mel jacobson on tue 21 aug 12
i have been friends with a painting prof from the u of minnesota
for years.
he wrote a paper that was published years back. his theory:
great art does `not` happen among starving artists in any society.
(in u.s. history there was a theory that artists were starving, hippies,
drug addled freaks, and all great art came from that class.)
hank's position was that art is purchased by the upper class. business
and professional people that have leisure time, and extra money to
spend on their homes/and spaces. business people and professionals have al=
ways
supported art museums, the ballet, art centers, opera and symphonies. in m=
ost
cases, art is purchased through galleries, from competent,
professional artists.
(it is like my theory: if you go to an opening at the walker art center an=
d
see the pink haired girls, the freaky boys....they are not the
artists. that opening
artist will be in a suit and tie, or a fine dress and will look
great. the hangers on dress like freaks to be noticed.) i have
observed that theory hundreds of times, because
often, i know the artists. i would never present myself to the art
market dressed
in my clay clothes. i would dress for the occasion. if clients come
to my home
i dress well, serve them coffee on my deck or living room. i present
a professional
attitude.
the minnetonka art center would close next week if the lake minnetonka
business class stopped donating money.
it was the same in historic europe.
the church, the business class, the professionals, the royalty. they bough=
t
and paid for the great art. take any art history course, that is what
is taught. who paid Michelangelo to be creative?
the story of van gogh does not fit with all professional artists. it
was a one off/
odd case. his story was latched onto by writers, and it became a norm
for artist.
many of the great inventors came from the upper classes of american society=
.
they had the time to think, work and invent. and hank has said many times.=
..
`when you struggle to make the next grocery bill, or pay the rent,
there is little
time to be creative`.
i personally wonder how much art is purchased by american corporations?
it is many millions i would guess.
having a well paid teaching position, and having many days off to pursue
my craft has been a blessing to me, and my family. my worries are small.
i have been able to pursue my own wealth and business sense. but, no
one has `given` me that opportunity. i took it, planned it, and lived with=
in
the system. most of my teaching friends went to the cabin and fished
all summer.
i worked. most of them had wives or husbands with good jobs. they flouris=
hed,
but, creativity was not the strong suit. my wife was home and did her own =
art
and creative endeavors. we started with a public job, and worked to make
it upper middle class. it is, and was hard work.
history has proven that if you are waiting for someone to support you, pay =
your
bills, carry you around on shoulders yelling....`creative genius` you have =
a
long wait, and a miserable life. you have to be `out there`. you have to
work your art, make lots of it, advertise your profession. if you
don't, and think
someone will discover you...you are stupid. the american society is built =
on
the shoulders of people who worked hard to make great business and
commerce. i know that. (has anyone noticed the explosion of art in
russia since
the end of oppression?)
mel
http://www.visi.com/~melpots/
clayart page below:
http://www.visi.com/~melpots/clayart.html
http://www.21stcenturykilns.com/
Paul Lewing on tue 21 aug 12
On Aug 21, 2012, at 5:09 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
he wrote a paper that was published years back. his theory:
great art does `not` happen among starving artists in any society.
(in u.s. history there was a theory that artists were starving, hippies,
drug addled freaks, and all great art came from that class.)
the story of van gogh does not fit with all professional artists. it
was a one off/
odd case. his story was latched onto by writers, and it became a norm
for artists.
This right here is one of my pet peeves. Somehow Vincent Van Gogh has
become the prototypical "artist", the embodiment of the "artistic
temperament". So lots of people think we're all crazy enough to cut
off our own ear, and won't sell a damned thing our whole lives, and
our art will only be worth anything after we're dead. Man, I hate
that attitude. Pablo Picasso worked all the time, was a very shrewd
businessman, and made tons of money while he was still alive.
I think one reason the "starving artist" concept survives with so much
acceptance is that the world is full of people who knew when they were
young that they should be artists. But somewhere along the line
someone convinced them that it was not possible to make a living as an
artist, or that they were not good enough to make a living as an
artist. So now they have jobs that they hate and they look at the
artists around them who seem to be living a carefree life (?) and
they'd rather think that all artists are starving than to think
they've wasted their lives.
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
www.paullewingart.com
Nefsigh@AOL.COM on tue 21 aug 12
I have to agree with Mel and his painter friend. After having been
involved with SOFA for more than 20 years (17 as SOFA co owner and 7 years =
with
New Art Forms) I think I can speak to this topic.
Rarely, (Volkous being a sort of exception) does and artist show up to a
presentation of his or her work dressed like they are going to a Halloween
party. Most all dress up-yes sometimes the outfits are a quirky, but always
in a stylish way- Most every artist I have interacted with over these year=
s
understands their markets--some better than others, but nonetheless, they
understand. And regardless of our own personal desire for that earthy, comf=
y
dress and existence ( I call it my flip flop look), the rest of the world
doesn't share that appreciation and seem, in fact. to associate quality
with presentation.
The painter Roger Brown was a good friend of mine and he told me he ALWAYS
dressed casually but appropriate for the venue- whether he was at a museum
reception for his work or merely giving a lecture to a small group. Wendel
Castle is always dressed to the "nines"--Of course, he call pull that off
as his body type fits it perfectly (whereas mine--not so much). In part he
presents himself this way because he enjoys it and also because his clients
and collectors appreciate it. It's called professionalism. It's also calle=
d
respect for the self and the people you will be interacting with.
Mel's friend Hank is right-most art IS purchased by the upper class
(economically) in our country. While most all of us can appreciate the $35,=
000
Cedarquist or the $20,000 Sherrill or the $3,000 Cushing--most of us will a=
lso
NOT be buying these works. it's a dance and we all know the kids with the
"outsider" looks rarely get asked to the floor. Might not be fair, but it
is what it is.
On a side note, I too think that the idea that "rugged individualism" and
the "lonely starving artist" are myths. From the Renaissance to modern
times, great art has been made. The only real difference is in whom and ho=
w the
"sponsorship" has been handled. Today, the church rarely engages in support
as it did back in the 15-1600's. Private patrons still exist, but not
quite the way they used to. The university, the community college, the not=
for
profit residency programs and the grant system have become the patrons of
the past. And I have to admit, students excepted, I rarely, if ever, come
across an artist who isn't supported in his/her works.
Anyway, enough ramblings. Onward and upward or maybe sideways.
In a message dated 8/21/2012 7:21:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
melpots2@VISI.COM writes:
i have been friends with a painting prof from the u of minnesota
for years.
he wrote a paper that was published years back. his theory:
great art does `not` happen among starving artists in any society.
(in u.s. history there was a theory that artists were starving, hippies,
drug addled freaks, and all great art came from that class.)
hank's position was that art is purchased by the upper class. business
and professional people that have leisure time, and extra money to
spend on their homes/and spaces. business people and professionals have
always
supported art museums, the ballet, art centers, opera and symphonies. in
most
cases, art is purchased through galleries, from competent,
professional artists.
(it is like my theory: if you go to an opening at the walker art center
and
see the pink haired girls, the freaky boys....they are not the
artists. that opening
artist will be in a suit and tie, or a fine dress and will look
great. the hangers on dress like freaks to be noticed.) i have
observed that theory hundreds of times, because
often, i know the artists. i would never present myself to the art
market dressed
in my clay clothes. i would dress for the occasion. if clients come
to my home
i dress well, serve them coffee on my deck or living room. i present
a professional
attitude.
the minnetonka art center would close next week if the lake minnetonka
business class stopped donating money.
it was the same in historic europe.
the church, the business class, the professionals, the royalty. they
bought
and paid for the great art. take any art history course, that is what
is taught. who paid Michelangelo to be creative?
the story of van gogh does not fit with all professional artists. it
was a one off/
odd case. his story was latched onto by writers, and it became a norm
for artist.
many of the great inventors came from the upper classes of american
society.
they had the time to think, work and invent. and hank has said many
times...
`when you struggle to make the next grocery bill, or pay the rent,
there is little
time to be creative`.
i personally wonder how much art is purchased by american corporations?
it is many millions i would guess.
having a well paid teaching position, and having many days off to pursue
my craft has been a blessing to me, and my family. my worries are small.
i have been able to pursue my own wealth and business sense. but, no
one has `given` me that opportunity. i took it, planned it, and lived
within
the system. most of my teaching friends went to the cabin and fished
all summer.
i worked. most of them had wives or husbands with good jobs. they
flourished,
but, creativity was not the strong suit. my wife was home and did her own
art
and creative endeavors. we started with a public job, and worked to make
it upper middle class. it is, and was hard work.
history has proven that if you are waiting for someone to support you, pay
your
bills, carry you around on shoulders yelling....`creative genius` you have
a
long wait, and a miserable life. you have to be `out there`. you have to
work your art, make lots of it, advertise your profession. if you
don't, and think
someone will discover you...you are stupid. the american society is built
on
the shoulders of people who worked hard to make great business and
commerce. i know that. (has anyone noticed the explosion of art in
russia since
the end of oppression?)
mel
http://www.visi.com/~melpots/
clayart page below:
http://www.visi.com/~melpots/clayart.html
http://www.21stcenturykilns.com/
James Freeman on tue 21 aug 12
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:09 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
i have been friends with a painting prof from the u of minnesota
for years.
he wrote a paper that was published years back. his theory:
great art does `not` happen among starving artists in any society.
Hmmmmm... I wonder how he would explain Rodin, who worked and created
though near penniless until the very end of his life. How about Monet,
Vermeer, Gauguin, Toulouse-Lautrec, just to name a few visual artists. In
music, Franz Schubert comes to mind. How about American poet Phillis
Wheatley? French poets Paul Verlaine and Arthur Rimbaud? William and
Dorothy Wordsworth during their early years? Edgar Allen Poe? Then there
is the list of artists who had money at one point, but lost it, ending
their lives in debt; Oscar Wilde, Judy Garland, Michael Jackson... We can
also talk about all of the starving Modern artists who slaved away in
illegal lofts in New York City before they were "discovered" and made
famous and wealthy. Contemporary artists? Basquiat comes immediately to
mind. How about all of the Beat poets? Heck, the opera La Boheme was
written in the late 1800s about starving artists. The list of artists who
produced great works while living in poverty is quite long.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
-Euripides
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Snail Scott on wed 22 aug 12
On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:33 PM, Paul Lewing wrote:
> ...Somehow Vincent Van Gogh has
> become the prototypical "artist", the embodiment of the "artistic
> temperament"...
Impressionism has a lot to do with this. Not stylistically,
per se, but in terms of the new way the people became
artists. (We're talking Europe here...like it or not, the biggest
influence on how we see art even in our more global age.)
Several things led to Impressionism: the descent of Neo-
classicism from a style rooted in political activism (the
idealists of the French Revolution looking toward
Athenian democracy and the Roman republic for models)
into one that pursued aesthetic and technical merit without
any social relevance to speak of. Impressionism built upon
the Realists' efforts to use only relevant and contemporary
subject matter, while disdaining the technical perfection
of the old style as something tainted by association. The
'respectability' of the old academic style became something
to avoid, along with its outward trappings of professional
appearance and manner - seen as signs of an increasingly
irrelevant, moribund standard.
The invention of manufactured paint is another huge factor.
No longer did a would-be artist have to learn to grind and
mix paints, stretch canvases, etc. Anyone could buy the
necessary gear and just muck about, experimenting with
the materials. No years of apprenticeship, learning (in the
process) how to mimic the master's style. Styles changed
fast and freely, and without oversight, as few of these artists
even attempted to meet the expectations of the Academy.
This fit rather nicely into the Romantic era notions of an
unfettered natural impulse toward 'truth', and one could
scarcely embody the unfettered impulses of nature wearing
a suit, starched shirt, and tie. (Let's not get started on corsetry!)
My basic point here is: art does not develop in a vacuum,
and the 'noble starving artist' paradigm wasn't created by
artists alone, but by broad social dynamics. It's what people
wanted from artists then and now - a chance to buy into a
social model of untrammelled individualism and 'natural'
impulses uncontaminated by base commercial motives.
People liked the idea (and still do) of the artist as someone
channeling a freedom that they themselves, with their gainful
but restrictive employment (that provided their means to buy
art) could only imagine.
Some buyers (especially public art committees and corporate
collectors) prefer the businesslike demeanor, but there are
many who prefer the idea of supporting this idealized vision
of the artist as a free (but suffering) spirit. They want artists to
be something different from their prosaic, practical selves.
And artists aren't immune to these concepts. We breathe the
same air, watch the same films, read the same books as our
buyers, and we've been sucking in the same ambient images
since childhood, telling us what an artist is.
Some artists adopt a persona for their public, depending on
their market. Artist as a business owner? a crazed visionary?
the noble victim of a cruel insensitive world? Sometimes it's
deliberate - an image put on like a costume, as part of the
marketing scheme. For others, it's without deliberate thought,
and they think it's natural, but none of us are 'natural', we are
the products of our culture, whether we buy into its mainstream
or lash out against it. For most of us, I suspect, it's a combination:
Our work is a part of us, but it makes us part of some subset of
the art world, and all its expectations. How we dress is a part of
that. Even if you go to an opening dressed in studio work clothes,
that's a choice. Iit ain't your skin, you picked it, and you picked
when to wear it, just as deliberately as if you chose a cocktail
gown or military fatigues.
It's perhaps more evident when I look at my students, many of
whom are convinced that their look is 'just them', as they show
up in their costumes from Abercrombie&Fitch, or the vintage
shop, or the dumpster behind Goodwill, or whatever. We choose
our persona, and it never fits so well as when we're convinced
it's 'just us'. We are professionals, though, and choosing our
public image is just as important as the work we present. And
it needs to be congruent. The buyers seeking that little touch
of the unconventional will not be seeking out the artist in a suit
and tie, but others will appreciate the 'non-flakiness' that it
symbolizes. We might like to think that our work stands alone,
saying everything needed. That is seldom the case. As artists,
part of our product is us, the person who stands behind it. It's
silly to act like that doesn't matter.
NCECA, for me, is primarily an academic conference, full of
people whom I want to see me in a particular light, so I wear
slacks and a jacket with a blouse. And a bra. I wear something
similar when teaching lecture courses. In the studio, I wear filthy
cargo pants and a tank top. When teaching studio classes, I wear
good-condition jeans or khakis, and a plain-colored knit top
(buttons snag). And a bra. For other people's openings, I have
fun - funky jackets, whatever, but still with the knowledge that I'll be
running into people whose opinions matter. For my own openings,
I wear upscale, but unconventional: the message is "successful,
not too weird to deal with, but different and unique". It matters.
My friends, (I think,) don't care about the window dressing, but
people who don't know you need a few clues as to who you are.
Give them the ones that you want them to see! I have no patience
with the people who say "This is just 'me'", as they wear the same
thing everywhere for every occasion. It's not you. Your birthday suit
is you. Everything else is a choice.
I agree with Mel's statement about the importance of your own
presentation in public. I do think, though, that you have to know
your market and your buyers, and yes, some of them really do
want ripped jeans and a T-shirt with an offensive slogan! It's
a big, widely varied art world out there; know how you and your
work fit into it and choose accordingly.
-Snail
Snail Scott on wed 22 aug 12
An interesting book on the roots of this phenomenon:
"The Dawn of Bohemianism"
by George Levetine, Penn State Press, 1978
-Snail
| |
|
