Reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org [Errors when replying to ads?]Date: 2009-03-24, 3:33PM PDTThings about “ART” that nobody asked me about.1. Any artist using red in a painting should be painting bullfighters.2. Painting is always a good excuse for drinking in the middle of the day.3. When I see an artist wearing painting clothes to an art opening I figure they are posing.4. I do not like creamy gallery owners5. Three times is two too many times to have poisoned myself with the toxic fumes from painting.6. I think that artists using feces in their work should resign from the human race.7. I can’t remember a time when I’ve seen an artist on the list of Cultural Affairs recipients for grants who really, really needed the money.8. The only artist (male or female) that looks good with their hair pulled back is Salma Hayek as Frida.9. I wish once in awhile I would go to an artist’s first solo show and they hadn’t recently received a MFA10. How come there are not many really good dog paintings?11. I think Lucian Freud’s paintings look absolutely fabulous in photographs but not too good in person – except for the queen’s painting.12. I never met an artist who didn’t think he deserved a show.13. I think any artist who paints twenty paintings in the same subject in the same colors and/or size is faking it – period.14. I like Ed Ruscha – I don’t particularily like his work – I know he would not like my work - or me.15. I was told twenty years ago that if I’d paint the same subject fifty times I am bound to paint one good one. Good advice – and -that is about my percentage.16. Every time I get sorry for myself I visit the Lamp Art Project. - see: http://www.lampartproject.org17. If you told me twenty years ago I’d be an artist I would have thought you were speaking about my wind chimes. * Location: LA * it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
#2-- yep. ditto writing. ditto five years at the Label Gallery.#3-- when i see an artist wearing their painting clothes to an opening, i think that too. Like, you didn't have half an hour to go home and change? Or, you just want to prove to everyone that you're so hard working that you rushed from your canvas straight to the opening? Lame.#4-- i don't know what a "creamy" gallery owner is, but i know some people (artists and gallery types) who use facebook to announce, minute to minute, their latest achievments. I say let your achievments speak for themselves.#7-- bollocks. Every artist I know, pretty much, who gets a grant, needs it desperately to keep working. That whole "artists who get grants are spoon-fed babies who spend it on white wine and caviar" myth is so out of date. Average annual income of a full-time artist in Canada: $19,000. That's Subway wages.#13 and #15 contradict each other.
This person’s entire post kind of contradicts itself. Art is subjective, right? Like to the enth degree. I realize that’s it’s a personal opinion but by that right it’s also very subjective. This individual is trying to subjectively criticize the subjective – if that makes sense?The reason art has so many “posers” is because of its subjectivity. But they’re not really posers for that very same reason. You can’t be a poser in a subjective context. I get what’s being implied by the “artist in painting clothes” comment, but I think it’s a contradiction for this “artist” to make that statement.Like, say I was an Olympic athlete for example – a sprinter. I might drink like a fish, smoke like a chimney and be the crassest individual you ever met, and people might say “he’s not a real athlete he’s a poser”. But then I get on the track and I’m the fastest son-of-a-bitch out there! BAM, not a poser anymore. There exist rules in the context of Olympic sport that are not subjective – thus easily weeding out the potential “posers”; not so with art.Now I guess you could argue that there are “rules” in art as well. But that whole recent deal with the untrained children doing finger paintings, and having them hung in a museum with unsuspecting critics being unable to decipher the fact that the paintings were done by kids; makes me question that (there’s a pretty good documentary on the subject that’s quite creepy).That’s what is great about art. It’s not constrained by objective rules and can touch anyone in any way. Maybe I’m just playing devil’s advocate here? But I think that rather than coming off as a “real” artist this person sounds like a angry individual who is upset with the subjective nature of their chosen profession, and wants to take out their feelings of inadequacy on those around them; who happen to have been lucky enough to succeeded.Just my thoughts though.
Just a small addition: I'm not implying that success in art is based purely on luck - but it does play a roll.
If I may generalize about this person's generalizing, I think that generally speaking, this person is an idiot and delusional.
I think that's some subjective generalizing of the subject. =P
Remember this came from L.A.
interesting points, donMax.in regards to the finger painting by kids, there's a lot of doubt about whether her dad did those or not (witness the titles, for one-- not very kid-like).to me, there's a pretty clear and noticeable diff b/t kid art and grown up art-- look at Art Brut, and the COBRA movement, for e.g. It's child-like, but there's a control of form and color that kid art lacks (again, which is why most people think that kid's dad did all her work).This person may be angry, but still makes some interesting points.But i think DonMax's points about posers and subjectivity are better.If subjective things can be better. Heh.
I'd like to comment that as a painter it is not uncommon to have paint on all your clothes (it's messy stuff). I have had it at times where I had a single outfit that was paint-less, and I decide to do a touch-up while waiting for the bus or whatever. Next thing you know I have paint on my one paint free shirt. Some people give up at that point and go to the gallery. Not me though. I changed how I paint, now I wear a white suit and never spill a drop.Also, to explain the critics not being able to tell a kids finger painting from an adults abstract* work, I would have to really see what we were talking about (to take a fair crack at it). One possibility I'd like to offer would be that kids inherently are more imaginative or expressive than adults (not having been stifled by experience yet). Having worked with kids for the last couple years and observing their creativity, I was convinced that my favorite artists are the ones who re-invent that child like wonder and naivete (like Blake's organized innocence), or even better, ones who never lost it (although those are usually considered insane). Assuming the critics were perceptive in determining quality, they would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a well practiced adult artist, or a child. *I'm guessing it was abstract(s) being compared against. For realistic, or naturalistic art, there would be no problem determining who made what (up to a certain age). Word verif: taters
Wolf: Yea I agree that it was likely her father, that’s what I found so creepy; his vehement denial was very twisted in my opinion.Mirco: Yes, it was "abstract" art, and I do agree that realist or naturalist art would be much harder for a child lacking any formal training to create.Micro, what you said about children kind of reminds me of that MIA song, where she has all of the little kids rhyming. It’s amazing how the honesty of a child’s perception can have such impact on artistic expression; even without schooling. Am I contradicting my previous comment by saying that? I’m not sure.
crap... people at Subway make more than I do!
Post a Comment