Good Bad Saleable Showable Hidden Art

[Nufocus]

Wayne, there’s a fair amount of anger in your lines. I have no idea whether you were a member of WC or not. However, if you can access old threads over there you’ll find that years ago I started threads that dealt specifically with art/money, money/art.
Is it sheer hypocrisy to claim that the ultimate measure of a “good” work of art is the amount some schmock pays for it?? Who the f..k knows?!?
As for what you had to say about the feel good thingy that turns into throw in the garbage thingy later on, yup! You are spot on, in my particular case I go over it again and again as opposed to chucking it. Better for environmental purposes…
Learning?? Oh well, maybe, maybe not…. Certain big shots who command(ed) many millions for their works, whether YOU like them or not, stopped thinking that there’s anything else they needed to learn. If they said the opposite it was only to pretend to be modest, which they were (are) not!

 

[Enyaw]

Wayne, there’s a fair amount of anger in your line

I would hope not. I have always had trouble expressing myself but who knows, maybe you are right or perhaps I have never learned how to express myself. Hopefully no one gets offended. If so, the mods can delete my post or me.

 

[AES]

when you say you are taking your art "seriously", i hope you just mean you are dedicated to improving... and you are having "fun" with it

If this is fun, then we are all a bunch of masochists

That said, there is a lot of crap that passes as art and people pay for it so in fact, you don't necessarily need to be good to be a professional and sell. BS baffles brains.

This is something that keeps messing with my head, but it really shouldn’t. "As seen on tv" type garbage sells and it's crap, so why would art be any different? Just because the people who buy crap art have way more money than I do doesn’t make their purchase more legit.
I do want to be "good enough to sell" one day, but that statement itself may be the problem.

I'm not knocking Van Gogh. Just that in my personal experience, that little voice inside that says "you can't do it" never shuts up completely even if you can do it, because if you can, time to move on to something it says you can't.

Artyczar said:
You are right (about looking at everything). Details! And OMG if I don't spend more time stepping back and looking than I do painting! If I didn't do that, I'd be a "normal" painter with more work under my belt to show for my time. It's unfortunate that I can't get more art done that way, but I just don't
I did the same, and I think that for people who prefer to work in a structured way, this is essential to getting good. Details are everything.

You must translate what's in your head, through your hands via your tools, be they brushes or diamond bits, on to whatever you use for a support and into the "outside" world. How close you come to what was in your head (and it will never be exact) is the measure of success. But there's an accompanying and very important rule of thumb to keep in mind--know when to stop, or you'll drive yourself crazy. Most people will never see whatever you think could have been better, which is fine, as long as you know.
Simple to say. Very hard to put into practice. But it's not supposed to be easy. This is also worth keeping in mind.
For me, it was a battle every time.

I need to print this out and stick it on my wall. That is all.

 

[AES]

Now to actually contribute:

For others:
When I like a thing, it usually has something I call "movement" or "fluidity" for lack of better words. Actually, I think the normal term for it is "composition", or maybe "balance".
Especially for figure and portrait paintings. Doesn’t matter how realistic, photo-like, skilled, etc. the piece is, if it looks stiff or posed, then I don’t like it.
Some examples:
I don’t like the Mona Lisa. The colors and clothes are beautiful, but the pose is weird. My neck hurts just looking at it. Also, the background is out of scale. It's like the classical painting version of a school picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_...y_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg
This I like:
A similar pose, formal, but not as stiff, at least to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...le:Rembrandt_van_Rijn_-_A_Polish_nobleman.jpg

There’s the “beyond technical ability” factor that is pretty much impossible to explain in simple words. But it matters a lot. Not to everyone, of course……

I agree, and I hate that I can't explain why I agree. I've seen stuff that I like, despite it not being very skilled, and highly skilled stuff that I don’t like, but still study in order to learn how how they did it.

Maybe the answer is, its good if you get something from it, whatever that may be. Even if it's a $150,000 banana.

edit:
I just realized I conflated "good/excellent" with "I like it". Oh well.

For myself:
The criteria is a day to 6 months. Ie, I like something I did just now, and the next day I hate it. Or, I hate it now and I hate it tomorrow, but then 6 months later I dig it out of the scrap pile and go 'hey that's not too bad'. I want to paint like Rembrandt one day. I've got a long way to go.

 

[Nufocus]

Now to actually contribute:

For others:
When I like a thing, it usually has something I call "movement" or "fluidity" for lack of better words. Actually, I think the normal term for it is "composition", or maybe "balance".
Especially for figure and portrait paintings. Doesn’t matter how realistic, photo-like, skilled, etc. the piece is, if it looks stiff or posed, then I don’t like it.
Some examples:
I don’t like the Mona Lisa. The colors and clothes are beautiful, but the pose is weird. My neck hurts just looking at it. Also, the background is out of scale. It's like the classical painting version of a school picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_...y_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg
This I like:
A similar pose, formal, but not as stiff, at least to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...le:Rembrandt_van_Rijn_-_A_Polish_nobleman.jpg


I agree, and I hate that I can't explain why I agree. I've seen stuff that I like, despite it not being very skilled, and highly skilled stuff that I don’t like, but still study in order to learn how how they did it.

Maybe the answer is, its good if you get something from it, whatever that may be. Even if it's a $150,000 banana.

For myself:
The difference is a day to 6 months. Ie, I like something I did just now, and the next day I hate it. Or, I hate it now and I hate it tomorrow, but then 6 months later I dig it out of the scrap pile and go 'hey that's not too bad'. I want to paint like Rembrandt one day. I've got a long way to go.

I like a lot of what you had to say, AES!
How about this one for a powerful (even if posed, or maybe not….) portrait by Soutine. A “professional” street artist in Moscow, Paris or London can probably copy it very accurately in no time. But could they ever produce the original?!?….

 

[drizzlewither]

thinking about it I've come up with these 3 personal laws

* There are no glaring technical mistakes (perspective/proportion/values/composition/colors) - it is competently done
* There may or may not be a glaring technical mistake but I did ok at something else I struggle with - it shows improvement
* The "feel" I wanted to express was captured - it communicates

if just one is met I will at least like it enough to keep it around. All 3 is the ideal outcome.

 

[Artyczar]

I think if it creates an effect, even a bad one, it's probably a successful work. It may not be the same effect for everyone. It may not be the same one the artist intended. The levels of how successful it is can be determined by the artist's intention and all that. But sometimes emotions can transcend things, like the artist isn't even aware of what emotional impact they are going to make. Maybe they don't even understand it themselves. They just needed the art supplies and Viola! A masterpiece reveals itself. These things have happened.

Much of the time, very few may "like" it, or think it should be junked into the trash can. But maybe there was something to it. Something that those people missed because they really weren't looking or didn't have the eye. That's why it's so important to look. Finding the beauty in things can bring about more beauty and intelligence for both you (as the views) and for the artist too, who needs to learn.

 

[MurrayG]

thinking about it I've come up with these 3 personal laws

* There are no glaring technical mistakes (perspective/proportion/values/composition/colors) - it is competently done
* There may or may not be a glaring technical mistake but I did ok at something else I struggle with - it shows improvement
* The "feel" I wanted to express was captured - it communicates

if just one is met I will at least like it enough to keep it around. All 3 is the ideal outcome.

Hi drizzlewither (great name btw). A lot of what is being bounced around here is really useful, it helps me get a personal perspective. What you have distilled is really useful. I have been struggling with this as I see my improvement but is it worth going to an outlet with some pieces and baring my soul. At my age (another cop-out) fame and fortune are limited but appreciation is valuable. I found that I can releate to these criteria, which can arguably be disagreed with:

• Artist - one who creates regardless of media or recognition
• Hobbyist - one who creates but is not necessarily "driven" to strive if you get my meaning
• Amateur artist - one who creates and iis striving but has not yet reached recognition for their work
• Professional artist - one who creates and is receiving recognition for their work (outside well wishers/family)

By this then I call myself an artist. As a meditator of many years, I find there is a similar process of "striving" and "curiosity" with art. You need to have an "aspiration" to really get your teeth into the process, then there is the work (making the art) followed by a reflection (how did it go, what did it feel like, what passages are clumsy or brilliant etc).
Regardless of the work I do, I often spend a great deal of time staring at it, not being critical, but recalling how my work progressed , what is better, what needs work etc. Sure I look at others technique etc and try to learn, but I am essentially self-taught. Art school may be a short cut, but it may limit your voice until you break free and find your inner voice.

What I am looking for in my progress, is often based on composition, values, flow, colour, style, technical OKness and voice. By voice I mean, is it something that is recognizable from MY hand, not a copy or not "just another piece that is nice".
During WW2, Morse operators were often identified by their "fist" as an operator has an inate unique tap style. That is I think where I am trying to get to.

• My "fist" is starting to gel
• Technically I am not stuffing it up tooooo much
• The picture holds me even if nobody else see what I see
• I like the flow (forget fibonacci, golden squares - but they help) - does the viewer stay ON THE Picture
• The colours work
• My focal point/s are defined and clean
• The proportions suite the actual painting not the expectation.....

Am I making sense?
If someone ends up buying a piece I will be overjoyed as it will pay for this crazy endeavour
Thanks for partaking in this esoteric exploration.

BTW, if you have ever thought what is Quality, read "Zen and the art of motorcyle maintenance"

 

[MurrayG]

I like a lot of what you had to say, AES!
How about this one for a powerful (even if posed, or maybe not….) portrait by Soutine. A “professional” street artist in Moscow, Paris or London can probably copy it very accurately in no time. But could they ever produce the original?!?….

View attachment 11346

Like it a lot and agree

 

[Artyczar]

U read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance when I was 15 or so. It is a great book! I should read it again.

 

[MurrayG]

U read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance when I was 15 or so. It is a great book! I should read it again.

I re-read it recently, cant say I am that driven but it points at the moon as it were

 

[drizzlewither]

is it worth going to an outlet with some pieces and baring my soul.

You know that saying - better to shoot for the moon and hit an eagle than shoot for an eagle and hit a rock.

that said, I'm not one to advise as I've never sold anything other than very occasionally doing a digital illustration commission! I'm really hoping that will change now I have some stability - I could never trust myself that I'd concentrate long enough to finish anything. I haven't the faintest idea how to go about selling paintings. At some point I need to try to figure that out.

The "fist" thing about morse code is interesting! I recall reading an artist's comment that "style" is one's personalised collection of errors, heh. A little cynical...

 

[MurrayG]

Now to actually contribute:

For others:
When I like a thing, it usually has something I call "movement" or "fluidity" for lack of better words. Actually, I think the normal term for it is "composition", or maybe "balance".
Especially for figure and portrait paintings. Doesn’t matter how realistic, photo-like, skilled, etc. the piece is, if it looks stiff or posed, then I don’t like it.
Some examples:
I don’t like the Mona Lisa. The colors and clothes are beautiful, but the pose is weird. My neck hurts just looking at it. Also, the background is out of scale. It's like the classical painting version of a school picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_...y_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg
This I like:
A similar pose, formal, but not as stiff, at least to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...le:Rembrandt_van_Rijn_-_A_Polish_nobleman.jpg


I agree, and I hate that I can't explain why I agree. I've seen stuff that I like, despite it not being very skilled, and highly skilled stuff that I don’t like, but still study in order to learn how how they did it.

Maybe the answer is, its good if you get something from it, whatever that may be. Even if it's a $150,000 banana.

edit:
I just realized I conflated "good/excellent" with "I like it". Oh well.

For myself:
The criteria is a day to 6 months. Ie, I like something I did just now, and the next day I hate it. Or, I hate it now and I hate it tomorrow, but then 6 months later I dig it out of the scrap pile and go 'hey that's not too bad'. I want to paint like Rembrandt one day. I've got a long way to go.

Hi @ AES and nufocus.
it is this etherial "quality" of why you like it however individual that I thinkI am trying to define in MY own work for myself.
I know I am improving, sometime regress, need to paint more to learn but the human existance gets in the way
30-40 years ago I was doing and even selling then life got in the way - now its fast catchup. At least my son has requested a painting from me - I guess thats a start

 

[Artyczar]

That is a start!

 

[Bartc]

Wow! Lots of strong opinions and feelings here. Reminds me of when Christo was developing a reputation and stated that part of his art was getting reactions from the locals to his monumental creations (paraphrasing here.)

I view "art" as a process, not the product, which can be a performance or an object. The process is one of expressing in some medium a reaction to some stimulus. What's left over that the audience sees is a byproduct of that process, which may or may not stimulate a response in them. So all kinds of stuff is art, even if I hate it or think it's crap.

And IMO (not so humble) so much of what is passing as "art" to the critics and so much of what is being created and sold for too much money these days is crap, performance, and not worth even commenting on. But I'm also aware that people thought and said the same about much of new methods/styles/media when they were new, so who knows what will stand the test of time.

None-the-less, taking your art process seriously is a personal definition. When you are trying to learn or improve or communicate you're taking it seriously. Not the same thing as whether others or you yourself like the outcome at all.

Most of us would have to admit that we would like others to appreciate our art. We would like it to communicate something we felt or experienced. We would like it to be "valued" positively by others.

Selling and valuing are not exactly the same thing, though. And given how utterly peculiar the art market is at the high dollar and low dollar levels, I think it's deflating and potentially dangerous to rate your art by whether it sells and for how much. What should be obvious is that I am declining to make producing works or art my business, or what I just said would be total bullshit!

I do find that sometimes I like what I've produced on the spot, sometimes I don't really and then discover that I do later on after a hiatus of viewing it. Sometimes I'm actually amazed that I produced something "that good"; sometimes I'm flabbergasted that I ever thought a painting was any good. Go figure. It's all idiosyncratic.

Paint away. That's the thing to me. If you're taking it seriously, then you are a serious artist, even if others may not agree.

 

[AES]

You know that saying - better to shoot for the moon and hit an eagle than shoot for an eagle and hit a rock.

This give me an idea: go find a pic of some poor victim of a ricochet, print it out in blue monochrome, and call it Aspirations. That counts as pop art, right

I recall reading an artist's comment that "style" is one's personalised collection of errors, heh. A little cynical...

Another one for my wall

 

[MurrayG]

Wow! Lots of strong opinions and feelings here. Reminds me of when Christo was developing a reputation and stated that part of his art was getting reactions from the locals to his monumental creations (paraphrasing here.)

I view "art" as a process, not the product, which can be a performance or an object. The process is one of expressing in some medium a reaction to some stimulus. What's left over that the audience sees is a byproduct of that process, which may or may not stimulate a response in them. So all kinds of stuff is art, even if I hate it or think it's crap.

And IMO (not so humble) so much of what is passing as "art" to the critics and so much of what is being created and sold for too much money these days is crap, performance, and not worth even commenting on. But I'm also aware that people thought and said the same about much of new methods/styles/media when they were new, so who knows what will stand the test of time.

None-the-less, taking your art process seriously is a personal definition. When you are trying to learn or improve or communicate you're taking it seriously. Not the same thing as whether others or you yourself like the outcome at all.

Most of us would have to admit that we would like others to appreciate our art. We would like it to communicate something we felt or experienced. We would like it to be "valued" positively by others.

Selling and valuing are not exactly the same thing, though. And given how utterly peculiar the art market is at the high dollar and low dollar levels, I think it's deflating and potentially dangerous to rate your art by whether it sells and for how much. What should be obvious is that I am declining to make producing works or art my business, or what I just said would be total bullshit!

I do find that sometimes I like what I've produced on the spot, sometimes I don't really and then discover that I do later on after a hiatus of viewing it. Sometimes I'm actually amazed that I produced something "that good"; sometimes I'm flabbergasted that I ever thought a painting was any good. Go figure. It's all idiosyncratic.

Paint away. That's the thing to me. If you're taking it seriously, then you are a serious artist, even if others may not agree.

Hi Bart, Thanks, great thoughts and I tend to agree with pretty much all you say. Yup, it is subjective. The trick is (for me) is to train my inner critic to recognise that this time, I may have got it right I cannot agree more, all art is a performance, even if it is youself as the only spectator. What would be useful (for me) is to stay in the flabergated zone
There are so many variables, we all know that. But sites like this do help refining our perspectives on how to view our own work, good critique is valuable up to a point as we are "learning" to get our self critic tuned in to what we are seeking to demonstrate. Thats tricky as so many have said, well wishing without good input is not really helpful. Sure we do know "quality" but it is undefinable. So we have to fall back on the compositional, values, forms, technique etc and therein lies the trap. We end up in the "exam" process that is soooo not art or creative supportive. Maybe we need a Critiques area that is not about technique, values etc etc, but a simple 1 - 10 pole of "goodness" with no other explanation except ones perception of "quality" based on whatever criteria that moves them

 

[Bartc]

Murray, "likes" help. C&C when requested can help, but not always.

On WC I posted one a year or more ago and a couple of folks pointed out to me that the top half of my painting didn't really seem to fit with the bottom half, even though it was in fact sort of a realistic portrayal of the inspiring landscape scene. At first I was a bit taken aback, but then played with it in Photoshop as they had suggested. Sure enough, cropping out the top and using only the bottom made a much better and more cohesive composition. I eventually took a scissors to it and then framed it in the cropped way. Worked!

I have a painting colleague who teaches and likes to give criticism. What I find at times is that his criticism is based on his preferred style and the rules he learned in fine art school. But sometimes those rules and that style don't fit what he is critiquing. His work is very good and I recognize his preferences. Yet he doesn't quite always get the inspiration of the art he's critiquing. I'm not offended if he offers a word on mine (or others) but I do know to take it with a grain of salt. Or to take it from his perspective only, especially when I'm clear that his intent in painting a similar scene is not my intent.

My style is really something like post-Impressionism/Expressionism. I deliberately do not do photo-realism. Someone recently dubbed it "chaotic realism", which tickled the hell out of me. I like that description. But in actuality my paintings are quite realistic and reasonably faithful to the scene that inspired them. All I'm doing is choosing a more dynamic composition and amping colors a bit, sometimes stylizing shapes a bit. A good artist is a good observer and interpreter in my view. That doesn't fit with rigid rules.

 

[mbeckett]

thinking about it I've come up with these 3 personal laws

* There are no glaring technical mistakes (perspective/proportion/values/composition/colors) - it is competently done
* There may or may not be a glaring technical mistake but I did ok at something else I struggle with - it shows improvement
* The "feel" I wanted to express was captured - it communicates

if just one is met I will at least like it enough to keep it around. All 3 is the ideal outcome.

very concise. pretty much nails it!

 

[Bartc]

Now to actually contribute:

For others:
When I like a thing, it usually has something I call "movement" or "fluidity" for lack of better words. Actually, I think the normal term for it is "composition", or maybe "balance".
Especially for figure and portrait paintings. Doesn’t matter how realistic, photo-like, skilled, etc. the piece is, if it looks stiff or posed, then I don’t like it.
Some examples:
I don’t like the Mona Lisa. The colors and clothes are beautiful, but the pose is weird. My neck hurts just looking at it. Also, the background is out of scale. It's like the classical painting version of a school picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_...y_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg
This I like:
A similar pose, formal, but not as stiff, at least to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...le:Rembrandt_van_Rijn_-_A_Polish_nobleman.jpg


I agree, and I hate that I can't explain why I agree. I've seen stuff that I like, despite it not being very skilled, and highly skilled stuff that I don’t like, but still study in order to learn how how they did it.

Maybe the answer is, its good if you get something from it, whatever that may be. Even if it's a $150,000 banana.

edit:
I just realized I conflated "good/excellent" with "I like it". Oh well.

For myself:
The criteria is a day to 6 months. Ie, I like something I did just now, and the next day I hate it. Or, I hate it now and I hate it tomorrow, but then 6 months later I dig it out of the scrap pile and go 'hey that's not too bad'. I want to paint like Rembrandt one day. I've got a long way to go.

Well, I'm still laughing and crying over the banana. It's indicative of what I actually hate about today's art market. But we're talking taste here. How about the guy who was set up to do the performance aspect by eating one of those $120K fruits?

I know about the technical qualities and the history of the Mona Lisa and Rembrandt's work. I appreciate those characteristics. Stylistically I don't like either of them! Soutine isn't my favorite, but I appreciate his work for what it is. Of Da Vinci and Rembrandt I much prefer their sketches to their oils. The sketches have so much character and skill, while the oils are stiff to my eye. Again, just taste.

Soutine's people are distorted, but that doesn't bother me, it's his vision and I get it. Bacon's people are distorted in a way that is deliberately grotesque and I don't like it at all. Any time I try to put hard and fast rules on even my own taste, it fails in the final analysis.

Is Basquiat a "serious artist"? By my own definition he was, but I find his work laughable, and the money it commands even more ludicrous, because that's about taste.

Now a banana as just a banana, I can appreciate the taste of that....