Naive Art--how a maniac makes a living ?


#28

Helicoptorr

What do you mean, “before?”

This same dichotomy between art and product has always existed. The have always been artists whose work sell for huge amounts of money, are in fashion, are the flavor of the moment and are forgotten in a relative instant of the history of creativity. There are also works that change people permanently as a result of encountering them whose creators die without having made a dime. Which would any of you rather be? That should answer the issue.

This issue quickly becomes very much like jealousy cloaked in indignation or like an art school discussion of "what is “ART”?.

Robert
www.robertellisonimaging.com


#29

€€€€€€ ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh $$$$$$$$$$ BUT €€€€€€€€€€€€ whhhhhhy ? $ ???

ahhhhhhhhhhhh 4 €€€ … € meeeeeeeeeeee xxxxx $€ ??? when blarp*


#30

Why are your mother’s feelings inferior to yours? Because she doesn’t profess herself an artist?

If she wanted to make a pretty picture and put it on the fridge, that makes a pretty picture which is nice in itself.

The point of the thread is whether these are worth thousands. Do YOU think they are?


#31

some good points, i dont think my mums feelings are inferior to mine,

if she painted a picture i would be delighted, it wouldnt be worth thousands, but if she kept working at it and developed her own style, who knows? art isnt as random as it would seem. you need to work at it and you need a style.

do i think they are worth thousands? well no they are not, but in the same way harry potter isnt worth making producers millions or jk rowling billions. its just what happens.

for the lucky few things take off, and for most artists who make a lot money they have probably gone through years of refining there ideas and style and have intent. and consequesntly a lot of weird and wonderful work is created, some of it enjoyable. it is different from child scribbling.

take this blue square for example. anyone could paint a blue square right? yes they could, if they were given instruction to. but this artist has probably spent years getting to the blue square stage and then taken the decision to make a blue square. It is their blue square, somebody else could have painted it, but they didnt. my mum could paint the blue square, but if she did it wouldnt be worth much because she would be copying. Its an intellectual property sort of thing, you are buying somebody elses idea as well as the actual painting.

it is worth money because it is unique. it is not any blue square, it is THE blue square. the blue square that came before all other blue squares. The king of blue squares.


#32

I think what you have said is probably the best argument of the contemporary art world can come up with.


#33

but if your computer work has any substance it will get recognised as well. Theres room for all. Its not either or, they are 2 differing subject matters, even though they get tied together in arguements. The can co-exist.

Lets say you made a 3d animation and you characters were interesting and your story entertained, your expressing your own ideas, if it was good enough it would get recognition.
If it was boring unoriginal and uninspiring, that is your fault, not the fault of some successful painter somewhere whose stealing all the glory for his debateable quality paintings.

and if it is unispiring even though you spent ages on it and put a pot of emotion into it, try thinking less in terms of technical superioty. some of the best animations are the simple ones.

take don hertzvelt for example,

http://www.bitterfilms.com/balloon.html

this is recognised because of the concept and the humour, and the original, thought through style. not because of shaders and particles.


#34

i dont necessarily think all that. but its all worth considering


#35

So your argument is basically- they spent years working at it?

If you’ve taken years to get to this stage, you must be good…?


#36

paperclip, so your arguement is basically, ‘so it aint complicated, so it aint much’?


#37

no, it doesnt make it good automatically, it could be terrible, but it would usually be of more worth, both visually and in terms of how modern art is judged, than a pointless scribble that anyone could do without thought.


#38

Art is a craft just like any other, and we as humans forgot that somewhere along the way, namely the last century.

Just like an engineer, a scientist, a politician, a doctor, a teacher. All of these things are titles given to those who have the skill to do that level of proficiency. Anyone could call themselves a teacher, or doctor, or politician in their own right, but that does not make them socially acceptable to be called that. The same goes for art. You can call your work art, for self glorification, however you should not be called an artist in the social world if you lack the craft and proficiency to represent your skill that MOST or ALL can see.

Cavemen did not create those terrible images on the wall to “express” themselves. They did it to record their history with the limited knowledge of how to draw that art, that they held at the time. Their language was primitive, such that they could not right words on the wall.

Think about it. What level of engineering did those cavemen have? They could create basic wheels, and levers, not much else. Anyone who can only do something so limited today, would never be called an engineer in society if that was all they could accomplish after years and years of hardship. Doctors have to acquire a license after years of practice and understanding.

As art progressed, it came to develop as a tool to symbolize power and wealth. Modern art might have originally been percieved as new and original(which it was)when it first began with members such as Kandinsky, Picasso, et al., but it is far from original today. Members of high society would buy such things because it enhanced their political and social merit, hence the reason for the cost.

Let us not forget, that the original founders of such “fine art”, also had the ability to create realistically lifelike images. And when I say realistic, I do not mean random paintings from who/what you see in life, but work that could match famed artists such as Courbet, Durer, Da Vinci, Raphael, and more.

However, modern art has been going overboard today. The reason it sells for so much is still political and social power, no more no less. Many of these said modern artists, lack a great deal of ethical and business incentives, they are merely acquiring such fame and riches because those in power, want to show they have it, buy buying these images for extreme costs.

This is why such art, unless that person can prove they can create imagery that surpasses that of many cg artists, is bad, and should be worth no more than 2 figures. I say it is bad, because if I were to hire mechanic to fix a car, and it broke down minutes after leaving the shop, that person would be a bad mechanic. Art, like everything else, was always meant to be a craft, just one open to more possibilities.

Any and all crafts require scales of good and bad. Number them, name them, color code them or whatever else you desire. However, calling art that is shoddy good, merely because someone wants to “express” themselves or has been doing it for a long time, is absolutely mindboggling. The newer definition of art is a perversion of its entire foundation, and simply something I am tired of listening to.

So please, create pictures and images for yourself, with or without skill. At home, call them art, and say they are good for whatever reason, but please do not attempt to bring said art into the business world preaching the same claims.


#39

I think you are being naive if you think all the contemporary artist in the world are just going to give up just because they realize they have no actual skill to begin with. As Robert and a few others have pointed out, its all about marketing and connections. Either join them or ignore them, bitching about them is just a waste of time.


#40

we all know that there are only 3 real artists left in this world

1: Neil Buchanan. (just check out his giant pencil)

2: Tony Hart. (his name actually contains the word art, and he is draws with an easel)

3: Rolf Harris. an art legend.

other than that, lets just agree to disagree.


#41

I think you are being naive if you think all the contemporary artist in the world are just going to give up just because they realize they have no actual skill to begin with. As Robert and a few others have pointed out, its all about marketing and connections. Either join them or ignore them, bitching about them is just a waste of time.

I have an agenda, and producing equally as intelligent arguments for that agenda might be all the drive needed to spread these arguments to the currently undecided on what should or should not be art.

I do not think the “modern artists” will stop creating it. Never did I say they would. I said it is in the best interests of society to dispose of such mindless acceptance for said art.

My hope is that, if the intelligent arguments are spread, eventually it will suffocate society and reach the minds of those with wealth who buy said art. The intellectual part of the argument would in hopes be enough to change their perception as to what art in modern times should be perceived as symbolic of power. The result of such would be less profit for the contemporary artists and thus less people would make an effort to sell art in such ways.

As I already mentioned before, modern art results in large profits, because it is merely a symbol of one’s own personal wealth. Skyscrapers, those who work beneath you, the amount of money one holds, and other things all are forms of things that symbolize and enhance one’s own social and political power.

You might say, that modern art has merged as an entity present in both the factor market, and the normal market economy.

Many of these contemporary artists, lacked marketing ability. They have connections, yes, but that is all. Those with power, help these “fine artists” get to where they are, not the other way around. It is those who buy the art, that gives the artists the perception they have the marketing skill. However, many artists who I have met and spoken with, who create such art, lack most if not all of an understanding of the economic world.

Supply and demand, externalities, consumer behavior, consumer surplus, collusion(which is illegal I might add), Profit maximization, input costs and output prices, Marginal utility and benefits, outsourcing and insourcing, price leadership, the game theory, the invisible hand theory, free rider concept(which IMO could be easily included as a factor involved in ALL art, though usually associated with public goods), and much much more. These concepts and ideas are not present in the majority, if not all of these modern artists(probably not present in many cg artists for that matter).

Like I said, I do not expect people to stop creating modern art, it could last equally as long as any other claimed art. My argument is however on the perception of this art versus that of other art. If the perception changes, those high profits being made from their construction will be gone, and instead given to artwork that deserves the credit much more.

Those who paint art vividly on canvas, or on the computer is the art that should be making the high profits. Not those people who lack the craft to do so, even if that does sound harsh.


#42

I’m asking for opinions, i know i’m a little bit skeptical in my diction but i’m still trying to understand this style of Art.
In a Nutshell:
Some of You believe that this style is all about releasing ones urge, and splash his primal emotion away on the canvas , I accept that but what do you mean by style if a kid could ahd unintentionally drw a very similar sketch, surley it wasn’t for money i mean he just sart there while his mother and I were chatting and walla, there it is din and done.So that might be why at times i fail to believe that their is intention behind these works.

About the Buyer of Art:
Maybe this perspective of mine had something to do with this skepticist diction that i wrote, CUrrently in Malta a similar artist with a similar style is in vogue each art buyer wants a piece of him, each student is glaring at his work in oah. The problem is not th buying of art but the miseducation of it, I mean if this guy didn’t have a good marketing scheme anybody would have overlooked him and walked on to the next “hot” style. You see these people everywhere where i live, they don’t have tehir own particular taste they just live on what’s hot in the moment, and that is what making this profession strife to survive. Education is lacking and marketing is overcoming, few people appreciate a style, barley any have a taste o ftehir own, you see these people eerywhere, but maybe that’s a a friend of mine called it “The herd syndrome”, as a small and fragile island malta has always moved on easily form one culture to another disregarding tehir own identity.

This maybe a little bit out of topic but it illustrates this growing Herd culture:
You see them all over college campuses, all over teh beaches anywhere, same dark big glasses, same dark straight hair with that pink or bright highlight, same clothing, same scarf, its like they all were batchprocessed. Sure it looks good, but i doubt i’l ever see that wavy hazel nut hair girl, with a sense of identity of who she is and what she’s in to.

About: “William Cozier”
Looks cool i adore his tones, really knows how to spread it around for that depth effect.


#43

“All art is shit. All shit is art.”
—R. Mutt

[i]

[/i]


#44

Oh no not the urinal!!! Thats it I am going to have a nightmare.


#45

I have ALWAYS been one to keep an open mind on a variety of subjects, especially in regards to something as subjective as art and what ‘constitutes’ art…

Your words have taken me to a new level. Sometimes the thoughts, ideas and principles that a person tries to get by on are summarized in an amazing set of words.

You have explained in a few paragraphs the logic and reason behind many of my personal thoughts. The thoughts that I just believe but can never necessarily explain.

Until now. Well said. VERY well said…


#46

http://www.artomato.com/bosa04/

the above link contains the supposedly the Best of Singapore Art in 2004… Some of them are quite good, but most are, sorry to say, quite lame… Quite pitiful if they are supposed to be the best in Singapore… ouch…


#47

Yeah, our standards in Singapore are downright terrible… I’ve come to dislike their brand of fine arts.