The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

As I mentioned a few days ago, I've been going through my art magazines--trying to cull the herd, as it were.  I love to cut out the pictures that inspire me or intrigue me and keep an inspiration binder, as well as articles and biographical stories of artists whose work I admire.

As I mentioned in my blog Exposure a few days ago, it's pretty interesting to see what is trending and considered to be "art" by the "art world" which, for many of these magazines seems to be limited to New York City and the influential/critics (to reiterate--who do nothing truly creative and yet "we" as artists have invested them with the decision making as to what is good, bad or neutral.  Okay.  Also ugly.

Public domain artwork

Composition VII, artist unknown

1913

Over time, the boundaries of what is even considered art has expanded exponentially to our global communication abilities.  We are a highly visual society with our multiple in-house televisions, computers, glossy magazines, book readers, et cetera.  I believe it is due to a combination of the global access and the technically enhanced visual environment that our definitions of acceptable art have exploded.

However, this being so, there are still some basic questions one must ask:
1.  Just because you can make art with excrement and urine...should you?
2.  Does every piece of art have to have a meaning?  If so, should that meaning be obvious, obtuse or somewhere in between and how do you decide?
3.  Are artists desperately seeking "the next big thing" to make a name for themselves, start a new movement and, of course, appeal to the money?
4.  In that attempt to create "the next big thing" are artists sacrificing honesty and integrity for schlock and shock? 
5.  Just because something is shocking or large does that automatically make it good?
6.  Just because something is schlocky or shocking, does that automatically make it bad?

and I'm sure there are many more questions.  However, I've not yet had my coffee today so this is all my starving brain can come up with at the moment.

Public domain artwork

K. Morimoto, "Hiroshima"

1948

As an artist, I am exploring for myself my definitions--even if those definitions may not stand universally:

Good = Something that I like myself and would put in my own home or be proud to give as a gift to someone else.  It doesn't necessarily follow "the rules".

Bad = Something, not unlike behavior, that I know innately isn't good.  This could be subject matter, colors schemes, technical expertise, material quality, composition, et cetera.  The worst art is a combination of two or more of these problematic qualities.

Neutral=art that is neither good nor bad nor ugly but which is just...boring, uninspiring, technically perfect (or at least proficient), and usually includes artwork made with subjects and or colors that are designed to try to please someone other than the artist's preferences.  I suppose in the long run, this makes anything neutral bad art.

Ugly=art that is repellent from subject matter, color scheme, discordant composition, warped perspective, et cetera.  Just because something is ugly, does not automatically put it in the bad category.  Some ugly art is extremely intriguing and interesting.  If it arrests my attention and causes me to explore it further, then it's probably leaning toward the good side.

Butcher's Stall with the Flight into Egypt

1551, Aertsen, Pieter, public domain image

Is it good?  Is it bad? Is it ugly? 

Would I put this up in my home or give it as a gift?

Of course, I don't truly believe that artwork can be so simply labeled and pigeon-holed.  We live in a technicolor world with thousands of variations so trying to think in black and white when defining artwork doesn't really work.  While I would cringe at the suggestion, I am sure there is some crazy art critic out there who has some sort of "Pritchard Scale" (from the movie Dead Poet's Society) for art. Art is intended to be visceral and to be appreciated based on an individual basis?  Art for the masses, is, I believe generally called "advertising", not that there aren't artists and their works who/which have gained enormous popularity.

Ultimately, it's impossible to define artwork satisfactorily for all audiences.  Perhaps it would be better if a 'movie rating' was imposed just to warn off anyone.
FA = fine art as it is academically imposed
CR = craft when compared academically with FA
OS = art that refuses to be defined
SHXX=shock art simply for the sake of shock and monetary gain as a result of being 'trendy'

Public domain artwork

Seurat, Georges

1887-88, Model

I'm sure, if I had some coffee, I could come up with more ratings.

In the meantime, I'm going to get my coffee, then go visit the Appleton Museum where I plan to simply enjoy the art.  All of it.  The Good, The Bad, The Neutral, and the Ugly and everything in between.

Exposure

Last night I was reading through my ARTNews Magazine www.artnews.com which okay, I admit, I get it for the pictures. While looking at not only the photos related to the articles but the advertisements, the question arose, "Why are these particular artists featured?  What about their art is extraordinary or world class?"  The answer is still forming and the questions also arose, "Is the work extraordinary or world class or do they just happen to be where they are getting exposure or know people who know how to get them exposure?"

Is what makes one artist renowned more about location, location, location than anything else?  Artists who live in large art meccas like Paris and New York have a lot more competition, but they also have a greater chance of being seen by the "right" people who are controlling the sway of the art world--let's face it, people with money buy art and you have to have money to live in a big city.  (I've had friends who lived in New York and paid $1700 to $2000 for a one room studio and I, myself, used to pay over $1200 a month for my apartment near Washington D.C.)  The affluent, who may or may not actually create art (mostly not), critics, gallery owners and of course other artists are abundant in a large city.  The fact that an artist lives in New York (for the sake of argument) doesn't make their art more worthy or better.  It just makes it more accessible.

Some of the "greatest" (i.e., best known) artists lived in large cities.  Often they hung out together and were around the same affluent and influential buyers, marketers, gallery owners and critics.  Their work was not necessarily "better" than someone living in say, Middletown, Ohio or Ruidoso, New Mexico.  It was just more available to the masses and to the "art world."  That isn't to say that someone from Middletown or Ruidoso can't become known, but to do so means that they will have to expose their artwork outside of their particular world and somehow catch the eye of those from the "art world" that sets the standards for what is good/bad, desirable, collectible, etc.  This is why artists try to get their artwork seen in places like New York, in magazines, and to be represented by galleries in places that are known to attract large numbers of art buyers.

Yes, of course, there are artists who have no desire to be seen beyond the scope of their local neighborhood and they certainly enjoy some level of celebrity in their hometown.  And yes, there are even artists who claim not to care whether or not they sell any artwork (yet they put price tags on the work and rather than giving the art away they want to see it sell). And there are artists who don't show or sell anything and do actually just give away what they create.  Every one of them has a chance that they may also become world renowned and world class.  But the chances of that are far less than an artist who is in the "right" places and know the "right" people, or have access to large scale exposure. 

In viewing the pictures in my magazine, I pondered what I thought of each piece.  Some were what I would call very good--technically proficient and followed design/contract/color theories.  Some were arresting, in that they caught my eye and made me look more closely.  Some were discordant or almost too obvious in their message and some elicited humorous responses.  Were they exceptional art?  Not necessarily.  They were mostly accessible--in large cities, or exposed through large galleries who have the means to market their gallery and the artwork they show.

I can't help thinking of myself and dozens upon dozens of other artists I know who currently do not reside anywhere near New York or a large art mecca.  We have put ourselves at a disadvantage in terms of exposure.  And that I believe, is one factor that makes one artist better than another in the 'art world.'  If you don't know I exist, how can you think my art is good, bad or otherwise.  Exposure is definitely a significant factor in an artists worldwide success and whether or not collectors want the work.  Collectors may collect "unknowns" but they go out of their way to get the artworks of artists with exposure. 

I can't help thinking of Dale Chihuly, a blown glass artist whom I admire greatly.  In the glass world, many glass blowers speak ill of Chihuly (whether they have personally met him or not) and his artwork.  Some call him a "sell out" (uh, yeah, I'd like to be a sell out artist!  That means my bank account is full and I have the means to do more of what I love--art).  Some call him a hack.  Some believe his art is no good because he's "over exposed" (and, um, IN DEMAND!).  I personally think that these artists are really just jealous of his exposure.  He not only is a very creative artist (I love his blown glass chandeliers and also the pre-production paintings he makes to design what he is working on), but clearly he is a genius as marketing himself and his artwork.  He somehow figured out the "magic" key to getting his work exposed to the world.  Those artists who poo-poo him, interestingly enough, are often seen attempting to emulate the bowls and blown structures that he creates--most not nearly as well as Chihuly and his team do.

So ultimately, when I look at my art magazines, I have to keep in mind that what I'm seeing and the artists I'm reading about are just the tiniest slice of the artwork that is actually out there and available.  It does not necessarily represent reality.  It is just what the "art world" has been exposed to so far.

When I win the lottery, I've always planned to hire a well known, large-scale marketing team--to help get my artwork exposed.  And that leads me to my next blog...the good, the bad, and the unlabeled.  Stay tuned...