I will just say...
I see with my eyes, not through labels.
Im an artist first. A teacher of painting and drawing second. A collector third.
40, 35, and 25 years respectively.
I have spent a lifetime becoming hypersensitive to all things visual. With special emphasis on the formal elements of picture-making.
I am hardly fooled by a label, or a lack of one. I look with my retina.
If we are looking at the exact same painting, you are not even close to what I see. (Sorry, but I can tell that from miles away)
You really think you see something in that Vera piece that I have missed?
Wrong dude. You are the one that falls for flabby brushwork, and cant see that the painting is unresolved. It wouldn't get through a first semester critique in art school. ( I would encourage a new painter if they did that of course, but that is another issue.) its just not there.
And the carpet piece. Sorry but I have higher standards of what I call "True Art" than that. It is not that easy to make art.
Definitely not about labels, but definitely not about cranking out some gimmicky rug baubles to pounce on a trend either. I know its quaint, but dont try to make the argument that its "true art".
It was schlock when it was made and its schlock now. Tired, unoriginal, and boring. A period piece yes. Clever use of carpet, okay. But put it on the wall next to some real art, like a Rothko, or a Monet, and try to make the case that its great art.
jesus.
Everything eles you said I can accept. But you have a long way to go before you see what I see when you look at a painting or you wouldnt have even posted that thing.
It's real art
for what it's intended to be, and that market. If everyone made Monet's, that's all you'd be able to buy. There's a lot more than just impressionism out there. There's Abstract, Cubism, Expressionism, Fauvism, Pointillism, Pop Art, Postimpressionism, Primitivism, Realism, Surrealism... Andy Warhol was no Monet. He did alright though.
not up to the buyer
... to decide what is art.
Its up to the artist, and then other people who have spent a lifetime of involvement with art.
Buyers decide what is "collectable" but they dont decide what is art.
Keane paintings are collectible.
But they remain sad drivel.
Ask any artist.
It's up to the buyer
to perceive what is art and what is collectible in their eyes. If I shit on a canvas right now, then smear it all around, and call it art, it doesn't mean any buyer will agree. Just as much as a person creates a work of art, the buyer has to also see it. Unless you're making art to never sell it, then you can do whatever you want, and call anything you want art, and that'll end there. But any artist that creates something to sell, has to be seen by the buyer as well or it'll go to the basement, or dumpster. It takes both.
And I see everything. Monet, Rothko, dali, Magritte, Mesens, Nouge, Goemans, Lecomte, Bazille, Boudin, Renoir, Van Gogh, Warhol. All of it. I'm way beyond labels.
you cant utter a sentence
..without the word "buyer" in it.
Art comes from a different place than "the market".
The best art, in many many cases, was made without concern for ANY market.
These days, a very well rewarded artist who is what we would call successful with many important shows in good galleries and museum surveys, etc. are often in their 60s before there is ANY money in it at all for them.
I introduced artists for a weekly artist lecture series at a major California university for a few years, and a recurring statement on the part of the artists was "there is no money".
These were "hot" artists on the fast track. The lucky ones. You think they have the luxury to wait around for a sale?
They are too busy making art.
You need some other way to see things dude.
Of course I do...
Without the buyer you have nothing to sell. Just like you need a foot to walk. Arthur Pinajian was too busy making art. Most everyone else was not too busy, or they would never have time to display it in a gallery, show it, promote it, or sell it. They're not real starving artists. He was a real starving artist.
Ya...
That's my answer. It only discredits yours completely. I'd say I was spot on with it too. Am I lying? Was he not? If they were so busy making art, would they have he time to do the things he didn't? I vaguely remember reading that he sold one painting in his life to a neighbor for $100 to buy more paint. That's someone that's too busy painting. Prove me wrong.
Look, I don't mean to fight with you. You have valid points, and I listen, very carefully. It's just more than one sided here. I'm trying to show another side, and you're stuck on your side only. I can see yours. Can you see mine? That's why being open minded is a rewarding experience.
....
You shot down nothing.
You picked some guy as an example of a starving artist. And only because his estate was worth something NOW. You didn't address my points.
My point was that even the relatively successful "careerists" -- the good and well documented contemporary artists (that will be hawked by guys like you later on) are not making heaps of money NOW. They pay 50% to their galleries, and more often than not have a day job, even in their later years.
My other point which you conveniently didn't bother to address was KEANE.
Highly collectable, but largely agreed upon as vapid and weak as "art".
Ask any ARTIST.
But will answer with the word "buyer".
You consistently avoid any of my hard questions.
That is not trumping. That is avoidance.
You dont know what you dont know.
You may have the last word now.
groovydude
The nature of your posts seem heavily centered around commercialization -- the buying and selling of objects for profit. That is fine from a business perspective, but not really aligned with the purpose of this forum. You have offered a view of your inventory, but I gather that the majority of it is not in the aesthetic favor of modernism (mid-century or otherwise), which tends to be the common theme here. Again, if you have a preference for other schools of thought and design, that is certainly fine and I can appreciate that.
I am curious to know more about your own personal style, taste, and sources of inspiration. That is one of the reasons for the recent threads that I started (art and pottery around the home) -- to share and learn more about others.
...
"You picked some guy as an example of a starving artist. And only because his estate was worth something NOW. You didn't address my points."
Some guy? I picked some guy? One of the best abstract expressionism painters in history, and a shining example of a true starving artist. You danced around the points, after I put them right in your face. I used you're starving artist against you, and you couldn't come back from it, because you're artists aren't starving. He was truly starving regardless of the estate value now, which is worth $30,000,000. I showed you a real starving artist, and you didn't want to see it. You only want to see the people you call starving, that have hundreds of photos of themselves in the press, and public, throughout their entire lives promoting all their art. You use the words starving artist too loosely. A real starving artist is someone just like Pinajian, that was never discoverd until 70,000 paintings were found in a dumpster, and stuffed in every room of his house after death, to be taken to the trash heap. That's a "real" starving artist.
"My point was that even the relatively successful "careerists" -- the good and well documented contemporary artists (that will be hawked by guys like you later on) are not making heaps of money NOW. They pay 50% to their galleries, and more often than not have a day job, even in their later years."
When did money these people make in their personal lives even come into what is considered art or not. I never brought that up.
Highly collectable, but largely agreed upon as vapid and weak as "art".
I will agree there. Something can be butt ugly, and still be collectible. Maybe that's where this whole thing has gotten turned around. You're a lover of what I would call "fine art". And that does not need to be confused with art in general. Just because it's not fine art, does not mean it's not art at all. And almost everything is life is not "fine art" compared to a Monet. But then again, neither is a warhol, if that's the case. To Monet, Warhol would be considered talentless, and if Warhol brought him an example of his work, Monet would roll on the floor laughing. You can't call something you like art, and not something else because you don't like it. Monet would call you a doofus if you told him you like Warhol. What does that say about someone who loves Warhol, and monet? It says that the beauty of art is in the eye of the beholder.
....
"so you're admitting its not about design for you at all, just about "treasure", and the profit you can turn on an object"
Without design, you have no treasure. I don't know what treasure I have, or I wouldn't post threads trying to find info on a piece of art I really liked, and brought home 2 years ago without any knowledge of the creator. I'm sitting on hundreds of items I don't know anything about, I just bought because of the design, only to find out later it's worth a lot of money. That's what made me want to give up sealcoating to follow this dream, was because of my love of art, and what it turned out to be once I I.D.'d it, even tough I perform art everyday on driveways. The treasure is knowing that something I bought off design, and my eye to see it, is worth something when I research it. And not just $9.99... Not goodwill prices.
Did you see a room full of Nebraska Furniture Mart objects? You think I'd be too stupid to pass a Monet? Or wouldn't spot it. I'd buy it too. Just like I bought that Harry Bertoia I didn't know anything about off design, that one day I'll get authenticated. I know design. You don't have to keep trying to tell me that I don't. While you see 1,000 things, I see 50,000.
I'm not being mean. My mind is just more open than yours. If I waited around to peddle Monet's I found, I'd not alone be starving, but dead, so what am I supposed to do until then? Pass on the other art I buy for the love of it, until I find those pieces, because only the very best will do? That's why all that shit is here, because I love art so much I can't abandon one piece with any kind of personality. I love it all, and I save it all to send to a new home. I save history from death, and dime stores. Where am I supposed to start, with a dollar in my hand, and nobody to help me? I think I'm doing pretty damn good, for someone who never introduced to the finer things in life their entire life, and I didn't need 18 years of schooling to help me recognize what's art, and what's not.
I only posted three things on here, before all this started, and it was pieces I bought off the design, that I was curious about. My love is for the art first, and the value second. It was my favorite subject in school, and I've been an artist my whole life. I've taught myself everything I know, and am at the point I am now because of my eye for design. You remind me of that professor that was so close minded, he kept trying to discredit the Jackson Pollock painting that lady bought at a garage sale. He said there's no way it could have been real, because it lacked the design of a true Pollock, until they lifted a fingerprint from Pollock. You could be slapped in the face with design, and not see it, because you're being too close minded.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com