Good art = good marketing?

[Book Guru]

Hi everyone,

I know it's pointless. In Russian art social net we're discussing this topic until we all begin to yell (virtually). However... I yet want to hear this again. What makes art "good" or "bad" in terms of sales?

- Choreographer must know how to dance,
- Composer must know music grammar,
- Writer must be perfect in his language,
- Architect must know everything from the foundation to the roof,
- Artist - ?

Many nowadays artists can't even draw. But they sell well. So does it mean this field is perfect for a diletante? (but who is really perfect in marketing?)

Or - "There is no business like ART business"?? The trickiest of all...
Profits on art business take 3rd place after oil and drugs...

We look at modern art and we dont' say "great" any longer.
We say, "cool", "hot", "peculiar", "interesting", ... like we're talking about food or TV program.
So who is the Driver of this speeding nonsense?

Share your thoughts, please.

[kev ferrara]

If your criteria is sales, then whatever sells is "good."

If your criteria is something other than money, then money is not your currency. But the hope is that the aesthetic currency you develop is fungible on its own... translatable into money. This is a barter system and only works when somebody wants what you are bartering.

The quality of "integrity" is one that gets people hung up. Because one may have great integrity of drawing and still make boring or meaningless work. The most important "integrity" to have is not integrity of drawing, but integrity of expression or spirit. Some living quality that reaches other people and touches them.

Harvey Dunn was quoted as saying in 1934: There are ten thousand painters who can draw and paint to beat the band in this country. You haven't heard of any of them and you never will. Because all they have is their craft.

You should read Harvey Dunn's lecture notes and pass them along to your fellow conversationalists in Russia. The link is here:

http://www.robolus.com/h.dunn-eveningclassroom.pdf

[Ryan K]

Modern art makes too much money and gets too much attention for it to diverge from it's current path. Why on earth would it change? (my opinion)

[Book Guru]

Harvey Dunn was quoted as saying in 1934: There are ten thousand painters who can draw and paint to beat the band in this country. You haven't heard of any of them and you never will. Because all they have is their craft.

Kev Ferrara,

I disagree with Harvey Dunn.
Besides, in 1934 there were NO "ten thousand painters" in the US, as by that time the classical school of drawing and painting had lost its grounds already worldwide. If he was talking about some "home-made craft" - that's not what I meant. I was talking about Professional Artists.

Ryan K,

I want this to change, as I don't want the public to be fooled with stuffed animals and diamond skulls being called "art".

[Robotus]

Didn't we already have this thread. . . several times? Is this a once or twice a month thing?

[Book Guru]

Didn't we already have this thread. . . several times? Is this a once or twice a month thing?

Robotus,

Would you please provide the link? I'll gladly move with my pointless questions there.

[dpaint]

If you are talking about why doesn't russian academic painting sell its because you all are missing the point of what makes good art. You obviously don't know what it is becaiuse you can't make a living at it. You just want to set up some troll argument to sell your books. Levitan and Repin died almost a hundred years ago, they were good artists and knew when to leave the studies behind, a lesson modern academics can't seem to grasp.

[kev ferrara]

Kev Ferrara,

I disagree with Harvey Dunn.
Besides, in 1934 there were NO "ten thousand painters" in the US, as by that time the classical school of drawing and painting had lost its grounds already worldwide. If he was talking about some "home-made craft" - that's not what I meant. I was talking about Professional Artists.

The years 1900-1930 were the boom years in American Illustration, where the top names could become the equivalent of movie stars or rock stars... rich and famous. And it seemed like every school in the country was setting up illustration departments which were teaching basic academic philosophies. Harvey Dunn came out of the Pyle school, which was not an academic school, but a romantic one... and Dunn taught steadily from 1914 or so to 1950 or so. Dunn met thousands of academically trained students who came to his class because they couldn't make a living in illustration because their work had no passion, expression, life, or meaning.

So Dunn knew what he was talking about. And it may pay dividends if people like you listened a bit to what he was saying then. Instead of holding onto mimetic integrity like it was a security blanket or an insurance policy. Its just one knob on the moog.

[Elwell]

...holding onto mimetic integrity like it was a security blanket or an insurance policy.

[OmenSpirits]

Instead of holding onto mimetic integrity like it was a security blanket or an insurance policy.

....Damn!

[Book Guru]

Dpaint,

Our acadmically trained artists, such as Blokhin, Kaluta, Savkuev (to name a few) - ARE selling well. Actually, VERY well. And, they teach at the Academy, which hopefully means the traditions do carry over.
As a matter of fact, Blokhin has won the most prestigious awards in the USA, which were never given to foreign artists.

My intention was NOT to compare Russian art with everything else in world.

I was talking about the tastes of the public, which seems to begin appreciating some particular exhibit after some art specialists tell them long stories convincing them a certain piece is deserved to be called "art" (including those exhibits that by mistake are called "academic" art), or simply attracted to something by scandalous media.

Here is an example what has been purchased by our Abramovich. I don't believe it was bought because of its high artistic level, but mostly as an entertaining piece. (Or pure investment, as it's Abramovich)
And yes, it's made with 100% following the academic tradition of painting, by a professional artist, but it's what I still call "cool", "peculiar", but not GREAT art.

Kev Ferrara,
May be it's You, who didn't listen to Dunn really attentively?
As nowadays in the US his call for "romantic" art is turned into pure photorealism?

So my question remains: does ART simply means good MARKETING?

[Robotus]

My instinct here would be to get you to describe what "great" is and contrast it with "cool", but I cannot as that line of discussion brings the trolls who are jaded against definition threads.

Instead, It should be said that "great" and "cool" - both words being as vague as "art" do not seem to have different meanings in the context you are using them. All it looks like is disparaging modern trends in favor of ancient trends.

Damien Hirst's skull is a popular target because of it's high price - the high price was more art than the skull itself - which looks like it is part of your point. Perhaps it is representative of the time we are living in when the primary medium for art is not physical - but instead uses physical objects as visual fetishes representing the medium of economics - which is the true medium of this new art form. One can't buy economics - it is only an abstract idea, so one buys the fetish in it's place. A Warhol-esque sort of inversion.

[jpacer]

Hi everyone,


- Choreographer must know how to dance,
- Composer must know music grammar,
- Writer must be perfect in his language,
- Architect must know everything from the foundation to the roof,
- Artist - ?

There's plenty of examples these days to suggest the above is not entirely true, but that's another topic...

I'm curious as to why you think the Lucien Freud is bad, since you've admitted he follows the "art laws" as you call them. You've suggested elsewhere that certain artists' work is bad because they don't follow the "art laws," but then go on to show a Freud, admit that "it's made with 100% following the academic tradition of painting" yet contend it's still bad. (This implies that there is something more to a good painting than it's craftsmanship, as Dunn suggested.)

So, what, exactly, is it that you want?

[Book Guru]

A Warhol-esque sort of inversion.

I like this expression!

The art has always been an investment. From that point, paying for a skull full of diamons - not such a bad idea. But that's not investment in art. That's a pure investment.

- "disparaging modern trends in favor of ancient trends" (Robotus)
- "So, what, exactly, is it that you want?" (Jpacer)

I'll ask for help... Rubens (as no one else is willing to help me here)

So much flesh, peeing cupids, cellulite all over... etc.
But so much LOVE in what is done and how it's done. He painted goddess as it was a goddes, no matter how much fat she had. I'm not even talking about him as of one of the best draftsmen. Only about his enjoyment of every little detail in human body. Even being very sick and in big pain, he still created art that was screaming with happiness.

Freud - does he show what he loves or does he show what he hates? And this is sold for millions. Does it really worth it? (At that time I was hoping Abramovich would buy another English club, would be a much better investment.)

Much of the 20th century, and what we have now is very depressing, humiliating (hurting all: religion, women, etc), lack of love, often pure enjoyment of one selfishness, or "selfness".
Provocative. Scandalous. Distructive. - Nowadays it's anything, except what the art is used to be considered for - to improve the human being, to enlight the human being.

In such case, yes, I do prefer the ages of Enlightment.

Every artist deserves its public, every nation deserves its artists...?

[Scale]

Making TV advertising is an art form but nobody would confuse it with painting. Instead marketing is often confused with painting in contemporary arts, even though they are different activities. Marketing can be an art probably, but it has its own rules and its own target. A painter can benefit from some marketing skills, like building himself an interesting public image, but other marketing skills seem completely useless as far as painting quality goes... if you are able to sell a sparkling skull for millions it means you are good at making money, but how does that help you to lay paint on the canvas?

Since the main point of marketing is suppressing common sense and confusing people it's not too strange that as a discipline it manages to sell itself as the highest form of art, or even dub itself with the name of other art forms, but I think professional artists should have a more rational view. Marketing skills are meaningufl for a painter when they are used as a tool, to sell what he wants to paint. If being great at marketing becomes a goal then the artists is leaving the field of painting for the field of marketing art, or marketing for marketing's sake.

[Book Guru]

Scale,
Yes, "it has its own rules and its own target".
But how many artists can afford to spend time on marketing? At the end, it's his agent / gallery / wife(?) who decides how to market his works. Not the artist himself (unless he's Hirst). Yes, it helps a lot if he dies, as then art specialists and museums decide whether he was good enough to let him some space in the history.

Forgive me for this analogy. But great masters didn't really need any marketing. Their art has spoken for themselves. It seems like in new era, no matter how good you're - you won't even get noticed without good (or better - excellent) marketing??
Or the talent still counts??

[JJacks]

So much flesh, peeing cupids, cellulite all over... etc.
But so much LOVE in what is done and how it's done. He painted goddess as it was a goddes, no matter how much fat she had. I'm not even talking about him as of one of the best draftsmen. Only about his enjoyment of every little detail in human body. Even being very sick and in big pain, he still created art that was screaming with happiness.

Freud - does he show what he loves or does he show what he hates? And this is sold for millions. Does it really worth it? (At that time I was hoping Abramovich would buy another English club, would be a much better investment.)

Much of the 20th century, and what we have now is very depressing, humiliating (hurting all: religion, women, etc), lack of love, often pure enjoyment of one selfishness, or "selfness".
Provocative. Scandalous. Distructive. - Nowadays it's anything, except what the art is used to be considered for - to improve the human being, to enlight the human being.

I don't understand why depicting "negative" human traits is a bad thing. Negative emotions and responses contribute to our humanity. The act of acknowledgment is extremely powerful and something that can potentially reach a wide range of people.

[kev ferrara]

Our acadmically trained artists, such as Blokhin, Kaluta, Savkuev (to name a few) - ARE selling well. Actually, VERY well. And, they teach at the Academy, which hopefully means the traditions do carry over.
As a matter of fact, Blokhin has won the most prestigious awards in the USA, which were never given to foreign artists.

I've known of Blokhin for years, and I am a great admirer in his work. It deserves to sell. And since it does sell, what is the problem then?

Kev Ferrara,
May be it's You, who didn't listen to Dunn really attentively?
As nowadays in the US his call for "romantic" art is turned into pure photorealism?

This reminds me of the following: If doodle scat is monkey brains, then a forced wink bakes three cakes.

That is, it's pure nonsense.

So my question remains: does ART simply means good MARKETING?

No, senseless thread means good MARKETING. (Having said that, the books you are selling look damn good and I've been thinking of getting them myself. I just wish you weren't so ham-handed with the marketing. Maybe PM Jason Manley and see if there is some way to work something out instead of trying to be subtle... which you are poor at. )

[deliciouspeter]

Your work should speak for itself. Marketing implies sales, so if you aren't selling, it doesn't mean the work isn't good, but good work tends to move regardless.

[Bloocat]

Visual art is kind of unique in the sense that it's something almost every single human being is completely retarded at. People can learn pretty much anything else to quite a competent level with not nearly as much effort. When there is a large amount of demand for a work of "art" like a painting which is a one off thing, as opposed a movie which lots of people see. . . well, the painting still takes a massive amount of time and skill. You're never going to have enough to meet demand. Or, you can start worshipping shit. And the gears of industry are allowed to continue turning.
The things that make these travesties "good" is not something that could be checklisted. It's not a science, it's more of an alchemy. You start getting in to shit like who said what where and why about something and "Ooo context. You can really see the traumatic childhood."

[KarylGilbertson]

What is this thread even about...

[vineris]

Much of the 20th century, and what we have now is very depressing,

The 20th century is depressing? Have you ever taken a turn through any medieval religious art exhibit, especially ones from the central European tradition? I like to play a game called "name that torture" with the martyrs.

[Book Guru]

JJacks,
E.g., "The Scream" is an example of negative art that seems touching every human soul. With this example, I agree with you.

However, overall it's too much negative in arts nowadays. Again, it's full of "selfness", kind of "look at my world.. it's so deep and dark..."
(look at avatars above... scary, depressive, with very few exceptions).
I just think this negative/depression approach to the art is too much abused today.
----

Kev Ferrara,

- "And since it does sell, what is the problem then"

You know, what I find peculiar is that I was acused in insulting American artists (which I'm not), but some responders can't find any better argument than to start insulting Russian artists in return.
I was responding to the previous message, I quote:
"If you are talking about why doesn't russian academic painting sell its because you all are missing the point of what makes good art. You obviously don't know what it is becaiuse you can't make a living at it."

If you think this is not insulting, I don't know what is.
I khow, the art is a very emotional thing, and people do overeact, but I wish we had a bit cooler heads to be able to listen to an opponent.
Afterall, if I want everyone to agree with me all the time, why to join any forum?

Regarding our books. Please, stop accusing me in selling them. As I do sell them, and I didn't hide this fact. I don't have anything to be ashamed of. I present our Academy, our art, one of the best artists from St.Petersburg... Actually, I present the only existing Academy in the world that still follows European traditions. And I sell the best samples of it.
So I'm quite proud, to be honest.

(Btw, many artists have thier web sites listed here where they sell their art; art schools advertise their art programs, etc... Anything wrong with that?
Soon we'll be travelling all over Russia with exhibition of academic drawings, and I'll be posting the information on this exhibition in NYC.. Am I using pure marketing? Well - fine then!)
-----

Bloocat,
- "It's not a science, it's more of an alchemy."
- "Ooo context. You can really see the traumatic childhood."

Just love it. Going to quote these together with the above statement by Robotus, "A Warhol-esque sort of inversion."
------

For those who want to yell.... Please, don't.

[Book Guru]

Vineris,
That's exactly the point!
I don't want our art society to get back to those "medieval religious art" ages.
I'm a fan of Enlightment period, together Ancient Greek and Romans, of course.

[jpacer]

This reminds me of the few arguments I've had with the GoodArt and ARC people. First, it's lamented that there are no longer any decent painters working in a classical/traditional/representational or whatever mode. Then, when someone shows that's not true and gives a litany of many fine painters alive and working today, the lamentation changes to "yeah, but their work is still trash because they're doing such and such" or "That's just illustration" or "That was done digitally and since there's no tangible object it's worthless" or something along those lines.

So, if I understand you correctly, it isn't just the lack of competent craftsmen in the art world today that bothers you, it's the fact that the competent craftsmen that are out there aren't treating the subjects you like in the way you would like them to be treated?

I remember hearing once that the reason J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis wrote their respective fantasy series was because those were the kinds of stories they wanted to read and no one else was writing them. (EDIT: And look what happened? It took off and now you can't walk into a book store without tripping over someone or others' latest Epic Fantasy Trilogy.) So, if you're not seeing the kind of painting that you want to see, out there, in the world, why not pick up a brush and try to make it?

[Vari]

I present our Academy, our art, one of the best artists from St.Petersburg... Actually, I present the only existing Academy in the world that still follows European traditions.

Uh... are you sure about that? This is quite a statement.

[Robotus]

(look at avatars above... scary, depressive, with very few exceptions).

Scary and depressive. . .

[Flake]

So, if you're not seeing the kind of painting that you want to see, out there, in the world, why not pick up a brush and try to make it?

^ I like this idea very much.

[Elwell]

Scary and depressive. . .

To be fair to BG, I bet she was referring to the the Featured Artists icons up top. Not that the argument still holds much water...

[KarylGilbertson]

My avatar is scary and depressing... *emo*