|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 10, 2007 22:30:21 GMT -4
Here's a question for you - can someone create art without meaning to? Is art entirely in the eye of the audience, or does there have to be intent from the artist to create something as well? I'll be quite clear about this: Both, either, sometimes. I don't know. I think someone can create art without meaning to. I have. It wasn't good art though in my opinion. I see art in nature: in rocks, leaves, the sky, etc. - who is the artist? What is art? I see art in the cracks of a stucco wall. I see art in the folds of clothes. So maybe I'm not the best person to ask that question of. I do realize however, that the visual stimuli and emotional response contributes to my perception of them as 'Art'. I don't expect anyone else to see those things that way, and would never debate if they are in fact really art, since I can't define the word anyway. I used 'Art' in this post as a general term applying to the visual arts mainly, in the simplest sense that the common man would understand. Of course you could include music, writing, dance and the other common forms.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 10, 2007 23:13:01 GMT -4
The valuation of art continues to disobey rhyme and reason, as does the precise definition of art. You sure got that right.
Sometimes as an engineer I have to blur the intent distinction too. You don't make sharp inside corners in material because it promotes stress fractures. Therefore if you are commited for practical purposes to a smooth inside curve, then is it art to vary the radius or shape of that curve for aesthetic reasons? The circular voids in aerospace struts of the 1930s create an nostalgic emotional response. Is it art? I don't know. I think it is. I think craftsmen are artists, aren't they?
If you watch Syd Mead paint, you see him make occasional test strokes of his brush on a piece of scrap paper. He remarked once that someone told him he should sell those scraps. I too have test scraps. The difference between his and mine is that his come from a well-known artist. Is that a proper valuation? Shouldn't someone else's best-considered effort be placed ahead of someone else's brush-cleaning? I just look at a painting, see the price, determine if its worth it, and then ask my wife if i can afford it. If someone pays a million dollars for a painting then its value is a million dollars to at least one person.
Andy Warhol's homoerotic drawings exist almost exclusively in private collections, traded only among the super-wealthy. What mode of valuation is that? Are they valuable because Warhold drew them? Are they valuable because they depict naked young men and appeal to some people's prurience? Are they valuable because they're intrinsically beautiful? I'd have to see them. As to their value, see above.
My friend Hayden Lambson tells the story of a famous outdoor artist once writing a check for one of his works for a price about three times what Lambson was asking for it, then instructing the young painter never to charge any less than that for one of his works. How does that valuation work? Is there a Wildlife Art Mafia? I've been told essentially the same thing. If people see a low price on a work, they think its cheap. That just the way it is. Except at garage sales where everyone wants to get stuff for a nickel. My problem would be though, that I need fifty bucks for more paint or brushes. So I figure my costs on the painting: Canvas $15.00. Paint $3.00. Time 5 hrs. So I'd let it go for fifty. But I'm told to price it at $200 - which I still consider cheap, but I live in a town that doesn't have a lot of art culture. I should try EBay.
Should a big painting always be priced more than a small painting? Always? Of course not. Most of the time? Usually. Depends what it is. There's a local artist whose works are only about two or three inches . Her schtick is great detail in a small painting. I generally don't paint over 16X20" because the canvas costs rise dramatically. I can't afford to pay $80 for a 48X36" size. But I can sometimes pay as little as $5 for a 16X20".
What's the proper relationship between commercial value, aesthetic value, historical value, and sentimental value? Are there other avenues for valuation? The other avenue is vanity.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 10, 2007 23:17:44 GMT -4
I see art in nature: in rocks, leaves, the sky, etc. - who is the artist? God of course. I would say you see patterns and beauty in odd places, but I wouldn't use the term art for such things. Art to me implies a conscious artist who made a conscious act of creation. Unless someone deliberately cracked the stucco or folded the clothes I wouldn't call particularly fascinating cracks or folds "art".
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 11, 2007 0:18:28 GMT -4
I would say you see patterns and beauty in odd places, but I wouldn't use the term art for such things. Art to me implies a conscious artist who made a conscious act of creation. Unless someone deliberately cracked the stucco or folded the clothes I wouldn't call particularly fascinating cracks or folds "art". Some folks have a narrower view of what art is, to others it is much broader. I don't care if it was painted by Monet, drawn by a child, squiggled by a gorilla. Maybe it has more to do with the viewer sometimes. Okay. Lets say you say the most interesting cracked stucco wall. Lets say it was weathered by rain, snow - worn by air, discoloured by lights and exhaust - cracked by time - posters taped to it, partially torn off - pieces of old gum - particles of layers of paint forming patterns - bugs squished in it. Lets say you cut a four by four foot piece of the most interesting part of the wall and mounted it on the wall of your home. You mean if you were that entralled by its lines, colours and textures and found it so appealing that you'd want it hanging up in your house along with your other paintings that it wouldn't be art? Even if if was more interesting than the painting next to it that was deliberatly done by human hands? Or would you be the artist because you saw the compostition, framed it within your mind, cut it out and hung it up?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 11, 2007 0:34:31 GMT -4
In that case it would become art, and you would be the artist. You recognized and chose to preserve it, in much the same way a photographer (which is an artist) preserves light.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Dec 11, 2007 8:18:56 GMT -4
As a freelance artist I have to judge this every time I sell a piece of work. Pricing my artwork is nearly as time-consuming as making it because I have little natural concept for any of those valuations. Here is my criteria for pricing:
Original drawins have a baseline at a hundred dollars. -Size, complexity, use of color, medium, and subject matter then determine pricing Screenprints have a baseline of fifty dollars -Size, complexity, number of layers, number of prints and subject matter determine pricing. Digital prints have a baseline of twenty dollars -Size, complexity and subject matter determine pricing Comics have a baseline of four dollars -Size, complexity, number of pages, use of color, type of paper, medium, labor and # of books determine pricing
For example, I made a screenprint that is 22"x30", has seven layers of color and has a complex composition, and was printed in a very limited edition of 8. So, I price that print at $125. Another print I made is 8"x10", has only four layers of color and has a much simpler composition, and I price that at $65.
I try to remain professional about pricing. Certainly I have to price my work extremely low because I am unknown. The industry also naturally decides what will sell and for how much, so valuation really is an ever-changing process. If hand-made comics become a hot commodity, for example, I might be able to raise my baseline to eight dollars a book or more.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 11, 2007 17:15:17 GMT -4
If art is in the eye of the beholder, then it's fairly useless for one person to try to tell another that something isn't art.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 11, 2007 17:46:54 GMT -4
I think craftsmen are artists, aren't they?
Is a house painter an artist? Or is he a journeyman? Isn't the only fundamental difference between da Vinci and Ted's Paint and Stain the fact that da Vinci took longer and charged more than Ted? Isn't the final result, in both cases, a wall covered in a colored coating?
I weld two pieces of steel together. Some molten metal spatters are makes little bumps on the surrounding surface. I grind them off with the side grinder. Have I just become an artist because I took an interest in the aesthetic presentation of work intended purely to be functional?
I just look at a painting, see the price, determine if its worth it, and then ask my wife if i can afford it.
Implying, naturally, that you and your wife may conclude differently on the value of the work.
If someone pays a million dollars for a painting then its value is a million dollars to at least one person.
This case suggests two properties: that the valuation is commercial because the object is being traded for money; and that it has a particular estimable value. It does not say why the person decided that it was worth a million dollars.
I have a small painting in my office, painted by my father in watercolor of the temple wall in Jerusalem. I would not part with it for any sum of money, because my father painted himself, for me, in remembrance of a specific occurrence. Commercially the painting might fetch $150 or so. Now would you agree to insure it for a million dollars? A loaded question, of course, because insurers will pretty much insure anything. But the point is that we often have to mix different valuation criteria. Sentimental value, aesthetic value, and commercial value don't often mix well.
Near Jason's stomping ground there is a residence designed by Frank Lloyd Wright -- his only Utah commission. Unfortunately its provenance was not known to all owners, and so it was at one time painted unflattering colors and amended with sheds and such by owners who simply didn't know better. The propriety of those activities is affected by the stature of the artist. One typically would not treat a Lloyd Wright house that way. Conversely, the house is now worth less commercially than other similar Lloyd Wright houses.
If people see a low price on a work, they think its cheap. That just the way it is.
Implying that valuation is, to some extent, completely arbitrary and perhaps even counter-indicated. The notion that fine art "must" be expensive indeed factors into the equation. That suggests that only the very rich can afford the very artistic. Owning fine art is thus a mark of one's social class -- i.e., the vanity you mentioned.
Except at garage sales where everyone wants to get stuff for a nickel.
I've actually seen art priced by the pound. I live in a town that doesn't have a lot of art culture.
Millions flock to see the Dale Chihuly lobby at the Bellagio in Las Vegas and the sculptures at David's Citadel in Jerusalem. Thousands walk past the Chihuly in our concert hall in Salt Lake City with nary a glance. But for the velvet rope, I think people would let their kids play with it.
Should a big painting always be priced more than a small painting? Depends what it is. There's a local artist whose works are only about two or three inches.
Exactly. There's a Peter Max painting for sale in his gallery that's about the size of a residential door and going for $84,000. Ordinary-sized art goes generally for ordinary prices. Then miniatures being to command higher prices again. Clearly the amount of materials used does not significantly dictate art value.
I generally don't paint over 16X20" because the canvas costs rise dramatically.
I stretch my own large-format canvases. Years of making theatrical flats!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 11, 2007 17:48:26 GMT -4
...the same way a photographer (which is an artist) preserves light.
Another can of worms. The art community has not yet reached a consensus whether photography is art. There's little question among photographers, but disagreement elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Dec 11, 2007 18:23:35 GMT -4
The price inflation at the high end of the arts market is in part caused by buyers who think of it purely as an investment. They keep their purchases in bank vaults rather then put them on display.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 11, 2007 19:22:27 GMT -4
The art community has not yet reached a consensus whether photography is art.
...thus explaining why the family portraits of said art community come out less than flattering.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 11, 2007 19:47:05 GMT -4
And this being REALLY subjective, IN MY OPINION I would rank Hank Williams Jr., Johnny Cash and Steve Earle way above Kenny as a talent.
This doesn't really need to be discussed. Kenny Rogers cannot hold a candle to Johnny Cash or any of that gang of kids that came out of Sun Studios.
A problem, I think, with classifying art as subjective is that is overlooks the actual learned skill and natural talent of the artist; it neglects his mastery of some part of the world and some part of ourselves. Artists know what they are doing. John Williams, the composer, knows how to write an effective film score. He knows how to arrange and coordinate all manner of plucking, pressing, bowing, blowing, and pounding to make an audience emotionally responsive to a movie.
Calling art subjective also overlooks that it is some aspect of the world that we respond to. We, after all, evolved to like the world and to like ourselves in that world. The artist learns to take advantage of and profit from that relationship.
Here's Jay on abstract art: "Abstract art is the hardest because its aesthetic success relies upon the mastery of very subtle, intuitive factors such as color, composition, value, and form. Which is to say the reception of them is intuitive, but the creation of them is not." In this sense, the artist is as objective as the bridge builder, except that the artist does not have as many formalisms to rely on and must take into account that different people will respond differently. Nevertheless, artists do figure it all out and make it work.
I've said this before, and you folks can all roll your eyes thinking, "here he goes again," but I don't care much for the objective/subjective dichotomy. I think it is rather arbitrary and meaningless. When I argue against the subjective, everyone is spring-loaded to think "objective," as if everyone must respond to art the same. My point is that there can be something in the world that people respond to, and respond to differently, because of the both the art piece and because of the person and his or her personal history.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 11, 2007 20:41:15 GMT -4
I just look at a painting, see the price, determine if its worth it, and then ask my wife if i can afford it.
Implying, naturally, that you and your wife may conclude differently on the value of the work. It really has more to do with the fact that she handles our finances. I just work all week, take forty bucks out on payday and all the bills hopefully are taken care of. ;D
We don't spend a lot on art. When we first got married, I bought mostly reproductions of Van Gogh and a few affordable prints. My wife worked at a picture framing place so we got really good deals on the framing - which usually still cost more than the print itself! We started buying originals because a friend of ours who is an artist produced some really good paintings that we were able to get at a very good price. Nowadays, since I started painting, we have been giving away most of our framed prints to friends and relatives to free up wall space.
I stretch my own large-format canvases. Years of making theatrical flats! I should really do that also. I remember building a 4X8 foot flat and painting it in Theatre Arts in high school. I should check out the costs. I know its not worth it budget wise to build small ones.
Another can of worms. The art community has not yet reached a consensus whether photography is art. There's little question among photographers, but disagreement elsewhere. Tough call for some. But seeing the effort that most photographers put into their work, I would call it art. They are, after all, manipulating reality and producing output with an aesthetic value I think. But I'm no expert on photography.
The price inflation at the high end of the arts market is in part caused by buyers who think of it purely as an investment. They keep their purchases in bank vaults rather then put them on display Luckily, we can buy a poster of a Manet, Seuret or Matisse for thirty dollars. Not the real thing, but very pleasing visually.
The art community has not yet reached a consensus whether photography is art.
...thus explaining why the family portraits of said art community come out less than flattering. That is just so funny!
Artists know what they are doing Then I need more work in this area.
Calling art subjective also overlooks that it is some aspect of the world that we respond to. We, after all, evolved to like the world and to like ourselves in that world. The artist learns to take advantage of and profit from that relationship. The 'profit' I get is mainly a personal satisfaction, and hopefully a good end result.
My point is that there can be something in the world that people respond to, and respond to differently, because of the both the art piece and because of the person and his or her personal history. I can't disagree on that point. Same with musical tastes.
I liked Kenny Rogers more when he was in the First Edition. And I'm not a country fan by no means, but Johnny Cash is more than a country artist.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 12, 2007 1:15:16 GMT -4
On the subjective/objective dicotomy, perhaps you could say that there is a minimum threshold of skill that makes art "art" When the threshold is reached, even those who don't appreciate the work of an artist can still see that effort was put into the composition, and so can still identify it as "art".
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 12, 2007 1:45:48 GMT -4
It really has more to do with the fact that she handles our finances.
The amateur woodworking world is dominated by men whose wives are generally referred to as SWMBO ("She who must be obeyed"), owing to that common division of labor. There is a whole subculture involved in trying to convince SWMBO that the dovetail jig and biscuit cutter are both necessities and need to find a home in that month's budget.
Nowadays, since I started painting, we have been giving away most of our framed prints to friends and relatives to free up wall space.
My grandfather's economy for the last 20 years of his life was based on bartering his oil paintings for needed services. He estimated he had painted 800 paintings in his career.
Tough call for some.
Not for me. In my opinion, anyone who says photography isn't art is probably not a very good photographer.
Not the real thing, but very pleasing visually.
Some art reproduces very well. I'm going to check out a new local lab that has acquired a good reputation for giclee work to see if some of my art can reproduce well that way. Other art does not. Warhol's portrait of choreographer Martha Graham simply cannot be appreciated in any form other than the original. It is coated with diamond dust.
The 'profit' I get is mainly a personal satisfaction, and hopefully a good end result.
One of the points in the great debate. Some people are artists out of commercial necessity and are generally constrained to produce whatever art will generate an income. Others are artists simply in order to express what is inside them. The lucky few can practice art both as a human necessity and as a means of living.
|
|