'how the art industry operates ' - I fear you may have set fire to your own trousers with this one. You can't really criticise someone for allegedly favouring work with some discernable benefit/funciton, and then describe art's process as an industry, surely?
And isn't all the jovial scoffing here exactly because they suspect Swiftie of being a bit of art-industry product, rather than being someone motivated by something other than bsuniess?
Ok, well firstly I don't get my opinions from Google so that wouldn't help me anyway. My opinions of the benefits of modern art come from decades of collecting art, investing in art and sponsoring artists.
The benefits are perhaps not as tangible as a TV or a car but they are there. Modern art brings joy to the soul, it inspires discussion and debate, and it encourages free thought. A single artist has spawned a discussion on this non-art related forum that has spanned over eleven pages. Everyone has an opinion of it good or bad. I would be miserable to have to live without my collection now and I know of many other people who would say the same. It was mentioned here by the owner of a gallery who showed Swiftie's work that it altered his perspective; he fell in love with a painting he wasn't particularly fond of initially. He fell in love with it; that statement sums it up for me and I understand exactly what he meant. I do feel genuine love for my collection and if they were lost I would consider it to be tragic.
That's an interesting choice of words, particularly loaded if you don't mind me saying. How would it be possible to support 'duff' modern art? This exemplifies exactly why you cannot be reasoned with on this; your view is that modern art is duff, mine and several others view is that it is not. If you are looking for a logical explanation of why modern art is not duff then you will not find one, you know that it is impossible to give and use that to your advantage by persistently asking for comments that you would deem to be valid.
Well I didn't say anything about making artwork invalid; however as modern art is very much of the time it might be arguable that as styles change other styles cease to be valid. I don't share this view, I have pieces of artwork that were painted in the 60's that still have as much resonance for me now as they did then.
But what makes artwork valid? Well a number of factors. Fashion, style, the political climate are some examples. The success of an artist is very much about being in the right place at the right time and the creation of the 'next big thing' is very difficult to engineer. It's validity comes from us all; a painting which aims to be controversial doesn't achieve that aim by itself; if no one cared it wouldn't be controversial and would therefore fail.
You can say what you like; I just think it is a particularly poor response and one that I would expect from a child. I'm a little perplexed about your question though; you already quoted what I think about your knowledge of the art industry so why ask it?
Well it may not wash in your opinion, but that means little. Art galleries thrive on discussion and people talking, have done for years and will continue to do so. Modern art has firm links with discussion and thought and very little to do with its pure visual element. A painting of a beach doesn't need to concern itself with issues such as validity; much of modern art positively relies on it.
This is a very naive and wholly unrealistic view. Artists depend on the sale of their works in order to continue. In addition those artists who enjoy high levels of success inspire and validate others and they also raise the profile of their genre.
Of course it's an industry, there are many who make large sums and overall millions of dollars are exchanged for the pleasure that art brings. Times have changed considerably in recent decades; the idea of the struggling artist is no longer an acceptable one. Artists want to achieve success in what they do the same as everyone else and many of them manage that by doing what they love.
'naive and wholly unrealistic ' - certainly sounds like me.
However, I shall plunge on. Two things:
1. Many artists, including some very famous ones, made or make nothing from their work. Their work was resolutely 'uncommercial', the very qualities which we, and the market, now value so highly. Artists who depend on sales can very easily become formulaic, since economic pressure dictates this. I'm not knocking it entirely, since it was how my mother made a living, but then bashing out tasteful seascapes made her independant enough to be able to also paint the things she was more interested in. The work with which she enjoyed a relative level of success (compared to being signed on, anyway) wouldn't have inspired much except copying, and copying for commercial reasons at that. Another good ref. for this effect would be John Miller, who has alas left us with a number of clones in his wake.
2. There's an industry, that exploits the pleasure that you and other collectors feel - the fact that you wanted to make contact with the artist above personally speaks well of you, since you'd be supporting the artist more than the industry. But since you criticise Cledry for the very suggestion of practicality, should you not then eschew such terms yourself?
Well said.
The only thing I'd say in regards to practicality is that as soon as something is seen as also having a functional use it seems to be devalued (by some foilk anyway) I don't only value pieces of work that have a practical function but I also feel very strongly that if something does have a practical use it shouldn't automatically negate any artistic worth it may have. And craft - like 'art - has good and bad makers.
And your use of the word 'allegedly' is spot on in this quote:
I don't favour any one kind of art. I could have gone in many directions but have chosen to work with textiles (for the time being) as it sits well with my own value system right now. It doesn't mean I don't value the work of a painter, sculptor or even conceptual artist. I'd be interested in what ILCIHC thinks of ceramics.
48Crash, what you have said makes sound economic sense. In any other industry I would agree with you entirely. However, art as an industry is not any other industry. It works differently from every other kind of retail environment. You are correct that artists who depend on sales can become very formulaic but because they can that does not mean that they do. Of course some do but you will find that it is more traditional artists whose work becomes formulaic, as this is a kind of 'bread and butter' art that traditionally sells well.
But we're not talking about the John Miller clones, we're talking about modern art and it's advocates. This kind of work is not at all commercial; this is shown by the lack of galleries in Cornwall that show work by artists such as Swiftie. These artists find it even harder to survive than those who paint tasteful landscapes yet they still do it. But when push comes to shove they all need to make money because if they don't they will eventually have to stop. I have seen it happen often and as a result I set up a private art sponsorship programme which is funded entirely by myself and has been in operation for over ten years. This isn't particularly unusual either, I personally know four other art collectors around the world who operate similar programmes. Why do we do it? Because otherwise many talented artists would be wasted in offices and banks.
You also mentioned that the art industry exploits collectors, I would not deny that it makes large sums of money but you could not be more wrong about exploitation. I have close ties with over twenty galleries throughout the UK and the relationship I have with their owners can only be described as friendships. Galleries are an essential part of the industry and there are many collectors who will not touch artists who are not represented by them. You build a relationship with the gallery, not the artist in most cases and buyers and galleries become very close.
You're wrong that I wish to support the artist more than the industry; I want to support them both equally. If I buy a painting directly from the artist and that artist is currently represented by a gallery I insist on paying the full market price ensuring their gallery is supported also. I suppose you think this is madness? Well some of the finest artists working today would not be there without their galleries, my personal collection of art would be very different if it weren’t for galleries. I know the industry very well and I trust it.
cledry_maid, what you say is the truth. When something is seen as having a practical use it is devalued. If I need a pot to put my flowers in I can buy one anywhere and if I owned a pot that I considered to be a work of art I wouldn't put flowers in it in a million years.
Look, up until this point me and many others on this thread haven't seen eye to eye and perhaps it got a bit out of hand, we're discussing it a bit more civilly now so I will follow suit. cledry_maid, art and function are incompatible. There are no two words that are less suited to sit side by side. Art is about matters way beyond whether it's handy for something. Art may not only be visual; it may be about the feelings it inspires or it may encapsulate an idea or an emotion but it does not extend to being able to use it as a hat stand. As soon as you hang your coat on that sculpture you have killed the art within it.
cledry_maid, I don't know what you do beyond that you work with textiles. Perhaps it's very beautiful and I'm sure many people may love it. If that is the case it has value and I don't wish to dispute that. But if you make what you make with the intention for it to have a functional use then all I can say is that I wouldn't add it to my collection regardless of it's beauty.
Finally you asked me what I thought of ceramics. That's too broad a question to answer; it's like asking if I like paintings. But I have seen some pieces of ceramic sculpture that I thoroughly enjoyed; it isn't anything to do with being ceramic though, there are all kinds of sculpture that I like although my particular passion is with paintings.
I'll reply to this in more depth when I have time - right now I'm trying to design a logo for my textiles. What strikes me is that at least I am a maker of some kind. I'm using the creative process every day, whereas it would appear that ILCIHC is a collector of other people's creative processes. I'm astounded at the arrogance that has been shown on this thread. People have attempted to belittle me because I'm a craftsperson and a farmer (wtf?). I've been told that I don't influence the art scene and that my work holds no value if it has a functional purpose. To find out that all this has been said by someone who apparently doesn't even make anything themselves is staggering. It all adds to my certainty that I'm the right area of creativity after all.
How do the design processes differ? How is one more 'informed' than the other? How is one more valid than the other? How is one more skilled than the other?
Being a craftsperson is fine, there is demand for crafts and they sell well all over and have done for a long time. People love crafts and I'm sure your work will be enjoyed by many. But of course your work won't influence the art scene, how could it possibly? And I didn't mean to suggest that your work holds no value, just not as a work of art.
So are you saying in order to know anything about art, be it modern or otherwise, you have to actually make it? Does an antique dealer know nothing of antiques? Does a vintage car collector know nothing of vintage cars? I have been buying (and selling) art for many years, I know hundreds of people in the art scene including dealers, collectors and artists, I have promoted dozens of artists careers some of which you would recognise if I were to reveal them and I also have a PhD in Art History. I have visited art galleries and artists and bought art from all around the world, in my lifetime I have acted as a consultant on a number of occasions to major galleries hosting retrospectives of artists whom I am particularly knowledgeable of. Art has been my passion all my adult life cledry_maid and I'm sorry to tell you this but it's people like me all over the world who shape and influence the industry. You call me arrogant but to imply that I don't have any credibility simply because I do not actually make art is the most arrogant thing I have heard on this thread.
I couldn't care less about all your 'credentials', you've shown yourself to be a snob and a blinkered one at that. I don't aim to have influence over the art scene, it interests me not a jot but to write poeple off when you don't make anything yourself is arrogant. You know nothing about me or if I'm a painter, sculptor, queen o bleddy sheba but because you know I'm working in textiles right now you've made massive value judgements.
It's precisely this kind of pomposity that has made me steer clear of fine arts - and it's the same with theatre. People get their claws into it and intellectualise it until the pips squeak, which, IMO, inevitably means a loss of real worth.
That is impossible, the two are incomparable. You use the production time as a factor; well I'm quite sure that my house took a little longer to make than that hat. What does that mean? Nothing.
You're making the mistake of thinking that painting was designed at all.
Your work is valid, as a hat.
I assume making hats takes skill and I assume you are skilled in making hats. What that has to do with Swiftie's painting I am not sure.
Actually, I'm giving it credit by assuming there was some kind of design/creative process other than some artist drawing a circle on a piece of paper when they're stoned.
You seem able to compare and contrast the value of my work as compared to a painting easily enough - why the probem now?
Actually you're mistaken there. I have made value judgements because you create your craft with the intention that it has a functional use.
cledry_maid, I am not trying to write you off. All I am saying to you is that you are not an artist. Your hats look great, I might buy something like that for my wife if I saw it for sale. But of course it's not art cledry, it's a pleasent item for keeping your head warm. I don't mean to belittle that, people need hats so good for you for making them.
I think it's a bit strong to suggest the artist is a drug user cledry, and what relevance it has to any of this I am not sure. I have to ask you if you have seen the original piece, if not I suggest you reserve your judgement.
No you're wrong about that, I would be wholly unable to compare the value of your worked to that of a painting.
Yet you seem unwilling or unable to clarify why it's not art aside from that art doesn't have a functional use. Would Bernard Leach agree with you? Would Hamada? Lucie Rie?How about the people who have paid thousands of pounds for their work?
I'm not for a minute suggesting that the hat is art - it also doesn't interest me whether it is or not. I'm interested in the process that went into designing it, working with specific materials and exploring how they'll perform and the journey that is actually making it.
And I have to say that your trolling techniques are getting much more subtle - well done
Airport closure was 'responsible'
The Civil Aviation Authority says the decision to close Newquay Airport was difficult but responsible.
Christmas tree is really rubbish
A giant Christmas tree made from recycled plastic bags and bottles goes on display at the Eden Project in Cornwall.
NEWQUAY AIRPORT CLOSURE: “HEADS MUST ROLL”
Stephen Gilbert, the prospective local MP for Newquay, has said that “heads must roll” over the unexpected closure of Newquay Airport and has called for a full enquiry into what went wrong.
Important Information regarding Air Southwest flights to/from Newquay Airport.
We have been advised that Newquay Airport will be closed from 1 December to 19 December 2008 inclusive. This is due to issues with the handover of air traffic control from the RAF to the airport authority.
English Heritage get one thing right at least
English heritage have joined with a variety of other organisations in opposing the planned incinerator in St. Dennis on grounds that they have failed to recognise or address the impact that the proposals will have on the wider landscape of St. Dennis.
MANX GOVERNMENT SUFFER WORST HUMILIATION BY THE UK IN LIVING MEMORY
The Isle of Man government and its Chief Minister have been shown to be inept and marginalised following comments from the United Kingdom Prime Minister and his Chancellor Alistair Darling over the past few weeks.
Population is older and lonelier
People living in Devon and Cornwall are generally older and lonelier than elsewhere in the UK, a BBC survey finds.
Grey majority rules in Cornwall
Cornwall has the highest proportion of retirement age residents in the UK, according to a BBC survey.
