Naive Art--how a maniac makes a living ?


#21

That paint didn’t splatter itself on the canvas.

I mean i can do that what makes this artist different from me.

The difference is, that artist actually DID it. (and in many cases, HAS BEEN doing it for 50 or so years)

I make art for a living (for a company), and I make (and show) art for me. There are all kinds of standards placed on my commercial art, but for my personal fine art there is only one standard: IS IT FUN TO MAKE? I rarely care about the product, just the process. Have you ever splattered paint on a canvas? Its hella fun! Let the viewer figure out what it means. I had fun making it, and thats all that matters to me as a fine artist.


#22

im with crockett, i know excactly what you mean, my mum says ‘i could do that’. What she really means is she could copy that

The point is a: you didnt do that

b: if you did something like that it probably would be rubbish because you are a philistine and have no soul, mum.

after that i say, no offence, mum


#23

Why would it be worse if your mother did it?


#24

because she wouldnt be able to do it because she wouldnt think to do it, unless someone forced her, and then it wouldnt be her doing it, so therefore it would be rubbish. UNLESS of course it was the art of the person forcing her to do to go around forcing people to do paintings. It would then be ok again.

its all about intent and the desire to make something which is in some way pleasing, do you see?

something pleasing need not be technically or skillfully executed


#25

what your doing is more rating a painting by judging skill level merit rather than just appreciating the feeling of the painting in its own right. open your mind


#26

thanks crockett you led me to see it from a different perspective now Ill think differently when i see art like that. And maybe Ill try to splash some paint on the canvas. :arteest:


#27

I agree with you matmonkfish.

But let’s not forget it’s often the other way around too.
Some people (artcrits) looking at CG art don’t think it’s art, because perhaps it has in their views been done a zillion times -and I agree, some subjects are already done a zillion times. (But I don’t think that should be the decisive criteria to judge a piece)
What does something like this do to the (CG) artist’s feelings and the emotion that is put into that (CG) painting. Maybe that’s why “we” ask ourselfs “why does that “splatter” get the recognition it gets? It’s technically inferior and I know I’ve put at least the same amount of feeling, emotion and effort in my piece as the artist of that splatter painting”.
And I have to agree, a splatter has been done a zillion times too :slight_smile:


#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.