Art is the worse business to be in

[cdjordjievski]

Good evening everyone,
It is time to put my two cents in about art education and the professors I met along the way. I have attended several art schools in Europe and here in US. The first art school I attended (about 45 years ago) was five years, mostly traditional. Most of the professors in that school were doers when it came to public art in the community. When they got large commissions they would not contract professional adults but invite students to work in their studios. Working in those studios was very beneficial because you could learn many things about existing as an artist that were not taught in the classes in school.

My first school in England was Jacob Cramer College of Art in Leeds. In those days (70’s) they had something called Foundation Year you had to go trough (or maybe they made me do it because I came from another country) before starting a BA program. I was carving stone at that time so they gave me a little room to work in. On of the older faculty members came by and told me that I should consider myself very fortunate because Henry Moore was using the same room when he was a student there. Then, he proceeded to explain the program. First, they were going to get me to dismiss all that I knew, then run me through the program and at the end I would know what was all about. After I saw what he was doing I was not sure.

Next, I did my BA in an art department in Newcastle in England. I was fortunate to meet and work with some great people there. Sam if you read this you may know some of these people Fenwick Lawson, Gilbert Ward, and Fred Watson. What I really liked and enjoyed there was that this people were not only teaching there but also working on their sculpture at the school. Personally it was much easier for me to relate to someone when I can see what he is capable of.

After England I went southwest in the US to work on MA in sculpture. I do not believe that the individual who was running the sculpture department at that time had extensive background in sculpture. It was more about a roundtable discussion and talking about it rather than doing it. Fortunately, one of the visiting lecturers was Luis Jimenez and after he saw what I was doing he asked me to help him with his large sculptures in his studio. I spent quite a bit of time with Luis and he was a character. He had an old school house, turned some of the classrooms into living area for his family and the gymnasium upstairs into a studio. When it comes to drawing he is one of few people whose drawings I really, really admire. Once, I called him about something and during the conversation I mentioned that I was going to New York. He told me to throw the ticket away and go to his house he was driving to New York to deliver a sculpture. He was driving a truck with if I remember correctly twenty-seven foot goose-neck trailer and sixteen-foot sculpture on top. On his dashboard he had a sketchbook and he was doing all this with one good eye.

It was not my intention to tell you my life story but the discussion was about professors and I had a few. I have to say that I am grateful to all of them because in same way they have all contributed to what turned out to be enjoyable life so far. In this life we all check in at certain time and check out at a certain time. At the end the only thing that really matters is did you enjoy the ride.

Good night everyone

[evaldart]

I have no doubt that your interaction with Jiminez was a powerfully impactful and valuable thing in your "art life". I have always loved his work. Some individuals are super-heroes.

[GlennT]

Originally Posted by evaldart

"Tradition" is nothing but a trend that is old.

Art is the opposite - and it rewards best when it has remained clean of the crutch of what came before.

Tradition by definition cannot be a trend, new or old. trends are of the moment and have no staying power. Tradition is something that has endured the test of time, because the original impulse has proven to be of high significiance rather than a passing fancy.

The second sentence is muddled by the insertion of the word "rewards", because peopel have different ideas about what that may be. But to the main point, what came before us should not be so easily dismissed as a crutch. It can be an inspiration, an aid to learning, a declaration of what not to do as well as what to do. Wisdom is born of experience. The past is only a crutch if someone lacks depth of personal insight.

Even taking your own personal example e, the themes of many of your works have been specifically drawn from the past, "David" and "Medusa" being two such. But they have been deeply flavored by your originality of expression. The past was referenced as a starting point, not a finishing point. Not a crutch, and rewarding...eh?

[evaldart]

Even taking your own personal example e, the themes of many of your works have been specifically drawn from the past, "David" and "Medusa" being two such. But they have been deeply flavored by your originality of expression. The past was referenced as a starting point, not a finishing point. Not a crutch, and rewarding...eh?

For sure Glenn...and it all has to do with, as you say, that "finishing point" (or the point at which we periodically move our ever manifesting creative big-bang on to the next object).
For you Glenn, and Rika, I am going to have a category on my blog title "Myth and Legend"....a place to exactly discuss the engaging of history, religion, kings, saints, monsters, gods, reptilian anomalies, aliens and folk heros. These are all just a few wonderful FUELS for a creative episode. But so is a pile of lumber, a tangles mass of demolition debris, a HUGE stone, a glop of melted something, tubes and buckets of pigmented goo. ALL those things provide an exciting way IN to some artmaking. If we only finish with what we started with, achieved some goal or plan, then we have managed to illustrate, document, celebrate or memorialize. And those ends make processes feel like a j-o-b. Because they actually DO have an end. Art does not have an end, ever. The baubles of offshoot, our sellable (and not sellable) items resound, like snapshots, a tiny part of our creative effort...a sensation or group of sensations that will never happen again. If it DOES happen again, and again, and again...then it is tradition; which indeed has its uses. Art , though, cannot be bothered by any "uses".

You do it too, Glenn. Perhaps you'd rather see your saints as saint or you angels ans angelic - but you are indeed having your "way" with them; and I know readily from a picture, that they are YOU, not the saint (not that you aren't a saintly fellow).

Because whats behind it all is compositional sensibility woven together with WORK. One without the other will only create doubt, frustration, and underwhelming...and will send a body screaming for the safety of the television to see which ant campaign can become distracting enough.

[Kilkenny]

Originally Posted by cdjordjievski

First, they were going to get me to dismiss all that I knew.......

Hi cd. This does remind me of standard British educational practice! And of course this is why art teachers tend not to simply immerse students in tradition. This approach is fundamentally mind-expanding. It attempts to take you off the tramlines you have set yourself and broaden your perspectives.

You are also right about the difference between the art colleges and the university departments, the latter tending to have fewer practitioners. But I think the desire is the same - to broaden horizons. When you offer one perspective, you will be offered a range of alternatives, to challenge you. This is also why many radicals also went to college - it invited unorthodox views and behaviour. (The university I went to for my undergraduate degree was famous in the 1960s for pelting politcians with soft fruit when they tried to visit!). The status quo is more often a fixation of government than the colleges, universities and their teachers. In fact, I incline to the view that it is the study of the status quo that is likely to put us off joining it! Once a student has establised some distance from the 'accepted' way of going about life, or doing things, it is hard to commit to it.

In the UK the government is currently training to put a leash on the universities by refusing to fund arts teaching, for instance, and few people are aware that the decision-making council for what universities do (once independent) has been moved to be a responsibility of a BUSINESS council (and guess the relation of THAT council to the status quo).

Higher education in Britain has always been a breeding ground of dissent (and committed to the education of dissenting voices). Politicians are fundamentally opposite. They seek to entrench rather than enlighten. Under Tony Blair, a new law was enacted in the UK EVERY DAY. Scum, really....

[GlennT]

Fighting the status quo has long become the status quo, so I've been fighting the status quo that fights the status quo by embracing the pre-status quo fighting status quo status quo, making it post status quo status quo. After that...who knows, maybe create some art?

[Kilkenny]

Glenn - I'm not really talking about FIGHTING anything. I'm only saying that good education invites us to consider our positions (prejudices).

Those people with a vested interest in the status quo, by the way, (i.e. those who are benefiting from it) will be pleased to hear that you are wasting your time fighting the wrong people.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Kilkenny

Glenn - I'm not really talking about FIGHTING anything. I'm only saying that good education invites us to consider our positions (prejudices).

Those people with a vested interest in the status quo, by the way, (i.e. those who are benefiting from it) will be pleased to hear that you are wasting your time fighting the wrong people.

Subtle teaching, and learning ... just an opinion.

[Kilkenny]

Come to think of it, most of the successful artists I know are in fact what are commonly known as 'craftspeople'.

Attended an opening at a show in a local museum today - work by Svend Bayer and Clive Bowen, both local potters (here in the west country craft pottery has a long, strong tradition). These guys are showing pots that cost $15,000, and they have work that is collected across the world, including museums.

Svend is an interesting example. He came to Exeter University to study Geography, and got interested in pottery. He convinced a really good local potter to let him be an apprentice on trial, and then spend 4 years training up. So, he only really got going by about age 25, I guess.

Sometimes I think we spend a lot of time speaking about art as if it is a rather rarified thing that springs from the soul and has to be followed at ALL costs.

For me, adding some method avoids the madness, and from what I can see makes stronger artists too. There's something very powerful/impressive, as well, about artists who have succeeded on the business side as well as the creative - they have taken on the world and mastered the necessities. Picasso wasn't just a great artist: he was good at managing his life.

Attached: images of work by Bayer and Bowen.

[evaldart]

K, you have finally equated "success" as an artist with dollars...which, of course immediately led to the word 'craftspeople'. Somehow I feel that this is attached to your recent feelings about art as a collective force, an evolved entity that is shared, experientially, among humans.

[rika]

Originally Posted by Kilkenny

it is a rather rarified thing that springs from the soul and has to be followed at ALL costs.

You defined art nicely there, though it wasn't your intention...

And Sam, maybe you can explain where is the art in the pottery you posted...I personally see skill, care, love, dedication for what they do...like all the craftspeople (and I don't mean to downplay their efforts, I appreciate high level crafts)...yet I have to ask you: that's it, that's ALL that springs from the soul, that's ALL it takes to make art?

[Kilkenny]

Evaldart - I find it harder now to separate art out from the evolutionary process (it has SOMETHING to do with successful adaptations). I personally don't make art for dollars (or £), but I also don't need to. I also see no reason why art should not be associated with other skills (so I see an aesthetic component in garden design, in the look of a spacecraft or in a good pot). And I suspect that all human acivity contains an aesthetic (maybe even the well-run business). Question: why can the female body, or face, be so breath-taking for the male? Even before we have made the art, nature has told us what is beautiful. A lot of the game has already been determined. Wittgenstein again: without rules there cannot be a game, even if the rules are highly flexible and allow for variation.

Rika - I'm surprised that you don't see the art in these pots. The earlier Sandy Brown pots appeal to me more (as a kind of visual jazz, as they have been called), but the second pot here, standing about 4 feet high, has a full satisfying body to my mind, and a symmetry tested by time. It's a totally useless pot, I should add, as it's too big for any practical function, so the craftsperson is offering something to us that is NOT functional. So if it's not a functional pot, what is it if it's NOT art?

I personally come from an 'art for art's sake' background, so I like 'soul' talk! But my head tells me that talk of art coming from the soul is a kind of ill-defined agreement among us artists. It's a way of giving form, in language, to our sense of the depths of personal feeling that lies within us. Art is very good at giving form to this complex interiority we humans have. But use of the word 'soul' to refer to this is to set aside the FUNCTION of art as an evolutionary asset. Of course, we do this 'setting aside' in most of our conscious lives - that way we can function AS IF there are no rules at all determining our behaviour or our art. We can live as if we are conscious agents of our 'fates' and with the conviction that what we feel matters.

[Nelson]

Rika, should any of those masterly crafted pots say have at least like traces of a face depicting gesture or emotion... you could perhaps consider it art then or mere deco pots? The reason I ask is that there seems to be so much indefinition about where an artifact is or not art. Would emotion showing be a requisite generally speaking to say this is art or a craft? Following a simplistic view of expressing something with no functionality is art... all right, a decorative piece.lol., but is not all art decorative after all? What about some conceptual art that seems to have less soul than any of these pots? With due respect to conceptual artists.

[rika]

Sam, I can only tell from a small picture...but you were there, that changes a lot. If you say it was art, I take your word for it, especially because my example I want to give performs unfavourable on the computer screen...
But I have to say size alone doesn't make a piece of pottery less functional...these pots would serve their purpose in the hands of a giant, wouldn't they?

And regarding artifact, you bring it up at the right time, Nelson, as I was going to post this for Sam. This artist literally made her pottery into artifact. The original function of it is totally lost...I have seen this piece (at the very bottom of the page) in person, I have exhibited in a group show with the artist, and it was a quiet but very powerful experience. Unfortunately it doesn't come through the picture at all, but still I think it's a great example how a craft can be transformed into something better, more than mere function or decor.

http://www.artsetal.com/portfolio/ce...midden-series/

[evaldart]

Perhaps the "craft" becomes the medium, and not the clay. perhaps the "vesselness" can be overcome with enough nerve. Perhaps the accumulated skill can be subverted DURING the making and some unfathomable thing can take place. Perhaps we are too quick, sometimes, to slap the craft label onto that which was actually art (instead of the other way 'round which is mostly the case). But you cant have it both ways...one must know exactly which they are getting into, to "get" what it (whichever one) might yield.

[GlennT]

As for me, I'm not so (excuse the harsh word) bigoted as to concern myself with distinctions between art and craft based on functionality. I can easily see the art in something functional if the intention and the execution makes it art. Likewise, there is plenty of "art" that never seems to soar beyond the level of craft...some forms of wildlife art come to mind, as well as the Hirst or Koons factories. And really good architecture can provide as much aesthetic and emotional upliftment as art, when artfully done.

[Kilkenny]

Originally Posted by GlennT

there is plenty of "art" that never seems to soar beyond the level of craft...some forms of wildlife art come to mind, as well as the Hirst or Koons factories.

I think this is very true. It's odd how easily we can identify the 'artist' who is merely 'copying' nature and the genuine artist who has brought what Rika calles soul to the work. My own feeling is that the vast interiority that we humans have is the foundation for most art, and if that is not there then the work somehow falls short of being art as all.

At Hirst's retrospective in London, I wandered through gallery after gallery of collected objects in display cases, feeling that he has finally given up on art.

I can also see that there is a distinction that can be made between art and craft work, but I see craftspeople as 'artworkers' - they often remind me of sculptors more than anything. Creating forms in 3d. And doesn't even the most functional of pots have a form that tugs at something within? I buy LOADS of cups! There are so many wonderful variations on this formal theme!

Elegant interesting work, Rika. It is interesting how the adjective 'decorative' has taken on a certain slant - almost a sub-set of art rather than the REAL thing!!

[evaldart]

I would say that copying nature is just as good a place to enter into the creative throes ans ANY other. Whether or not it gets to the "soaring" will depend upon how the experience is confronted and engaged.

Also, if we are to consider words such as "decorative", embellished, enhanced, surplused, ornamented, extrapolate...all of those apply to a costuming of sumething. And even if this costuming is designed into the idea, there was a forsaking of the greater matters that decide the formal inherency of the thing that is responsible for the creative experience. "Function" acts the same way; as it pre-figures, predicts and quite determines all the better formal decisions - which then get costumed.

And the term "soul" has indeed been ruined by its mainstream-thinned common-ness. Of course we here, who are within discussions of aesthetics, "get" how the word is being applied. But what it is really addressing is the voidal, the anti-substantial and the seemingly immaterialities that are actually just one's will..or willingness, or willfulness. One may have as much matter as they can dig, and shovel as much of it as they can stand. Will is anti-dirt. Anti stones, anti pile's of whatever you are immersed in. It is as supremely significant as possible to be "willing" to dig a huge holes and then fill it back in; without anyone else ever being aware that you did it. You can dig and fill your "soul" too. And no one else can do that for you.

[Kilkenny]

Originally Posted by evaldart

I would say that copying nature is just as good a place to enter into the creative throes ans ANY other. Whether or not it gets to the "soaring" will depend upon how the experience is confronted and engaged.

But this is the issue: copying doesn't offer the artist's 'experience'. It denies the presence of the self and presupposes that there is no observer. This makes it entirely false and it will only be when such artists abandon copying that they will really create art and meet standards of artistic integrity.

Re: artistic integrity - it was 20th century science that taught us how any observation depends on an observer (and is therefore distorted by this). Twentieth century literature also saw a vast increase in the use of the 'unreliable narrator' in fiction (after all, the person telling the story will be offering a version, an account, not the event itself). And it was Picasso through cubism who finally clarified in the visual arts that no view of a form from one position could be a full account of the object being represented. Single point perspective was already dying but this put an end to it as a feature of reality. Thereafter it became a feature of the viewer. Art now, I think, is about viewers primarily, just as 21st century science is still riddled with the problem of separating the data from the measurer. Art that doesn't meet these contemporary standards is out-of-date - parochial.

[evaldart]

Whatever it was actually "art" never cared to considered its "place" in time, nor did it ever consider its "place" in history, culture, civilization or humanity. Art occurs outside and in defiance of all that...and if it ever seemed to be doing to opposite - which is RESPONDING to all that - then perhaps its value, if there is some, lies in places that are not at all caused by the anti-measuring of aesthetic survey. I will take this notion over to another thread where it will be more lengthily and specifically applied. See you over there, Cheese.

[vonfrese]

In a world of overpopulation of affluent and educated people their appears to be too much under the heading of art and it's flooding the system with too much illegible overly intellectualized stuff. Today the times are in favor of business promotion...not talent and this might result in a horde of non-artists getting into the business of playing the role of artist. Real mundane and boring crap is now the norm it seems. This ultimately devalues the higher quality art work made by sincere dedicated sculptors and fabricators who would love to be sponsored but will not kiss ass to have them.

My view is to ignore all that marketing garbage associated with the word "art". Just get good, very good and stay original(no copying ideas) and the when you feel comfortable show it publicly without concern for financial gain. Salesmanship, money and art are not compatible. Proof of this idea can be had by speaking with art dealers and museums. They are completely and specifically uninterested in anything but their "art business" not any personal artist.

Be honest and not artsy even though non-artists like it....it's fake and phony. Best to be poor financially also.

Also stay away from decorators, framing shops, art supply stores, all art magazines and art history books and especially any art schools. These will only communize your efforts and delay any ability to become comfortable with individual expression. Also be careful not to associate with other artists to the point where you begin to worship them. The main thing is to not become a phony
arty-party zero of which there are so many of around and which can never benefit any serious artist.http://www.sculpture.net/community/i...lies/smile.gif

[GarryRicketson]

Art , I feel, should never be even confused with "Buisness", So called "comercial art", is what the name implies, "commercial" a commercial product, anything goes, to make it sell,
And, there may very well be many real "artists", with jobs, producing commercial work,..
If one is really dedicated artist, and then there are a few, that that is all they can do, nothing else, but this is more a matter of choice, I am sure they could, if they have to, or wanted too.
Because of the uniqueness, and it is something special, a true piece of ART, will have high value, unfortunatley, most of the junk, being produced, simpley for financial gain, now adays, is being called art, and yes, this has "devalued", the work of more serious, and dedicated artists. How ever I believe there are still enough people ,with good taste, and a genuine appreciation of art, that, if and when a good artist starts showing his work public, be it sculpture,painting, or even music ,writing,..I believe the artist stands a good chance, of selling his/her work, and be able to continue creating more. But this is a very few, most artists, need to either be extremely wealthy, or a job, to make a living, and do they're art work, when ever they can.
As a "artist", but sometimes I am reluctant to call myself that, it is more of a case where others call me a artist,..for years I flat out refused to accept the "title",partly because I do not want to be put in the same "group", such as the so called artist, that, all he dose it get drunk and spill paint all over a canvas on the floor,(just one example)
I do my art work, because when I get a idea, and decide I want to take it further, and create a "reality", that can be seen, touched, and known by others, friends,family, or loved ones, and even the general public. If I live long enough, I hope to one day "create", not just a painting, or just a "stone carving", or just a written story (book), or a piece of music,..But all of these, combined, , oh and also, a garden, with fountains,..trees and birds,..This is what I work for, toward, and not for the "money", nor so much for me, all though yes ,my hopes are to be able to sit, either inside, enjoy looking at my paintings, and perhaps a few others, if I am ever so fortunate as to be able to buy some that I like,....not so much for me, but for my children, grandchildren, and so on, also for the future, general public.This is what I spend my money on, after the "nessisities", what me and my family need to live on. The sad thing, is I never seem to earn enough money, to get very far with this, so I kind of don't think, I will ever see, quite, the "idea", I have in my mind, finished, and I am VERY tired these days,..I really don't expect to complete, "my idea". However my loving wife, dose have a small collection, the "pieces" for a fountain, the "yard", but not much of a graden, because so often there is no water. The music, I had help, we have a collection, of my favorite "artists", John Coltrane, and then there are more, but I am not going to list them all, what I have written , is stored, on the computer, and also a back up, "memory", and some on paper.
It is a long hard struggle, trying to create something, "aestheticaly pleasing" . I am drifting,
and hopefully this dose not offend any one, but ,,.Ok, God is the creator, of all things, His creation, is the most perfect work of art, that will ever exist,..this is my opinion, I know many, perhaps most, do not believe this, nor in God, but when I go off some where, and look at the sky, listen to the birds, watch and listen to the water ,as it goes down a stream, here the stronger,louder sounds, of any small water falls there may be, and then the wind as it blows, softly, or some times even strongly. I feel a great peace, and feel like I am at HOME. So it all wasn't really "my idea", after all, HE, God, all ready did all of this, for not only me, but all of us. The sounds, are the music, perfectly orchrestrated, a symphony, finer and more perfect, then even Bethoven, or Bach, could imagen, the sculptures, that exist in the rocks, and cliffs, faces, figures, angels, most anything one can imagen. The colors, all perfectly "painted", forming pitchures, and designs,..the story is all written , in what I see around me, this is the "BOOK",..that tells it all. That is ART, of art, the perfect creation. And I can not believe, it all happened by accident, like the messes, some drunken fool makes, dribbleing paint all over a canvas on the floor, that is what one gets, by "accident", a mess, chance maybe it is sort of "pretty" color full, but still nothing more then a accident,mess, it is not art,..AHH, but it sells, says the promoter, so "lets get drunk some more and do more!",.. The "perfect art" was done by someone, that had a idea, and made it real, created it,..ok I call Him, God, many others may understand, but call Him by another name, the point is it was,and is done, not for the "MONEY" or economical profit, it was/is done to please the CREATOR, the artist, and for us, the children,grandchildren,etc, and the multitude there in.
I guess for now, that is all, from me,--some may undertsand what I am trying to say (I hope), to others it may sound like a "rant". I really had not planned on writing this..it just sort of popped out, so there may be a lot of "TYPOS", and spelling errors. and I am really tired, I have been so tired lately, it seems, besides work, all I do is "dream",...often my thoughts are I will be going "home" soon. But I have been hoping, and believing, soon I will go home, for what seems to be most of my life,..so it may be still be another 50 or more years away for all I know. In the mean time, I have my art, and can enjoy looking at the few things I finish, and they allways help remind me of "home",...
from Garry

[Art-Deco]

Art is the worse business to be in

Maybe, but when you get client emails like these, you think otherwise:

Re: Corbels
WOW! They are the out of sight great! I am sorry I was not able to get back to you sooner as I had a full house for Easter!
I just opened them. I am at a loss for words. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I will send you a photo of them after installation.
Would you please send me a link to your site so I can dream!
Kindest Regards.
Laura

Masterful craftsmanship! Couldn't be more delighted -- this piece is PHENOMENAL!

Only one word is needed to describe this piece - "SUPERB"