why anti-art? (slightly ot ranrish)

[barsoomcore]

The average person sees things the way most people do, in that they have not trained themselves to stop and notice things like angles, perspectives, curvatures, light placements, etc. even in normal everyday life.

None of which matters as far as "Do I like this painting or not?" I also find the notion of contrasting "artists" with "average people" repugnant, but that's aside to the point I was originally making, which was it does no good to argue with people who offer you feedback just because you don't agree with their point of view.

The example you gave, of the child asking you why you drew that way, is not really relevant since the kid wasn't giving feedback but asking for information. When you get feedback, you thank the person who gave it. Then you decide if you agree, and if so, what you're going to do about it. There's nothing to argue about.

Oh? Do you've never had a charge on any bills that read "Labor"? Because, most any car mechanic will gouge you left and right, and mark it "Labor". So will a plumber, an electrician, etc. It's not some kind of magic wand that artists want to wave and say "we're special, it's not easy".

You're misunderstanding the difference between actual value and, let us say, "asked-for" value. The car mechanic charges me for his time because he hopes I value a working automobile so much that I'll pay his rate. His bill asks me to accept his value on his time. An artist can certainly do the same thing.

But the price that anyone asks for for their time isn't necessarily the price they get. And it's the price you get that determines the Value of your work, not the price you ask.

So people telling me, "I deserve X amount because I worked really hard on this," don't impress. They're trying to pretend that the product's value depends on what it's worth to them. Show me what you've produced and I'll tell you how much it's worth to me. It may be worth more to someone else, and if you can find them, knock yourself out. But don't tell me it's worth more to me just because it was hard for you.

Even arguments like, "I deserve X amount because I spent X-1 creating this," are bogus. If you can't get a price for your work that allows you to make a profit, you're in the wrong line of work.

I understand the frustration people sometimes feel when their judgement is constantly being called into question. When an artist is told over and over again that their work is not worth what they say, it's discouraging. And this forum ought not to be a place of discouragement. Quite the opposite. But I don't ask artists to justify their pricing. I may be skeptical of their chances of getting what they're asking, but I would never ask for reasons for the price. There are no reasons, ultimately. You get what your work is worth.

 

[BryonD]

Well said, barsoomcore.

 

[Umbran]

Re: Excellent replies, Thank You!

Thanks. I wouldn't want to get that stepped on
I hope this post sheds a little light on my true motives. My previous post was intentionally over-the-top. It was meant to elicit strong reactions. It was meant to be evocative. That's what artists do.

Meaning: Artists are trolls.

I feel the need to mention, though, that for a piece of art is placement was... inappropriate and ill chosen. There's a time and place for everything. Specifically seeking to bring out strong emotions in the middle of what others hope will remain a reasoned debate is a touch rude. Sure, you get to sit back and say, "See, my art worked!" In the meantime, you also risk ruining discussion for others. The fact that this was not the result here is fortunate, but that doesn't make the original choice a good one.

First, I am pointing out that people are more than willing to pay as much as hundreds of dollars an hour to a doctor, lawyer, etc. even if they are NOT particularly good at their jobs. Even if they only meet the bare minimum required competency to work in their field.

Ah, but there's something here missing in how you account things. I'll give an example:

A typical visit to the veterinarian lasts about 15 minutes. It costs about $40, not counting the cost of the vaccines and medications that you purchase. "Gosh!" you think, "I just paid that person at a rate of $160 an hour." You'd be incorrect. You paid the animal hospital that rate.

That $40 goes to the vet, the trained technician who helped the vet, the maintenance worker who keeps the room sanitary (and paid for the cleaning supplies), and the receptionists in the front office. It goes to give electricity and heat to the building, and to pay for the computer system on which they keep the records such that they can pop them up on a moment's notice in case your animal becomes ill or injured. I short, it pays for most everything that allows that vet to do the job properly, in the way to which you've become accustomed.

You see much the same in doctor's offices, and many other professional scenes. The overhead required to give the professional the chance to do their job is large, and must be paid for.

This leads into something else being discussed. Certification. Some folks lament certification systems, because lacking the certification can be a barrier. Well, it isn't like that certification comes without a cost...

Look at that veterinarian. Beyond high school, getting her certification took her eight years. When she leaves school, she's typically got her doctorate, some standard unimpressive personal posessions, an empty bank account, and a six-figure debt load. She's got to do the same saving for retirement that less certified people must do, but she's got less time to do it in, and she's gotta pay off greater debt while she's doing it.

I know most of you understand such on a general level. I thought it might help to give something a little more specific. If you didn't get a college degree, you frequently do have a sort of salary cap working against you, yes. But you are eight years and over one hundred thousand dollars ahead of the veterinarian, earning's wise.

 

[Acmite]

....SNIP.....and the one who reads "properties of lithium ceramics" and understands it.

Clay, my thesis is based on a petalite-subtype Li-Ta pegmatite (coarse grained granitic rock). Petalite is the primary source of Lithium used as a flux in high quality glasses and ceramics.

Ya want a piece? Be forewarned, though. It'll come with some scientific info.....maybe the missus can explain it to ya, if you don't get it all.

Let me know if I should send it now, or if I should wait for you to get back from England.

PS> For those of you who have been thinking of getting a die roller, I highly recommend it! They are even more spectacular in person, and Clay's a great guy to deal with!

 

[Wolv0rine]

Okay, I go through a 40 pill bottle of advil migrane a month. I am getting carpal tunnel syndrome. My eye sight is steadily deacreasing. I have hemoriods. My trapazoids bother me incessantly. My back spasms for an hour every night when I lie down and I get this from my job programming computers. I stick with it for love not money. So if you want to talk about physical and mental duress due to your job and claim that it's worse then that gotten from ''real jobs'' do it somewhere else please. On top of all that, I'm going to go tell my boss right now that I'm only going to program when I feel like it and later on today I'll let you know how much my unemployment check is.

Okay, you put alot more in your list than I wanted to subject the readers of this thread to in mine. Your job causes you problems, this is fine. I can actually claim everything on your list, plus a lot more, but I won't go into that, that's anti-productive.
Yes, you'll most likely not have a job after you've delivered your theoretical speech to your boss. Lord knows I don't have a 'day job', because my own ideology cannot accept being under someone else's control to that degree, but I'm a sociopath. *shrugs* The point of giving the (short) list of pains I have from drawing is simply, it's not all fun and roses, there i a price to pay for sitting around drawing, just as there is a price to pay for being a construction worker, a programmer, a doctor, or anything else. The fact that I know noone who suffers as much as I do over their own jobs was simply my own experience, and not meant as a "I hurt more than you hurt" competition. I apologize if you took it that way.

[bI have to deliver quality on time and be at my desk 8 hours a day. This is a cop out, I don't care what line of work your in. Let's take performers who are also artists. They have to go on at a certain day and a certain time. [/B]

And do you, to your own personal standards of quality, deliver that level of quality on a regular basis? Do you have the freedom to tell your boss "I'm sorry, but I will not turn this code over to you under any circumstances, because it's too far below my own minimum levels of quality"? I have doubts there, but I have that freedom, and I insist upon both having it, and excersizing it if need be. I've never met anyone who could say "I work 40+ hours a week, 5 days a week, and every hour of every one of those days, I know I am at my best", because I just don't think it's possible. At some point, one sours on the job, starts hating the job because they need some time off, but can't have it because they've used their time off, or haven't accumulated enough time off to use, or just that the company's alloted time off isn't enough to make them not hate it. I had a friend online who was a programmer, loved his job, lived his job. The last time I heard from him, he'd quit his job, and was looking to get into an entirely different profession from programming at all, because he couldn't stand to look at another line of code again. He burnt out completely on something he loved to do, because he had to do it someone else's way, on someone else's schedule. And my heart broke for him, because when I met him he loved to write code.
As for actors and other Performance Artists, I have seen more than enough god-awful performances to make it obvious that they cannot promise quality levels any time they're ordered to, either. Not to mention the legendary moodiness and pecularities of actors.
Do people do jobs at regular hours? Sure they certainly do. But I find it extremely hard to believe that their quality levels never suffer for not being able to say "The creative juices are just dry today, you'll get crap from me, don't make me give you crap".

(A question to everyone: Am I coming off as antagonistic here? It's not my intention, but it seems that I'm triggering that in the post I'm replying to, or am I mistaken there? If I am, I apologize to everyone)

 

[Fiery Todd]

So really, there isn't much difference between Illustrators and other fine artists. At least according to the history of art there isn't.

OK, I'll bite.

I think I stated in my post that there are work-for-hire fine artists and that illustrators are, essentially, fine artists. The line, in many respects is blurred, but the philosophy behind the production of the work is not.

Throughout the history of art, yes, a fair number of fine artists were commissioned. I think you'll find that many of them viewed their commissions as a means to survive so that they could focus on other aspects of their work. Besides, the Pope may have "commissioned" Michelangelo, but it's not like Mike was going to say no to him. If I remember the details of this relationship correctly, it was a stormy one. Mike really didn't like the Pope, and the Pope really didn't like Mike. I never got the feeling the Mike was ever "hired" to do the Sistine Chapel. But this is just one example. Most artists through "recent" history were often adopted by patrons, whether it’s the church, or a King, or a wealthy nobleman. This again, was a means to an end for them. Times have changed considerably since. It's not like DaVinci was hired to paint a nice Santa Clause to sell Coke, or Goya doing some editorial illustration for the cover of Times. (The irony is, is that much of the iconic fine art has been bastardized and used by ad companies and illustrators for years. Everything from the Mona Lisa to The Scream).

I think the best examples of Illustrator vs. Fine Artist are the Wyeths. N.C. Wyeth was a frustrated fine artist who went on to illustrate the great classics. He is recognized as one of the great American illustrators. His son, Andrew, took a more reflective approach with his art, and is now considered one of the great American painters. If you were to look at their work side-by-side, you would see two very strong painters, and the reason why they have a difference (and just not in style).

NC Wyeth did not want the mantle of illustrator, but he accepted it. He envisioned himself a fine artist, but was never taken seriously as such. The Hildebrants comment is strange because their style is about 6 degrees from comic books (comic books being one of my favorite art forms). You can see the influence of NC Wyeth in their work, however. The Hildebrandts painted book covers, posters, and most famously, calendars. The Hildebrandts are full on illustrators, no doubt about it. As is Norman Rockwell. Norman's right up there with Mr. Wyeth. Norman is a glorious example of an illustrator. Sure, Norman can produce a wonderful piece of fine art because he's a fantastic painter, but he's made his name and living on illustration.

Some other cool illustrators to check out? Brad Holland: http://www.bradholland.net/beta/portfolios/portfolioAdv.html Maurice Sendak: http://www.barclayagency.com/sendak.html and Arthur Rackham: http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/rackham.htm to name but a few.

For an overview of illustration in general, check out http://www.askart.com/Interest/TopIll_a.asp

 

[alsih2o]

Clay, my thesis is based on a petalite-subtype Li-Ta pegmatite (coarse grained granitic rock). Petalite is the primary source of Lithium used as a flux in high quality glasses and ceramics.

Ya want a piece? Be forewarned, though. It'll come with some scientific info.....maybe the missus can explain it to ya, if you don't get it all.

me me me, want WANT! send along, as an artist who does read (that title was pulled form my shelf) i would love to play with it. we will see how it stands up in the new salt kiln

 

[Drawmack]

A question to everyone: Am I coming off as antagonistic here? It's not my intention, but it seems that I'm triggering that in the post I'm replying to, or am I mistaken there? If I am, I apologize to everyone

Not antogonistic but elitist. And yes elitism bothers me greatly.

What really got to me was the (paraphrased) ''no one with a real job suffers as much as I do''. That was a biased, unfair, uncalled for, and reprehensible remark which you made again in your reply to my post. I didn't post everything that I suffer from due to my job either. One of the benefits of my job is a steady pay check and one of the benefits of your job is the ability to work 2 hours a day if you feel like it.

Every job has occupational hazards. For example my back & neck problems, my eye problems, etc. On the other hand when you begin to talk of problems you suffer from the position you're in my question is ''who designed your studio?''. That is the person responsible for your pain. About the only thing on your list that I can see as intrinsic to the trade is the eyestrain and problems related to it. If your studio were more ergonimically designed then you would not be sitting in uncomfortable and straining positions to work.

I have known construction workers who had to have their backs fused from damage suffered at work.

I have known programmers that could no hold a steering wheel from carpal tunnel.

Your profession relies on sight and we all know that sight goes with age, so either get some scafolding and lie inches from the cieling you're painting or get glasses. However, the job will get harder with age.

Back to the point what bothered me was the elitist artist's attitude showing through in your post. I have known too many artists with an elitist I'm better then you cause I'm an artist and I've given it all to my craft people to not be bothered when I see that.

Prejudice is something I cannot stand and elitism is a form of prejudice, possible the most pervasive and unnoticed of them all.

 

[Wolv0rine]

None of which matters as far as "Do I like this painting or not?" I also find the notion of contrasting "artists" with "average people" repugnant, but that's aside to the point I was originally making, which was it does no good to argue with people who offer you feedback just because you don't agree with their point of view.

Of course it doesn't, if a piece of art (of whatever sort) doesn't strike you personally, nothing is going to change that. I agree with you entirely on this point.

The example you gave, of the child asking you why you drew that way, is not really relevant since the kid wasn't giving feedback but asking for information. When you get feedback, you thank the person who gave it. Then you decide if you agree, and if so, what you're going to do about it. There's nothing to argue about.

The example may have been a bad one, I grant you, but the point I was trying to show is that there are times when someone looks at an artist's work and says "This is all wrong, this isn't good here" and gives it a bad critique, when what really happened was the viewer did not understand what the aretist was doing in that instance. Granted this is not saying "if you don't like it, or don't 'get it', then you didn't understand", it's no universal thing. But I've had critiques from artistic laypersons, and from talented and skilled professionals who gave a negative critique on a piece I did, because they didn't understand something I'd done, and once I pointed out "I did this here for X reason", they nodded and suddenly changed their minds. Again I grant this is not something that's even often the case, but it does happen. Now if what you're saying is something to the effect of "People who refuse to take criticism becauase they think they are infallable are wrong", yes, I agree 150% with that. And I am getting that you're saying that you should be courteous and appreciative of someone taking the time to give you that criticism no matter what they are saying, and I agree with that wholeheartedly as well. But I don't want the point to be lost in the shuffle that not all critiques are correct.

You're misunderstanding the difference between actual value and, let us say, "asked-for" value. The car mechanic charges me for his time because he hopes I value a working automobile so much that I'll pay his rate. His bill asks me to accept his value on his time. An artist can certainly do the same thing.

I'm having a very hard time seeing the difference between these trwo "Values". Yes, I value a working car enough to pay the b@stard, but I've never had a car repair that was worth the price I had to pay to get it done, from my wallet's POV (my wallet has no use for a car, working or not, it does not care if it goes anywhere, just if it holds money or not). This harkens back to art pricing, and is art generally worth hundreds of dollars. And, because everyone has to eat, my own answer is "That depends on if I'm buying it, or selling it". *chuckles* If I'm buying it? No, it is 100% never, ever, in any universe worth anything near that much money. But then again, if I want art, I can create it myself and so I no doubt have a strong bias because of that.

But the price that anyone asks for for their time isn't necessarily the price they get. And it's the price you get that determines the Value of your work, not the price you ask.

I don't think you can walk 10 feet outside of your front door without being confronted with this as fact. Anything has, actually, two Values; What someone will pay for it, and how you feel about it personally. There are a small handful of things that I have created that are not for sale at any price, ever. These are things that I feel a conncetion or protective nature for too strongly to ever part with them, and likely their value to someone else would be marginal at best. Everything else is worth what I could realistically get for them. But that realistic price IS going to have to take into account my materials and labor, or else I will be unable to create any more, and then I am screwed. But I don't feel badly about that part, because (as I was saying with the car mechanic analogy), everyone else does this, too. I'm not trying to elevate artists above anyone, I'm simply establishing an equal ground.

So people telling me, "I deserve X amount because I worked really hard on this," don't impress.

I agree, it doesn't impress me either. But, on the other hand, someone telling me "I worked very hard on this, and I'm going to have to take that into account when I price it, because I could have been working on that over there instead" -- that I do understand. I will not pay more because of the arguement, but I will stop to reconsider the rationale behind the price asked, to see if I think it may be fair. I'm a very strong supporter of fairness in business transactions.

 

[barsoomcore]

(A question to everyone: Am I coming off as antagonistic here? It's not my intention, but it seems that I'm triggering that in the post I'm replying to, or am I mistaken there? If I am, I apologize to everyone)

I found your contrast between artists and "average people" to be a bit offensive, as I said, but otherwise, no, I don't feel you're being antagonistic. But I appreciate your concern, and thank you for it.