Wonderments Gallery Blog

‘Profound’ Art -- Exclusive Turf of Modern/Contemporary Artists??

2010-01-26T11:35:00.000-08:00

This article is also about ---

When profundity is the primary goal of purpose the artist wishes to achieve in any given work or entire body of works.

VS.

When profundity comes to exist in a given work or body of art works, but as a by-product result from the artists focusing on other elements of purpose, whereas seeking or achieving profundity is an extemporaneous goal.

Every artist has reasons for why he or she goes about the endeavor of producing their art. The intents and purposes are of course widely varied, and rarely, if ever, is there only one intent/purpose involved for any artist. My purpose here is to analyze what could be called one of the more frequent primary intents/ purposes with which many artists (and in fact which, many art appreciators / buyers are rooted in) focus their minds and work.

To be ‘profound’, be it a person or any thing, is to say by definition of the word, that such person or thing possesses uncommonly deep meaning, value, and intellect. But, as with other terms of definition pertinent to describing human consciousness and endeavors, one of the problems with the idea in the word profound is -- Different people can have entirely different conceptions of what is or adds up to mean depth of meaning and / or intellect.

That problem aside for a moment, it would probably be safe to say that most people to one degree or another, have had either indirectly through particulars of their life's existence, or, from their quest to directly attain it -- a reason in fact or need, that the word profound, would be pertinent to themselves or something in close connection to themselves. Proceeding from there, many people have come to calculate that it is a desirable thing for themselves, when their fellow human beings give over an acknowledgment to them that they (or things pertinent to them) are worthy of the characterization contained in the word ‘profound’. Nothing wrong with that.

To be seen as profound or something you have done as being profound, is to be seen as great and/or extraordinary. Aside from just grateful appreciation of that, with no quest to then somehow put the accolade to use in some way, for many, to have received the accolade, is to have a powerful asset in the affairs of ones interactions with others, including all things involving the endeavors (business) of procuring things and money, from survival to wealth. The status gained in recognition’s of being (or having been) profound, also serves another element of human occupation -- the thirst of ego. Scoping in on the relevancy of the above to society currently, and finally, towards the purpose of this analysis in regards to artists, art, and the art business -- I will now continue…

As I see it, while there is nothing at all inherently wrong with someone or thing being profound, and believe that constructive, wonderful (yes, what I believe is) profundity exists as a fact all around us, and is therefore a good thing -- I notice also that how, where, and why many people seek it, and / or put importance to it, brings about some very unfortunate situations, making for some results coming from the concept of profound / profundity to be very destructive.

As an instrument of status, there is a huge clamor by so many to acquire this standing. This runs so deeply that even clamoring to be attached in a secondary manor through association, to someone or thing that has acquired the 'profound' status, is an endeavor that many people put tremendous energy and importance’s to for themselves. And, they want it many times to fuel agendas for things other than just personal ego -- Such as… power, social status, their political/social philosophy agendas etc. So many have not just some need, but a huge need to attain profundity, at best directly, but if not, then through association. Such being the case, that quest, and the resulting condition, is a major driving force in much of what people do, think, and define for themselves in life, society, and what in fact they know, or are likely not going to be able to know.

With profundity being such a powerful asset to acquire, it is not surprising then that it arises in linkages with endeavors of human activity in commerce, work and business. If you, or your work (therefore you through your work) are able to acquire the status of being profound, you stand a better chance of being successful. Why? Very simple. Because those who have and are acknowledging the profundity, have a huge desire for themselves to be perceived as being profound as well, even if the profundity comes from appearing (selling the notion) to seeming to know what is profound. A sort of secondary acquisition of the status, by being seen by others as 'being in the know' about the direct subject (person or thing) having possession of the accolade. Profundity -- status -- position -- image. Given the realization of this scenario, it's only a short step for humankind to figure out that acquiring the status could well prove out to translate into money for themselves in business. But the issue then of course becomes -- what exactly are the perceptions of what is profound? Does that fit with what the individual really is, has, or actually does? What if it doesn't fit, or only fits so far, and what if the perceptions at large are in fact flawed, contrived, or lacking in scope? These questions become far more important of course, to those who are indeed pursuing the accolade. But, also even for those who are not, as they too will receive judgment one way or the other on the issue anyway, and therefore because of the relative impact in life from the concept being a societal condition, they too will find a significant measure of importance to whatever and however their fellow human beings are defining the parameters of ‘what is profound’.

As I have seen it to be in the art world, the largest single area of where people clamor for acknowledgement of being profound, be it artists, so called expert critics, and last but not least, buyers ---- Is in the group of those having their interest exclusively with abstract / modern / contemporary art works. It is absolutely amazing to see how they all support one another in the notion that this particular art genre (type/style) itself, is the area of profundity and intellectual greatness. A large percentage of the artists do this art, because the truth is beneath the surface, very often they cannot do anything other than that particular style of art. Most are unable (or unwilling to put the work/time to learn) to draw and paint in representational / traditional/ classical genre’s of style and content. This is not at all to say that a wonderful piece of modern/contemporary art cannot be produced if an artist is not able to draw/paint in the representational, traditional, classical styles and genre - because it can be. However, if such art does not at least contain good and aesthetic design (in my own and many others interpretation), then for myself anyway, it is not going to be good, or ‘profound’ art of any genre, including modern/contemporary. And, as I have seen it over a lifetime of looking and analyzing, those artists who do modern/contemporary art, more often than not, can neither do traditional representational classical drawing/painting, or art containing good (or profound) design.

As a result, in order to sort of counter that ineptitude, by ‘embellishing’ importance to what art they do/can create, or camouflaging the real situation, quite often -- “Modern/Contemporary” artists, go to coming up with extraordinarily crafted statements or purveying mystiques as to the meaning of their art, themselves, and the great depths of their intellect to have produced it. All going to sell their art and themselves as -- highly ‘Profound’ --- The art and themselves to appear as more than what they/it actually is, in the eyes/minds of others. Where it really gets interesting though, is that --- The critics / dealers / middlemen of Modern/Contemporary art often push the notion of it (and it alone) being profound, and so that it can go to make them appear as profound and therefore knowledgeable, in the minds of others (including of course.. those unsuspecting/uneducated potential art buyers). And… The pooh–poohing of any other art, especially that of a more traditional/representational nature, is almost standard procedure for artists of Modern/Contemporary art, their dealers, contemporary art editors with a slant towards favoring it in editorials, and finally, by many of those who collect and have bought it (and exclusive to owning/purchasing any other art genre). It’s always been interesting (as well as shocking, bizarre, and even hilarious) to me, that so many of those who are The buyers of Modern/Contemporary art -- Believe and buy into the ‘highly intellectual’ and ‘profound’ oriented rhetoric poured onto them by so many of the artists and the art business ‘so-called’ experts middlemen. They then go on to convince themselves of the same notions, all the way to opening their checkbooks for it -- and quite often because they want their own image to friends and others (many of whom have bought into the same nonsense and with their own checkbooks) to appear as profound and ‘highly intellectual’ by hanging the works on their walls!

And this is from an artist, so you will know, who happens to like and admire some Modern/Contemporary art and artists, assuming that in my own opinion it is actually good work. Because frankly… so much of it is not, even though by it’s nature it has been passed off as being good, including because it’s been said to possess some ‘profound’ inner meaning or unusually rare creative or intellectual ability or purpose. I also have done what would be considered Modern -- Contemporary art myself, and will continue to reserve my right to do so when I choose. What I won’t do however, is to try to make out that any of my art is about or contains anything more than it actually does. If someone offers the ‘profound’ sort of accolade to any of my art - Great! And I will appreciatively offer a thank you for the compliment. But if received, I’m not one prone to making out that such an accolade is unique to myself/art, or my genre of art alone. How’s that for being profound?

So there you have it ----- One example of how incredibly mixed up things can become, all over the driving forces within the question of what is ‘Profound?’ in the art world.

Wayne S. -- 2003

The Artist to Gallery/Middleman Relationship

2010-01-21T12:07:00.000-08:00

THE GREAT HIDDEN SCANDAL...

Let me say first --To all those in the art business who sell the work or artists, be it originals or prints, as well as art show owner/promoters, and art associations… If you are of the few who genuinely treat artists fairly in business, and respectfully -- You have my utmost of respect, and I applaud you! You are an example of how things in the art business should be done, and with particular regard to how the primary players… The Artists should be treated, without whose work and accomplished skills no one would have anything to show, sell and make a living from.

The words of those who are gallery owners, dealers, art show promoters, art publishers, and any other art middlemen, is largely what forms (if there is any mentioned at all) almost all of what so many people in society know concerning the workings of artist to gallery/middlemen business relationships. This, like so many things, is and has been by careful design. As an artist who like so many others, and for so long, has felt the sting of many incredibly unjust situations in the process of making a living in a business controlled so greatly by others, as well as hearing my fellow artists experiencing the same -- I will go to offer here a much different picture, to those interested in knowing the truth, quite different than would ever be given or admitted to by most all of The Middlemen.

First, I think it’s important to say that as the title mentions, there is a great scandal existing within the subject. It has in fact been going on for a long time, maybe to one degree or another, since the concept of such a working relationship was invented. It is my purpose though, to speak primarily about the here and now, and within context to my own lifetime of accumulated knowledge / experience with the subject. Besides saying that there is a scandal, I should say too that it is a hugely covered up scandal. But before going into details of it, let me first go about explaining whom the players are:

The Art Middlemen as a group in general; Are people who aside from the more sophisticated names they commonly refer to themselves as- i.e., Art gallery owners/directors, art publishers, art show directors/promoters etc.–These would really be more accurately defined as – Middlemen, agents, retailers, and salesmen. Their role in the art business is as their true occupational names suggest – They market and sell art. Expertise in what they do has been established by their education and/or work lives being focused on their subject, as it is with those of other occupations. Some are very good at what they do, others are not, but what they have in common is that their focus is more than anything else (including away from art) in the practices / thinking common to selling and salesmen. As they’re chosen particular product to sell is art / creative works, people would naturally think that they’re knowledge of the subject must be very extensive. The truth is, it often is not. A very very few may know a lot, some may know some, and many know only enough to disguise the fact from the majority of the public, who generally themselves are not knowledgeable enough to know the difference. Given that, this is the first tool, within a toolbox of many others to which the middlemen/salesmen utilize to their ends (and only their ends) in the art business. Finally, in defining the group, it should be noted that as a part of their interest and proficiency in their profession as salesmen, they are people very active with all endeavors pursuant to the psychology of controlling and directing other human beings. As I build a structure of facts towards the point of the issue, in order to avoid any reader making a seriously mistaken judgment, I would like to say that I have no inherent disrespect or dislike for salesmen or middlemen what-so-ever. I in fact admire many of them, although regretfully not as many that sell art, as those selling other things in other endeavors.

The Artists;

Are in general of course, those who are creative people who produce artworks. While all artists including those who do their work more as a hobby or avocation are also impacted from the topic issue, I will only go into discussion here in reference to those artists who are professionals such as myself. I will also not go into the bottomless pit in discussion of opinion about what art is real art, and what isn’t. For purposes here at least: A professional artist is one who has or does make his/her primary or sole source of living through the production and sales of his/her art. Interestingly, there are many in the general public who don’t realize that there actually are artists of this professional definition. Then there are other people who would not recognize the endeavor as a working profession in any case. Many of these believe that whatever art they see on display and for sale, is the work of hobbyists or those who make their primary living in some other field. This could be cited as major Fallacy #1, which ultimately goes itself to causing poor consequences to those who are in fact professional artists.

Artists can also be clearly defined in ways other than as commonly thought of. They are both innovators and manufacturers of product goods. They are businessmen and women who own and operate their own businesses. They are involved with all of the duties and responsibilities inherent to maintaining a business, just as it is for any others in business. In addition, a large focus is in the creation of their works and the continuing development of it. This comes from the root of their greatest interest, but also because the particular goods they produce to make their livings are not necessities, and are a luxury to most people’s definition or circumstances. Art as a profession is extremely competitive. Aside from the typical lifelong self-passions in constantly bettering their work for their own fulfillment, artists are faced with certain realities. They must strive to making their work the best it can be at any given time in their working lives, in order to have best chances at survival for their business, and any chance at survival or a decent living for themselves and their families. Most artists unfortunately do not have much or any latitudes of safety nets, cushions, or ability to absorb losses in unprofitable time spent, materials bought, or anything else costing but not rendering a return. They are, for all practical purposes, living on the edge and living with far less than most, in comparatives to most other fields (including non-professional jobs) in their returns for true work efforts, and the skilled expertise they’ve acquired to do the work, which most have paid dearly for, including sacrifices over many years.

I believe most artists have at one time or another, in seeing the news of others in society who make a living in things other than art, who are having difficulties and complaints over returns to them in their own work, and who then often come to success in having such concerns rectified in whole or part -- That Artists, making natural comparatives with their own similar plight of difficulties with these other folks, -- Have felt absolutely amazed at either the others complaints, the comparative luxury of these others gaining positive outcomes to their complaints. Also, to many Artists, since it would be considered a luxury (since they rarely see it for themselves), it is amazing to see that others in other professions/work who make efforts to protect / better themselves, is a common awareness in society and therefore is allowed as both accepted and legitimate for them. But regardless of the amazement and a fair amount of lament in essentially being shut out of such norms taken for granted by so many others - Artists go about their business and producing their work, for as long and as well as they can – perhaps over a lifetime -- where they are forced to accept the differences to them, as well as the generally low awareness of that situation from their fellow human beings. This does not come because artists have some ‘Hollywood’ oriented like for suffering, but because -- 1.) It comes with the territory in the business, and societal awareness, both not of their design. 2.) That serious professional Artists are committed to their work, and that as people with a passion for their work, they are not prone to being quitters. All the above from at the end of fallacy #1 to this point, I will offer as fallacies #2. It defines much but certainly not all, of what so many people in general are completely unaware of and have in their misunderstandings or flawed definitions of artists, and the art profession.

However, there are some others who are very aware of the above, and put together with their own particular interests and work expertise, have found the situations as a ripe opportunity. To some degree these are the profit/investor art collectors, but for the most part ---- They are The Art Business Middlemen.

THE SCANDAL

Given all of the above as a preface, here are a few question(s); Between the two parties, Artists / The Middlemen, which do you think would be the most prone to developing strategies in business between the two that would bring them profits at the expense and potential poverty to the other? Which of the two would be more likely to have such tendencies, based on their field, it’s inherent practices, and the personality types involved? Which of the two would therefore have a vested interest in maintenance of such a scenario, and as a part, doing everything possible to keep it unrecognized or under wraps from the general public? Which of the two is in a vulnerable position to being exploited and threatened into submission to it, by the other? I think the answers should be easy.

For the purpose of explaining details of ‘The Scandal’ in the easiest fashion, I will list below practices common with so many of The Art Middlemen, and the subsequent effects to artists, the art business, and in fact to the public at large. The list is not necessarily in an order. Also, I am not suggesting that all middlemen, be they in the art business or some other, are of the type being described here. There are some that prescribe to a different standard of ethics in business, are fair-minded people, and genuinely care about the plight of artists. However, in my experience as well as that of so many other artists, the reality is that those are very few and far between.

1.) In order to sell their work and survive, obviously artists must have their works on display to the public. The Middlemen are in a very powerful position in that endeavor. They almost entirely control the walls of display – Be it gallery walls, art show and auction walls, and the ‘walls’ in the published art print market. There are some rare exceptions to that, such as artists who have broken off from the norms of display & marketing by showing in their own galleries/studios, or a very few successful artist groups being established who self-control the showings of their works. Most artists however, are consumed with the time and energy needed to producing their work. They rarely find opportunity or time to take the matters of display & marketing of their works into their own hands, and/or, they are largely intimidated into an acceptance of the controlling Middlemen norms.

The Middlemen dictate the terms and conditions:

A) Galleries and other middlemen charge artists high prices for the work being placed on the walls. Galleries typically demand anywhere from 40 to 50% commissions on each sale. I have heard of others requiring even higher, all the way to 70%! Art show promoters/owners charge significant fees to artists, as well as commissions on show auction sales, and where the terms to artists in such auctions are typically a total ‘set up’ to the artist’s works being forced into a wheeling and dealing free for all. Art publishers not only give pittances of returns to artists in comparison to their own profits, but they also write/force contract terms and conditions putting the artists returns into speculation, and the artists freedoms as independent business people into a bondage.

B) Galleries, dealers, and art show people with rare exception – Do not buy art from artists to then resell. They take it in on ‘consignment’ with no payment what so ever to artists up front. They have the incredible luxury of stocking their retail stores/venues with inventory, cost free. The products of this inventory represent major investments of time and labor by the artists. They also represent many out of pocket costs to the artists. Art materials, framing, and all other overhead expenses associated to the art having been produced, are not free and not cheap. One of these, framing, is worth mentioning in so much as that -- The Middlemen typically not only expect it to be provided by the artist and that it is of high quality, but that this expense to the artists is something the artist will not likely be allowed to recoup in the price/sale of the art. On the other hand, the Middleman will be gaining a profit from it at the time of the art selling. In concert to this, and along with commission rates, The Middlemen typically dictate (either directly or indirectly) to the artists what retail prices will be set on the artist’s works. This of course renders any possibility of the artist having any ability to controlling his/her end returns being viably profitable, or being able to recoup his/her costs – as nonexistent.

C.) As if A and B were not enough, there’s more. Typically, The Middlemen dictate when the artists will be paid – Usually later than sooner (Why not use the artist’s assets some more?) Further, The Middlemen can typically dictate that the artist will not be allowed to sell his/her art themselves, either out of their studios or from other retail outlets. They essentially take over the artist’s freedom and rights/needs as an independent business. The Middlemen typically require the artists agree to having their art loaned out to potential buyers ‘on approval’ when such requests arise. Meanwhile, the artists have a significant investment of their work in a holding pattern to their receiving compensation from it. If wheeling and dealing bargaining comes up from a buyer, The Middlemen will ask the artist to lower his/her price – They will rarely if ever accommodate the bargain, by way of lowering their commission. Most of The Middlemen will commit to as little as possible (much of the time, going too essentially nothing) to expending time or funds to promoting the artist. Those that do make any expenditure in promotion of an artist, will do so with such expenses being utilized as legitimization that the artist accept even worse case (to the artists) terms/conditions put to them by The Middlemen. In other words, any costs in promotion will ultimately come from a subtraction in the artist’s returns -- which have already been made into an incommensurate return. More often than not, The Middlemen will make all decisions as to where on the wall (in whatever venue it may be) the artist works will be displayed, and other things pertinent to quality of display effecting odds of sales -- To which the artists are in the most dire position, their works being in the consignment scenario, of which the work is not mass produced, and to which they must wait for any possible return. My Gosh… many of these same Middlemen actually dictate to the artists what they should paint, or, strongly ‘encourage’ what they should paint.. if… they want their work on the walls and promoted! I’m sorry, but that runs totally contrary to the best in art being created, from artists who are creative individuals, and where the best art comes about from their freedom to do create/paint what they want to, including factoring in their own careful choices/decisions (which, if they are serious artists and/or professionals, they must do at a reasonable level) on how saleable it is or may be. Finally, The Middlemen, be they gallery people or art show/auction people, will not share with the artists the names of any buyers of the art works! The obvious reason for this is they do not want to risk artists going to buyers directly, cutting The Middlemen out of the sales. While that is a legitimate concern, there would be other ways of accomplishing the need. The method used however, puts the artists into a further loss. They are cut out of the valuable return in business of the development of buyer’s lists, to which their works and investments have been instrumental in producing. Additionally, artists are prevented from having a knowledge of where their art works have gone and are existing, which historically in the field, is important to any ability in showing such information of their life's work and careers in publications or retrospective shows.

2.) The Middlemen do not allow any of the above to be put into fair consideration of discussion or negotiations with artists. Should an artist raise any of the issues, The Middlemen have long established lines of rhetoric or tactics (not the least of which is their power of their walls in any case) to sidestep or quickly evaporate an artists attempt to protect his/her interests. For example, on the issue of overhead expenses -- The Middlemen always speak at great length of this on their end, as legitimization of their terms and conditions. What they will not speak of, or allow in discussion of an equal fashion, is the artist’s end of this issue. The artists in fact have much more at stake in a total of overhead costs, investments having been made, and risks inherent in the consignment scenario. But The Middlemen are very adept at evading, denying or steam rolling that fact.

3.) The public at large has been, and remains almost entirely unaware of all this. We are living in an era where the issues of workers rights, fair business practices, and unethical/unfair exploitation of occupational groups, is not uncommon to being raised in public awareness. This of course is a good thing, and many who have had their plights rectified, have come to finally having their lives bettered and injustices to them attended too. They may not have had all of their needs and rights repaired, but they have at least had their situations become known to the public. They have at least had their plights reported and become known by society at large, which gives the start of some odds in their problems being focused on to possible remedy.

Artists as people and as an occupational group, have unfortunately not come anywhere close to having the same situation finally come to them. Why? --- Aside from the nature of artists being largely independent people, and from one another, inherent to the sort of work they do – and, in context to the business as it exists in a dog eat dog scenario (brought largely by the effects of The Middlemen) -- The Middlemen have a vested interest in keeping everything just the way it is --- Including all the details, discussion, or news of it kept out of the public eye. Should any of it rise even the slightest bit in any rare occasion, The Middlemen have all the tools of their rhetoric, and their power, to quickly camouflage it, deny it, and bury it.

Aside from the ongoing effects of this to the artists, it is a situation having a hugely negative impact on the quality of culture, as art being an element. As Art and artists are being controlled greatly by The Middlemen, the outcome is something entirely different than if it were otherwise. The contributions of art coming into cultures enrichment – Which art – How much art -- Is being greatly moderated by the controls and powers of The Middlemen in the business, and over artists.

So what is there to do about this?

Artists who are ‘set’ financially, either by other means, or perhaps having attained fortunate greater notoriety/fame in their careers, are of course not as impacted by the whole situation, at least in their own lives. Although I will say for these, that for the sake of caring about the profession as a whole, they certainly should be concerned about these issues, and actively pursue rectifying them in the ways they can. To not do so, say with attitudes such as -- “I have mine, so I could care less about this or other artists being affected by it”. Or… “I’m protecting my turf, I could care less about the impact of this to other artists”…… Let me say for these types artists who have this attitude while basking in the fortunate positions that they are -- While I might have great respect for some of them in their work, as far as my opinion of them as human beings I would say… Well, maybe I won’t say here, on my blog.

But for all artists who do not have the above advantages, I would offer these thoughts and suggestions which I believe will make a positive difference --

1.) Artists themselves need to know the truth and facts of this situation. Amazingly many do not, or, have not faced up to it for themselves. Knowledge is power - Ignorance makes you vulnerable, and sets up bad odds for success. Along with artists already working, certainly beginners and students need to know the facts about these issues. Artists can go for many years not understanding this situation, ‘spinning their wheels’, and resulting in a huge waste of time, money, and sacrifices to themselves, and perhaps their families, that they might not have had to suffer (or at least as much of) had they known what the real deal is in the art business. Art Schools, Instructors / Teachers, be they in institutions or ‘workshops’, should take the high road, and offer some instruction to their students about the subject - at bare minimum, at least when asked or when the topic(s) are/should be raised.

2.) Artists need to understand and accept the fact that they are in a business - Because they/you are! They must approach any and all venues/middlemen for selling their art with that in mind - Totally. If an artist insists on only playing the role of -- “I’m an artist, and therefore I do not have any interest in the business side of it at all”…. You will pay the price for that ‘movie script’, and you will set yourself up to being fully vulnerable to all those who are more than willing to exploit that mindset and naivety, towards their own profitable returns.

3.) Artists need to stand up and take charge of their own destinies as much as is possible, insisting on maintaining their rights to control their own businesses, and business scenarios which will have a direct impact on their careers and lives as a whole. There are almost always compromises to be made in doing business with other players. But the bottom line is, that it has to make sense to an Artists own needs and vested interests, not just the other side. That is… if you are trying/needing to put the food on your table with sales of your art. How much an artist is willing to compromise on say, terms and conditions given by a gallery or art show promoter, is going to vary depending on the particular situation of each artist. But even an artist in the most dire need to show his/her work anywhere, just to get it somewhere to be seen (i.e. the weakest position) -- Should still be very scrutinizing on everything, and everybody connected, in the pure business sense, to the decision of whether or not to become involved with a particular venue. Artists should, and they have a right too, respectfully ask all pertinent questions to the owner/manager of the venue, which will have an effect on their business interests. And… to get actual answers to the questions, not evasions or hype. I won’t list them all here, perhaps another post at some time. But they should be easy enough to figure out, assuming an artist has taken on the serious mindset of thinking best odds of their interests being served in any arrangement/terms/conditions with a art selling venue. At the same time, being reasonable and logical enough to realize that the venue owner also has a legitimate need to make decisions and agreements that will allow him/her reasonable odds at reasonable profits. If an artist becomes faced with bad terms/conditions with a less than reasonable venue owner, all the way to a “It’s all my way, or nothing” type, you will know that’s the case fairly quickly -- assuming you are doing your job of taking a close look, asking the right questions, and not getting mesmerized by the need, or ego driven desire, to just get your work on the walls at any and all costs. Remember…It’s not going to serve your most important needs to making a living, which would include the expenses of continuing to do your art, if sales of your art from any venue do not return you enough after expenses/commissions to the venue, or, the time they’ve take to sell it etc. And certainly the same, if they do not have the expertise, commitment, and/or following of customers, to sell it at all. You cannot go to the grocery store, load up the basket, and go to the store manager saying “I don’t have any money to buy this today, but hey… my art is hanging in a gallery”. Etc.

4.) Among other questions to gallery venues, artists should take a look, and ask, how many sales are made on average a month? And since it is the art business and that can vary widely in any venue, ask for a look at many months? Also, ask the question of how many original works are sold, in comparison to print reproductions (if the gallery sells both)? Many galleries sell primarily prints, even though they might have originals on their walls. If you are in more need, or complete need to sell your originals, then obviously a venue/gallery that only or mostly sells prints, is not going to be a good odds venue for you to be involved with. Just another business question and decision.

I believe the answer to the problem ultimately must come from the artists, and in the form of educating the public about the truth in the situation as a first step. Because the general public, those with interest in art, and ultimately the Buyers of art, stand to make the most difference to the problems, if they can become widely aware of it, and through that, bring the power of their pocket books down to bare on those in the art business where these problems come from. The problems being solved will probably not come in my lifetime, because the system and powers-that-be are so deeply entrenched. But for what it’s worth, while there are those who may be making their own efforts as well and perhaps far better than I can do it, I have made my best effort here. I would not feel good about going to my end without having tried in at least some small way to make a positive difference. There is no automatic guarantee to art middlemen, be they galleries or whoever, that they will make a profitable successful business for themselves. They do have their own problems to face in the art business, as well as having expenses involved, and the rightful desire to prosper. I have no lack of understanding or fair reasoning to such things. The reader should also understand that I nor most any other artists I know who would speak about the issues here, do so either as ‘whiners’ to norms typical to business, or in the notion that such ill situations are unique only to artists. And as I noted at the start of this writing -- For those who would by definition here, be either Art Business Middlemen, or even Art Associations -- If they are of the all-to-few who genuinely treat artists respectfully and fairly in business…I have the utmost of respect for them, and wish them great and continued success! However, for those of the ‘other sorts’ (they well know.. if they are), as for This Artist, and regarding my own work and life -- Take a Hike!

I would give the reader a challenge to proving out the points made herein: Pertinent to for example, galleries that have successfully been in business for a period of years --- A question for you --- Between the gallery Middlemen, and the artists whose work hang on the walls; Which of the two most often drives the nicer cars, has a home (or the nicer home), has such things as health and life insurance, can afford brace’s for their kids teeth and can send them to college, and have money in the bank, including retirement savings ?? Check it out, or let me save you some trouble to doing the survey --- It is with rare exception -- The Middlemen / Salesmen, just as it is with middlemen in the art shows/auctions and the art print publishing business.

For art enthusiasts/looker’s, from beginners to long-timer’s -- My hope is that with the knowledge you will ------- 1.) Try to seek out art galleries or other outlets displaying art, including art shows, which deal with artists in a fair and respectful way. Ask others who might be ‘in the know’, or, ask the gallery/show people questions to find out, such as “what commission percentage do you take from the artists when you sell their work?” They may refuse to answer you, or, frankly lie, but it never hurts to ask such pertinent questions when you are interested in such things… The artist(s), whose work you might be wanting to buy. If you’re looking for art you like and might want to buy, patronize these art businesses and their artists -- Along with getting a nice piece of art you will enjoy, you will be supporting good and fair art business people, and of course the artists whose work hangs on their walls. If you find a piece of art you want to buy in galleries or other places where you do not know how the artists are treated, … Try to find out where the artist him/herself is located, and make the effort to contact them yourself about their art. Additionally and perhaps even better yet, seek out artists who wisely exercise their rights to sell their works themselves, including through their own galleries, or their “open door” studios, and now with the internet thankfully having come into play, artists who show their work online such as I do myself.

2.) While any ‘brand’ of artist will surely appreciate your purchasing their work, including hobbyists, don’t forget to seek out and patronize artists who are working professionals. Remember…they are not doing their work for a little extra pocket change - they are literally putting the food on their tables along with all else, with sales of their works. And lastly, Please, for the sake of all serious artists, and the cultural value of art -- Do not patronize outlets and ‘art shows’ such as those that advertise on TV “Coming to a location in your area” (usually hotels/motels -- and where they used to call themselves ‘Starving Artist Sale’, now changed to something else, no doubt because of flak they received from that degradation to all artists), where the art they sell is actually from overseas such as China, where the ‘art’ is produced assembly-line fashion, such as for example, one person paints the sky and shoves it down the line to the next person who paints the grass… and so on. If you like it, and want to buy something in venues/outlets such as these, that of course is your right to do so. Just remember, that the above who and what, is who/what you are patronizing with your dollars, while there are many many serious artists in this country and others who do wonderful work available to you, many of whom are struggling to make a living. Assembly line originals (actual ‘paintings’, not prints) are not art… it is assembly line garbage. That would be the same for prints from/of such ‘originals’, or, from any ‘rubber-stamped’ art produced, done only to manufacture yet another quick and cheap product to get onto the shelf - And all described to the public as “art”. It’s my guess is that even the poor assembly line ‘artists’ who are doing it overseas, are being treated/paid by their handlers poorly (and all driven by the marketers/middlemen here who buy it from them).

I hope I have shed a little light onto the real picture for any who within the multitudes, understandably do not know of these things. I know not all will care, but perhaps some will, and that will be a worthwhile step in the right direction.

My College Years -‘The Agony and The Ecstasy’!

2010-01-19T12:37:00.000-08:00

You do what you need to do
in the passion for the work, and to make a go of it.

While it had not been my original choice and dream of what to do after high school (another story completely, about that) I had excelled in art, and at 19, I had been accepted into the Art Center College of Design, a world-renowned art and design college, where getting accepted into it was notable in and of itself, not to mention at the age of 19.

Art Center was a totally no-nonsense private college, offering four-year degrees as well as master’s degrees in product design, automotive design, graphic design, advertising design, all the disciplines of illustration, and the fine arts. Study there was intensive and with little to no ‘play time’ outside of classes. Homework assignments were constant, and most all nights were spent into the early morning hours getting it all done, if not all night many times. Unlike most all other colleges/universities, there was no partying, or any other such activities, or even sports, at this school. 100% time devoted to learning what we were there for, my chosen major actually being a ‘split major’ where I would come out with not one, but two portfolios of work towards starting a career -- Advertising Design, towards being an art director/graphic designer, and, Illustration, where I would be a free-lance illustrator. The double major meant almost twice the load of work for four years, but it would not cost much more at all, and, I wanted to make sure I could have the most opportunities available for myself later, and as a result of my work/expenses put into college. The instructors themselves were all working professionals, some very well known, in their fields.

Unlike many others I knew back then and since then, who have gone to college, in order to afford the schooling, I had to go without many things, and basically lived life extremely frugally and the absolute cheapest I could make do with, at the poverty level to be sure. While my Mom did what she could in sending a little money from time to time for a while, 25 to 75 dollars, from her job as a cook at a Marie Calandar’s restaurant back in the Bay Area, I had to work my own way through by getting any jobs I could during semester and summer breaks. And I mean any jobs, including pizza maker, fruit field worker, janitor, part-time apartment manager etc. etc. Along with that, I was able to get student loans back at home in the Bay Area, which were government insured student loans. Which, by the way, after college I paid back in full and on time, unlike many thousands of others who I heard never bothered, being too cheap and/or unethical to do so.

I lived in ‘apartments’, most of which really should not even be called apartments. I had to switch to a different one each new semester, caused from going back home to work during breaks, as well as to save rent money when I could. Most of them during the four years were only one room and a bathroom. No kitchen, no nothing. My furniture consisted of a single bed mattress, my drawing board (which at first was only a used door set onto boxes), and a stool. Later I was able to build a shelving unit, which allowed me to store and organize my art supplies beside my work area table, and an actual used drawing board which I bought from a friend graduating before me, for 5 dollars. I had a hot plate and a few dishes that my Mom had sent with me. When I did cook anything, I washed the dishes in the bathroom sink or bathtub. But many times I ate only the simplest and cheapest of meals, out of the can or box, or sometimes the fast food joints, which were still very cheap back then. I remember one time, seeing some goldfish in a store I had gone into, and after spending about an hour talking myself into it, I bought a small fish bowl, three goldfish, some vegetation, little oxygenating pump and box of fish food, all for about 10.00. The thought was -- This would give me something different to take care of, have as pets, in the middle of all else going on in the seriousness of school. Took it all back to my shanty room, set it up, looked at the fish for a while. And…ended up feeling guilty and stupid about spending money on such a thing. Took the fish out and back into the bag they had come in, emptied the fish bowl, cleaned everything up and took it back to the store. Luckily they refunded my money.

I drove a 1959 Volvo 549, which I had bought for $100.00 several months before I left the Bay Area for Art Center in LA. Several weeks before I left for school, coming home from work one day, the little car filled with smoke as well as trailing behind, clanking sputtering and running very badly. All the piston rings were broken. Old engine. I had to rebuild it in my folk’s garage, using some of my college money set aside, and in a week and a half. Did what I could in the rebuild, pretty much everything renewed except the SU carburetors, which were very expensive. And aside from a few mishaps during the next four years, that little car got me all the way through college, not to mention driving back and forth from the Bay Area on semester breaks and summers, and also many miles on the LA freeways in later semesters when I was working at Disneyland doing portraits for my college tuition and expenses. At one point about halfway through school, I realized that if I could tear out the steel bulkhead dividing the trunk from the rear seats, and remove those seats, I would have a little station wagon/truck. With much more room to haul my stuff between apartment moving, and going back and forth to home during semester breaks. I found some used commercial grade carpet in a large trash bin beside an office complex. In perfectly good shape, no doubt some executive remodeling his office. Took a large chunk of it back to the apartment, first off thinking I could use it on my shanty room floor. Then I got the idea of remodeling my car. Lucked out that a service station mechanic let me borrow his electric hammer chisel, which I used to cut out the steel bulkhead. A few scraps of wood and a piece of plywood from the lumberyard and… I had a nice large flat area from the rear of the front seats all the way to the back trunk lid! Wow! Then I carpeted it. I could even sleep back there if I ever needed. And later on, I did need too. During later semesters I had landed myself a job working at Disneyland doing watercolor portraits. Compared to all the other odd jobs I had done in previous years, this was great. I earned $1.57 per portrait, no hourly wage. Slow times, little money. Busy times, more money, and as much as you could possibly do in eight-hour shifts, as long as you were producing saleable portraits. And this was Disneyland, where there were standards for such things, and strict on other workplace rules as well. During busy times, I got up to one portrait every 15 minutes. At the time, this was great money for me, and was a real help towards my college expenses. But I was still living very poor to make it all work. One time my car battery finally gave up. Car would not start one night in the Disneyland employee parking lot, at about 1:30 in the morning. And I was needing to get home, driving from there in Anaheim, all the way back to my apartment, at that time in a crappy area of Hollywood. Luckily, the Disneyland parking lot crew (in a wrecking tow truck) who do this as their job (thousands of employees getting off work all the time, going to thousands of cars in the lots) saw me as I waved them down. They push started me, and I was on my way home. When getting back home, I found a place to park where I was on a hill pointed downwards. The problem was, I did not have enough money to replace the battery till next payday, and I had to get to school, and back to work a few times before then. Well, it worked out ok for a while. Next time I went to work, and getting off at the same late time early in the morning, I flagged the tow truck boys down again, and they again push started me. Still had to wait for a new battery. Went to work the next time, got off the same time, flagged the ‘boys’ down again…. And they drove right by me. OK… I guess they’d had enough of poor boy with the old Volvo. So, I could not do anything else but sleep in the car in the parking lot overnight. Luckily, I was to work again the next day, and starting in the morning shift this time, and would receive my paycheck at the end of that shift, early enough to have a friend drive me to a branch of my bank to cash my paycheck, and then take me to get a battery. Got up in the morning, walked out of the lot and down a few streets to a drug store, picked up a cheap toothbrush and shaver. Went to a gas station bathroom, shaved, and ‘freshened up a bit’.

Most of the ‘apartments’ I lived in during my four years at college, cost between $65.00 and $85.00 per month. And when I said ‘one room’, I should have also said… it was usually a very tiny room. One place I stayed in for one semester was an old brick apartment building quite a ways from school, down in the old and dirty part of LA. A very low end and dismal area, at least at the time back then. But I had to find something fast, and this was the only place I could locate. The building was probably built in the 20’s or 30’s, was eight stories high, and was on a block next to other buildings of the same sort, all within several feet of one another. Sort of what one would expect in parts of New York. Drunks literally laying in the street gutter in front of the place, dirty streets etc. But hey…it was $85.00 a month, and had a large room this time, furnished, all-be-it with 50 year old furniture, had a kitchen with table and two chairs, and…. Its very own Murphy fold down bed! Wow! So I took it and moved in. Shortly thereafter to realize that my one window looked into a narrow man-made brick canyon, about three feet from the next towering brick building, and all the windows from it opening to the same ugly, and noisy, chasm. And then, there were the cockroaches. Oh man. And then, there was the earthquake that hit the LA area in 70 or 71. I was on semester break at the time, in the Bay Area working a job. Drove back to LA and my apartment, getting there very late at night, parked the car, and saw signs on a few of the neighboring brick buildings -- ‘Condemned -- Do Not Enter’. But I did not see such a sign on my building, so I proceeded in, up the elevator to my 6^th floor apartment, and went down the hall, past cracks in the walls and ceiling, to my door. Unlocked with my key, turned the old handle, pushed the door.. and it would not open. Pushed again, and much harder, and got it to slowly budge open enough for me to get in and turn the light switch on. The building and these apartments were all finished inside with lath and plaster, and had high ceilings -- All real luxury appointments when they were built and new. The large cabinet in the living room had walked itself to blocking the door, which had been the problem. Plaster all over the floors, ceiling cracks, wall cracks. Kitchen cabinet doors flung open and some dishes crashed onto the floor, refrigerator walked outwards into the floor. Oh well…. It was still livable, and I could clean it all up. But… with the aftershocks still going on, and being in that building, and on the sixth floor, I went to bed with my clothes on for the next several nights. On the way out of the building the next morning, the apartment manager asked if I wanted to make some money. I said, “Sure, but doing what?”. “I need someone to get on a ladder and go into each hallway, from the 1^st floor to the 8^th floor, and patch up cracks in the ceilings and walls, for $1.00 an hour”. “Oh, ok yes I will do that, you bet”. As I was doing that work one day, on one of the upper floors, one of the earthquake aftershocks happened. Hanging hall lights all the way down the long hall swinging back and forth, and here I am on a ladder, and in this rickety old brick building. Well, I survived that semester, although it was rough also because the gal I had fallen naively in love with had mailed her ring back to me in a brown box, and with no note, during that semester. The upset detracted me from my work at school. But I had to re-focus and get with the program. This was my future, my goal, my pursuit of the ‘opportunities’ to a good life that awaited me, from all the hard work and sacrifice. So I went forward with it.

Most all of the people I knew at Art Center, fellow students, were not in the same sort of living circumstances as I was. All with reasonably nice to very nice apartments, nicer to much nicer vehicles, etc. etc. Many already married and with wives or husbands who had jobs supporting them and the college expenses, and some using their military GI. Bill education benefits. I never complained, or wasted time comparing though. I was on my own mission, was going to do it one-way or the other, and in the end it would all be worth it. When I was a boy, I was raised being told -- “You can do anything you want to do in this country, and be successful at it. “As long as you work hard, be responsible, are honest, obey the law, treat others fairly, get a good education, and strive to become the very best you can be in what you choose to do, whatever it may be. If you work hard and are willing to sacrifice when you have to, you will do well.” Looking back, while the teachings were well intended, and may have related (better) to things in the USA during my folks generation, and/or to other professions, I discovered many years later, such things are not at all necessarily true by any means.

I graduated from Art Center in 1973 with my BFA degree, and was so ready to get going with my career. I was of the all-so-typical belief of a new graduate, that now, having the skills I had from four years of college, I knew everything I needed to know to make a way for myself and to be successful. How incredibly wrong I was! Perhaps I will do another topic sometime, taking up where I am leaving off here, with experiences after Art Center. In short, after Art Center, the hard work and major sacrificing went on for many years, sticking with the passion, never quitting. And while now, for some years I have had to put much of it on the proverbial ‘back burner’, from crossroads coming up in life and a down and dirty need to put food on the table -- I retain all of my desires and passions with the hope to get back to my work completely.

Those years at school were hard and required a full commitment, but they were wonderful. A great school, where all the instructors were among the best of the best, the students all committed to the reason they were there. The only thing I regret is that Art Center did not teach anything at all about business, and more specifically doing the business side of art. There were a fair amount of people who started Art Center who never graduated, either because they could not handle the rigor of it, or decided they did not have enough commitment to following through. The actual number of people who have graduated from AC with a degree, is from what I hear a fairly exclusive ‘club’ of sorts. Even though it remains as one of the top art and design colleges in the world, and has many alumni having attained great notoriety for themselves in their chosen field of art or design. People in general, even including many artists, have never heard of the school, probably because on the scale of other colleges it is quite small, and also is a private college. Those that do happen to know of it, and telling them you have your degree from the school, usually exclaim - “ You went to Art Center, and got your degree there - wow!”. I have to say that of the things I have been able to accomplish in life thus far, having successfully obtained my degree from that school is something that I am very proud of.

I guess a few of the points in sharing this part of my life and experience is that -- 1.) I’ve learned over many years that many people (particularly those who are not artists) can tend to think that artists do not work hard, including in any time/effort spent to get educated (In all time spent in learning/developing your skills, which goes on after college, but also for those who did endeavor to getting a degree). I am among many whose own experiences would seriously challenge those kinds of notions. In the same vein, there are many in society who do not view an artist’s/creative persons work as a real “job”, and, can even have the audacity to say… “Go get a real job”. That is nonsense, and as I used to tell my students -- “Develop a thick skin to such things, because you are likely to hear it from people, including possibly your neighbors and even family… they just do not understand, and many of them don’t want too, as they go about degrading you downwards, to raise themselves up, using what they do/have done as the benchmark to what work is and a ‘real job is - or is not.”

2.) I’ve also learned that there are many professional artists, as well as ‘hobbyists’ (those who do art for fun and part-time, not as a living), who have no idea how some other professionals such as myself have had to sacrifice so much and work so hard in order to get to wherever it is that we have come to, both in the quality level of our art, and/or to whatever economic level we have been able to achieve… or not achieve. I’m glad for anyone who has developed his or her art well, and has had success economically with it in life. There are some who have done both of these extremely well, and even if they have been lucky and fortunate enough to have circumstances in life making that road comparatively much easier -- even so, accomplishing such goals are very hard and serious-discipline oriented things to do.

Wayne S. -- 2010

THE APPRASAL OF QUALITY TO FINE ART PAINTING ...The problem with -- " Wow, It looks just like a photograph"

2010-01-17T12:36:00.000-08:00

A person has just taken a look
at a painting, wherever it may be on display, and in all good and gracious intent has decided to offer his or her compliment in response to the art, be it one piece or a wall-full. "This is really good, and so realistic, it (or they) looks just like a photograph!"

The compliment, while probably appreciated from the standpoint of a nice intent being given, offers an easily discernable understanding about the person who is offering it. It says that the persons method of calculation or benchmark in appraising for him or herself whether the art is good / exceptional or not, is largely dependent on if, or how much, it looks like a photograph.

What the compliment truly means to the person it's given, is totally dependant on who such person is with regard to his or her own level of understanding or purposes involved in or with art. If it is an artist who either through his or her own quality benchmark depth of understanding is one in the same with the looker/compliment giver, or perhaps has other understanding but has keyed his/her artwork to fill the bill of such appraisal methodology being used -- then of course such artists are likely to feel very comfortable to the compliment, since it reflects success to them in the intent they have pursued in their art. If the compliment is given to anyone, be it another art looker, or even those who may be in a position of 'likely to be knowledgeable' about art, such as a gallery person or collector, but who again, has the same basis's of appraisal, then the compliment will stand as a high and agreeable accolade.

But what if the compliment recipient is none of the above, but instead an artist who in fact not only doesn't measure art quality by such means, but also as such with his or her own art, paints to the tune of an entirely different intent, understanding, and process of creating art within the parameters of traditional representational realism, be it a very ‘tight’ style, or more in the impressionism genre? As one such artist among many others, including even those who are nationally recognized as being among the finest in the field, which I cannot claim and can only aspire to -- I and they would say that such an appraisal / complement scenario has always been a problematic dilemma, if not a far less than desirable "compliment", to say the least.

I have never heard or read any effort made that would go to adequately explain, define, and therefore, give reasonable chance to the problem being dealt with or remedied. The reason I haven't, is undoubtedly because as so many others realize, it's a complicated problem that holds a multitude of difficulties to explaining (and solving) that even in good effort given to it, could end up accomplishing nothing or even create other totally misguided notions in the process.

So there's a challenge to me. This is my effort to discuss it, with the hope to shed some light onto the subject to those who are or may be in need of it, assuming of course they are willing to listen or learn about things objectively without ego's or emotional feelings standing in the way -- For those who can't get beyond those barriers to logic and reason on this issue, don't read any further.

First let me say, that I as well as most artists that I know, am not intending in coming across to anyone as ungrateful to genuinely inspired complements being offered to my work. As a person, I believe in according everyone a respectful gracious demeanor, unless of course for some reason I come to realize they or their purposes with me are undesirable, in which case I simply won't have anything to do with them. Also, in the context of what is a very difficult profession to receiving comparative respect and dignity from many in society as a whole with regards to the work / profession of art / artists in fact being engaged in -- work, and a just as honorable, responsible, and 'work ethic' oriented 'job' in the endeavor of making a living as anything else ---- Still, I and most other artists are not prone at all to being unappreciative to any compliments given to us or our work. As with other things, unless you have been a professional artist, and particularly for many years, it might be difficult for you to understand just how true and significant the above facts and realities are. With that as a ‘very important to understand’ preface, I will now go into discussing the meat of the issue -- The problem with the, " Wow, it looks just like a photograph" compliment -- or, transversely, ' It doesn't look just like a photograph' appraisal. I will not go into an overall huge discussion of -- What is good art, why is it good, and who is to say -- because that has been and always will be impossible to fully and successfully discuss and/or resolve.

The world we live in is a-wash in images, most of them are photographically generated. It should be easy to understand then, that people in general are very photographically attuned and predisposed when it comes to their eyes seeing any imagery. That, plus a connected predisposition of most being extremely interested in 'realism', in regards to what they like in fine art painting /drawing, is the basis for why they have such an overwhelming tendency to form they're appraisals on any piece of art, largely (if not solely) by the benchmark of whether or how much it is like a photograph.

The first misnomer in this is that photography is being held as the only or best representation of realism. That notion is categorically untrue. If one was really wanting to establish the best or better basis for a method in evaluating what looks like realism or emulates it best, it would be in how the human eyes actually see and perceive things -- namely, light, form, and color. A camera, or any other photographic machine does not see like the human eye does, and therefore photography’s resulting imagery, does not in fact portray realism in the perfection that so many people believe. In painting and drawing, there is a range of what could be defined as 'representational realism', from extremely 'tight' literal work to more simply stated impressionistic realism. For artists in any mode of realism, it is a lifetime-oriented course of study to learn to 'see' and therefrom emulate with the chosen medium and tools, realism, to whatever degree that doing so is of importance to the particular artist. For those artists who become extremely good at the skill and process, the work they show in a piece of fine art that is not just like a photograph -- can in fact be far more realistic in its representation of light, form, color, depth of field, delineation of edges, and where, when and how much detail of form(s) is rendered. Rarely do such artists, including myself, use photographs or photography as more than just a marginal aid or tool in the process (excepting if the art being done is some mode, other than traditional painting/drawing). To do so even in that, without the result being the essence of the problem -- the art being just like a photograph -- requires a lot of experience in the work, and, a lot of discipline to avoid the pitfalls. Some artists, for the dangers pertinent to this, will not use photographs at all in the course of doing their work. Others such as myself do, because we believe it can function as a useful tool, but it is not easy and requires great care to avoid the dangers of it taking over the process and the better goals of the art.

The next point, is that beyond the comparatives between how a camera sees, and how eyes see, in the appraisals of art about what is most ‘realistic’ ----- The use of camera’s and film, or pixels, are locked in a situation of being a mechanical means and process to the resulting image. There are choices the photographer uses within the mechanical nature of it, from lighting, composition, and even manipulating the printing of the film or digital images through software. But…. the restrictions of process and tools ultimately make the image more a result of the photographer accommodating the machines, in comparison to the process and materials used in traditional art. In painting, the artist is far less removed from the reproducing of a given image or form, because he/she is creating it with eyes, directly linked to control of the hand – and a huge mental control in decisions/choices of what is put down, and how, on whatever surface the art is being rendered on. There are no machines or restrictive processes in the way to the end result as there are in photography. The other thing is, that representational fine art can be much more than duplicative representations of things, forms, or scenes. An artist is engaged in the process of doing much of that in such art, but to only do that leaves out what can be a wonderful added ingredient and intent. The artist is a human being --- As such, comparatively unlike the mechanical confines of a camera and the results from them, an artist can instill human emotion into a piece of art. He/she can, because the method and the materials allow that to be done. Whether the artist does that well or not depends on the ability. To what degree it is in the mix of the artwork, is dependant on the choice and control of the artist. The real point is, that such an enriching element is at least possible to instill into the end result image, it (art) therefore having more potential to being more than a robotic representation alone. There are some great photographs around, even some that can have feeling in them. But again, the process and the machinery are almost hopelessly in the way, towards producing the very best potentials in seeing and ‘feeling’ a representational image.

To take and make great photographs requires great skill, and I appreciate good photography and those who create it. I do photography myself, both for use as a ‘tool’ in my painting, but also for photography as entirely different medium. With the advent of digital cameras, computer imaging and software applications, photography has taken on a whole new (and in my opinion, better and more interesting) dimension of use and possibilities. Including the use of it as a starting point to then doing truly creative works (such as digital paintings), and as for myself, using all of the traditional skills from many years in painting/drawing/creating with traditional mediums and tools. But with all due respect to photographers, the truth is; To paint with the sole intent of making the painting a literal representation, or, to what some would compliment as it “looks just like a photograph”, takes far more skill than pushing buttons and having a knowledge of the camera. To do traditional painting/drawing, with the purpose of representationalism, But -- as well as instilling into it measures of emotion, representations of form/light more akin to how humans really see, and aesthetic design -- Requires far more skill than either of the previous, including doing a painting where the intent is to ‘make it look like a photograph’. I’ve known many good artists who can take great photographs. I have known few photographers who can do great art in paintings or drawings. I have known many artists who can sit and mechanically render ‘photographic’ representations. Many of them, do not have the skill, interest, or talent it takes to do any more. And doing more than a literal or photographic-like rendering, takes MUCH much more. Believe it.

Finally, one simple point before I conclude. If it is an artist’s sole intent, and a image looker’s sole need towards appreciation to see a ‘photographic like’ image in a piece of art --- Then why not just do a photograph in the first place? The fascination of an artist’s technical ability to produce a ‘photographic’ looking painting is an element in the excitement, I’m sure. But the fact is, such technical capability, and painted examples of it, are not rare by a long shot.

So in conclusion, when the compliment of … “Wow, it looks just like a photograph” is made, or a person saying … “I only like art that is just like a photograph”, be they a – “I don’t know much about art but I know what I like” type person, or an even a ‘so-called expert’ ----------------- There truly is much more going on in the mix of it all. There’s a whole lot going on that is meeting the eyes, but for many, it’s unfortunately not meeting in the mind, and/or it’s being overridden by other notions lodged there. For the artist, as well as those who like to look at art -- There is a Whole World of other, much more exciting things to take hold of, aspire to shooting for, and enjoy. But… it’s up to the individual to seek out and become aware of that, and then pursue it for themselves.

Wayne Snyder / artist / 1998

What Makes a Good Composition/Design?

2010-01-16T10:21:00.000-08:00

A good composition is a particular
arrangement of the elements making up it’s total, where it would matter to the aesthetics of the viewer if it were otherwise.

And here is where it really gets fascinating - The ‘elements’ are everything from each mark, shape, or ‘passage’ of paint, large or small, and also the first element actually being the shape and dimensional boundaries of the composition itself. The boundary, meaning the ‘picture plane’, such as the canvas size or watercolor paper size chosen. This too is a shape, and will also be integral to the composition. Every element is in itself designed, in numerous dimensions of design. The size and nature of its shape, color (which also has multiple dimensions), the value (tone) of the element, whether it is thick or thin, it’s edges sharp or blurred or both. And each element must relate to and support every other element within the composition total. Each element has an aesthetic interplay with the others, and to the composition/design. It is much like a symphony orchestra, being made up of many instruments each playing their own composed part, all supporting the whole which is the composition being played.

Going further into what becomes a challenge, and exciting -- When the art is of a more representational genre (meaning ‘realistic’ in the rendering of light and forms), from very tight styles to more impressionistic -- Where all of the above must be accomplished with the ‘raw’ design elements of the composition…. But at the same time that each element is a representation of form. An incredible juggling act, where elements stand on their own as designs, at the same time being supportive and cohesive of one another, at the same time becoming the successful whole (the composition), and last but not least -- at the same time being two dimensional representations of light and form using the medium chosen. For the artist, along with many other things such as medium and materials choices, the composition is a series of choices and decisions pertaining to each element, while also functioning in the total of the composition. Adjustments to any and all, can number into the thousands, or less, depending on size, medium, and ‘how the particular new composition has come along’. And I haven’t even talked about yet another dimensional element that can be included - The communication, story, or emotion strived to be a part of it all. Composing each new individual piece is an adventure and challenge for the artist. A culmination of so much for viewers to enjoy, if they choose.

Wayne Snyder -- 2010

Sameness.. Or Variety in Art

2010-01-13T17:55:00.000-08:00

ON THE ISSUE OF
WHETHER AN ARTIST SHOULD PURSUE A SAMENESS IN HIS/HER BODY OF WORK -- OR DEGREES OF UNIQUE VARIETY.
-- ONE ARTIST'S POSITION --

Before I get into this issue, it is important to preface with a few points. First, I offer my thoughts and opinions on the subject only in so much as how they are pertinent to me as an individual artist. For other artists, or art in general, if my thoughts are able to prompt any constructiveness, then I'll be glad to have helped. However, I do not presume at all to be unique in what I have to say, nor do I wish to project the notion that what holds true for me is or ought to be the same for others. Second, I have a great appreciation for good art (my definition of it anyway) and a tremendous respect for those artists who can create it. There are, in fact, a fair number of these, where the art and the artist have been on a singular-oriented groove of "likeness" from piece to piece. When each piece, or a body of art is good -- it's good. When within the constraints of their means, an individual artist is doing whatever he/she needs to do in the endeavor at doing the very best of what they are or have the potential of doing -- it's good thing.

Assuming they are seriously interested, every artist will find his/her own orientation to make the above "it's good" scenario truly happen, be it the art and artist working in tight continuity from piece to piece, or those involved in doing varying degrees of variety. To deny or compromise either orientation, when the "it's good" scenarios are hanging in the balance -- is to lessen the best of what art and artists are or could have been.

Assuming that the art world (the appreciators, the collectors, the dealers, the cultural institutions, the artists themselves) is/are interested in seeing the very best come about in traditional painting/drawing -- then there can be no denial or compromises made to whatever particular ingredient(s) are needed to make it (and the artists) so.

On the issue of what defines 'good' art, that of course could be debated forever without agreement from one person to the next. All I can do as an individual, and artist, is have my own opinion, and making sure that I've given myself a reasonable basis for it. For the topic at hand here, I would say that while art done in the vein of repetitiveness (from one piece to the next) can be 'good', it all depends on if it has the elements that would make any art good. When such art isn't good (or likely to be), aside from reasons of lackings in such 'elements', it can be the case also, when the repetitiveness has become an end in itself, and/or as the primary purpose. Assembly line, mass produced, 'theme packaging' --- orientations of purpose, are in my opinion, not at all conducive to good art being produced. They are, more likely to condemn it to being shallow, synthetic, poor art.

As others have, through most of my lifetime doing art, doing it professionally as an illustrator and in the fine arts, I have developed the facility to work reasonably well in several different mediums. As an individual, I am interested in at least several, rather than only one thing/subject, which I feel compelled to include as subject matter in my art. Also, I enjoy pursuing several different techniques or ‘styles’ I'm capable in, which I choose to utilize for whatever particular art at hand. I work in oil, watercolor, gouache, and several dry mediums. I am interested in landscapes, 'western art', figurative and story oriented pictures. I vary in my style (or technique) within the bounds of a ‘tight and loose’ (at the same time) look -- some a little tighter, to others a little looser. There are in fact both limits and continuities to what I've done. The varieties that are there, have not been pursued for the sake of variety, but exist only because I've utilized what I've gathered into my toolbox to create art of different content /subjects which have or do interest me. Having the diversity is certainly not unique to me. Many artists do, and put it to use freely. Many have far greater parameters than I do, and feel the same that there is no logic to limiting their freedom, abilities, and needs as artists.

While I, and others thankfully, have been complemented on diversity, secondary to the quality, there are those who would be critical of it. To me, the 'live and let live' cutoff line in the difference of opinion comes, when it is construed that diversity runs contrary to good art being created. The cliche of "jack of all trades, master of none" is brought to bear as an absolute -- which it is not at all, in this application. The notion that diversity is necessarily disadvantageous to marketability is also projected as an absolute by some, but this idea is only supported through repetitive/sameness having been hyped and sold into its' own self-fueling 'in--concrete' scenario. One can on occasion even hear another artist or two (whose own work is in the more repetitive orientation) who can be critical of other artists whose work follows a path of some variety. From most I believe, the thinking is well intended, but I often wonder if the positions may come from having been channeled there themselves. And perhaps as a result, they're forgetting that the most important thing ought to be assessing and creating good art. When art is good, then it simply is, regardless if it is sameness or variety oriented to the body of other works. Others can have opinions on the issue driven by agendas that are frankly, either silly or steeped in contrivances. For example, you may have an artist who thinks 'since I only can or get to do one thing, other artists shouldn't get to do any more either'. Or, in agendas pursuant to what can be the viciousness in competition and marketing, another thought projected can be, 'if one of the diversities you have is what I do, you shouldn't be so diverse' -- the old 'I own this territory' routine. I have heard and read this kind of line pushed to incredible absurdities in efforts to promote the notion of exclusivity’s, which have no basis in truth or logic.

When I decided to become an artist (and most particularly in the fine arts), I don't recall making any agreement requiring that I should not be able to fully explore my potentials doing anything I could do within those potentials, to make my work the best it could be, or that I could not fulfill in my art what I am interested in. I don't recall agreeing to restrictions such as: that since I do oils that it would not be 'OK' for me to do watercolors, etc., etc.

As an artist trained also as an art director for advertising and graphic design, I fully understand the importance of such things as product identity. However, there are certain product instances (with givens connected to them) whereas identity to the point of rubber-stamp sameness, can in fact do far more damage than what good is generated, than what those ‘expert’ marketer’s/salesmen wanting the products on the shelf (or wall) in a 'product line' of replicative identity, believe they are accomplishing. I believe that the 'packagers' insisting on only replicative sameness where it concerns fine art, regardless of what can be their good intent, have not only lessened the potential of art and artists in many cases, in the process of such tunnel vision, they've also lessened their own returns.

I've had it suggested that I should only produce one kind of art. The same medium, the same subject, and the same colors -- it can go on to even putting the same frames on them all! This suggestion has come almost exclusively from either individuals having good intentions, but unfortunately don't understand the process, the ramifications, or me as an individual artist. Or it can be from others who do understand, but whose own interests in different ways are put to run contrary to my best interests. I believe much of this comes from what is taught and practiced in the business and marketing world, based on what has worked in our economic system of producing/selling products. It also comes as a part of our culture, in so much as the above has conditioned perceptions widely that continuity sameness (to the extent of duplication) is always good and correct, which it most certainly isn't.

In short, if I were to limit myself and my art to create a 'product line' of the body of my works -- say . . . only oil paintings, of landscapes, in three basic colors, only drawn or painted in a same formula style -- etc., etc., etc. -- I will have become a machine producing a 'product line' to suit perhaps the ease or mind-set of a marketing persons' job, or the ease of a sameness-oriented personality to look at my work. But . . . I will also have destroyed a major part of the essence of what I, as an individual artist and person am about, as well as that I will have thrown away skills I've worked hard to acquire and do enjoy utilizing.
Like other artists, I am not an individual whose best potentials can be served by being typecast. Some artists are served that way, such as some actors -- mine cannot be, at least for now as I see it. If someone must typecast me, then I would prefer to simply be cast as one who endeavors to do good work and strives to make it better. The importance of identity and consistency is served by this, by my signature on each piece, and that there is only one me who created them.

It could be that I will edit down to only doing one thing at some point. If I do so it would be only for something constructive to my work and myself. It will not be to suit any misconceived or handicapping ideas. The fact is anyway, that for anyone viewing my work at any one showing, it is likely they will see more sameness oriented continuities than any huge array of variety, assuming they have some fair experience in looking at art.
When producing, marketing, and looking at soup or shoes, do it as apropos to the products. When creating, marketing, and looking at art (at least where it concerns me and mine) do it as apropos to it, vis-a-vis the extraordinarily different inputs and givens (from soup, shoes, soap, cars, etc.) it takes to make it good and keep it vibrantly growing better.

I don't hold myself above anyone whose good endeavors or work is different than art, nor do I believe that my work is at the level of many artists whose work I so greatly admire. What I do hold up to at least an equal footing with anyone else, is my desire to produce good and always better work with what I have, the importance of my freedom, and lastly -- the value (to myself anyway) of living / working as the individual that I am.
That is my 'packaging'.

WAYNE SNYDER
Washington State 1995