what passes as art

FrankS

FrankS

Registered User
Local time
3:38 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
19,348
Art appreciation is subjective, right? So who can say what is good and what is not on a level beyond personal opinion? I'll give you that in hindsight, art academics are in a position to judge what was historically significant. I have the feeling that galleries promote new art solely on the basis of profit potential and what can be sold to collectors who are also largely motivated by investment opportunities. The art gallery community is just a money grubbing business as opposed to something more pure which I attribute to art. What think you?
 
The gallery thing always seemed to me to be more marketing driven than "art". Most stuff I've seen in gallaries I would never buy, and I have bought stuff hanging on the wall of a local coffee shop.

And I only hang things on my walls I want to look at. If it appreciates in spite of my buying it, great. But I don't look at art or my house as investments, just decorations and a place to park my stuff.
 
**Ahem. Steps on soapbox**

Excuse me... but this thread sounds a bit like a rant.

In truth, the art we see in galleries is extremely experimental, and only its toned down, or less wild (i.e., experimental) form makes it into the mainstream. Hence, we see some wild things in galleries and modern art museums that may seem like they "pass" as art, but in truth are exploring new languages, media and possibilities. Sure, it's easly to make fun of some exhibits we see, especially when they seem downright silly. However, these things that look silly to us, may inform art in some time. Not in the exact same form we see, but in some way or another will influence the artistic expression of the future. Just think that at their moment, things that we take for granted today, such as the artsy TV ads for United Airlines, were the artistic avant-gard also known as surrealism.

Yes, it's easy to make fun of, but art is essentially an exploration.

**steps down from soapbox**
 
FrankS said:
I have the feeling that galleries promote new art solely on the basis of profit potential and what can be sold to collectors who are also largely motivated by investment opportunities. The art gallery community is just a money grubbing business as opposed to something more pure which I attribute to art. What think you?
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about galleries, but if it's anything like the music business...
 
I knew a gallery owner.
He was also a very good salesman - probably couldn't sell a refrigerator to an Inuit but likely would be able to sell an air conditioner. Galleries, unless they're run out of a home, have overhead that has to be paid - and pay only comes in if the art sells - no one's "paying" to walk into a gallery to see an unknown artist or photographer. So do they hawk based on potential for selling the "art"? ya.. I think so.
Soon after sales started drying up; the guy I knew sold the gallery.

That said, he would always say that most "art" is something that everyone can appreciate and hang on their wall (or place in their homes).

Things, paintings, or photographs that were just too "personal" could never sell.

An image of the girlfriend of the artist, for example, really, means very little to everyone else other than the artist themselves.

Dave
 
I am totally guilty of producing images to sell at lower price venues that i think will be great sellers, but would never think of showing them to a gallery for consideration. i have a different body of work entirely that i think of as gallery material (although i haven't had a gallery show in 8 years, so maybe i am just fooling myself). the stuff i make for the lower price sales may be less of my heart and soul, but i still think of it as my art. I was told years ago by several gallery owners that black and white doesn't sell well, but if i had any big color prints they would take a look at it. guess what I sell on a regular basis?
 
FrankS said:
Art appreciation is subjective, right? So who can say what is good and what is not on a level beyond personal opinion? I'll give you that in hindsight, art academics are in a position to judge what was historically significant. I have the feeling that galleries promote new art solely on the basis of profit potential and what can be sold to collectors who are also largely motivated by investment opportunities. The art gallery community is just a money grubbing business as opposed to something more pure which I attribute to art. What think you?
Click to expand...

Me thinks you are bitter at someone that didn't see your work as being art?
 
Did anyone see the movie Art School Confidential? it deals with the lengths you need to go to to be an artist and get your 15 minutes of fame. Daniel Clowes, the writer, has some very bitter but true opinions of the art world.
I think too to address FrankS original question also, what does an investor buying at a gallery compare to a museum buying a piece? The gallery is obviously in it for the money, but when a museum buys a photographers work, does that give the photographer more merit?
Brooks Jensen of Lenswork magazine has a great podcast called free wine and cheese night, which is what he calls the gallery opening night where everyone shows up not to discuss the merit of the photos on the wall, but to be seen by the art community as a way to belong.
 
FrankS said:
Art appreciation is subjective, right?
Click to expand...


i would like to twist this into "visual stimulation is subjective"



FrankS said:
So who can say what is good and what is not on a level beyond personal opinion?
Click to expand...


for example, those who have studied it, no?



did i misread the original post, or did it sound slightly of an irritation (over perhaps that contemporary art is a specialized field, and not accessible to those who step in from the street) ??
 
FrankS said:
Art appreciation is subjective, right? So who can say what is good and what is not on a level beyond personal opinion? I'll give you that in hindsight, art academics are in a position to judge what was historically significant. I have the feeling that galleries promote new art solely on the basis of profit potential and what can be sold to collectors who are also largely motivated by investment opportunities. The art gallery community is just a money grubbing business as opposed to something more pure which I attribute to art. What think you?
Click to expand...

Talk about stating the bleeding obvious!

Dunno about this purity thing though. Lots of the established great masters produced acknowledged works of art (sculptures and paintings in particular) to fulfill a commission - likewise several great music albumns were completed as a result of "contractual obligations". And for heaven's sake there is acknowledged "art" that comes out of magazine commission's in the photographic world. I don't think it is that easy to separate the asrtistic endeavour from needing to put bread on the table, or petrol in the Bentley for that matter.

We have a romantic notion of the starving artist in his garret pouring his heart out into some wonderful earth shattering/life changing Meisterwerk for which he receives little or no recognition until after his death. And sure, in some cases this is true, but I'll stick my neck out here and say that if he could have sold his stuff at the time and moved from his garret onto a luxury yacht, spent his time dining on the most succulent cuts, supping Dom Perignon there wouldn't have been much thinking about it going on. Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. ;)
 
rjporter said:
Did anyone see the movie Art School Confidential? it deals with the lengths you need to go to to be an artist and get your 15 minutes of fame. Daniel Clowes, the writer, has some very bitter but true opinions of the art world.
Click to expand...
I love that movie, it had a somewhat substantial role in convincing myself to not major in photography.
 
In the early 1960s, Conceptual Art developed. Its basic premise is that the artist's idea or artist's process is more important than what is visible in the gallery. Art is not the visual artifact we see; it's the ideas and process that were involved in the creation of that artifact.

Conceptual Art was a hugely important development in the art world, and has pretty much defined all art ever since. It also marks the dividing line between the public's easy enjoyment of art and the art-literate person's specialized knowledge of it.

Just want to say: if you can get your head around Conceptual Art, the art world opens up for you. Boom, it's there, and there's a lot more going on than you realized. I recommend the PBS series "Art 21" (available on DVD) as a good entry point.
 
Conceptual Art is bollocks. Emperor's new clothes or what?!

I have loads of ideas, does that make me an artist?
 
Hey, thanks for everyone's input! My post may have sounded bitter, but it is not based on a bad personal experience I've had. My cyniscism shows through though. Modern art is jsut something I have trouble appreciating/understanding and I try to explore those areas. I should have left out "the pure" part.

And thanks, now I have a new movie and book to check out!
 
Last edited:
sitemistic said:
Art needs to be accessible to its target audience. All the conceptual art in the world means nothing if the viewers don't "get it." And most viewers don't "get" conceptual art.
Click to expand...


could it be that you're mixing "most viewers" with "conceptual art's target audience" (to overly simplify)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom