SwampCreature,
Being a skilled artist and being one with a known,
established place in the market, are two very different things.
Value isn't based on skill. It is based on demand,
which often has little relevance to skills with a brush or chisel.
When I talk with my studio art professors, what I come away with was that
they have to spend more time marketing themselves than they spend actually
making art.
The fact that "lowbrow" art has a place in the market is a GOOD THING because
what is selling in 2007 says something about our culture,
which is what art used to be able to do.
The esoteric side of art is fine for what it is, for the small group
of people who care about many of the post-modern artists,
and whom critics love to talk abou...things like "readymade art" and a
shopvac, placed on a pedestal, with no modifications, selling for thousands
and thousands of dollars because an artist placed it on the pedestal,
fresh out of the box, and then defined it as "ART."
But where is the relevance to the larger world?
If only a very small group of art elitists care about some artist's
work, does that make it matter?
Then again, does relevance matter?
If art is, to some degree, a testament and reflection of the times they are
created, then the works of Nagel and Shag are more important than some toilet bowl
turned upside down resting on a pedestal.
Having said the above, this is precisely why art is a bad investment risk,
and really should collected because one loves the work. I pay $300+ for Shag
serigraphs, and upwards $2000 for some Nagel serigraphs (to this day),
because that is what they are worth to me when I enjoy them
as they grace the walls in my home.
But the world of art is very fickle and trends and tastes change.
Artists fall out of favor, especially the post-modern ones.
Peace out,
Gromit_Fan
On 2007-05-06 10:49, SwampCreature wrote:
Crazy. Just crazy. And to think, some people can paint the same thing for less than $20.
