?

Whickwithy · Post edited by Whickwithy at 2015-07-01 20:19:21

Urban_Tribesman said:
I get the feeling a whole slew of modern artists are lazy and just sit back and dream up things to put forward as art because it's easier than mastering a medium.

The same is true with poetry and alot of music. Garbage heaped on top of garbage. If one wishes to win a poetry contest, they must write something that is completely incoherent, like putting words through a wood chipper. And, totally forget about rhyme and metre. That's way too difficult.

I'll argue that it's the critics. While I despise Ayn Rand as something as close to darwinism as it gets, in the book "The Fountainhead", she got it right. The critics tell people what is good so that they won't make a faux pas and like something that is not in vogue.

This is another reason I have high hopes for the web. It should end up going a long ways towards freeing us from self-serving pundits. The majority really can rule when it comes to the web. Of course, it may be questionable concerning the majority's taste, sort of rule by the common denominator. But, at least, with sites like Goodread, as well as sites where the viewers vote concerning movies, etc, we no longer have to be held hostage by some pompous ass. Goodread is actually kind of interesting in that you can choose people with similar tastes and interests to get votes from.

Pet

Something I posted on Facebook may be relevant here. One of my Facebook friends (someone I've actually met several times) has contributed a chapter (more than 20 pages of text) to a book published by the Oxford University Press. Not only hasn't he been paid, but the OUP haven't even offered him a contributor's copy. Anyway, this is what I wrote about it:

Leaving aside the personal element, I think this is part of a serious problem. Increasingly, there is an idea that the work of most creative people (writers, musicians, etc.) is not worth any money. And that feeds into a wider picture of growing inequality. A tiny elite of creative people are paid huge sums, but most such people receive virtually nothing. Musicians, for example, tour unpaid apart from what they can raise by selling merchandise after the shows. There was once a class of creative people who made a modest living from their work. That class, I believe, is slipping away. The rising generation of creative workers is dominated by kids who can afford to work for free, at least for a few years: the children of old money, the offspring of big corporation executives, the spawn of the few who are richly rewarded for their creative work. The process is fueled by the Internet, which delivers the exact opposite of what it claims. It appears to offer a voice to everyone... but the voices are mostly unheard. Who will read this post? Probably less than half a dozen people. In reality, the Internet helps to disenfranchise most people, whilst bolstering the positions of the rich and powerful.

KatRobin

How true...I realised well into my Art degree, all those years ago, that I would never make a living out of it, no matter how many commissions I got, it would be peanuts! Nowadays I find barely any time at all to paint etc, but at least my second most consuming job, after work itself, gives me some sort of creative outlet..gardening. Which is handy, as out here in the Arts-starved land of cabbage, there are plenty of garden centres about!! Lol.

KatRobin

I like the comments about the disenfranchisement of the Internet. Let's hope when they eventually twig on ( did you see that? I can't help myself!) it'll give way to disenchantment. Like any one sided romance.

Pet

Art, KatRobin, in the sense of painting, sculpture etc. is a racket. Super-rich people buy it as an investment. They don't care if it's any good, what's important is the price. Once artists are part of the racket, they can pass off animals in formaldehyde as art. How anyone can break into that racket, I don't know.

But I'm angered, for example, when I hear of a Van Gogh painting selling at auction. Van Gogh made almost no money from his painting, and was very poor. He could have put a tiny fraction of the auction prices to good use. It seems dreadful that the people who make money from the sale of his pictures already have vast fortunes.

Still, I expect that you will return to painting. You'll probably never make very much money from it, but once a Muse has saddled you, and ridden you, she's not likely to allow her steed to roam free indefinitely. We may have the illusion that creativity is something we choose (or not) but true creativity is a compulsion that, eventually, refuses to be denied. At least, that's my experience of it.

Whickwithy

Exactly, Kat, the web, at least, allows the potential for anyone to communicate their message, not the those in power. That's a big change.

So, Pet, you're saying that Art is nothing but a racket? I beg to disagree. The pandering currently required to make oneself rich from Art and creativity is disgusting but, even there, even inside some of these rackets, the light shines through. Music, being my favorite form of Art, is a very good example. It's pitiful how much sway those that don't actually make the music have, in the past, had on what is listened to. Even in that ruthless past, though, some stellar talents have shined through. In the age of the internet, there have already been multiple cases of people popping something up on youtube that has taken the world by storm, no middle-man involved.

Pet · Post edited by Pet at 2015-07-03 07:37:49

Whickwithy said:
In the age of the internet, there have already been multiple cases of people popping something up on youtube that has taken the world by storm, no middle-man involved.

Do you actually know any of the people involved? Could you swear upon whatever you hold sacred that none of them engaged a highly paid publicist to ensure their success?

What we are told is, at best, very selectively presented. In the Internet age, I feel, truth is more hidden than it was before the invention of the wretched system.

Incidentally, "Art is nothing but a racket" is an inaccurate and misleading precis of what I posted.

Urban_Tribesman

This is all, frustratingly, so true.
Being married to an artist, I fully understand the dichotomy that presents itself. You only seem to be able to sell your work regularly if you are already regularly selling your work. This suggests that people will only buy it if they see that others prior to them have bought it. I have always interpreted this as a lack of conviction in their own judgement. They do not want to buy an original artwork and put it on their wall as others are then afforded the opportunity to pass judgement on their judgement, be it openly or afterwards. ( did you see that painting x has bought and put up in the lounge? It's total crap !) . So much easier if the artist in question has sold lots of work as this reinforces the judgement principal in that many others have paid up before you. ( shows what he knows, this artist has sold 20/30/40 /a 100 paintings before). The same works with prints. It has always puzzled me why people avoid putting original artwork on their wall, which from undiscovered artists can be very reasonable, but will put a picture of a tennis player scratching her backside on their wall, which by the time the poster is bought and framed, can rival the cost of an original artwork. The answer, disappointingly, seems to be that lack of faith in the viewers own judgement. As countless 1,000's have that image on their wall, they cannot all be wrong so my judgement is reinforced.
Personally, if I like a painting I see, I will buy it as I do not lack faith in my judgement. I know what I like and I am not that bothered by what other people think of it. We have several pieces by other artists around the house which have come home following attending exhibitions that Mrs T may have had work at.
So many say to Lisa, 'I really love your work', then seem to have the midget arms/clowns pocket issue when it comes to buying one ! Strangely, it is more common for people to buy a picture to give to a third party.
I guess it's not on your wall, so it's not your judgement being discussed by peers. ( Oh, that. A friend gave it to us !)

Whickwithy

Personally, I have taken the adamant (and likely insane) approach of mimilaist promotion of my work. There is no doubt, if no one knows you have anything to sell, then it won't sell. So, of course, one has to make it known that there is something to sell. But, I will not go to any lengths beyond making it apparent. I will not pander in the slightest dammit.

There you go, UT, having faith in your own judgment. How can it be otherwise, really? I mean, you are the one that needs to look at it! What has happened in the past, I think, is an artificial programming of those that easily grovel. Even they should be changing in the future.

And, no, Peter, I cannot assure that all of the successes from the web were not just discovered by word of mouth (i.e. going viral), but it makes sense that some do. And, of course, there are some that madly promote the product to make it successful.

Well, I'm going to just cut and paste to save the effort.

For the first time in our history, mankind has the chance to finally
start frittering away at the hogties of the pinheads that think they are
so damned imporant that they are willing to attempt to hold sway over
everybody else. At first, it seems likely it will be the crumbling of
the power of the critic nitwits, maybe other middle men. But, I hope,
someday, mankind will wake up to find that not a single person in the
world requires or desires to lead or be led (by the nose, is usually the
case). I've probably made that point before (I do tend to repeat
myself). But, I think it is an important point.

Ponygurl · Post edited by Ponygurl at 2015-07-03 13:55:05

This is why I like this place- decent discussion. I've always used this forum as more of a blog anyway to some degree. I, myself, have been ridden by all the muses of artistic expression. Like you said Pet, it is compulsive and for me therapeutic.

Music, however, is my passion. You cannot deny your passion, it is the spark undying. In fact, in my 20's all I did was play for free (besides tips)- little clubs and cafes. I eventually went to music conferences and was approached by two labels, one major and one independent. The funny thing was they were both offering me shitty contracts! I would've probably went for the major one anyway, but they wanted just me not the other two producers and wanted me to move to NY to record in 'their' studio with 'their' producer- and weren't going to pay my moving or living expenses! So, what I'm saying is, even with interest and talent- you could become a slave to your label and contract! Seriously fucked. It's important to have good reps and know the legality. It sucks when all you wanna do is connect and express yourself in a creative medium and these 'fuckers' wanna use you! Ugh, this world infuriates me sometimes..

That brings me to another point- these toxic companies wanting to use these creative artists to sell their toxic "shit in a can" -PepsiCo comes to mind. It pisses me right the F off! Any chemical-based product should not be consumed or applied to you- the fact that these mother-fuckers brainwash the masses by using creative artists to hawk their 'poison' makes me wanna strike these fuckers with lightening!!

Anyway, back to the creative aspect- keep doing it! Keep on expressing yourself, keep on..keeping on. Art is making an emotional/intellectual thing into something physical to be shared for centuries to come- I mean, Emily Bronte changed my life when I was just 13. If there's a message and beauty- the work will continue to inspire and shine..no matter what age we're living in. Van Gogh suffered, true..but he inspires and shines today in this world- his beauty was never lost. No matter what a conservative worldview may say, Art is very important- it's who we are.

KatRobin

Wish we could wire all this passion up to the grid...!

Whickwithy · Post edited by Whickwithy at 2015-07-03 18:37:46

Ponygurl said:
I eventually went to music conferences and was approached by two labels, one major and one independent. .....So, what I'm saying is, even with interest and talent- you could become a slave to your label and contract!

Good point, PG. Middle-men...aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh! I prefer the term parasites.

Emily Bronte, not Charlotte? Interesting.

Whickwithy

Interesting. I was just reading an article that pointed out that the U.K. suicide rate is exceptionally low. About half of the U.S. and a third of a lot of other countries. That's impressive.

Whickwithy · Post edited by Whickwithy at 2015-07-03 18:41:27

Pet said:
Art, KatRobin, in the sense of painting, sculpture etc. is a racket.

I was about to apologize, Peter, concerning your comment, " 'Art is nothing but a racket' is an inaccurate and misleading precis of what I posted." but....

Urban_Tribesman · Post edited by Urban_Tribesman at 2015-07-04 05:15:39

Interestingly, to put more substance on the word of mouth side of selling art, a number of Mrs T's buyers are repeat buyers. I suppose having breached the gates of confidence and having bought a piece, the decision to buy a 2nd piece is easier as it sort of reinforces the original decision. Also, on several occasions, someone has contacted her and said that they saw a piece of hers somewhere, or found her website via a Google search and those that make the effort to establish that level of contact will normally complete a purchase.
Like you WW, there are no middle men involved. The website is out there and people are directed towards it if they show an interest in the work or they happen upon it while surfing the net. Even the old tried and tested method of contacting galleries and seeing if they will exhibit some of your work or, better still, arrange an exhibition, has been compromised recently as most now want you to pay to exhibit and then still take an exhorbitant % on any sale.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories