Imaginative Art and the Marketplace

[bill618]

How the hell does Rothko No. 1 sell for 75 million dollars, and Illustrative art from the Silver era is not worthy?

I'll be honest, I find the Modern Art scene somewhat offensive and the pretentious pseudo intellectual soul searching that goes along with it ridiculous. What prompts someone to spend that kind of money on something their children could probably do? Oh yeah, it's really about elitism and owning something other people want that have a lot of money that makes it worth the price. Excuse me for being skeptical but I think that is all there is to it.

Read ‘The Painted Word’ by Tom Wolfe, if you haven’t.
Here’s an excerpt that sets the stage:
http://www.billemory.com/NOTES/wolfe.html

My favorite modern art quote comes from the 1987 movie Wall Street.
“This painting here? I bought it ten years ago for sixty thousand dollars, I could sell it today for six hundred [thousand]. The illusion has become real, and the more real it becomes, the more desperately they want it. Capitalism at it's finest.” – Gordon Gekko

Quote at 1:28


Got to love the contrasting(?) kid's art on the wall:

[haljarrett]

Serious human beings, who invest in themselves, and who accumulate meaningful relationships in life and hard earned wealth (and, yes, real real estate), don't waste day after day ingesting unrewarding, ultimately depressing, fantasies. They just don't. So they are not somehow going to find a kinship with the vacuity (non-philosophies) on display in merely fantastic works. (Philosophy being one's handbook for living a better, more substantial life.) People want art that reflects them and their values.

okay, a lot of what you had to say was great and valid, this one however i just had to respond to.

I would say "serious" human beings you have described above are if anything more likely to get interested in escapist fantasy! what about the vast market for all of these things (films, books, video games etc) that people indulge in every year?

Just because someone is intelligent, well off, has a healthy relationship and a good career path doesnt mean that their mind wont leap at the chance of diving into an alternative, ultimately more enriching fantasy world given the chance? as essentially you are just saying that successful people are ALL depressing realists who would reject any flights of fantasy that come their way.

Surely buying modern art is pretty vacuous?

arguably 50 shades of gray (much as i hate it) is bordering on complete fantasy , despite being set in the real world, it may as well have been on a different planet so basically is a complete flight of fantasy(how many good looking billionaire playboys under 30 have you bumped into lately?-its about as realistic as twilight!oh wait, another complete fantasy selling millions!) yet it sold so many copies it makes me cry a little

Are you telling me donald trump doesnt watch the latest cheesy sci fi blockbuster when he comes home from work? because I bet he does!

If ive got the wrong end of the stick tell me, and before you say that buying �5000 worth of high end oil painting depicting faeries is different to going to watch twilight, I know, its just you made a blanket statement that i have a bloody hard time swallowing, even more so from a dude who produces a fantastical comic! so are your readers not "serious people with real relationships and real real estate"?

aside from this, this has been a great thread and we need more serious conversations like this, please dont let my interjection derail it at all

also great point by dpaint earlier, that convention type thing sounded like a disaster!(i suggest some form of doctoring content for taste in future perhaps?)

love you all guys, this is a subject close to my heart and id love to see what everyone has to say

[Cory Hinman]

Hi, kev, been waiting with bated breath!
dpaint cites the example of the Western Art genre of painting enjoying high-end patronage, and that genre grew out of images decorating (selling) juvenile escapist cowboy literature. This discussion is therefore not so much about what industry-driven fantasy and science-fiction art is, but how it might evolve as artists create purely personal responses in the genres, absent industry requirements and limitations. Unless you contend these genres are inherently inferior to the cowboy pulp genre so that there simply can't be a parallel evolution? I'm honestly asking.

Incidentally, I use "Imaginative Art" because typing "the genres of fantasy and science-fiction" is so damn cumbersome, especially when you hunt and peck with two fingers. And James Gurney would expand the definition of Imaginative Art to include any subject you cannot paint directly from life, which he contends means historical subjects should be included. I find this fluidity exciting.

Donato does fall short of the sublime, as ultimately his best efforts are constrained by industry requirements, but even so constrained I think he achieves a compelling sense of mood and evokes spiritual undercurrents in his work far more, certainly, than his worst imitators. This is especially true for the works inspired by Tolkien's writings, which he clearly loves. He's especially successful with images inspired by "The Silmarillion". Donato penetrates the superficial fantasy setting to present the tragedy at the heart of this Tolkien work, rooted in the theme of the inevitable failure of human striving when human will supercedes Divine Will. If he chose to concentrate on purely personal work, would he still work in the genre though? It's a question.

The genres may preclude deep personal expression, or maybe professionals need to redefine what "personal work" means. Elwell posted this work
http://www.tristanelwell.com/fantasy.htm#Morgana
to the forums citing it as a personal piece. I concluded he meant "not commissioned, not done for pay", because, I
confess, I'm getting nothing from this beyond his customary technical excellence, nothing in the way of emotional or spiritual subcontext. Thread responses consisted of praise for the technical accomplishment or questions about how this or that technical aspect was effected, confirming, maybe, your assertion that this level of technical excellence is the highest aspiration of the genres. I prefer to think it's just the industry's highest aspiration, and that Imaginative Art- based work could exist outside the industry, and strive for more, but I don't have the standing to assert it.

Elwell, I apologize for my presumption.

Oh, and kev, what means "Google Argue"?

[Scale]

Are you telling me donald trump doesnt watch the latest cheesy sci fi blockbuster when he comes home from work? because I bet he does!

Sure even billionaires may go see a movie from time to time, but how much they value the experience and are willing to pay for it is another matter. A lot of escapist fantasy experiences cost exactly what they are worth in the eye of most people - a few bucks for a movie, a few dozen bucks for a game or DVD, etc. Economy of scale and complex marketing/franchising strategies make the whole thing profitable but the individual items are valued very little. Selling a single piece of art for thousands is a very different thing though. It needs to stand out on its own, even when placed out of context and shown to people who know nothing about the stuff it's about. That's a lot harder than it sounds.

For example I was stuck by a paragraph of the exhibition review linked a few posts ago:

A 2011 painting, Sands of Gorgoroth, by Mark Zug, seems like a bit of a throwback to 19th-century academic painting. Based on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, it depicts a band of orcs (grotesque humanoids) and their big-horned bovines trudging across a desolate volcanic landscape as they flee a titanic battle.

But the characters in the picture looks like Easterlings rather than orcs. A quick search confirms that indeed they aren't orcs:
http://markzug.com/visions-lightly-f...ashed/11592858

So the reviewer can't tell an orc from an Orocuen or a number of other LOTR races and most certainly doesn't know what Gorgoroth is. This is is a serious problem when it comes to putting a price tag on an original painting such as that one, because it means the picture's appeal is only obvious for people who know the source material and the genre. To everybody else it's just a caravan painting which might as well be a reference to some obscure mongolian tribe they don't know about.

Plus it's true that a lot of people have read Tolkien, but how many of them are actually into the setting's lore? How many of them think it would make a good subject to decorate their new $500.000 living room? I bet most people couldn't even tell apart a human in fantasy attire from a random fantasy monster... there are a LOT of assumptions in fantasy and SF art which just don't apply to most potential viewers and buyers.

So much food for thought. Thank you for this awesomely interesting thread.

[ja1307]

I think using the sublime is a bar to measure the worth of art poses many potential issues. What is seen as the sublime is highly subjective and a very personal thing. For some the sublime is represented in art that depicts their religious or own personal spiritual beliefs. Whilst for others its looking an landscapes thats evoke a certain emotion or things depicting worlds that they once inhabited as children. When the imaginary world was fun and real. I think its harsh to say that people on here have no real understanding of real art because thy chose to express their own personal artistic vision through their own voice and visual style. That's what art is its an expression of something personal from inside. Yeah rape fantasies may be odd and disturbing, but The Scream by Edvard Munch can be disturbing to some and its still regarding as a great piece of art. Hardly think heavy metal music is trying to explore the lighter side of life but no one can deny its popularity rap music the same. Not all human emotion is happy and fluffy and that should be allowed to be expressed to if handled and executed well.

I think Cory touches on an interesting point where he mentions that most of the art in the Fantasy genre is produced for commercial audiences weather that be book covers or concept art for film and game or trading cards like WOW. So a lot of the images are dictated by the requirements of the jobs or art directors. Now every body buying these cards or playing these computer games could be mad or disturbed or looking for escapism. Or they could just love looking at images of mythological creatures, characters and that represent and alternative and valuable world. Frank Frazetta was hardly trying to touch at the meaning of life with half his paintings but is still regarded by many as the king of Fantasy. For example his paintings of The Death Dealer or Conan are iconic classics, but were they trying to reach the sublime. Well no not in my opinion they were just honest badass paintings that look good and sometimes thats enough. Not every piece of art should have to move the human soul to be considered good sometimes it can just be a badass image thats draws you in and makes you want to look.

For many adults who either did not relate to fantasy themes when they were younger the world of fantasy art may seem juvenile and trivial, but for many atheists going to look at Annunciation or Crucifixion in galleries across the world may be experienced as a pointless whilst considered the sublime by many others. Does that take away from the validity of the work no. Yet in most major galleries they have works depicting old mythologies like the trials of Hercules or St George and the dragon, or Perseus. Yes these are classic tales and mythologies but art should not have to be bound by classic tales to be considered good art.

No one piece of art or genre of art can appeal to everyone nor should it have to thats why there are so many different forms and avenues for human expression. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that there is no some crap generic boring shit out there but thats part of every form of artistic expression. But there is also some amazing work being turned out by artist that is honest and valid in its own right. No it may not be trying to solve the meaning of life but it brings to life a world that for many has as much personal and maybe spiritual significance as does the religious depictions form the renaissance period.

I think why some artist are more successful perhaps at drawing people into their work is that they still keep their visual aesthetic grounded in the laws of reality and tap in to past cutlers, through design and symbolism. Donato's art works because his characters look real what they wear looks real their settings look real. Thinking of a portrait he did of Red Sonja for example she is real what she is wearing makes sense he has handled a generic fantasy character with maturity and sensitivity in a visual language that still can cross over into the mainstream. I think what many people may find it hard to engage with now is the hyper fantasy style that exist, where designs are pushed to the extremes and weapons and clothing defy the laws of reality completely. For example a warrior holding a sword three times the size of their body. But it's still a visual style that appeals to people or WOTC would not be as big as they are. So maybe what is being argued is how the world of fantasy art is being expressed now. But just like anything tastes change and evolve. Its easy to always look back and glorify the past and ignore and undermine whats being done now. This happens in music all the time and its often because as individuals we identify with the sounds and tastes that appealed to us when we were younger and as we grown up we lose a bit of touch with whats current or "cool". Yeah we all go through it or will. I think fantasy art is perhaps also in that bracket. Since most gallery owners ect are a lot older then they may not understand or identify with the visual language that current fantasy art is being expressed by. But this does not mean that this will never change. But I think its unfair and harsh to say that 90% of the genre is crap just because it may not appeal to your individual tastes, or their would not be so many artist out there making their living off this very genre or so many people on here harbouring desires to one day break in and get their work and artistic voice out their.

[Candra H]

A lot of fantasy art does seem to be for the fans and lacks universal appeal. And the virtuoso execution syndrome going on does also mean a lot of that kind of art falls flat and feels dead because, even if the subject matter might be about magic or something fantastical, there's nothing magical in how it reads because there's no connection between the work and the viewer, either emotionally or intellectually.

Maybe art galleries/critics etc, along with artists, need to look beyond an either or situation and consider the possibility that art doesn't have to be so far past realism that it becomes pure decoration, or provocation, in the guise of getting an emotional or intellectual response from the viewer, or on the flipside, flat realistic depictions of a scene that doesn't resonate with anyone other than the artist or people who know the story or the myth. Maybe it's time to say it's okay to create beautifully rendered paintings about recognisable subjects that also have a deep emotional resonance. That cant be too much to ask, can it?

I'm actually thinking back now to the point when classical art in Europe was giving way to more adventurous romanticism and the feeling people had that classical art had become so dead and academic, it no longer had anything to say. Are we at the same point with modern/abstract art? Personally, I hope so.

Anyway, just some random thoughts in response to a fantastic discussion.

[ja1307]

Great Point Chandra H I really think its about the way the work is done and reopening the door for a connection between the art and the viewer. I think the over cartoonification of the genre has done it alot of damage, although I must admit a lot of it still looks cool. But I think if fantasy art is going to crossover then it needs to come a few steps back towards reality. Even Frazetta's work was grounded in reality although the themes themselves can be seen as very close to cartoony. A little more thought also needs to go back into story telling and selling a bit more human emotion, but there should still be room for the crazed dark worlds seen in the work of people like Kekai or Daarken. I think its more about believability and truth. For example going back to st george and the dragon. Knight vs beast will always be a classic fantasy theme and can easily fall into the realm of the generic and juvenile but if done right I think it can be lifted into a reality where it can be taken seriously. Or maybe thats just my wishful thinking. But I do think there is something in the age factor we have to consider. Much of the work being done is by young post adolescent males and like anything I think a bit of real life human emotional experience is needed to convey truth and meaning in work. As much as I love Donato's work I think there is a clear distinction between the work he was doing in his early career and now. That is part down to technical development yes but also due to the more recent expressions of an older mature man. And I am not saying that only older people can produce work with depth or meaning but I think real lived life experience is invaluable in all forms of artistic expression, if they want to connect with wider audiences.

I think a major factor would be artist deciding to take on more personal projects that explored themes from a more real back ground grounded in life. For example I love the work of Eric Fortune and Phil Hale both work more towards the fine art end of the spectrum and are not bound by commercial obligations. It would be great if artist could have the time to turn out lots of personal deep felt works of art that still fall into the fantasy brackets, but by the sounds of it many just don't have the time. Dave Palumbo and Erik Gist spring to mind as two commercial illustrators whose work I really admire. I love their darker edgier work as its real. The themes may be fantastical but the humanity and emotion is still there. But also the visual design is still very much rooted in reality.

[bcarman]

I knew this would happen if I just stood back and watched this thread grow. We went to Modern Art is bad and fantasy is cool no matter what. The points kev and others are making are about a serious collector base not a few minutes of escapism that the movies and games offer. A serious collector base which includes a large enough critical mass to sustain a whole genre of the visual art world. Complaining about Rothko et al means nothing because that world had and still has a serious self- sustaining collector mass. A lot of them are merely investors but there are always investors making up part of a serious collector mass in any area. But some of them genuinely enjoy the work. Maybe part of our problem is that we don't try to understand why these people love this work that we don't. We don't spend enough time researching why collectors of million dollar paintings buy what they do. We like to play the nobody likes me card so everything I don't like or understand sucks. Sorry, just trying to head off the inevitable I hate anything without nekkid women in it discussion.

This subject is not new. None of us can successfully predict the birth of a new, sustainable collector base and mass. I have had so many of these discussion over the years with artists and academicians (yuck) and nothing new ever comes out of it. People start to buy and collect, there have been surges here and there in imaginative art, but then things sort of die out. Areas like low brow pop stuff have established a sustainable group of buyers over time which seems more consistent than fantasy but it's too soon to tell how lasting an affect that will have. I also believe that a lot of work being collected is collected not just as art but as history. I am not a car guy. I use one to get from here to there, hopefully without running out of gas. Some are beautiful but I will never understand how someone can pay half a million dollars for a car made before I was born without air conditioning or power steering. Car people will roll their eyes and call me an idiot. But we are all connected to the world in certain ways. Sometimes it is fun to think how others are connected but for me it has come down to I make what I make with what experience I have and if the collectors ever catch up great. But if they don't I can't chase them because I will never catch up.

By the way the modern art part of this post is not aimed at anyone specifically. Just an observation of where some of the comments were going.

[dpaint]

Bill,

I agree and what modern art and all the other genres of sustainable art with broad collector bases have is respect enough to pay for the art. That is what Kev was getting at. People may or may not think cowboy art is art or pop or modern in all its forms but at least they support huge communities of artists full time. Fans of Imaginative Art for all their supposed love of the genre don't support it in any meaningful way. They like to think themselves superior to mundanes but at the end of the day they don't pay for the art they profess to love so much; they want it cheap or free or both. For this art to garner respect it needs a collector base to support it at real prices, not 20 dollar artist alley prices. If fans of this art don't put their money where their mouths are the support for the genre will never change. As long as artists only make disposable art to satisfy their netflix bill for the month and nothing else it will never change.

[ja1307]

Thats very true Dpaint and well put. I think its has something to do with the fact that the immediacy of looking at pics on the net has replaced the perceived need or desire tosee pics in the flesh or even own an original piece of art. The web image is the art, even if it is hand painted and is enough to satisfy the needs of the fans. So maybe its has somthing to do with the way art is being consumed in the Imaginative Art field. I think the genre is growing quite rapidly with the games and movie industries making it much more accessible to a much wider audience then perhaps were exposed to it in the past. However now most fantasy art is produced digitally and therefore fans will have little to no opportunities to support the genre even if they want to. Yeah you can buy one off prints here and there but that wont free individual artist from the constraints of commercial obligations free to explore their own artistic vision. I also wonder if its a change in cutler that now we like to live minimalist life styles with the way we like to decorate our homes ect. Since most fantasy art is highly figurative and visually very imposing it may not appeal to those who want simple paintings on their walls in the same way that more abstract or modern art does.

However I still feel that for any real collector market to exist more artist would need to paint traditionally to give fans the opportunities to actually buy their work and invest in the current culture. But I honestly think that if the current crop of artist working now started producing their same work in traditional media then a market would be their in time.

[kev ferrara]

Hal Jarrett,

As I see it, your comment demonstrates two of the most concerning problems of current culture...

The first is the widening gap between people who experience culture in the real world and those that experience it mostly virtually. This rift isn't just a matter of art either, but everything about cultural life. The experience and values are different. The values of the virtual culture are almost entirely disposable.. the latest meme or emoticon or phrase, the latest crazy news story over the wire, the latest funny video, some cool cgi spaceship, a petition to sign, a political commentary, a video game, etc. Note that each item on the list consists of the transmission of symbolic information that has no functional quality, so to speak.

The values of successful, wealthy people are about real things, not symbols. If they consult symbols it is with an eye towards its use in reality.. when the next golf game is, the next investment opportunity, the weather, a gathering of business associates, market trends, an invitation to a high level social function at a museum, looking over the balance sheets with the accountant or the fine print of some contract with a lawyer, etc. If a Donald Trump indulges in a fantasy movie, the odds of him actually paying much attention to it are almost nil, and if he did pay attention to it, he would forget it as soon as it finished. And he would switch over to the news or financial channels immediately afterwards. I am reminded of the owner of the now-defunct Blockbuster Video commenting that he never watched movies because he considered them a waste of time. All the wealthy and successful people I've met have the same characteristic of having both feet planted firmly in reality. Fantasy is seen as kid's stuff. ("When I became a man, I put away childish things," so goes the quote.)

The second problem demonstrated is that a lack of experience with other kinds of people translates into a failure to appreciate that there are other ways of living and other modes of philosophy.

Ja1307,
The sublime is the perfect way to judge art. But there is a difference between simply emoting versus creating a thematic work that has resonance with experience.

Corey,

By "Google Argue", I meant to "argue" over simple matters of fact which can be easily googled. This is in contradistinction to sharing insights about the matter in question.

[haljarrett]

The second problem demonstrated is that a lack of experience with other kinds of people translates into a failure to appreciate that there are other ways of living and other modes of philosophy.

so, your telling me I am inexperienced and clearly cannot fathom people outside of my viewpoint(ie I am narrow minded), despite earlier making the blanket comment(s)

Serious human beings, who invest in themselves, and who accumulate meaningful relationships in life and hard earned wealth (and, yes, real real estate), don't waste day after day ingesting unrewarding, ultimately depressing, fantasies. They just don't. So they are not somehow going to find a kinship with the vacuity (non-philosophies) on display in merely fantastic works. (Philosophy being one's handbook for living a better, more substantial life.) People want art that reflects them and their values.

Im not saying I expect the average businessman to go out and buy fantasy artwork, Im saying its not impossible! whereas apparently you are so well versed in the mindset of such people ,"they just dont".....

and Im the one who has a failure to appreciate there are other ways of living and other modes of philosophy?


on the other hand, you may well be right - in a sense everything is valued monetarily by these sorts of people (on the whole) and it is highly unlikely that buying "kids stuff" illustrations etc as an investment piece will catch on...which is a shame because if there was more of a market, there would be more guys producing beautiful pieces like the icarus earlier in the thread (thankyou to jeff for posting it) although there probably is almost noone creating timeless magical pieces of that calibre these days really(well, maybe a couple of people)

Ironically Ive almost come full circle to agreeing with you its just I wanted to get the point across that for every rule you make about a socioeconomic niche of people, there are individuals that break those rules - you havent met every businessman in the world and neither have I, so we dont know, do we?

[Kamber Parrk]

* * *

I am reminded of the owner of the now-defunct Blockbuster Video commenting that he never watched movies because he considered them a waste of time. All the wealthy and successful people I've met have the same characteristic of having both feet planted firmly in reality. . .

Sounds like a wealthy man's contempt for his product will end him up "having both feet planted firmly" in front of the Bankruptcy Trustee!

[Kolbenito]

Reality vs. Fantasy does not explain why wealthy people buy Modern Art. There are numerous pieces that command millions of dollars that have psychedelic explanations projected on them of what people like about the piece. Obviously the idea of taste is highly subjective to begin with. I remain skeptical that it isn't just fashionable to like and own this type of art over another kind, propped up by legions of critics to inflate the importance and appeal of this brand. The point on art being an investment is important. Collectors are simply going to value a piece that can be sold in the future for a large profit. It works the same way in just about any type of serious collection.

[Scale]

Reality vs. Fantasy does not explain why wealthy people buy Modern Art. There are numerous pieces that command millions of dollars that have psychedelic explanations projected on them of what people like about the piece.

Following kevferrara's interesting logic, maybe rich people favor postmodernism right because it's not visually and aesthetically complex. It is fine for decorating luxury homes and business places and such but it doesnt' make the mind wander after imaginary stories, thus not distracting the owners from their very material concerns with money and business.

[dpaint]

No, because those same kinds of people with large amounts of disposable income buy the Orientalist painters, and other 19th centruy narrative artists and contemporary painters like Odd Nerdrum. These people seem to be willing to pay for golden age comics -2.16 million last year for a superman comic. But again its not digital and its one of a kind now, because of time and scarcity.

Most art being made for the genre now, isn't focused on the art and its meaning, its focused on getting some crappy low paying job at Wizards or EA so you can draw elf babes with glowing tatoos. As Jeff said, that intent is what separates out the work from gallery work, where people are actually making a statement with their art, defining it and themselves in the marketplace. The craft and care of creating an original piece of art for public display is not the same as creating an illustration even a traditionally created one where it is just a tool for product development.
Whether you like the types of gallery art or not, that's what the disparity is and with that disparity comes the difference in what people are willing to pay for the work. Combine that with the fans who only want paintings of their favorite anime character no matter how badly drawn and painted and you begin to see the self inflicted hole most artists of the genre have created for themselves.

[bcarman]

Reality vs. Fantasy does not explain why wealthy people buy Modern Art. There are numerous pieces that command millions of dollars that have psychedelic explanations projected on them of what people like about the piece. Obviously the idea of taste is highly subjective to begin with. I remain skeptical that it isn't just fashionable to like and own this type of art over another kind, propped up by legions of critics to inflate the importance and appeal of this brand. The point on art being an investment is important. Collectors are simply going to value a piece that can be sold in the future for a large profit. It works the same way in just about any type of serious collection.

Fellow Idahoan, you refer to critics, artists and others who enjoy Modern Art as a mass of mindless stock manipulators. Have you considered that they know something that you don't. I run across people every day who know more than I do about something. What you refer to as Modern Art has nothing to do with the art we look at and discuss here. Parts of it changed history. Whether you like it or not there are artworks that are overpowering from some of those art movements and some people see it. Are you saying that all of those people are guided by blind collector monetary syndrome? Like I said in my point above, there are and will always be those who buy art as simply an investment. If and when the fantasy thing has the same kind of collector base that Abstract Expressionism still does there will be those that really could care less about sexy faeries but buy as an investment. But please son't bring up the tired old argument that if I don't like it it can't be good.

Now having said that, where in Idaho are you from?

[kev ferrara]

Scale, I agree that much postmodern art is no different than a faberge egg, just an object d'art, a decoration, a puzzle easily solved, or a curiosity that has nothing to it but its curiosity-value. This makes it safe to have around if thinking is to be avoided.

Kolbenito, we are agreeing that the likelihood is that the reason wealthy people buy postmodern art is because of a cultural indoctrination, peer pressure, an/or investment opportunity. Although we must concede that that at least some may actually like the stuff. As there are many people who are simply fashion minded and they will like anything that feels "now" regardless of its quality. This is another hurdle for fantasy art to overcome, or any realistic art. Realistic art has been anti-marketed (aka constantly slandered as old fashioned, reactionary and retrograde) by "moderns" as a way to create and keep their superior position in the market hierarchy. Now the superior position of the objects as commodities must be kept up, so the anti-marketing and self-hype must be institutionalized.

My point with regard to successful people with disposable income is specifically with respect to successful people who aren't aesthetic imbeciles led around by fashionable dogma. Many collectors of western art start off buying romantic cliches and soon learn what the good stuff is, and most of the serious ones end up with a Fechin or two in their collection.

Kamber Park, The fellow who owned Blockbuster did not give back the millions he had already made and banked when the brick and mortar video business model finally became obsolete. Most business people who sell factory made goods in bulk don't harbor any illusions about the product they sell. Except for marketing purposes.

Hal Jarrett,
Experience is more instructive than opinion. To say that successful people in general just value things monetarily is missing the point. Money isn't the end value. It is NOT scrooge mcduck basking in dollar bills. The nuance is that everything is valued for its capability as a tool to improve one's circumstances. Art that enriches one's life by speaking truth through beauty adds energy and refreshes. Thus it is a positive force in life. Escapist Fantasy, like pornography or politics, merely drains energy and/or time. For example, World of Warcraft is eating a hundred thousand irretrievable childhoods as we speak. (By whatever name "Virtual experience", as Joseph Campbell so smartly pointed out, is the definition of pornography. Which is why erotic art isn't necessarily pornography, but first person shooter games are.)

[ja1307]

Just wondering if you guys had any modern examples of Imaginative art that does show real intent and rises above the mundane? And this question is asked with the fullest respect.

[bcarman]

postmodern art is because of a cultural indoctrination,

Let me state for the record that I draw a very dark, wide line between Modern (which was, for me, an historically significant period of art and culture) and Post Modern which, for me, was an abomination.

[kev ferrara]

Let me state for the record that I draw a very dark, wide line between Modern (which was, for me, an historically significant period of art and culture) and Post Modern

Let the record show that I think the line is a porous border that falls within what is called Modernism.

[bcarman]

Let the record further state that I am right because I live with two aliens disguised as pugs who have chosen me specifically to teach them.

[kev ferrara]

My pee streams are often mistaken for chemtrails.

[bill618]

I’m beginning to feel a coolness and stillness in the air here, brought on by the quick entropic heat-death of this thread. There are some good points scattered throughout the thread that need to be brought together to re-focus on.

[bcarman]

My pee streams are often mistaken for chemtrails.

Think I smelled one of those.

[dpaint]

Just wondering if you guys had any modern examples of Imaginative art that does show real intent and rises above the mundane? And this question is asked with the fullest respect.

I mentioned some of them in other posts- Micheal Parkes, Gil Bruvel, Roberto Ferri, Odd Nerdrum, Donald Roller Wilson, Alex Grey, Robert Venosa, and Martha Hoffman to name just a few, its a broad market with lots of money in it. Like all genres of art there is good and bad in it but the biggest difference to me is the intent for the work.

[bcarman]

I mentioned some of them in other posts- Micheal Parkes, Gil Bruvel, Roberto Ferri, Odd Nerdrum, Donald Roller Wilson, Alex Grey, Robert Venosa, and Martha Hoffman to name just a few, its a broad market with lots of money in it. Like all genres of art there is good and bad in it but the biggest difference to me is the intent for the work.

I'll throw in James Christensen (he was a mentor for me), and although technically people put them in another category I still believe guys like Robert Williams, Todd Schorr and a few other Pop-Surrealists overlap. And I'm sure we're missing a few contemporary Surrealists like Beksinski.

[ja1307]

I think some of the work from those artist is pretty out standing. Robert Ferri really jumps out at me, as a big fan of classical art his work strikes a cord with me for sure. But it does strike me that a lot of this work seems steeped in western religious iconography and a lot borders more on the line of surrealism as much as it does Fantasy. Also there seems to be a sentimental tone borne out throughout much of this work and its all painted in a very old classical visual style. I am not sure that work should have to be either sentimental, classically painted or holding on to old religious symbolism and mythologies, (mermaids and nymphs) to be taken seriously. So perhaps as modern Imaginative artists we have to accept that as we push the boundaries of reality and explore harder and edgier themes then we maybe distance ourselves from the established art world. But I am not convinced that only sentimentality and pathos need to be expressed in work to show intent. Again I go back to Frazetta. I think his Conan sold for $1000000 and it's as far removed from the works or some one like Odd Nerdrum as anything I have seen guys producing on this site. Maybe the money is there in those markets and I can see why it would be. But as an artist first you should paint what you want to see and if its good enough find a market for it. But again thats just my opinion.

[AvP]

I'd put Rick berry onto that list.

[dpaint]

But as an artist first you should paint what you want to see and if its good enough find a market for it. But again thats just my opinion.

But how many artists are doing that? If all artists are doing is trying to get jobs and pretty low paying ones at that, then there is no intent for the work itself except as a means to an end. At that point they are chasing whatever Wizard of the Coast or Bungie or some movie studio wants, that's hardly a personal artistic vision. That's my point all along, its not so much the subject matter but the intent of the work; the work itself is the end product. To get there though you have to make real paintings and you have to have a vision for what it is you personally want to express. You can't have a personal vision if your just painting some corporations trademarked properties.