Justifiable aversion to art shows

[Steven Sweeney]

He also rents studio space at the gallery. Coincidence?

Probably not, but that's kind of what I was alluding to about choosing wisely. If this art center is "about" that kind of work, then their picks for an atrium display would likely reflect that.

My initial inspiration to paint was fueled by a prize-winning abstract impressionist, for want of a better term, affiliated with an art center perhaps not unlike the one you dealt with. These years later, after my preferences in method took a different turn, I doubt that any of my submissions to the center (in Sydney, Australia, by the way) would be well received. I don't begrudge them anything. It's their hall, and their show, and I wouldn't be where I am today without the spirit and generosity of one of their instructors. (Wherever you are, Denise Sumner, good on you, and cheers.)

BTW Jeremiah, of the pieces you posted, three are walk-bys, one might have slowed me down, and the fifth intrigues me quite a bit, as reminiscent of some favourite Australian landscapes (a Heidelberg [Victoria, Down Under, not Germany] blue and gold palette) by a nationally revered realistic impressionist of whose life and art I have written professionally. Another viewer would have brought other experience and intention to this exhibition.

[Michael Georges]

Gallery owners and show runners have learned a very interesting fact:

If you have to explain a painting, or if the subject requires any real "thought" on the part of the viewer, it is harder to sell.

Thereby, it is easier to display works that defy explanation and require no actual thought from the prospective buyer except perhaps "does it go with my cat and my couch?"

Realism requires visual comparison and evaluation as there is a representation of a person, or a scene, and hopefully a narrative or story to the subject that draws the viewer into the work and gets their brain working.

The gradual dumbing down of the art buying public was completed in the late 70s and the establishment responsible is now backing worthless Thomas Kinkade prints sold to unsuspecting buyers for thousands - their next evil plot.

I think the line may be rewritten to: "First, we kill all the artists."


Just Say "Gnome" to Modern Art!

[Steven Sweeney]

Gallery owners and show runners have learned a very interesting fact:

If you have to explain a painting, or if the subject requires any real "thought" on the part of the viewer, it is harder to sell.

Michael,

With, as you know, all respect, I'm finally at a loss here. I imagined that I had the campaigns scoped out. I thought it was the modern artists that defiantly, or at least with disinterest, rejected scrutiny and analysis. I thought the realists (hey, I'm one) invited it. Here it sounds as if you're saying that traditional art is difficult to understand. Isn't it the "modern art" pieces that require explanation? Surely I'm misunderstanding your point. Everything I see in the SOG Artists' galleries speaks beautifully for itself. I'm not understanding your post. Please, if you would, elaborate.

And gosh, Kinkade as "evil"? (He's actually a devoutly religious person, openly grateful for and generous with his blessings and earnings.) Evil? You can't have meant it. How disappointing and discouraging it would be to hear that you did.

[Steven Sweeney]

Yikes -- I've just realized (d'uh) that you might have taken my "bumper sticker" post as offensive. I meant it as a tribute, a congratulations.

Maybe I've gotta get into another business. Plastics, or machinery, or something. I'm not getting the job done in communication or relationships.

Maybe I should paint instead of post. (Whistles and confetti are in the store room, parade permits pending.)

[Michael Fournier]

Steve maybe we all should be painting instead of posting.

I for one am not in the best of moods right now since in the past year my income has gone from a substantial amount to almost nothing in comparison. And, from day to day I am very cantankerous. It was my own decision to move away from commercial digital art to painting that has led me to this financial predicament.

Lately things are much slower then usual. So right now I am trying not to say anything negative about anyone. I even say kudos to the guy who sold his "artistic vision" in a can. I don't want to do anything to upset my karma. Positive attitude brings positive results.

[Michael Georges]

Steven:

No Worries. No offense taken - I liked the Gnome quote, so I used it.

Sorry if my post caused confusion, let me clarify my points.

Realist works require objective evaluation - "Is the piece any good?" It is easier for a person to see if they like it or not as the works represent reality - something which most of us see all the time. Realist works often contain a narrative or story requiring the viewer to think their way into the piece. So, there are more reasons for an objective buyer to reject the work - and you typically need a better and more qualified sales staff.

Abstract works require no real objective evaluation beyond - "do I like the colors/shapes/paper cups/dung." This makes it easier for sales staff to prattle on about a piece and say just about anything they want. Also, it is much harder for the viewer to evaluate the work as "good" or "not so good", so they can take in any old thing on canvas or board and call it "art" and make you wonder what the "artist" was "thinking" when he/she created it - the public takes their word for it and pulls out their check book. "After all, they should know...right?"

As to Kinkade, I was referring to those in control of Madison Avenue, not the gentleman himself. His work is easy, serene, and quite popular - they saw a "market" and "money" - he is just the product. Again the public, now dumbed down from decades of abstract and modern art, pulls out their checkbooks to pay thousands of dollars for a mass produced print with a bit of paint on it that they are assured will be worth thousands more in the future. When this great marketing scheme crumbles or fades, and they are left with a bunch of prints that are in reality worth very little - who will they blame? Themselves?

"First, we kill all the artists."

[John Zeissig]

About ten years ago I served on the exhibition committee of a large arts organization in the San Francisco Bay area. Based on that experience, I know how arbitrary both the selection of jurors, and the choices of jurors on what to include in the shows, are in juried competitions. I have many stories, some heartbreaking, some hilarious, from that period. I eventually quit because the influence of identity politics in selecting jurors became so outrageous that the shows ceased to be about art anymore.

Be that as it may, these events are one of the few available venues for starting artists, who are without connections or credentials, to exhibit their work. I learned to view entering these competitions as a total crap shoot. You never know what's going to happen. They rarely result in sales for the participants, and the only money to be made is the honorarium paid to the juror(s). So you should look on them as resume builders. I'm excluding the professional society competitions, of which I have no experience.

But, as I said, you never know what's going to happen. Back in the mid 90's I did the one and only entry of a painting of mine into one of these competitions. The show was called Regional Canvas, and was strictly for painting. My entry was a strange little painting, "It's My Cherry", in a "realist" style. As it happens, it's still on the internet at:
http://www.proartsgallery.org/ebos1996/artists/093.html

The show drew over 1000 entries, and was juried by two artists whom I had no reason to think would be sympathetic to my style. Only 50 entries were selected and mine was among them. The only other painting in a "realist" style was an elegant little nude about the same size as my painting.

Both my painting and the little nude won jurors' commendations, of which there were about half-a-dozen. The best of show went to a large abstract painting, to the best I can recall. So go figure!

[Jeremiah White]

and the establishment responsible is now backing worthless Thomas Kinkade prints sold to unsuspecting buyers for thousands - their next evil plot.

I completely agree with this. Thomas Kinkade has nice stuff, nothing spectacular in my opinion, but nice. However it is the establishment that backs the prints and the industry of Thomas Kinkade that I find to be evil. I have no beef with Kinkade himself though. In fact the art that he's less known for is actually really good.

This industry exploits the fact that the artist is Christian to sell his paintings. He, in turn, puts small "secret" messages and symbols in his paintings to prove that he does have Christian themes in his paintings. Then of course they label him as "the painter of light." Only a small portion of his paintings actually have a strong Christian subject matter in them. Most are his fancy gnome cottages with secret crosses and messages embedded in them.

Exploiting the fact that he's Christian to sell his paintings bothers me. Kind of reminds me of when Jesus went into the temple and overturned the vendors tables.

I'm Christian and I find that using these types of sales tactics is in fact evil.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

I have volunteered to help at a local art show some years ago and one of my tasks was to know where each painting was located at, so I could assist the judges (two well known artists of our area) in locating a particular work.

As I was making my rounds with Mr. X, a very strong personality type of character, he joined Mr. Y who was more subdued and quiet in persona right in front of a painting the latter was making notations on.

Mr. X asked Mr. Y what he thought of the work, to which Mr. Y replied he is marking it for 1st place in the Oil category. Upon hearing this X said he agreed it was very well executed and a beautifully done painting, BUT he hates the frame. A lengthy argument arose about the importance of the frame, the artist's financial situation, what message to convey to others, etc.. Needless to say Mr. X convinced Mr. Y, who tried to object every now and then and that particular painting got 2nd place.

A humiliating, but eye opening experience for yours truly!

By the way, a similar situation arose in front of a montage! It was a sculpted handbag, car keys and opera glasses. The argument was: "It is excellent, but is it really crafted by the artisan or dipped in something? They could not decide and the work was demoted. Go figure - I think you know what I think about judging art.

[Michele Rushworth]

Sometimes what happens to a painting in a competition is a result of its title.

I entered a fairly representational landscape in a number of local shows years ago. It was titled after the location in California where I took the reference photos. The painting was not accepted into any of these shows.

The next time I prepared to enter it in a show (I'm a diehard) my husband, more cynical than I am about the art world, suggested I re-title it "Left New York at 5:03."

You can guess what happened. It was accepted and won an Honorable Mention award. Go figure!