it is only for the sake of discussing this topic in a general sense and not as an attack or an argument. I feel passionately about this stuff. I feel open about art that I do not like, bananas taped to a wall is fine with me, even if it's "ugly" because I understand the point of it. It's okay if that is not cool with you. I'm just here to offer a different view.

 

[Bartc]

Arty, when you address me by name referencing my remarks, that usually does indicate something personally. But let's realize that we actually do agree.

I meant what I said: Artists should be appreciated, even when we might not love their pieces; they shouldn't have to starve. It's one of the negative cultural attitudes built into our system it seems to me, the same as "those who can do, those who can't teach." Both of these to me deprive not just the individual artist and teacher, but the whole community of the value of what they have to offer us.

It would appear from your remarks that you have found ways to get paid for your work, and to me they would seem handsomely when sold at thousands. Good for you! I wish that were true for so many others. It's not about representational or traditional or realistic paintings vs. other forms that I object at all. My objection is to seeing friends who work hard at their art and produce what to my eye are good works starving for appreciation.

Or worse, having their feelings trampled as well as their value as artists. Which is what I read into so many of the posts here, including your own. And to which and whom I was offering support. Which includes you for the pain you have expressed here that you had to go through.

You needn't feel you need to challenge me to broaden my view of art forms. Just show me what you mean, what it is that moves you about it, what you see or experience in the rendition or technique. I'm open.

 

[stlukesguild]

Yes! I hate the idea that art is solely a gift and not a skill that can be built through practice.

What many term "talent" or a "gift" is a combination of practice, study... and a degree of inherent ability. Our minds are all wired differently. Some individuals can more rapidly master chess, or mathematics, or music, or art than others. Artists like Rubens and John Singer Sargent were able to rapidly master the skills of painting and became undisputed virtuosos. Cezanne lacked such an ability... but through perseverance, he was able to develop a visual language that however limited still achieved something of real merit.

And then there's "genius".

 

[Bartc]

Yes! I hate the idea that art is solely a gift and not a skill that can be built through practice.

What many term "talent" or a "gift" is a combination of practice, study... and a degree of inherent ability. Our minds are all wired differently. Some individuals can more rapidly master chess, or mathematics, or music, or art than others. Artists like Rubens and John Singer Sargent were able to rapidly master the skills of painting and became undisputed virtuosos. Cezanne lacked such an ability... but through perseverance, he was able to develop a visual language that however limited still achieved something of real merit.

And then there's "genius".

The classic definition of "talent" was something inborn, a gift of the gods. Skill is what you develop from study, observation and practice. Lord only knows what genius is, but somehow we often recognize it when we see it, though not always.

Either talent or skill can produce art that many will appreciate. Put them together and you often get a body of work that others appreciate. Oddly, genius is often misunderstood at first.

I also believe that with sufficient encouragement - too often denied to artists - either talent or skill can grow remarkably. Genius? Different story.

 

[KatShealy]

Oh, @KatShealy you put me into a predicament here. I don't want to be the person to say, please don't talk about your God here, because that sounds bad.

But please don't talk about your God here.

Why? Because God and religion are just like politics, in that no good can come from discussing or mentioning, or alluding to either one of them.


Now if you'll forgive me, I have to go find a way to make the other half of the world dislike me. Wish me luck!

Sorry if I offended you. Not talking about what inspires me will completely shut me down. So, again, my apologies. I will respectfully bow out of this forum. My best to all.

 

[Artyczar]

Kat, I don't think you "offended" anyone. It's just part of the rules here.

If you can't refrain from talking about god, sorry to see you go. Best of luck.

 

[Joy]

Ayin, Hannah - Thanks for all of your efforts; I know it is tough to enforce rules. Sadly, there are those who will become offended no matter what the course of action. That is why I rarely participate in discussion only threads unrelated to supplies, technique, etc. At least this thread hasn't encounter an example of Godwin's Law yet. (Oooh, too soon for humor? )

 

[Artyczar]

Humor? Not all that funny, but yes; this is always something of an issue and one of the reasons we don't go there. If you did read the rules, mention of Hitler and the like is also not allowed (and so I'm going to close this discussion thread now that you've brought it up).

I do not think there's anything wrong with discussion-only threads. We were talking about art advice, specially "bad" art advice. Nothing essentially "bad" about talking about it, if we stayed on topic. I may have veered off it myself. Also, nothing wrong with veering off topic either. Discussion evolve. I think that can be healthy. I think opening up differing views (so long as it has to do with art) is also healthy, but you know how things can get.

Anyway, thanks for everyone's input. I think we've said enough.