1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by bubblesmcgrath, Sep 21, 2014.

  1. Yuwipi Woman

    Yuwipi Woman Whack-A-Mole Queen

    It's still new in comparison to the traditional mediums (millennia as opposed to decades). Photography has been around more than 100 years and you still get people questioning it as a "valid" medium. I think some of digital art's problem is similar to photography in another way. The easy reproducibility of that art devalues it in some people's eyes. Anything "popular" or "accessible" is always suspect in some circles.

    I think you're giving the "art elite" more power than they're really due. There's not just one art market with New York or Paris as the center. There's multiple art centers and multiple markets.

    There's even a parallel market for realist/traditional painting that takes very little direction from New York or Paris. You'll never hear about these artists and galleries in Art News or see them in major museums, but go to Dallas, Denver, Aspen, or Jackson Hole and you'll see street after street of galleries selling work at high prices. Artists a New York gallery wouldn't consider representing, and that's fine. They're still making a good living making and selling art. They're funded by oil billionaires who don't care what's selling in NY. They buy stuff they like and it isn't conceptual art.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2014
    cesare and bubblesmcgrath like this.
  2. Yuwipi Woman

    Yuwipi Woman Whack-A-Mole Queen

    I also suspect that in the future, the gallery system will have to either make changes to survive or you'll see fewer galleries. Artists who are good marketers can sell their own art without going through a gallery. With the internet and other low-cost marketing strategies, artists won't find parting with 40% or more of the selling price of a piece all that appealing. A similar thing has already happened in the music industry.
     
    cesare and bubblesmcgrath like this.
  3. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    Artists have never "needed" galleries to sell their work. All over the world artists get their work to its audience in a myriad of ways.

    Selling through galleries is more about status and, I guess, legitimacy.
     
    cesare likes this.
  4. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    "Masterpiece", used as an accurate-ish description, tends to be a product of age. Most artistic masterpieces don't, unless given the label by partisan promoters of the artist, get meaningfully given the label until a couple of generations after the artwork is made, IMO.
     
  5. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    It does kind of give "the art world" (by which I mean the promoters and agents and galleries and collectors) an easy ride, in that if you don't arm yourself to challenge their interpretation of high art on their terms (rather than just mocking it, mock-worthy though a lot of it is), they can forever pull the old trick of saying "but you don't understand what the artist is saying..."

    I'm not sure that "taste" is produced in as blatant a way as being manufactured, but it's certainly the case that prevailing cultural discourses steer people in the development of their "taste", and culture is certainly "engineered", be it blatantly a la the Nazi denigration and removal of "alien" cultural artifacts, or subtly, such as the preferences expressed by critics for the products of particular artists (of whichever artistic field) within a school or genre.
     
  6. Yuwipi Woman

    Yuwipi Woman Whack-A-Mole Queen

    I generally agree with you. It's just that digital technology had made the process of the artist self-representing themselves so much easier and accessible. Its changed the marketing of nearly everything, I don't see the art world as being immune.
     
    cesare, bubblesmcgrath and chilango like this.
  7. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    While they may shape "taste" quite forcefully, there's still a fair bit of autonomy expressed by those who aren't "art professionals" or interested parties. To use an example which I'm sure at least one poster will protest about, Jack Vettriano's work is popular with a wider public, yet anathematised by many critics and artists. Also, as I mentioned earlier, Rousseau's paintings were held by critics to be little better than amateurish daubs until they became popular, at which time critical analysis shifted, rhapsodising over the "naive" style and the outre subject matter.

    As Adorno and Horkheimer mentioned in "The Culture Industry" 60+ years ago.

    You've also got painters in most places making a living with old-fashioned landscapes and portraits - paintings people want because a painted representation is often easier to project your thoughts about a place onto - easier to idealise -than a photographic representation is.
     
  8. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    Absolutely.
     
  9. Yuwipi Woman

    Yuwipi Woman Whack-A-Mole Queen

    Can someone give me a definition of "high Art." I cringe every time I see that phrase because I'm not certain such a thing really exists outside someone's overblown fantasy of the value of their own opinion.

    I'm reminded of a Science Fiction book I read some years ago about an alien culture that invades Earth. Part of their incorporation of a culture into theirs was to choose an aspect to incorporate into their "high art." For Earth they choose Elvis impersonation.
     
  10. Yuwipi Woman

    Yuwipi Woman Whack-A-Mole Queen

    Would that make Stanley Edwards a good example? All his hard work at being a bad example is going to waste. ;)
     
    ViolentPanda and chilango like this.
  11. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    High art = elite rather than popular . More weight as cultural capital
     
  12. Pickman's model

    Pickman's model Every man and every woman is a star

    yeh, it's why penguin classics are books that have stood the test of time*

    *barring morrissey's autobiography
     
    ViolentPanda, cesare and Yuwipi Woman like this.
  13. Yuwipi Woman

    Yuwipi Woman Whack-A-Mole Queen

    Still makes me cringe. :)
     
  14. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    Yeah.

    It's not a good thing, but it is a thing.
     
    bubblesmcgrath likes this.
  15. Miss Caphat

    Miss Caphat I want it that way

    I too think many (false) assumptions are being made. I don't think digital art not being taken seriously is a thing :confused: , even in my little community art center we discuss/ educate on the merits of digital art which has been accepted to our shows, and nobody really seems to put up much resistance.
    Also, it's funny to say that on the one hand the "art world" is so avant garde that they regard all kinds of unusual media as art, but somehow they're also very anti-digital? :hmm: I feel like this is just more fantasizing by a frustrated amateur artist.

    Anyway! Enough about that, but good points Yuwipi. Not as many artists are able to sell work and gain notoriety as anyone would like, but still many do quite well across the country. I don't encounter too many people who get all hung up on not being accepted to the more "prestigious" enclaves either. Artists find their niche and go with it, ime.
     
  16. Miss Caphat

    Miss Caphat I want it that way

    meh. it's still not very easy, for anyone. you also have to get people to actually SEE your stuff. And want to buy it. People like to see things in person, for the most part, unless it's little decorative things from Etsy, etc.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2014
  17. bubblesmcgrath

    bubblesmcgrath Well-Known Member

    Who said that?
    Many "modern art" galleries promote certain styles.
    In doing so other styles are excluded.
    Digital art is not getting wall space in many "modern art" galleries. I regularly visit galleries that promote "abstract", "installation" and "conceptual" art. Visual digital art is only occasionally represented.


    Lol.....you're a card...:rolleyes:
     
  18. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    I s'pose it depends upon what "sort" of digital art we're talking about.

    Digital "painting" etc.? Sure, it's not "esteemed" as high art by and large (with exceptions such as Hockney's forays into using his iPod).

    But more "interactive" or "installational" stuff is well represented IME.
     
    cesare likes this.
  19. Rutita1

    Rutita1 Scum with no integrity, apparently.

    I was joking Miss Caphat I am surprised you never realised that! :( :D


    I was, on about you both actually! :)
     
  20. Miss Caphat

    Miss Caphat I want it that way

    chilango likes this.
  21. Rutita1

    Rutita1 Scum with no integrity, apparently.

    Isn't the Turner prize or whatever full of digital stuff this year?
     
    Yuwipi Woman and Miss Caphat like this.
  22. bubblesmcgrath

    bubblesmcgrath Well-Known Member

    Exactly :thumbs:
     
  23. Miss Caphat

    Miss Caphat I want it that way

    also, yes, galleries tend to specialize in certain styles. therefore, they all exclude certain types of art. there are far more galleries that sell more mainstream art than conceptual. I would venture a guess that it's over 1000 to 1, probably quite a bit more
     
  24. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    Dunno.

    But it's a bit of a red herring anyway. Certain "styles" of digital art don't get the status that bubbles (and many vocal internet art forum posters) believe it deserves.

    Not coincidently this style shares much with styles of painting that many of the same group equally complain about a lack of status for.
     
    bubblesmcgrath likes this.
  25. bubblesmcgrath

    bubblesmcgrath Well-Known Member

    I could be wrong but I thought there were two film makers a print artist and someone with slide projections to sound.
     
  26. Miss Caphat

    Miss Caphat I want it that way

    I really wasn't sure!
     
  27. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    It's not about that really. It's about status. About recognition and validation from the very critics and institutions the complainers claim to despise.

    That's the sad irony.
     
    cesare and Yuwipi Woman like this.
  28. Miss Caphat

    Miss Caphat I want it that way

    ok. :D
    I guess, I just am not picking up on their being all that much tension in the art world, personally, after coming in contact with many many artists along the way (art school /gallery/ art center positions/teaching, etc).
    It seems like artists for the most part gravitate towards what they like as far as genre and style and media, and how they choose to express themselves comes pretty naturally, and if anyone makes it, conceptual artist, metal sculptor, or graphic designer/ illustrator, then kudos to them because it's never easy!
     
    chilango likes this.
  29. Miss Caphat

    Miss Caphat I want it that way

    that being said, I can see how the more mainstream digital artists could have a point about not being taken seriously. what kind of stuff are we talking about here, in general?
     
  30. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    It's not in the art world you'll find this tension it's on Internet forums.

    (Though I experienced it occasionally at art school from some if my more mature, traditionally minded peers who resented "sheep shit" getting better grades than paintings :()
     
    bubblesmcgrath and Miss Caphat like this.

Share This Page