Do you need a sales record to be considered an artist?

My guess is that if you have art in a bookstore
or coffee house people will spend a lot more
time REALLY looking at the art. I once saw a
study that tracked the amount of time people spend
looking at a work of art in a major gallery....most
of the time it is SECONDS!

I was just in a group exhibition in a shopping mall.
Our work was hung in an entrance way behind glass
panels on the wall....The curator's idea was to
take art to the people. Cant rave enough about
the excellence of the location and the media coverage.....a real happy event Smile

(despite
only getting an enquiry for the price of a painting
and no clinching of the deal)

0 Replies

art
I'm sure you're right, Portal Star; sales are far more likely in a gallery, And I don't mind that the gallery doubles the "value" of the painting to make its profits (that's why they're there--thanks for that perspective, LW). And although I would not mind at all selling my works, it is FAR MORE IMPORTANT that they simply be seen. Painting is not, and was not, my profession. And now that I'm "comfortably" retired I see no reason to think of this Magnificent (a)Vocation in monetary terms. As I said many times before, I would detest the pressure to produce "what would sell." BUT, having said all that, I can understand how irrelevant these values may be to a person who makes art for a living.

0 Replies

Galleries are important, and a good idea if you find one you like and can really trust. However, if you can sell a piece for 75% of what it costs in the gallery, the extra 25% is yours. That's less cost for the buyer and more money for you without a middle man. Plus, many galleries, especially the ones not located in huge cities, charge 50% but don't do their part of marketing you, buying ads, bringing buyers. Not to mention the slanted contracts some of them will try to get you to sign. Galleries are important, but ... Be cautious with your use of them, and of agents. Iv'e heard too many horror stories of the untrustworthy.

0 Replies

Hmmm, Ive shown in coffeehouses and restaurants as well as having galleries deal my work. No matter what the market, a gallery does better for me since , the gallerey owners are advocates of my work. They are actively selling, whereas the coffeeshops use your work to decorate their walls, and really , even the most sophisticated coffeehouse owner is not a pro in the art world.
i like wiz's take on what portal star said, she sees the gallery charging a 505 commission, wiz, whos opearted a gallery sees the artist getting paid and the dealer getting a fee which is his cost and profit.
sometimes dealers make some very wrong decisions and , no matter what they do, they cannot sell the work . i had a phase wherein I was doing fantasy work with big breasted mostly unclad women and dragons 9sort of like a more topical Frank Frazetta) They couldnt give em away cause my gallery had opinions that the work was lewd. Previously I had done a land office business doing very similar work on peoples cheby Vans. It did not translate to fine art illustration. Was I broken? naah, I loved the fact that people thought it was good enough to be pornographic. They eventually sold , but the gallery lost money Im sure. Today, I do naked wildlife and more abstract work with realistic pieces of machinery. Somehow that has a following. Ive been trying to get into plein air landscapes and I need to loosen up more because I have no market and I feel its my work.

I said all this to express, through my experience, the fact that sales is a way to metric your work via its desirability. If theres a consensus, through the market that youre doing ok, then youre work is validated somehow. Validation, after all, is what we all need. Anyone who paints without even asking the question of sopmeone else"well whattya think?" is merely obsessive about slapping paint around.
Theres a whole lot of "outsider art" out there. It too has gotten fashionable to hang in NY apt walls. Most of those artists were just squirrels who needed to express their feelings in an artistic endeavor rather than talking to themselves. Much outsider work, although collectible as folk art, is horrible.IMO.
The outsiders are the only ones Ive never seen seek out any validation.

0 Replies

http://www.rawvision.com/whatisoa.html
I'm attaching this web site so that you can better understand some of the people who are part of Outsider Art. I work with over a hundred "outside artists" every week. Yes, most of them do work within themselves with little or no concern for public acceptance. Acceptance is an abstract concept. People with severe mental or developmental disabilities lack the chemical ability in their brains to process abstract ideas. They live with the concrete. That is not to say that they slap paint. Some of the artists are meticulous in their applications. Obsessive, yes. They'd paint all day if they could. Because, as the ones who can talk told me, "it feels good." Do they sell their paintings? Yes, for $10-$50. They use that money to go to the movies or bowling. Outsiders love to bowl. And as for talking to themselves, yes they do. Most of them talk while they're painting or they sing or they just make noises. But come to think of it, so do I.

0 Replies

Nah, SP, and artist is and if one sells that is OK and it provides the money to buy more supplies and the freedom to do what you love.

When I sold my first painting after I got the course to actually sign my stuff finally, I found that the true payment was in the eyes of the young woman who bought it not in the money.

This young collage student came into the show with her mom and my booth was fairly close to the entrance. She saw it and wanted it immediatly. Her mom liked it but wisely advised her daughter to look though the whole show first and she said she would be back, ugh. Cause I hear that a lot and they almost never come back.

Well about two hours later there she was with the money. I was quite startled to see her again. As I was writing the reciept I noticed her face. She had this look in her eyes that made me think it was her first art purchase. Wow I have been living on that look for the last two or three months.

0 Replies

Its a little glow that stays even after the check is cashed. < I agree,
kayla, I realize I did sound somewhat cruel in my representation of outsider art. I need to learn when to just shut up.

0 Replies

For you FM:

Quote:

The consideration given to the work of professional artists has had the effect of conditioning the public, of creating a state of mine which makes it responsive only to the art displayed in museums and galleries or to art that depends on the same frame of reference, the same means of expression. Any works which, out of ignorance or obstinacy, depart from the accepted codes are given not more than a passing or condescending glance; or , at bes, they are granted the status of a marginal art.

Yet it may be a misguided view.. It may be that artistic creation, with all that it calls for in the way of free inventiveness, takes place at a high pitch of tension in the nameless crowd of ordinary people than in the circles that thing they have the monopoly of it.

It may even be that thrives in its healthiest form among these ordinary people, because practised without applause or profit, for the maker's own delight; and the over-publicized activity of professionals produces merely a specious form of art, all too often watered down and doctored. If this were so, it is rather cultural art that should be described as marginal.

..... [T]he challenge to social standards and the pursuit of new solutions--carried beyond a certain point--to be pronounced and infirmity or a crime? ...

Art does not come and lie in the beds we made for it. It slips away as soon as its name is uttered; it likes to preserve in incogniton. It's best moments are when it forgets its very name.

Jean Debuffet created the term "Art Brut"

Often I have to fight my art history/art dealer background to be the artist I am. Outsider art, primative art, folk art, Art Brut - that's me.

Only recently did I come to appreciate my own art, before that I called my stufrf crafts, knowing that it did not fit in. Our friend Cobalt and a couple of other local artists clued me in.

0 Replies

art
Joanne, good to hear from you, and on such a crucial topic. I love Dubuffet's statement. Farmer, you have not only insulted the outsiders but also mydearself. While I do not worry about satisfying the demands of a "market," I do not consider myself to be merely "obsessing about slapping paint around." That may be true of Dekooning but not me Laughing

Actually, I DO paint with the imagined response of a reference group (my artistic significant others) who include Klee, Diebenkorn, Stamos, Tamayo, Joanne, Kayla, Shepaints, Ossobucco, Lightwizard, 400, Colorific, Firenze and others. They have nothing to do with a potential "market" but something to do with my validation.

0 Replies

Hey JLN :wink:

0 Replies

I dont think either of you has read my statement about validation and understood it. As I said"the warm glow remains long after the check is cashed" , meaning that the validation of your work is what we work for.At least I do.
2 of my past teachers included Bill Baziotes and John Costigan, both trained and both searching for a newer way of interpretation.People who bypass training in color, composition, perspective , etc, have no business calling themselves artists unless the distortions are done with a plan in mind

I like Twains remonstrance in that "we must carefully collect all the details before we learn to distort the truth" That also reflects "flat" art.
My feelings about OUTSIDER (Not naive or Art Brut) there is a defined difference in the market. There is a market for outsider, I just dont happen to think much of its worth .

As far as our self esteem goes. Ive never seen anyones work , on these lines. I like honest critique, not touchy feely stuff. Assoon as we can post our works, Ill be there hanging my work and will look forward to your input from a standpoint of my works value , not my opinions about art in general.
If you choose to be offended JL, iM surprised , but Ill accept that with a follow on that , we should all go and work on our work and not our posts.
Ill back out, seems Ive offended too many people I like here and Im a little surprised why.
You take great glee in trashing Kinkaid and Rockwell, (one of those two is safely in the pantheon of great American artists). Ive studied outsider aret as an investment phenomenon. It, like Kinkaid, has a moment in time in the spotlight. So did beanie babies and Howdy Doody collectibles. As the market matures , I dont feel it will stand up because the art market and especially the folk art market has been unusually inflated in the 90s and is settleing back. For example, artistic paper blessings done by the artisans of the Shakers, were in 5 figures in the early 90s, today, theyve slipped back to a more realistic value.

If you choose to include yourself , as an outsider JL , I think your incorrect in your self assessment. You are trained and more mainstream than thet
The interesting thing is that this type of discussion goes on in Maine Antique Digest every few months. Someone speaks ill of outsider art (in terms of its artistic merit, not as a social commentary). Then a lot of PC types jump in to the defense of the outsider, yet the entire subject of"is it worth anything" seems to be lost and the argument degrades into a PC v non PC commentary between political types (those who "feel and empathize" and those who, pity their black hearts, do not)
Please, dont take personal offense at what I said about my feelings of outsider art, but now on remand, Im stickin with it. Well get to see each others work and will , by such exposure, even help each other improve (as I said before, Im not at all pleased with my plein air stuff, and I need some brutal critique).
I, for one, (maybe Im alone) dont consider any topic taboo, nor any reasonable position out of bounds.

0 Replies

Your right FM and so is everyone else. Sometimes it is difficult for me to see the difference between Kindaid and Jackson Pollack but that's just me.

I think in another thread I said I don't like it all but I love it all. And I really believe that. Who are any of us to judge what is and was is not art.

Certainly we all know deep in our hearts we don't need validation from outside sources but it is nice to get it.

Selling art is not so hard. To be a fancy gallery owner is not so difficult either.

I consider selling some what like my union organizing, no it is organizing, helpling people undestand the issue (form, function, meaning). Educating the group about the benefit of joining a union is the same as educating each other (here I mean the public) is the same.

Art Guild' were the first union's and and indivudual's "master piece" was simply to work that validated the artist's skill level to enter the guild.

Sharing knowledge is all it really is. That is what validates us.

0 Replies

What separated art from craft in the western tradition was an elitist movement, artists of the renaissance wanted to be viewed as intellectuals and be given respect and more money. They did this by making their art somthing the common man could not do, they considered it of utmost importance to distinguish art from craft. It worked, and there were many academies and schools of painting closely associated with royalty, and many high paid artists following the renaissance. I don't think craft should be put down, but the push for distinction from craft has helped artists gain financial independence and social status over the years.

0 Replies

FM your comments sent me back to the web site to reread all those definitions. Thank you. The majority of the people I work with don't consider themselves "artists." Again an abstract concept totally out of their cognitive realm. The money they get for their paintings only mean something in terms of what they can do, ie., bowling, Mc Donald's, etc. With this group, training in composition is a comedy. They politely listen and then go back to their own world. But I do think, and this is just my opinion, that they possess a certain methodology. As I watch them paint, certain patterns emerge, circles, squares, lines, so on. Some paint around the edges and then move into the center. Some will use only 1 to 2 colors. Obsessive-compulsive at it's best. There are a few exceptions in my group. I have 3-4 students who would fall under the definition of "naive art." They are motivated to some respect by money and acceptance/approval. Training for them is much more difficult. They can connect with the concepts of composition, color, line, etc, but they lack the eye hand motor control to successfuly master the execution. Their paintings are flat and lifeless, lacking the spontaneity of the o-c group. What makes this situation even more depressing is the stupidity exhibited by some of the staff who say these people should be in museums or galleries. Talk about setting someone up for failure. In this respect I understand your negative opinion of what I call naive artists or art being put out there for the big bucks. This kind of hype is just another marketing ploy, geared solely to inflate the market and dupe people into spending money. I'm not familiar with the that world so I will refrain from debating pro's and con's. I am not an outsider artist. I've had lots of training, luckily most of it when I was very young. It's in there somewhere. I just don't think about it,
sort of like dancing. I have one rule or guidepost. When I finish a piece, I ask myself if I'd hang it in my house. If it passes the test, I show it. If not, the gezzo queen strikes again. Oh, I have seen JL's work and it is very, very fine. He is, in deed, an artist.

0 Replies

One of the last paintings that was sold out of my gallery was by a new artist who had recently graducated from the California Art Institute. His urban realism had its roots in Edward Hopper but he was striving for a more photographic look. The professionalism was obviously there -- the handling of composition, color and his technique was impressive. It was a larger work, framed by the artist in a natural wood (framing becomes an obviously huge factor in selling art as it is almost always custom and that can range anywhere from $200.00 to $1000.00). It sold for $4500. to a couple who qualified in that price range and the artist received $2250.00. For a new artist, display his work in an informal venue such as a coffee house, restaurant, community show or other way of showing ones work other than a commercial gallery, they would be lucky:

1. To sell the work at all.

2. To get more than $1,500.00.

His smaller images with less work in them would have netted him about the same but if an new artist can net $500. to a $1,000, that's nothing to be worried about. It's unfortunate that most of these informal venues has the stigma of being unprofessional and to the collector, they have a great deal more confidence buying a work from an established gallery.

0 Replies

truth
Bless you Kayla. The pleasure I feel hearing praise from a Significant Other shows me that validation comes both from inside and from outside. FM, PLEASE understand that I am not, and never was, offended by your comments (I hoped to convey that by my use of "mydearself"). You are not one to say what pleases others. For that reason I always take you seriously. I sometimes think I talk about art better than I paint. But I am getting better at the latter. I have studied still life and life drawing in two schools (Choiniard and San Carlos) and can draw, but while I love to see the drawings of others (e.g., Degas, Kollwitz, Daumier), I am bored DOING it, unless, of course, I take major liberties distorting for aesthetic and expressive effect. I sometimes think that if I were to ever have a show I would properly call it "Doodles" because that is most often the mental spirit with which I work. I, too, am not an Outsider artist, but I often take inspiration from the spontaneity they exhibit. This is obviously the case with the CoBra painters and the Art Brut school of DuBuffet, who were not untrained "outsiders" themselves but clearly aware of the "upside" of artistic naivte. Analogously, I would not learn running techniques from sprinters in the Special Olympics, but I would want to have their joy and spontaneity when running--knees permitting.

0 Replies

art
Oh, by the way, Farmer, I don't know how I failed to include in the list of painters I most enjoy (Diebenkorn, Tamayo, Stamos, etc) William Baziotes. One of the very few "surrealists" I enjoy. I envy you for having studied and known him.

0 Replies

"Art for art's sake" is a relatively new phenomenon in the overall scheme of things. I suggest that most artists need some sort of reward to keep going. The reward may be improving skill,
teacher support, commissions, gallery interest, community approval or the approval of only a few, or yes, cha-ching!! I wish there was a psychology
major around who could discuss positive reinforcement.....From what I remember...infrequent, random rewards are
very powerful reinforcers.......

Farmer....I cant imagine anyone being offended
by your honesty.

0 Replies

BS in psychology here! Not infrequent. Expected and planned rewards will ellicit a particular behavior if only that behavior is positively reinforced. The reward must have validity for the actor. Otherwise there is no behavior change. So....whatever motivates the artist must be reinforced in a consistent manner.

0 Replies

kayla wrote:

FM your comments sent me back to the web site to reread all those definitions. Thank you. The majority of the people I work with don't consider themselves "artists." Again an abstract concept totally out of their cognitive realm. The money they get for their paintings only mean something in terms of what they can do, ie., bowling, Mc Donald's, etc. With this group, training in composition is a comedy. They politely listen and then go back to their own world. But I do think, and this is just my opinion, that they possess a certain methodology. As I watch them paint, certain patterns emerge, circles, squares, lines, so on. Some paint around the edges and then move into the center. Some will use only 1 to 2 colors. Obsessive-compulsive at it's best. There are a few exceptions in my group. I have 3-4 students who would fall under the definition of "naive art." They are motivated to some respect by money and acceptance/approval. Training for them is much more difficult. They can connect with the concepts of composition, color, line, etc, but they lack the eye hand motor control to successfuly master the execution. Their paintings are flat and lifeless, lacking the spontaneity of the o-c group. What makes this situation even more depressing is the stupidity exhibited by some of the staff who say these people should be in museums or galleries. Talk about setting someone up for failure. In this respect I understand your negative opinion of what I call naive artists or art being put out there for the big bucks. This kind of hype is just another marketing ploy, geared solely to inflate the market and dupe people into spending money. I'm not familiar with the that world so I will refrain from debating pro's and con's. I am not an outsider artist. I've had lots of training, luckily most of it when I was very young. It's in there somewhere. I just don't think about it,
sort of like dancing. I have one rule or guidepost. When I finish a piece, I ask myself if I'd hang it in my house. If it passes the test, I show it. If not, the gezzo queen strikes again. Oh, I have seen JL's work and it is very, very fine. He is, in deed, an artist.

I think teachers should force students to do mostly observational paintings (except when they're in advanced.) The only things that can be taught with abstract/conceptual is composition and possibly color relationships. For a student to train their eyes and know how to manipulate paint, they must train observationally, no matter what kind of art they end up doing. Observational painting for an artist is like a dancer's stretching and warm up exercises. Train hard, so you have the capability of dancing however you want - whether you're rudulf N... Or Martha Grahm or a local jazz dancer.

Side note: Behaviorism only goes so far, Kayla.

Light- those photorealistic urban hopperish- narratives are popular right now. Iv'e seen many variations from grad students. Where is your gallery located/does it have a website?

0 Replies

Do you need a sales record to be considered an artist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know