ART DISCUSSION: What is art? Who/what inspires you?

Originally Posted by rayray3thousand

30x40 canvas painting for my shoe room... aka the greatest Wrestlemania match from my childhood

Click to expand...

[h1]
Ten Expert Tips For Investing in the Art Market[/h1]
+ Comment now


'200 One Dollar Bills' by Andy Warhol (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

He was the last of the speakers at the TEFAF art market symposium last week, a diminutive young man with a heavy French accent who wasted no time introducing himself with flourish. “We have analyzed millions of data,

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by nocomment6

Great video and great read.

I'd be very curious, what you guys think of all this.

Personally although my approach in some sense is both arrogant and conservative, I think that money has ruined the art scene, like it ruins most things...but I suppose artists are glad that finally they don't have to wait for their death to become recognized and "rich". It's a great thing that there are funds rolling in to the art world, in many cases helping emerging artists. But unfortunately in parallel to that the quality of the works produced have greatly declined.

I know art can't be determined and that it's different to everyone etc. but there are still certain standards in my opinion, which should be a fundament for everyone. In the renaissance you had to learn from a master, then your reference letter and talent did the rest, in modern art you had to work your way through the basics until you stumbled upon something new. I don't think it can be called a mere coincidence, that Delacroix, Picasso and Matisse etc. were the best draughtsman of all time. It's just inevitable. And a lot of the work that I see rising is just empty, soulless, meaningless, disbelieving simply, because there isn't a layer of knowledge behind it. I sense that many jump straight to the crazy and hip level, to make a lot of money. I think Gerard's abstracts or de Koonings women all became famous, because it had this kind of depth. And I'm not trying to show towards the YBA for example, I think Hirst's spotted paintings are amazing and they once again prove that he is a talented artist with a great sense of color, on contrary many artist simply ride a hype roller coaster. And it's funny I mention that alongside Damien, but regardless of all the hype surrounding him, his work still have the depth combined with an edge.

The only reason this bothers me as an artist is that many names go unrecognized and will maybe only get the proper attention too late, while others receive all the attention while not deserving it. And in addition their prices may be volatile to some extent, but they may still be more appreciated then some of their peers, simply, because the millionaires and billionaires can't afford to loose, or simply don't wish to...they don't want to be proved wrong.
And as a business it's cool, a Mondrian is worth millions, as is a Matisse and I can respect that. And in many cases I understand prices rising like crazy, at least the artists "can get the roses while they still smell 'em."
And I don't know if a bubble is forming, because like I mentioned, who knows what next generations will like or won't. Or what qualities they will look for.

And if post-modernism has taught us something is that we have a choice to decide whats beauty, so all investments aside, I'd still buy things that even if they aren't worth a penny, I still enjoy looking at while they're hanging on my walls. Call me a bad investor, but I don't think the art game is for those who have bad taste, those should stick with oil and stocks, great taste will lead to good investments along with unpaired aesthetics.

Just my take.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by nocomment6

Great video and great read.

I'd be very curious, what you guys think of all this.

Personally although my approach in some sense is both arrogant and conservative, I think that money has ruined the art scene, like it ruins most things...but I suppose artists are glad that finally they don't have to wait for their death to become recognized and "rich". It's a great thing that there are funds rolling in to the art world, in many cases helping emerging artists. But unfortunately in parallel to that the quality of the works produced have greatly declined.

I know art can't be determined and that it's different to everyone etc. but there are still certain standards in my opinion, which should be a fundament for everyone. In the renaissance you had to learn from a master, then your reference letter and talent did the rest, in modern art you had to work your way through the basics until you stumbled upon something new. I don't think it can be called a mere coincidence, that Delacroix, Picasso and Matisse etc. were the best draughtsman of all time. It's just inevitable. And a lot of the work that I see rising is just empty, soulless, meaningless, disbelieving simply, because there isn't a layer of knowledge behind it. I sense that many jump straight to the crazy and hip level, to make a lot of money. I think Gerard's abstracts or de Koonings women all became famous, because it had this kind of depth. And I'm not trying to show towards the YBA for example, I think Hirst's spotted paintings are amazing and they once again prove that he is a talented artist with a great sense of color, on contrary many artist simply ride a hype roller coaster. And it's funny I mention that alongside Damien, but regardless of all the hype surrounding him, his work still have the depth combined with an edge.

The only reason this bothers me as an artist is that many names go unrecognized and will maybe only get the proper attention too late, while others receive all the attention while not deserving it. And in addition their prices may be volatile to some extent, but they may still be more appreciated then some of their peers, simply, because the millionaires and billionaires can't afford to loose, or simply don't wish to...they don't want to be proved wrong.
And as a business it's cool, a Mondrian is worth millions, as is a Matisse and I can respect that. And in many cases I understand prices rising like crazy, at least the artists "can get the roses while they still smell 'em."
And I don't know if a bubble is forming, because like I mentioned, who knows what next generations will like or won't. Or what qualities they will look for.

And if post-modernism has taught us something is that we have a choice to decide whats beauty, so all investments aside, I'd still buy things that even if they aren't worth a penny, I still enjoy looking at while they're hanging on my walls. Call me a bad investor, but I don't think the art game is for those who have bad taste, those should stick with oil and stocks, great taste will lead to good investments along with unpaired aesthetics.

Just my take.

Click to expand...

Great insight.
Personally, I say that as emerging artists, we shouldn't even pay any mind to the market. The moment artists start creating art because of financial motivations and not passion is the moment they should just hang it up. I understand that sounds idealistic but I truly believe it. I know that in the "real world," artists have to make a living but I don't think creating work to appeal to the style of the week is the way to do it. Create work that you feel is important and if money comes with that, great.

Off topic, I've been MIA from this thread 

 spring break happened and then I'm about four weeks from graduation so I'm busy working on projects. I should have a new painting and sculpture to share by next week.

I watched a video yesterday that had a bunch of abstract expressionists talking and giving insight on why they felt their work was important. It was pretty eye-opening since it was filmed when they were active artists and not "big" yet. I'm talking about artists like de Kooning, Frank Stella, and Robert Motherwell. What I realized was that in the past, it seemed like artists created work in reaction to art that was popular at the time. In the abstract expressionists time, the big thing was French art, particularly cubism. A lot of the artists felt like they had no base for "American art" until figures like Jackson Pollock came around and basically said "*%%+ You" to the establishment. From that point on, young American artists had a launching point from which to start from.

Maybe as contemporary artists of this time, our work should be a reaction to what's going on right now? Whether it be the art scene, pop culture, world politics, etc. React to the time, not the money.

Here's a point I'd like to get some feedback on... How do you guys feel about the advent of the internet and it's impact on art? It's easier now than ever to get exposure to an audience and you could, theoretically, make it big overnight. You no longer need to be a part of some artists community because you have the world at your fingertips. I'm personally kind of split on it. On one hand, I think the internet has negatively impacted on how artists create work. Before, artists would congregate in certain geographically close areas to work and draw influence from one another. I feel we have less of that now. What's the last "movement" we had? It seems a lot of people create art that's a lot more individualistic. Could that be a drawback? This is one of the reasons I feel so strongly about joining a residency or continuing to work in an area with a strong community of artists.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by rayray3thousand

30x40 canvas painting for my shoe room... aka the greatest Wrestlemania match from my childhood

Click to expand...

Using a process that could be the new definition of�meticulous, Korean sculptor Seung Mo Park�creates giant ephemeral portraits by cutting layer after layer of wire mesh. Each work begins with a photograph which is superimposed over layers of wire with a projector, then using a subtractive technique Park slowly snips away areas of mesh. Each piece is several inches thick as each plane that forms the final image is spaced a few finger widths apart, giving the portraits a certain depth and dimensionality that’s hard to convey in a photograph, but this video on Youtube�shows it pretty well. Park just exhibited this month at�Blank Space Gallery�in New York as part of his latest series�Maya�(meaning “illusion

Click to expand...