Painting From Life vs. From Photos
Art is the visual representation of that which people find important at an emotional level. Making art used to be a specialized profession that required years of training. Today, making art is no big deal. Anyone with a camera can make art; take a photo of your kid, it’s art. It’s that simple.
The so-called Art World has successfully appropriated the word ‘art’ and created a lot of confusion in the process. We can resolve the difficulty simply by recognizing what Art for the Art World really is — a brand label. Let’s call it ArtTM.
The players in the Art World would like you to believe that they are the natural and rightful heirs of a great cultural history. Artists like Michelangelo, supported by patrons like the Medici, devoted themselves to the representation of that which people found important at an emotional level. Everyone knows that the players in the contemporary Art World are not the real descendants of the likes of Michelangelo or the Medici, of course. But the lack of an obvious competitor supports the illusion of rightful inheritance of something important.
ArtTM — that which the Art World deals in — is something that most people don’t understand or like. This is one reason that making ArtTM is generally not a viable profession, despite the huge social effort put into training artists at art schools and universities. People tend not to spend much money on ArtTM, because it does not represent for them anything important at an emotional level. In other words, ArtTM is generally not even art.
What is the real art world? It’s all around us, of course, so ever-present that we hardly notice its presence. Look at the internet, magazines, TV, bill boards. Art is everywhere. Drawings, photos, sculpture — cheap, low quality for the most part, but art nonetheless. We usually think of it as advertisement, or department store mannequin, or porn. These things are more art than ArtTM.
How to be a successful artist today (in the traditional sense of an individual making creative representations for profit)? A daunting challenge, to say the least. Dropping some illusions, distinguishing between ArtTM and real art would be helpful.
The Art World is inadequate to support its people. Artists tend to subsidize collectors. The real art world on the other hand is so powerful that it doesn’t even need to use the brand label. The question I ask is, how can an individual artist be a player in the real art world and still retain identity as an artist?
Be thoughtful, grateful, work hard for many years, recognize that there are some things you will need to do that you don’t necessarily want to do, and most importantly, be honest with yourself.
I don’t buy your dichotomy, and I don’t agree that advertising is more art than what’s in galleries. Both do have a commercial side, but if you believe that desire or ability to sell a piece makes it not art, then the answer to your question is: no way.
Simply put, if you’re an artist and also want to be financially rewarded, you have to do other things as well. Like market yourself. That could take many forms. Even Leonardo had to write a resume.
I should add that marketing to me doesn’t mean deceptive advertising, it means figuring out how to convey to one or more people that you have something of value to offer. That means figuring out what you are doing in terms you can communicate with, and understanding something about what other people want. It doesn’t require any violation of artistic principles.
The question I ask is, how can an individual artist be a player in the real art world and still retain identity as an artist?
This is almost like a Zen koan, Karl. One question it brings up, of course, is “what does it mean to be a player?”. The other thing I wonder about is whether, in this context, retaining identity as an artist has any real importance. Unless you mean identitiy as an ArtistTM, which is another matter.
PS – When I first looked at the title of your post, I misread it as “Is the Art World a slide show?”. Which, of course, it is :)
I misread it that way too.
Karl,
Art has always served specialized interests, traditionally those with money and/or other forms of power. So I’m not so sure about art in the past serving the “people” unlike today. There are differences of course, but things may not be so black and white.
The difference today is that art has increasingly become its own special interest. Art that draws off its own traditions and habits. Art that can seem senseless or esoteric to outsiders. Art that has its own audience and its own market. This s probably what you mean by Art trademarked.
I think making art requires balancing different concerns and different audiences: those of the market, those of your artistic peers, those of history, as well as your own idiosyncratic interests. This has always been the case, although things are more complicated today. Nobody works in a social vaccuum, and there is no such thing as a direct and unambiguous transfer of ideas.
“Artists like Michelangelo…”
Like who?
“Art TM”
Examples?
Karl,
I like what David said: One question it brings up, of course, is “what does it mean to be a player?”
Another way to put it: How to be a successful artist with out “selling out” to superficial market demands? Of course we get back to your definition of success which form past posts sounds like it has to do with being able to work full time as an artist.
THis is not a new question for artists as Arthur points out. I feel myself split into two parts sometimes – the artist and the business person. The two don’t live completely separate from eachother. One is just the pragmatist on my shoulder who infuses me with doubt sometimes (Are you sure you want to paint that? No one will want it). And the artist in me has to dig in her heels and fight back sometimes (with a retort like – this matters to me and will take my work to an interesting place and bug off).
So if you work on your art full time are you more or less beholden to the market? Are you more or less at risk to “sell out?”
Splitting time between the studio and the business side can be a challenge. One I love and the other is much more challenging, but I am starting to get the hang of it. THe more efficient I get at the business side, the more time I can spend in the studio.
I like what D. said about gratitude too. If we get the time and space (no matter how small) to make art we are very privileged indeed.
Making art used to be a specialized profession that required years of training. Today, making art is no big deal. Anyone with a camera can make art; take a photo of your kid, it’s art. It’s that simple.
Anybody can draw as well, which is nothing new.
I think the first sentence in Karls post is what’s most important.
“Art is the visual representation of that which people find important at an emotional level”
If simple advertising has become “art” then perhaps we need to be educating more. However, who gets to decide really what is important at an emotional level?
I agree with Leslie about being split. Even as a therapist I’m split when it comes to having to deal with the business end/collecting the $ that makes it possible to continue doing what I love (artist or therapist). I am grateful to be able to be able to do what I love (art or therapy) and I think it’s important to be pushing the level of appreciation and understanding in any arena.
I don’t agree that advertising is more art than what’s in galleries
Steve,
I made a definition of art: Art is the visual representation of that which people find important at an emotional level. This definition is a sort of model which I think fits reasonably well with art of the historical past. Go to the art museum in Siena and you will see hundreds of egg tempera paintings of the Virgin Mary on panel from the 14th century. Artists of the past did not paint random topics, they painted about what people of the time found important. I added “at an emotional level” to distinguish art from something like maps, which people also found important but which clearly serve a different function.
Move ahead to the Dutch Golden age of the 17th century. Even paintings of mundane topics like still life were infused with a moral message — vanitas still life.
Move ahead to the Dutch Golden age of the 17th century. Even paintings of mundane topics like still life were infused with a moral message — vanitas still life.
I admit that my definition, or model if you will, of art is pretty broad, but it is more specific than other definitions we have looked at such as “art as communication”, “art as world building”, “art as ‘hey look at this'”. I don’t dispute the validity of these definitions, but they lack some degree of predictive power.
So I took my definition, which I think is a good fit to the past, and applied it to the present. I note the following: people who make advertisements get paid for the specific task of addressing (or creating and then addressing) emotional needs, influencing these through visual means. Advertisement has a huge impact on who we think we are as human beings, what our place in society is. I find it difficult to understand why this is not art, unless you want to have a different definition of art between the past and present.
Let’s turn to the galleries. I studied the best galleries I could find in Boston and San Francisco over the last Thanksgiving holiday. It was a time when the streets and shops were filled with people. Looking back, I realize how odd it was that the galleries were almost deserted. What was in the galleries? Almost nothing I could connect to at all (except some wood-fired Japanese ceramics). If the galleries are selling stuff that is art, they should be filled with people reacting and being moved by the work. My experience is only one anecdotal example to add to many: people find the Art World perplexing, meaningless except for the sums of money being spent on some work, which seem to impart some kind of value to it.
…if you believe that desire or ability to sell a piece makes it not art, then the answer to your question is: no way
No Steve, that’s not what I mean at all. I would say exactly the opposite. My point, which I need to develop further, is that the Art World is not any kind of effective mechanism for doing this — as everyone knows. What I call the “real art world” is very effective at the profitable distribution of art, but it is not the type of art that we like to make as individuals. The big question is, how to succeed in this situation? Your suggestion of marketing is practical and in the right spirit.
The other thing I wonder about is whether, in this context, retaining identity as an artist has any real importance.
David,
Given that the Art World is devoid of social purpose or moral power, and that the real art world is disguised as being not art at all, I would say that retaining identity as an artist is the most important thing of all. The individual spirit of the artist is all the spirit that is left out there.
Arthur,
Nicely put. What is missing today is any larger sense of purpose. This is why I said to David that the individual artistic spirit is so important.
Leslie,
In fact, you and David have more or less won me over to your point of view about the artist and the day job. What I realized is that since the Art World is so inadequate, the role of patron and collector has fallen to the artist. The artist with the day job is, I would say, the most important player — creator and supporter of the arts. When the artist sells in galleries — at a huge discount — he or she is subsidizing collectors. That is charitable, but not necessary for success.
Let’s take David as an example. I claim that he is playing the role of both the Michelangelo and the Medici. Yes, he had an exhibition and it sold well. But what does that really mean? I see it this way: the gallery gave David a place to show the work in public; by “selling” it at a huge discount (the returns come no where near covering costs) he is essentially paying collectors to act as people who store the work for him. This service is not without value, of course. We should not be too hard on the collectors. But David is the real “player.”
So David has a day job to support his role as patron of the arts. So what? Lorenzo d’Medici also had a day job, he did not spend all his time enjoying art.
Karl,
In making my answer, I evidently went beyond the strict definition of art you gave. Although “the visual representation of that which people find important at an emotional level” captures key elements, I think it is ridiculous to take it as a complete definition. If so, every snapshot of your boyfriend/girlfriend at a photo booth is art. Every representation of a car is art. Every dog or cat image ever produced by any means is art. The definition becomes so all-encompassing it’s useless.
To me, what goes into the art that expresses the individual artist/creator is more important than the subject alone.
I agree with much of the thrust of your critique of the “art world.” But I don’t think that downgrading the work in galleries as tainted, and hailing advertising as artistic, is going to get anyone anywhere.
Perhaps what would make us both happier is if the word “art” could be abolished, and galleries were just stores that sold stuff we might like or not. Even if it happened, other branding or effort to distinguish would arise. It’s an undeniable and human dynamic. It has to be recognized, but pure resistance is useless and probably counter-productive.
If so, every snapshot of your boyfriend/girlfriend at a photo booth is art.
Yes, that is my point exactly Steve. Think of it this way: if a painter struggled for weeks to obtain the same image, we would not hesitate to call it art. Why, simply because it becomes easier to make the image, should the definition of art change? That unjustified change in the definition explains much of the confusion today.
As I said, every photo a parent makes of a loved child is art. Is it good art or not? That is a different question.
I am not offering “pure resistance”, but simply trying to get a consistent definition of the word art. Okay, my battery is about dead… Till later!
Your definition of art needn’t change. But it’s not a definition that suited me in the first place.
Karl,
I disagree with so much of your broad historical perspective and narrow vision, I am almost amused by imagining you walking into a contemporary gallery in San Francisco looking but unwilling to be emotionally charged.
I think I mostly agree with Karl’s broad historical perspective. But I don’t share his overwhelmingly negative assessment of the current scene.
Its true that many contemporary artists could benefit from considering the interests of a wider audience. Probably art as a whole has become too self-reflexive and inward looking. But I would never say that art must speak to the masses. This is a silly as saying that art must be obscure and alienating. Artists will do what they do and the people that are meant to get it will probably get it. With luck, others will as well.
Given that the Art World is devoid of social purpose or moral power, and that the real art world is disguised as being not art at all, I would say that retaining identity as an artist is the most important thing of all. The individual spirit of the artist is all the spirit that is left out there.
The art world as a whole is devoid of social purpose and moral power, but so what? Individual artists, and groups of artists, are often full of these qualities. That has been my experience, at least.
I realize how odd it was that the galleries were almost deserted.
Since I don’t know which galleries Karl visited or what he saw there, I can’t even begin to guess what the effect of the art may have been. Of course, galleries themselves are often forbidding places. But that isn’t so much the fault of the artist, who probably just wants to be paid for their work.
The historical perspective that I oppose is the implication of Past Art being well-attended and somehow meeting the emotional and moral needs of the People. It wasn’t like that.
It seems to me that a Romantic Retrospection only reassures our Present Displeasures.
I do often need to remind myself: Art should not be what I want it to be but instead, simply what it is.
I don’t like the way Karl idealizes the past either. Still, it seems like a foregone conclusion that art like this will have a broader audience than art like this. So I think Karl has some kind of point.
When I saw a similar work by González-Torres, I was reminded of how wrappers are precious until unwrapped, then they become trash.
Arthur, D.,
How am I romanticizing the art of the past? I think I am doing quite the opposite. I am saying that art in the past fulfilled what we now regard, for the most part, a mundane function — so mundane, in fact, that we don’t use the word art for much of the stuff that, today, according to the definition I offered, is art. Instead we reserve the word ‘art’ for some silly romantic ideas that I reject.
As for my reaction to the galleries, D., you are confusing cause and effect. I went to the galleries in the hope of finding something great. The disappointment came at the end, not even in any particular gallery, but as a result of the whole expedition.
I would say that you two, Arthur and D., are really the ones clinging to romantic notions about the word art. If the word has such power, where did it get it from? It can only be from the great art of the past. It certainly can’t be from the “important” art of the present.
My point is to take the romance, the voodoo, out of the word ‘art’ and give it some kind of meaningful functional definition. If there is to be great art, the place to look for the magic is not in the word ‘art’ but in the work itself.
A good book to read here is the one I quoted on Sunil’s framing post, “The invention of art:a cultural history” by Larry Shiner. I’ve barely started it, but here’s a quote from the introduction:
“Art as we have generally understood it is a European invention barely two hundred years old. It was preceded by a broader, more utilitarian system of art that lasted over two thousand years, and it is likely to be followed by a third system of the arts.”
Karl,
Art is the visual representation of that which people find important at an emotional level
If there is to be great art, the place to look for the magic is not in the word ‘art’ but in the work itself.
I actually sympathize with these claims and it does look like they might have a humbling effect. It is important to look for art outside the usual institutions. But you use it to make a broad-brush distinction between the art of the Renaissance and the art of today:
People tend not to spend much money on ArtTM, because it does not represent for them anything important at an emotional level. In other words, ArtTM is generally not even art.
In the past however, “artists like Michelangelo…devoted themselves to the representation of that which people found important at an emotional level.” This is what bugs me, and I believe what bugs D..
Let me get this straight: you’re saying that the art of the past was better art because it served more people. I’m not at all convinced of this, but it does seem like something that could be argued. To say however, that most “ArtTM” isn’t art is to say that has no emotional value for anybody (save perhaps the artist). This is simply and blatantly false.
…the gallery gave David a place to show the work in public; by “selling” it at a huge discount (the returns come no where near covering costs) he is essentially paying collectors to act as people who store the work for him.
Karl, I think you misunderstood my point here. The gallery is not selling the work at a discount. The collectors paid full price, and I think the prices were fair. I also don’t mind if a gallery that is doing their part (which is a subject for another post) gets their usual 50% cut.
The problem is with the business model itself, at least from the artist’s side. It can take a long time to produce enough work for a show, especially if you are also working a full-time job to pay your bills. And even if you produce enough for a new show every six months, the gallery may only agree to exhibit it every few years. During that time there are ongoing expenses (fixed costs), like studio rent, etc., in addition to the variable costs like materials of making each piece. Those costs keep adding up, no matter how much or how little time you are in the studio. Unless you’re using the studio full-time, the expense of maintaining it can represent a disproportionately high expense relative to the selling price of the work, meaning that selling all the work from a show may only reimburse part of the cost of making it. And this is even if you consider the value of your time and talent to be zero (which I don’t).
The sales from a show are only one-month’s income for the gallery (who has one month of expenses during that time), but they could represent one or more year’s worth of income for the artist (with one or more year’s expenses). The following month, the gallery will have another show by another artist. The artist returns to the studio to start creating another body of work for the next show.
A number: how to lower my expenses, how to work more efficiently (I haven’t been making use of my computer skills, for one thing), and how to find other markets for my work besides just the galleries.
A number: how to lower my expenses…
Typo.Should have read “a number of things I’m exploring now, after my show, are: how to lower my expenses…”
David,
Of course I didn’t mean that your work is explicitly sold at a discount. I apologize if it sounded like that. What I am saying is that you should really be paid for the full cost of the work, plus some profit. Compared to that, you are almost giving the work away, or paying the collectors to store it for you. In fact, that is not an unreasonable thing to do, in some sense. It is a bit like a patron giving a collection to a museum.
Let me get this straight: you’re saying that the art of the past was better art because it served more people.
No Arthur,
I’m saying art of the past and art of the present both served the same basic needs. The only difference is that much of the art of the present (the family photo album, for instance) is not recognized as art.
To say however, that most “ArtTM” isn’t art is to say that [it?] has no emotional value for anybody (save perhaps the artist). This is simply and blatantly false.
Arthur, if ArtTM is a representation of what people find important at an emotional level, then it is art, according to the definition I am proposing here and in the next post. I guess the people to ask are the collectors. If they buy the stuff because it serves that function, then they are buying art (even if it is tainted with the ArtTM label). However, if they are buying it because they think it will make them special (like a pair of designer jeans or something) but they don’t really care about what it is (and this is the gist of how Lisa Hunter says that the art world works at the elite level) then that instance of ArtTM might not be art at all. The point is, the ArtTM label in itself is no guarantee of something being art or not, just as the lack of the ArtTM label isn’t an indication that something isn’t art.
The need for art is eternal. The things that fulfill that need are not always called ‘art’. I am interested in the need for art and the manifestations of this need. What someone puts into a gallery may or may not have anything to do with this. From my experience, it is often completely besides the point.
I’m saying art of the past and art of the present both served the same basic needs. The only difference is that much of the art of the present (the family photo album, for instance) is not recognized as art.
I was comparing your view of the institutionally recognized art of the past with that of today—the so-called ArtTM. Clearly your view of the former is much rosier than that of the latter. (I do agree with family photos as art.)
The whole business of collectors buying art for primarily mercantile purposes is not new, and is by no means limited to the work of contemporary artists. The fact that this takes place doesn’t suggest that most artists today are working in bad faith. It may very well be that commercialism is too prevalent. But most living artists I know of appear to aiming for sincere communication of some kind. The burden is on you to show otherwise.
I assumed that under your definition, all that was strictly necessary was the emotional engagement of two persons. Probably some kind of intent on the part of the artist is also necessary. If this is so, than the status of arthood is an objective matter: something is art or isn’t. But now it looks as if your definition may be subjective: art for me but not for you. Which is it?
you should really be paid for the full cost of the work, plus some profit. Compared to that, you are almost giving the work away…
Karl, I agree, but I don’t think the solution, in this case, is higher prices (not yet, anyway). The prices of my work seem fair. It occurs to me that the problem is the high cost of making the work, and it’s not the materials or processes themselves that are causing this. The high cost is a result of what business people call “fixed costs”, which are the expenses you have whether you produce and sell one unit or a million. The largest of these, for me, is studio rent, and there are a bunch of smaller ones that add up too.
Here are a number of factors that I think contribute to this imbalance:
1.) I have a full-time job, and a full-time studio. Even though I pay for having the studio 24 hours a day, I’m only using it about three nights a week and on weekends. The rest of the time I’m paying for idle space (though it’s important that I be able to leave my work where it is at the end of each session, and not have to set it up each time I go there). If I didn’t have the job I’d be able to use the space more cost-effectively, but I wouldn’t be able to pay for it, much less eat or have a place to live.
2.) The gallery I show with would, at best, have an exhibit of my work every two years. This is because they represent a couple of dozen artists, and is pretty standard. In my case, it was four years between my shows, during which time I produced enough work for at least two, maybe three, exhibitions. The solution would be to get more galleries showing my work in other cities, but this is easier said than done. Galleries as a rule are not looking for more artists.
Since my studio residency ended, I’m taking a break for a few months before looking for a new space. Trying to figure out how to set up a better business model for my art practice.
If today’s artists did a better job of communicating the intent behind their works and the significance behind their art in a clearer fashion, then maybe we could get the needed emotional import that is purportedly lacking in contemporary art… Maybe then people would connect better to the artwork represented. I remember finding deep resonance in Botero’s Abu Ghraib paintings… It is a trend to create a painting nowadays and leave the rest to the viewers imagination. While leaving some to the imagination opening up interpretations is a good thing, leaving it all to wayward thoughts really means that the artist has surrendered their concepts of personal expression to the winds…
Or maybe we are judging too early. The art sponsored by the Medici and the art of the Dutch Golden Age carry on their backs centuries of deep thought and reflection that have additionally imbued them with the patina of thought that only time can give to the Twomblys, Stills and the Banksys…
Just my fledgling thoughts..
Trying to figure out how to set up a better business model for my art practice.
David,
You have done a huge body of great work. Let’s set that aside for now and think of the future. What is it that you want to make, and who is it that you want to buy it?