Name Dropping

Sorry that I have not had a chance to post much this week. I'm in the middle of Finals, so I'm working to help all of the students finish up with the semester. Here was another student question - one that I'll probably have to revisit soon.

As you were saying before there has been art that was credited to being Rembrandt but then when the commission was created and they found it not to be Rembrandt's painting but one of his students the value dropped dramatically. Why do you think in this instance that the name alone dropped the value of the art as well as the opinion of it. Like you said it the lecture it was considered a masterpiece. Also why is a lot of art judged by its creator not its content or message.

A difficult question. First off, I would point out that all disciplines deal with celebrity. Many of the musicians that are popular became so because of personality, controversy, or other factors outside of their talent.

Sometimes there are good reasons to celebrate an individual over others even if their contributions are only part of a larger whole. Some of Newtonian physics was overturned by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, but we still celebrate Newton because he lead the way as far as establishing our understanding of physics. And we celebrate Einstein because his theories reveal the answers to many of the mysteries that had surrounded our understanding of the universe. But there were plenty of other scientists and philosophers whose work built upon the concepts of Newton and Einstein. Unfortunately, most of their names are not well know, even though their work was just as essential as the more famous scientists.

Darwin, for example, did not know 99% of what we now know about evolution (he had no knowledge of genetics, for example), but we still celebrate him because he was an innovator. Natural Selection would have been discovered without him (Wallace made the same hypothesis in complete ignorance of Darwin's work), but Darwin was first (and most articulate) and became famous for it.

Our Rembrandt example seems to fit into this same category. If the painting is by Drost, then it is a fine painting - but it should be remembered that the technique was originated by Rembrandt.

It is important to remember that the value of art is established by our perception of it. And our perceptions can be quite flawed. Generally speaking the only true test of art is the test of time. History has shown Rembrandt to be significant, therefore anything associated with him is significant. History has NOT shown Drost to be particularly significant, and therefore his work (regardless of their own merits) has not received the same appreciation.

200 years from now that may all change - and professors will ignore the Beatles in order to focus more on the Monkees.

What can you do?

Another Drawing from the Superhero Series

Superhero Mundane - M

Student Question - Emerging Artist

If there is a new emerging artist, or someone that wants to become an artist, how do they get people to see their work? I know people have their art in galleries and museums, but how do they get them there? Is it up to the individual owner of the gallery?

This is always the big challenge - how do you get started.

There is really no one way to do this - or at least there is no one way that works for everyone. Galleries and museums work in different ways. The function of a museum is to collect and display those works that have proven to have some significance. So museums are less likely to take a chance on any unknown artist.

Galleries are the way to go if you are looking to start selling your work. But this can be very difficult. Remember that most major galleries are businesses and are concerned with making a profit. Therefore they tend to focus on artworks that they know will sell to their patrons. Non-profit galleries are more accepting of new artists, but may not command the respect and prices of the bigger galleries.

So what can you do? I'd recommend trying something like this.

Start off by entering into juried shows. Galleries and schools will often have juried exhibitions where artists can send in some examples of their work in the hopes of being accepted and displayed. This kind of thing is a good resume builder and can also be profitable (the piece could be sold or win a prize for example). The only real problem with juried exhibitions is that you do have to spend money on the entry fee and the shipping. I recommend making 5 or 6 individual smaller works (paintings or prints in particular) and try to enter those into juried exhibitions.

While you work on that, start producing a series (works that use the same materials, style, and theme) and start applying to galleries. Most galleries have a website where they have their submission guidelines - so look those over. Also, be sure to look at the type of artwork that each gallery has on display. Try to find one that displays work similar to yours.

A good time to investigate galleries is the summer. With many of their patrons away for vacation, many galleries will forgo major exhibitions and instead focus on displaying the work that they already own from their stable of artists. You can get a good sense of what they are all about by observing the works in these exhibitions.

Be prepared for a lot of rejection - it is just part of the job. Research and preparation are vital.

If all else fails - Have someone famous buy one of your works and have them donate it to a major museum.

Another Student Question ...

Who determines what is considered art and just because a painting or sculpture does not become famous, it is still considered a great piece of art? Do you think it is necessary for someone to have to attend college to become an artist or are some people just born with that creative talent?

Obviously, if I could answer these questions with any authority I would make a lot more money than I do now.

You can ask similar questions about any creative medium - what makes a great actor? What makes an important novel?

There are a lot of books and papers on this topic - I encourage you to go to the library and do some research. If nothing else it makes for interesting dinner conversation.

As I usually discuss in my first Art Appreciation lectures - there is really nothing concrete that separates art from non-art or good art from bad art. In earlier periods there was more of a clear demarcation, but in our time things have become more ambiguous.

It seems that the only true test of art is the test of time. Many of the art pieces that were considered significant in their own period are no longer of much interest to us. Whereas, some artist who were once ignored are now synonymous with great art.

This does not mean that we cannot place some kind of judgment to contemporary works - I'd doubt that anyone would claim that "Dude, Where's My Car" is a greater movie than "Schindler's List". But we have to be careful to recognize that we might be inflating the importance of something because we are not being objective.

Prime example - I'm sure that everyone remembers their first breakup. At the time, it may have been horrible, but soon you learned that such things were not that big of a deal.

And no, there is no absolute necessity of attending college to become an artist. It really depends upon the path you wish to take. Let me explain this through a lame analogy - Star Wars!

Han and Luke are both heroes of the Rebellion. We could argue for forever about which one was more instrumental in bringing down the Empire, right? But both of these characters had to take different journeys to achieve their goals.

In order for Luke to conquer his challenges he needed to have intensive training and personal introspection. Han did not need any of that - he just relied on his ingenuity and survival instinct. Against someone like Vader, Han would not have lasted a minute. Fortunately, he did not have to - that was Luke's battle.

In many ways Han, Leia, and Lando were the ones who actually defeated the Empire – Luke’s struggle was really for the “soul” of the galaxy, if you can forgive the awful analogy. You see where I am going with this? Each individual has to create their own destiny.

For me the path was through the academic world– which is why I’ve always identified with Luke. In order to defeat the challenges that I would face, I sought knowledge and awareness that went beyond the needs of most. That was just the destiny that I created for myself. But that in no way means that it was superior or more significant than any other path.

And as far as talent – well let’s just say that I spent a lot (a LOT) of time and effort to obtain that talent. So that is why I often get annoyed when someone compliments my "gift" - it has been a costly gift, let me tell you!

The Beast Went Down to Georgia

I loved this little bit of news from the capitol of our fair state. A few red states live in fear of these implanted microchips, some even seriously debating whether they might be implanting the mark of the Beast. I wonder - if one delusional paranoid meets an alternatively delusional paranoid, do they cancel each other out?

Would You Consider This Art? - Part II

I watch a lot of cooking shows with my husband because he is actually the cook in the house. I always here him saying that cooking is an art. What is your opinion on this? When I see the dishes that my husband prepares, I do believe he has a gift at it but is it considered an art?

When someone says that "blank" is an art - I always take that to mean that the process is more intuitive than mechanical. I've even heard people refer to higher math and theoretical psychics as art-forms. I see the saying as making a reference to a more shoot-from-the-hip type of experience.

We have all probably had intuitive versus mechanical experiences in cooking. I often make dinner for my wife when she is at work as she gets home quite late. She usually picks out the recipes and buys all of the ingredients. In those instances I follow the recipe exactly - measuring everything and using a timer. That is mechanical - the food still tastes great , but there is no art to it.

When I grill, however, I do tend to bring my own individual aesthetics into the process. So I often refer to the "art" of grilling a hamburger.

So in that sense, yes there is an art to cooking. If you mean "Is a well-cooked meal the same as a work of art in the Metropolitan" - now we are in difficult territory. If pressed, I would say no - only because we tend to think of "art" as a non-functional thing. There is a constraint placed on food in that it needs to be edible.

I can see how food (and cooking) could be used in the production of "art", but then I would ask - Does the art designation come from the actually cooking process or from the conceptual aspects of the piece.

Sure, but is there a difference between creativity and art? I believe that there is.

In the past, the line of demarcation was much more clear. There were certain forms that were recognized as art and other forms that were seen as something else. However, much of 20th century art was about questioning this demarcation. So now we are left with the question - where does the separation lie? It is not an easy answer.

Again, I would reiterate - "art" is not necessarily skilled or unique or pleasant. "Art" may be something that I hate or something that has no impact on me whatsoever.

I thought about that this weekend when I was at an Academy Awards Night party. These awards celebrate great achievements in cinema - the films are held up as "the best of the year". But I kept thinking - "Yes, but are these films really art? Are they really that experimental? Do they alter our perception of film? Of the human experience? Or does that even matter?"

If you get the chance, do some research on art vs. non-art. There are a number of arguments out there.

Here is an interesting site:

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Art-Non-Art.html

On this subject, I'll give you a personal anecdote:

Chip Kidd published a book on Batman memorabilia. In one section he shows a painting by Andy Warhol of the Batman logo. He states that out of all of the objects in that book, the Warhol is the only one that would be considered "art". He also points out that it would be great to own that painting because you could then sell it and use the money to buy all of the other Batman stuff that you REALLY want.

I agree with him completely.

Would You Consider This Art? - Part 1

Would you consider a Tattoo Artist, an artist? Also, do you find Tattoo's a new form of art?

Also noted: I know that tattoo's have been around for almost 1000+ years -- I just want to know, with it's growing popularity -- would you consider it to have it's own category?

A tough question - first off I would state that I am in no way an authority on things like this. So I'll give you my thoughts, but I do not presume that my opinion on this subject is worth more than anyone else's (but don't get too comfortable with that, as I do presume that I'm right on most other subjects. Kidding. Sorta).

The question really is about how we define art - Is it craft? Philosophy? Is the role that it plays for us the same role that it played in previous generations?

I would point out that in the medieval and early Renaissance periods, painting and sculpture were seen as craft – creative forms that were inferior to music and poetry. The artists of the Renaissance (most notably Leonardo and Michelangelo) worked hard to change that attitude. For them, skill and elegance were enough to prove their media’s significance.

Things are a bit more vague with us. We are surrounded by so much visual stimulus that it becomes difficult to separate art for non-art. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that some artists (Warhol, Johns, etc.) use what many would consider to be non-art in the production of works that most would consider to be art. The whole point was to confuse the separation between the two.

Generally, one of the differences between art and illustration is that illustration tends to be more straightforward – obviously because the viewer is SUPPOSED to get the point the image. Art (at least in our age) tends to be more ambiguous. This is why I don't consider someone like Thomas Kinkade to be an “artist”. It has nothing to do with his execution – which is skilled in its own way. There is just no mystery – no challenge to the mind.

I suppose that there is an analogy between this and music. The kids on American Idol sing well enough, I suppose - and the whole thing is quite popular (I've never seen the show, so I only know what I see on commercials and from media reports). But is that art? Are they examining our concepts of music? Are they advancing our knowledge of the human experience?

Art is separate from our likes and dislikes. There are many things that I hate but consider to be art. Likewise, there are many things that I love, that mean something to me, but I don’t believe them to be art.

But to your question on tattoos – I don't see why tattoos could not be art, but I have not encountered anything that makes me think that they are. I suppose that I have a similar reaction to fashion. These things are immensely important to some people, but have made only a cursory impact on the art-world-at-large.

That said, I do feel that things are changing. Many young artists, today, are more influenced by tattoos and skateboard designs than they are by the established art canon. I could imagine someone staging some kind of installation art piece that involves multiple tattooed bodies. In fact, I would not be surprised to hear that several artists have already done something like this. My question would be then – are the tattoos the art or is it about the installation.

If I were in that conversation with your coworker, I would ask them to explain what they consider to be art. Then you can use their definition to support your own argument.

But as I said – I am not the best person to ask on this question. I've always felt that an artist’s work should be much more interesting than they are. Body art just attracts too much attention, so I've avoided it.

Do you remember that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry went with George to the glasses store? When George asked him what he thought, Jerry (looking at all of the advertisements with people wearing glasses) replied, “I think that all of these women would be pretty good-looking if they weren't wearing glasses”.

That pretty much sums up my response when I see a tattoo magazine – “I bet all of these women would be pretty good-looking if it wasn't for all of those tattoos”.