|
Post by sleepboy on Jun 4, 2009 20:31:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Jul 3, 2009 8:10:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by shelly on Jul 3, 2009 14:57:44 GMT -8
Colors kinda reminds you of Audrey??? You're sweet Sleepyboy, but we all know that it's more than the colors. On the bottom one more than the top.
|
|
|
Post by richardtharbaugh on Jul 4, 2009 16:37:46 GMT -8
I think it's charming that maturing artists impersonate the work of the folks whose work they absorb and/or admire. I don't think it's charming to see those artists highlighted by galleries inside the same realm that the artists whose works are being imitated. It boggles me anymore what gets hyped, and what gets sold - but, beauty is in the eye of the person writing the check.
|
|
|
Post by chetzar on Jul 4, 2009 19:35:18 GMT -8
I think it's charming that maturing artists impersonate the work of the folks whose work they absorb and/or admire. I don't think it's charming to see those artists highlighted by galleries inside the same realm that the artists whose works are being imitated. It boggles me anymore what gets hyped, and what gets sold - but, beauty is in the eye of the person writing the check. Amen to that! We have a responsibility. If this scene is to grow and reach it's full potential then A: us artists need to strive to be original and to do our very best work, and B: the curators who show the work must promote the very best work and not follow the fads. We have an amazing opportunity here. What's happening is a genuine, legitimate art movement for the history books. I am afraid we run the risk of blowing it by creating and promoting work that isn't up to snuff for the sake of a making a buck. It just brings us all down. I know everybody has to pay the bills but if we do this thing right it's can last a very long time and we will make more money in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jul 4, 2009 21:49:51 GMT -8
I think it's charming that maturing artists impersonate the work of the folks whose work they absorb and/or admire. I don't think it's charming to see those artists highlighted by galleries inside the same realm that the artists whose works are being imitated. It boggles me anymore what gets hyped, and what gets sold - but, beauty is in the eye of the person writing the check. Amen to that! We have a responsibility. If this scene is to grow and reach it's full potential then A: us artists need to strive to be original and to do our very best work, and B: the curators who show the work must promote the very best work and not follow the fads. We have an amazing opportunity here. What's happening is a genuine, legitimate art movement for the history books. I am afraid we run the risk of blowing it by creating and promoting work that isn't up to snuff for the sake of a making a buck. It just brings us all down. I know everybody has to pay the bills but if we do this thing right it's can last a very long time and we will make more money in the long run. I would add C: we collectors should educate ourselves, so we understand what we're looking at. Not only should we try to be familiar with the history of this art movement and its prominent artists, but we should strive to understand the historical underpinnings from which it sprung. If we are familiar with how, what and why artists painted in the past, we will have better judgment when looking at a piece of contemporary art that we are considering adding to our collection. Of course no one can know all of this when they first begin collecting, but there is no excuse for promoting amateur, derivative work once one is more aware of what's going on. There are plenty of highly skilled visionary artists to go around... let the young artists who haven't found their voice yet keep learning and experimenting until they find something original to say. Including them in the pantheon of artists encompassed by this movement weakens the argument that this work should be taken seriously – and we want it to be taken seriously someday, believe me. If we as collectors decline to purchase derivative work, the galleries will stop showing it. The fact that galleries are showing it just points to our having fallen down in that area.
|
|
|
Post by chetzar on Jul 4, 2009 22:22:59 GMT -8
Amen to that! We have a responsibility. If this scene is to grow and reach it's full potential then A: us artists need to strive to be original and to do our very best work, and B: the curators who show the work must promote the very best work and not follow the fads. We have an amazing opportunity here. What's happening is a genuine, legitimate art movement for the history books. I am afraid we run the risk of blowing it by creating and promoting work that isn't up to snuff for the sake of a making a buck. It just brings us all down. I know everybody has to pay the bills but if we do this thing right it's can last a very long time and we will make more money in the long run. I would add C: we collectors should educate ourselves, so we understand what we're looking at. Not only should we try to be familiar with the history of this art movement and its prominent artists, but we should strive to understand the historical underpinnings from which it sprung. If we are familiar with how, what and why artists painted in the past, we will have better judgment when looking at a piece of contemporary art that we are considering adding to our collection. Of course no one can know all of this when they first begin collecting, but there is no excuse for promoting amateur, derivative work once one is more aware of what's going on. There are plenty of highly skilled visionary artists to go around... let the young artists who haven't found their voice yet keep learning and experimenting until they find something original to say. Including them in the pantheon of artists encompassed by this movement weakens the argument that this work should be taken seriously – and we want it to be taken seriously someday, believe me. If we as collectors decline to purchase derivative work, the galleries will stop showing it. The fact that galleries are showing it just points to our having fallen down in that area. Amen to that as well!
|
|
ill
Full Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by ill on Jul 4, 2009 22:39:09 GMT -8
These are the types of quality posts that really make forums such as this one such a great place. I know I'm guilty of it as well, but I'd love to see more types of discussion across the board. It seems like oftentimes the large posts only come out in response to bad artwork, but I'd be equally interested to read some more quality posts on the good as well as the bad. Too often a how shall we say "strongly influenced" piece will result in countless diatribes, but a superb piece will merely elicit "that's awesome!" which while positive doesn't really inspire a whole lot of discussion about the merits of said work.
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jul 5, 2009 1:55:41 GMT -8
Glad to see this being talked about here. I am very passionate about this scene, even to the dismay of many of my professors.
I do think the overall problem is a little bigger. I have only been able to curate a handful of shows. Each time I made sure I put in artists that were mostly unheard of, but at the same time mature with their style and have something to say. And both times, I saw not only the crowds but writers as well as gallery owners overlook this art and talk about the paintings that were just like the art we always see.
I am very confident that I wasn't picking art that is not worth seeing. Since creating the Creep Machine I have been able to introduce no less than 17 artists that are showing at galleries now. Many of them are still doing well. I have also received e-mails from a few of them that were asking my advice on what to do when a gallery owner/curator lets them know they should change their style to be more like "insert name here". Why? So they could sell the work easier?
What this movement needs is A. Inner criticism. Many have written that criticism from within a movement will spark outer crits as well. There seems to be a lot of "back slapping" going on. My site is guilty of this as well, which is something I plan on changing. B. A more open mind to newer artists. In the art depts I have been in, I show the art from this movement and I see it get passed on, or just called "illustration. Yet these same professors will bring up Barry McGee, Murakami and Robert Williams. Where is the open mind for the other artists? Must they all be shown in museums to be taken seriously? Often it feels as if there isn't that much openness for new art within this scene a swell. Many art sites/blogs expose little no new art, but I do see some of the names pop up again when the artists previously overlooked show at the "right" gallery, or alongside bigger artists. Was their work not worth talking about before?
|
|
|
Post by chetzar on Jul 5, 2009 12:28:28 GMT -8
These are the types of quality posts that really make forums such as this one such a great place. I know I'm guilty of it as well, but I'd love to see more types of discussion across the board. It seems like oftentimes the large posts only come out in response to bad artwork, but I'd be equally interested to read some more quality posts on the good as well as the bad. Too often a how shall we say "strongly influenced" piece will result in countless diatribes, but a superb piece will merely elicit "that's awesome!" which while positive doesn't really inspire a whole lot of discussion about the merits of said work. Good point and this speaks to Comnandax's comment about educating ourselves and each other about the art. The more we discuss why we like what we do and why the work is 'good', the better we will understand the work, in which context to view the work, etc.
|
|
|
Post by chetzar on Jul 5, 2009 12:31:57 GMT -8
Glad to see this being talked about here. I am very passionate about this scene, even to the dismay of many of my professors. I do think the overall problem is a little bigger. I have only been able to curate a handful of shows. Each time I made sure I put in artists that were mostly unheard of, but at the same time mature with their style and have something to say. And both times, I saw not only the crowds but writers as well as gallery owners overlook this art and talk about the paintings that were just like the art we always see. I am very confident that I wasn't picking art that is not worth seeing. Since creating the Creep Machine I have been able to introduce no less than 17 artists that are showing at galleries now. Many of them are still doing well. I have also received e-mails from a few of them that were asking my advice on what to do when a gallery owner/curator lets them know they should change their style to be more like "insert name here". Why? So they could sell the work easier? What this movement needs is A. Inner criticism. Many have written that criticism from within a movement will spark outer crits as well. There seems to be a lot of "back slapping" going on. My site is guilty of this as well, which is something I plan on changing. B. A more open mind to newer artists. In the art depts I have been in, I show the art from this movement and I see it get passed on, or just called "illustration. Yet these same professors will bring up Barry McGee, Murakami and Robert Williams. Where is the open mind for the other artists? Must they all be shown in museums to be taken seriously? Often it feels as if there isn't that much openness for new art within this scene a swell. Many art sites/blogs expose little no new art, but I do see some of the names pop up again when the artists previously overlooked show at the "right" gallery, or alongside bigger artists. Was their work not worth talking about before? Most definitely we need inner criticism. Many of us reclusive artists operate in somewhat of a vacuum and often a good outside objective opinion can help point out things that we can't see or haven't noticed about our work.
|
|
|
Post by greenhorn1 on Jul 6, 2009 7:19:03 GMT -8
While I agree with a lot of what's been written here, you have to look at the flip side/big picture as well. This is a free market economy and like it or not audrey kawasaki's art is WAY WAY outside the price range of the vast majority of art buyers. Therefore it is inevitable that someone will copy her style and sell it at a vastly reduced cost. Whether or not places like G1988 are were this should be taking place is debatable but I assume they're in the business of making money as well and obviously have a clientele that desires art of this type so it's not really surprising to me.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne13 on Jul 7, 2009 15:20:13 GMT -8
If your art or overall body of work is not strong enough to be differentiated from others that are influenced by it, that is a you problem. Not a gallery, buyer, or "influenced artist" problem.
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jul 7, 2009 21:40:59 GMT -8
If your art or overall body of work is not strong enough to be differentiated from others that are influenced by it, that is a you problem. Not a gallery, buyer, or "influenced artist" problem. That is very true, the artist should be going for a unique style. But when a gallery/curator shows work from artists that are basically cloning their style off of another, the shows and sales justifies that what they are doing is ok. Almost like being rewarded for what they are doing.
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Jul 8, 2009 5:32:41 GMT -8
Clarice....
|
|
|
Post by travislouie on Jul 8, 2009 5:36:39 GMT -8
okay, . . .I'll bite Is it a "chicken or the egg" thing or are people arriving at this particular art scene unaware of what has come before? I am curious how artists being accused of copying specific qualities inherent in another artist's work, . . .that characterizes a style, . . .feel about this conversation. What is the intent ? what are they trying to say? We should ask that of all artists. Is all that posturing art or laziness? What about craft? Can some of these so-called artists learn how to draw a hand or an arm correctly without hurting my anatomy-sensitive eyes!!! ? I am in contact with most of the artists in this scene, . . .and we talk about this all the time. I am not going to make another artist look bad by saying who is copying who, but I have often been tempted. Can't lie about that. Bottom line, it makes us all look bad. I want this thing of ours to progress to something significant, . . .allowing copy-artists to cash in on others' success only weakens the character of this little world of ours.
|
|
|
Post by droow2 on Jul 8, 2009 10:04:45 GMT -8
Who's that sleep? t's fantastic
|
|
|
Post by thinkspace on Jul 8, 2009 10:22:12 GMT -8
That's Ana Bagayan's Silence Of The Lambs piece.
If that's not Ana, then let another discussion begin, but pretty positive that has to be her brush work.
|
|
|
Post by travislouie on Jul 8, 2009 10:24:35 GMT -8
Clarice.... is this Ana Bagayan?
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Jul 8, 2009 11:13:23 GMT -8
that can only be ana.
i think it's testimony to the quality of artists like ana bagayan that we can instantly identify her work, as andrew says, through the recognition of her brush work. i recall we had a similar debate about the quality of work in the 8 bit show thread a while back.
by the way - i must make clear that i am not bashing this show, but purely responding to comments about deriviative work that has originated in this thread.
i strongly advocate quality in the curation of group shows.
so much seems to slip through the net and end up in a gallery, when it is sub-standard, deriviative work. as has been said here by others, this can only harm the scene that we all love so much. i feel that i cannot support deriviative work. i want an artist to give me their all - heart, soul and emotion on the canvas - but that heart, soul and emotion has to be theirs - not someone elses.
i live and breathe art, and put all of my expendable income into this scene, along with a lot of time and energy. i travel all over the place to go and see the work. all i ask in return is originality, integrity and quality.
it's good to see that some of the artists who contribute to this board, and this thread in particular - and i'm talking you, mr louie, you, mr zar - have both opinion and original artistic output that aligns with the feelings of the majority of collectors on this board. i applaud you two for speaking out....
keep the work fresh and original, and the collectors will buy. lets not let this scene stagnate.
too many times i see work that looks a little too like audrey's, or jeff soto's, or joe sorren's. it's a damn shame that this work gets mixed up with the fresh stuff and murks up the very small pond that we all drink from.
it saddend me recently that one of the most instantly identifiable artists we have in this scene - josh keyes - is even being aped now in terms of his aesthetic....
collectors, curators, galleries and artists alike - we have a joint responsibility to make this scene a memorable one, and to make it grow outwards and upwards - not back in on itself.
|
|
|
Post by greenhorn1 on Jul 8, 2009 11:33:51 GMT -8
svenman,
I like that response but I'd like to hear what you think about keeping the scene growing but still accessable because at this point for the major names (and even the 2nd tier at this point) in the scene it truely is not. Or is that that point? that people want "their" art scene to be elitist and something the common people can't afford?
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Jul 8, 2009 12:24:55 GMT -8
no. the point i was going for here was not about elitism or pricing at all, but originality in the work produced by artists in this ever growing scene. it is true that some of the better known names in this scene are at a point where their original work is not affordable to everyone - take josh keyes or jeff soto again for example.... both artists produce highly original works - instantly identifyable when you see their imagery. true, their original works are priced at the high end of artists within this scene, but the way they edition work in the guise of prints keeps their work accessible to collectors of all financial circumstances. pretty much anyone can afford to drop a couple of hundred on a print to be able to put something from one of these guys on their wall.
at the other end of the spectrum, newer emerging artists are discussed passionately on this board too. you can pick up a great piece of original work - most importantly though - with original content. i'm a big supporter of emerging artists, and like to try and buy work from artists on their way upwards. as i said before though - i like to collect originally themed work, not just another audrey kawasaki knock off. if the work is fresh and the content grabs me, then i'm interested as a buyer. if its derivative, or copy-cat - i'm not interested.
accessibility is what makes this scene great, not just in the way that the artists make work available for differently walletted fans, but also the way in which we as collectors get to chat with the artists we admire on boards such as this, at their shows, book signings etc. the whole thing reminds me of the punk scene of the late 80's and early 90's... everyone in the scene plays a part to make it what it is. playing in a band / making art. promoting shows / running a gallery. making a zine / doing a blog or magazine. paying at the door / buying the art..... there are so many parallels for me, and i'm showing my age now!
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jul 8, 2009 12:25:41 GMT -8
svenman, I like that response but I'd like to hear what you think about keeping the scene growing but still accessable because at this point for the major names (and even the 2nd tier at this point) in the scene it truely is not. Or is that that point? that people want "their" art scene to be elitist and something the common people can't afford? Most artists do try to make some of their work affordable for their less affluent fans... offering smaller pieces, drawings, prints, etc. We must realize that many of them spend hundreds of hours on a painting... and at the prices many of them are setting, they're still barely breaking minimum wage after the gallery takes a 50% cut. They do have to eat... and some of them have families to support. But if you're serious about being a collector of original art, the best maxim to live by is "Buy what you love, and buy it early." Don't chase the big guys if you don't have the bucks... educate yourself, trust your taste and look for the next amazing visionary artist. Their work will be affordable and you'll have the satisfaction of having been part of what made it possible for them to keep painting instead of giving up and getting a job at Wal-Mart.
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Jul 8, 2009 12:29:41 GMT -8
well said amanda. i think we are coming from the same direction on this...
|
|
|
Post by thinkspace on Jul 8, 2009 13:29:32 GMT -8
That is so well said guys - major props Sven and Amanda.
|
|