Sunday, April 10, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Theory of Art - conclusion
A small clique of art critics and art consultants - that’s who determines the value of art. Those who have access to those who have deep pockets - that’s who. Those who have deep pockets always want to buy and those who have access to them tell them what to buy. As in Music, the viewers determine (and will always determine) what great art is because they instinctively know – trust me, they know - but the consultants determine the value. No artwork has intrinsic value. Whatever its value is, that value is subjective. Be that as it may, the value is always tied to the hand of the painter. You can replicate a Picasso perfectly, but the copy, compared to the original, will be nearly worthless. If your name is Casimiro Jinjis Pitoperos, or Benny Garces, or Willie Crackers, or Tobia Selemoebe Lacoleetah, or Alice Blanco, or Miklos Molloy, or Ann G. Maimah, or Irma Driggers or you are something other than famous or scandalous, you will not sell your art for millions. Sorry. The value is also tied to its historical significance or its uniqueness. Supply and demand are just commercial factors which do not really tell you what an art work is worth. It may be worth millions to a collector who wants it and has the ready cash, but its true worth compared to other art may be negligible. Beauty or brilliance in execution are seldom factors upon which to assign a value – and, believe me, values are assigned and manipulated by the small cliques. Ugly art can sell for millions provided someone can be persuaded to pay millions for it - simplistic, minimalist, mediocre, childish art, too. A plain white canvas can sell for millions if the artist is well-connected, but only if she is well-connected. If you have not been credentialed in this manner, you will not sell for millions – sorry. There is nothing unique or imaginative about a white canvas, but, if you hang around with the New York elites with deep pockets, your agent can persuade one of them to buy it for ten million. It’s considered chic. It’s just a bauble to hang on a wall. It's who you know, remember? As in real estate, location is everything. The design and wood and brick and glass and mortar are the same, but the location is not - same thing with art. In a trash can, a Picasso is worthless, but on Donald Trump’s wall – well, take a wild guess. Place your art in the hands of someone who knows he can sell it for lots of money – one of the auction houses maybe - and you are on your way. That’s how Van Gogh and Modigliani made it big - a lot of other painters too. Too bad most of them were dead by the time they were selling for millions. Luck has a lot to do with it after all, so don’t even worry about it – just keep painting If it's great, it will be discovered sooner or later.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Theory of Art - part one
Man is the only creature which deals in Art, though Art is very hard to define – yes, it includes painting, music, dance, literature, and poetry, but a precise definition is hard to come by. Aesthetics it deals with. Man concerns himself with the appearance of his surroundings – his home (inside and out), his autos, his clothing, and his body. He cares about architecture, city planning, fashion, cosmetics, landscaping, interior decorating, jewelry, and even the way his food appears on his plate. All of those concerns are related to Art. He creates constantly – the only creature with the ability to do so. Perhaps Art is an expression which touches and appeals to those sensibilities which lie beyond our intellectual curiosity - a language apart from written and spoken language. It is not concerned with the alphabet. We cannot describe any work of music with words. That is impossible. We must hear it. What about a painting? A painting can be described with words, even if it takes many, many words - it can be done. Technically, it would be like describing a set of blueprints. Nevertheless, words cannot take the place of a painting. One must see it. A description of a piece of literature can also likewise not take the place of the literature itself. One must read it. One must experience the play in the theatre. So, then, even if we do not know precisely what Art is, how do we determine what is mediocre, good, or great Art? As with Music, the audience is the final arbiter. I know when I like something if I want to return to it over and over again. I am certainly smart enough to know what I like. What is that question on everyone’s mind? What about Lady Gaga? If she is so popular and the audience is really the final arbiter, does that make her a great artist? No. Why not? Because her art is transitory – it will not last. Great art is here to stay. Bach’s music is almost 300 years old and it is still being played. Lady Gaga may last ten or twenty years but certainly not beyond that. A good entertainer she is and an artist, of course, a cheesy one, but not a great artist. And people like trailblazers too – they love daring, original, courageous, intrepid, scandalous leaders. That’s how we explain a phenomenon like Andy Warhol. Is he here to stay? Yes, I’m afraid so. He was a trailblazer. Not a great artist but a trailblazer. Finally, what about value - who decides value? To be continued . . . . This painting is Doorway - number 322 - 2008
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
