I’m certainly not trying to downplay the huge effect of the internet on every aspect of our lives. My comment was related to the title of the post, Fall of the Art World. My point was that people who choose to go to NYC galleries to buy artwork are not doing so because they are unaware of all the other artists out there. They see the gallery as a filter, an arbiter of quality, (for better or worse) and I don’t see the internet changing that.

What has changed is that every art gallery is expected to have a web site, and it’s becoming part of their marketing plan. Also, since so many artists have websites, some collectors try to go around the galleries to get better prices directly from the artists. If an artist has a good relationship with their gallery, they generally find it’s a mistake to jeopardize it and undercut the gallery (Tracy mentioned her experience w/ this in an earlier post). But these collectors are still looking to the galleries to decide what artists are of interest - they’re just trying to save money by buying direct. The internet didn’t create this phenomenon, but it does exacerbate it.

…plein air painters who do very well with collectors

Again, my comment was related to the theme of the post. The market for plein air painting is large, always has been, and I’m sure the internet helps people who collect it find more work. But I don’t think this is going to cause the Fall of the Art World, by which I assume you mean the NYC-centered contemporary art world. That art world is very aware that plein air painting exists, and it’s not interested. The internet won’t change that.

Also, please don’t think that I’m knocking plein air painting. Some of it is very good, some of it I like very much, and I have great respect for artists who do it well. It’s concerns are just very different from what’s going on in the contemporary art world.

Selling art and becoming famous is nothing more than reaching as many people as you can,(they do not even have to like you or your work). Albeit, galleries and museums are important in building the names of individual artists; by lending some “crediblity” to their works. They all use the internet as well (their pictures are just as flat and photoshoped as any of the best out there). But today, we have become somewhat leary of powerful organizations trying to faust their ideas, or sell us on their own “cache”. However, times have changed, nowadays individuals can gainer attention in many other personal ways; blogging, websites, magazine ads, National competitions; and of course, blowing up the Moon! That is what this is all about, gaining attention, some may well get tired of waiting and get day jobs, some will actually make it, and some “bad” artists may actually get very good;(something that occasionally happens through daily practice).

Most collectors do not paint. Most gallery owners do not paint. Most museum curators do not paint. Most have gained their knowledge from schooling, books and history. Interestingly, I do not know any artists,(or musicians for that matter), in which schooling, history, or books lead them to greatness; all had to practice their craft (dirty hands), and work hard at it, and many (most)never make it. So, why do we put so much faith in those who actually cannot “do” the very thing they are in charge of? If you want something done for you, do it yourself, or die waiting for the bus.

A recent Smithsonian magazine article was still trying to push the “greatness” and “genius” of Hockney; how mediocre is that!(as if any skilled painter could not see right through that veil, someone got sold an inflated bill of EGO, and the “machines” to prove it). If Hockney were an unknown name, and he had a “painting a day” blog, his work would be considered junk (like many of my own)!

And for those who do paint well, why should they have to put up with being ignored because they are not pretty, young, trendy, or yelling “MMmmeee” at the top of their lungs. They should not! In many ways, we are seeing an artist revolution, led by artists making sure they have a chance to be seen.

Ironically, the artists that paint steadily, and improve daily, are doing the right thing. Advice from this heretic: let the non-artists try to figure out what is going on, by deciphering the non-existent “blogospehric internetic code”; and to all real practicing artists, stay true to your craft, and weather this storm,(otherwise, one must never forget what awaits you, Walmart is paying $6.40 an hour for your skills, and the Government wants 25%+ of that).

Cheers!

I love where you write “I know my front page is boring. . . I’m too busy with my art to work on the internet.” Well, I see on your sitethat that text is gone. Don’t spend too much time on those computers!

Your comment above reminds me, I have got to get business cards printed with my website URL. And of course, to put more of my own work online.

So we agree about the revolutionary potential of the internet for the art world. I don’t think we have seen the real effects yet, but we may not have to wait long.

I first got the idea for this post when reading about “The artist of the week” on Ed Winkleman’s blog.Winkleman was presenting work in a New York gallery, hot stuff. One of his readers gave a link to work he had sold on eBay. Looking at the images side-by-side, I thought, this is the end of the gallery system. Just a wild idea, of course, but galleries have not always been so important; there is no reason to think they always will be.

But I do hope some more critical comments come in. We don’t want to get into some silly artist group-think here, do we?

Well, it’s a Saturdaz night and I’m sitting in an internet cafe in Germanz puyylnig with the unfamiliar kezboard lazout. I think I’d better go do some art…

I think you make a key point — people often think of what they buy as being effortlessly created by machine. The mode of production used by the artist is unusual today. This presents a challenge for us, to convey why people should appreciate the hand-made, as opposed to the mass-produced.

Finding a way to break through is a big part of what I want to study in our discussions. I think this is why I have this irrational enthusiasm for Fall of the Art World, and related writing by others. It is not so much that we have found the answer, but we seem to have found a belief that there is one to find.

I asked for critical comments and I appreciate yours. What you say reminds me of a conversation I had with a scientist who works for NASA. This was in 1997. He said, “The internet, it’s no big deal, just a computerized Yellow Pages.”

As for this “glut of plein air painters” which the serious collectors ignore, all I know is that I have two interviews in the works with plein air painters who do very well with collectors. I’ll ask them about this.

Regarding the internet as a viewing medium, I agree with you completely. I addressed this in a piece called “What gets lost on the internet?” which perhaps I should repost one of these days.

14 Oct.