Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

[Yuwipi Woman]

Digital art is not new. The art world refuses to accept it because the art world is controlled by people who refuse to align with something they think is beneath art. They have a limited view of "Art" . They have forfeited the connection that existed between art and science for the idea of "conceptualism" which is devoted to the cult of personality and excludes anything which they deem to be non personal.

It's still new in comparison to the traditional mediums (millennia as opposed to decades). Photography has been around more than 100 years and you still get people questioning it as a "valid" medium. I think some of digital art's problem is similar to photography in another way. The easy reproducibility of that art devalues it in some people's eyes. Anything "popular" or "accessible" is always suspect in some circles.

I think you're giving the "art elite" more power than they're really due. There's not just one art market with New York or Paris as the center. There's multiple art centers and multiple markets.

There's even a parallel market for realist/traditional painting that takes very little direction from New York or Paris. You'll never hear about these artists and galleries in Art News or see them in major museums, but go to Dallas, Denver, Aspen, or Jackson Hole and you'll see street after street of galleries selling work at high prices. Artists a New York gallery wouldn't consider representing, and that's fine. They're still making a good living making and selling art. They're funded by oil billionaires who don't care what's selling in NY. They buy stuff they like and it isn't conceptual art.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I also suspect that in the future, the gallery system will have to either make changes to survive or you'll see fewer galleries. Artists who are good marketers can sell their own art without going through a gallery. With the internet and other low-cost marketing strategies, artists won't find parting with 40% or more of the selling price of a piece all that appealing. A similar thing has already happened in the music industry.

 

[chilango]

I also suspect that in the future, the gallery system will have to either make changes to survive or you'll see fewer galleries. Artists who are good marketers can sell their own art without going through a gallery. With the internet and other low-cost marketing strategies, artists won't find parting with 40% or more of the selling price of a piece all that appealing. A similar thing has already happened in the music industry.

Artists have never "needed" galleries to sell their work. All over the world artists get their work to its audience in a myriad of ways.

Selling through galleries is more about status and, I guess, legitimacy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm afraid you're chucking around terms somewhat indiscriminately. Masterpieces and "good" artworks are not mutually interchangeable terms. Masterpiece has a different meaning, a culturally loaded one in part? But also in part more reliant upon the technical skill of the artist.

"Masterpiece", used as an accurate-ish description, tends to be a product of age. Most artistic masterpieces don't, unless given the label by partisan promoters of the artist, get meaningfully given the label until a couple of generations after the artwork is made, IMO.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I look down on people who celebrate ignorance.

There's plenty wrong with the art world.

More than I suspect you realise.

But as long you can't be arsed to even try and understand it, the easier for them to carry on.

It does kind of give "the art world" (by which I mean the promoters and agents and galleries and collectors) an easy ride, in that if you don't arm yourself to challenge their interpretation of high art on their terms (rather than just mocking it, mock-worthy though a lot of it is), they can forever pull the old trick of saying "but you don't understand what the artist is saying..."

Focus on the shit and the puke, it's easier than addressing the manufacturing of tastes, the engineering of culture etc etc

C'mon. You're being totally played here.

As for me. I don't play along with it. I've little to do with the art world anymore. But at least I understand why.

I'm not sure that "taste" is produced in as blatant a way as being manufactured, but it's certainly the case that prevailing cultural discourses steer people in the development of their "taste", and culture is certainly "engineered", be it blatantly a la the Nazi denigration and removal of "alien" cultural artifacts, or subtly, such as the preferences expressed by critics for the products of particular artists (of whichever artistic field) within a school or genre.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Artists have never "needed" galleries to sell their work. All over the world artists get their work to its audience in a myriad of ways.

Selling through galleries is more about status and, I guess, legitimacy.

I generally agree with you. It's just that digital technology had made the process of the artist self-representing themselves so much easier and accessible. Its changed the marketing of nearly everything, I don't see the art world as being immune.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's still new in comparison to the traditional mediums (millennia as opposed to decades). Photography has been around more than 100 years and you still get people questioning it as a "valid" medium. I think some of digital art's problem is similar to photography in another way. The easy reproducibility of that art devalues it in some people's eyes. Anything "popular" or "accessible" is always suspect in some circles.

I think you're giving the "art elite" more power than they're really due.

While they may shape "taste" quite forcefully, there's still a fair bit of autonomy expressed by those who aren't "art professionals" or interested parties. To use an example which I'm sure at least one poster will protest about, Jack Vettriano's work is popular with a wider public, yet anathematised by many critics and artists. Also, as I mentioned earlier, Rousseau's paintings were held by critics to be little better than amateurish daubs until they became popular, at which time critical analysis shifted, rhapsodising over the "naive" style and the outre subject matter.

There's not just one art market with New York or Paris as the center. There's multiple art centers and multiple markets.

As Adorno and Horkheimer mentioned in "The Culture Industry" 60+ years ago.

There's even a parallel market for realist/traditional painting that takes very little direction from New York or Paris. You'll never hear about these artists and galleries in Art News or see them in major museums, but go to Dallas, Denver, Aspen, or Jackson Hole and you'll see street after street of galleries selling work at high prices. Artists a New York gallery wouldn't consider representing, and that's fine. They're still making a good living making and selling art. They're funded by oil billionaires who don't care what's selling in NY. They buy stuff they like and it isn't conceptual art.

You've also got painters in most places making a living with old-fashioned landscapes and portraits - paintings people want because a painted representation is often easier to project your thoughts about a place onto - easier to idealise -than a photographic representation is.

 

[chilango]

I generally agree with you. It's just that digital technology had made the process of the artist self-representing themselves so much easier and accessible. Its changed the marketing of nearly everything, I don't see the art world as being immune.

Absolutely.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

So, to start, how - and why - do you think Conceptual Art functions as "high Art", as an elite form of cultural capital? Why not (say) photorealistic painting?

Can someone give me a definition of "high Art." I cringe every time I see that phrase because I'm not certain such a thing really exists outside someone's overblown fantasy of the value of their own opinion.

I'm reminded of a Science Fiction book I read some years ago about an alien culture that invades Earth. Part of their incorporation of a culture into theirs was to choose an aspect to incorporate into their "high art." For Earth they choose Elvis impersonation.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

You've also got painters in most places making a living with old-fashioned landscapes and portraits - paintings people want because a painted representation is often easier to project your thoughts about a place onto - easier to idealise -than a photographic representation is.

Would that make Stanley Edwards a good example? All his hard work at being a bad example is going to waste.

 

[chilango]

Can someone give me a definition of "high Art." I cringe every time I see that phrase because I'm not certain such a thing really exists outside someone's overblown fantasy of the value of their own opinion.

I'm reminded of a Science Fiction book I read some years ago about an alien culture that invades Earth. Part of their incorporation of a culture into theirs was to choose an aspect to incorporate into their "high art." For Earth they choose Elvis impersonation.

High art = elite rather than popular . More weight as cultural capital

 

[Pickman's model]

"Masterpiece", used as an accurate-ish description, tends to be a product of age. Most artistic masterpieces don't, unless given the label by partisan promoters of the artist, get meaningfully given the label until a couple of generations after the artwork is made, IMO.

yeh, it's why penguin classics are books that have stood the test of time*

*barring morrissey's autobiography

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

High art = elite rather than popular . More weight as cultural capital

Still makes me cringe.

 

[chilango]

Still makes me cringe.

Yeah.

It's not a good thing, but it is a thing.

 

[Miss Caphat]

It's still new in comparison to the traditional mediums (millennia as opposed to decades). Photography has been around more than 100 years and you still get people questioning it as a "valid" medium. I think some of digital art's problem is similar to photography in another way. The easy reproducibility of that art devalues it in some people's eyes. Anything "popular" or "accessible" is always suspect in some circles.

I think you're giving the "art elite" more power than they're really due. There's not just one art market with New York or Paris as the center. There's multiple art centers and multiple markets.

There's even a parallel market for realist/traditional painting that takes very little direction from New York or Paris. You'll never hear about these artists and galleries in Art News or see them in major museums, but go to Dallas, Denver, Aspen, or Jackson Hole and you'll see street after street of galleries selling work at high prices. Artists a New York gallery wouldn't consider representing, and that's fine. They're still making a good living making and selling art. They're funded by oil billionaires who don't care what's selling in NY. They buy stuff they like and it isn't conceptual art.

I too think many (false) assumptions are being made. I don't think digital art not being taken seriously is a thing , even in my little community art center we discuss/ educate on the merits of digital art which has been accepted to our shows, and nobody really seems to put up much resistance.
Also, it's funny to say that on the one hand the "art world" is so avant garde that they regard all kinds of unusual media as art, but somehow they're also very anti-digital? I feel like this is just more fantasizing by a frustrated amateur artist.

Anyway! Enough about that, but good points Yuwipi. Not as many artists are able to sell work and gain notoriety as anyone would like, but still many do quite well across the country. I don't encounter too many people who get all hung up on not being accepted to the more "prestigious" enclaves either. Artists find their niche and go with it, ime.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I generally agree with you. It's just that digital technology had made the process of the artist self-representing themselves so much easier and accessible. Its changed the marketing of nearly everything, I don't see the art world as being immune.

meh. it's still not very easy, for anyone. you also have to get people to actually SEE your stuff. And want to buy it. People like to see things in person, for the most part, unless it's little decorative things from Etsy, etc.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Also, it's funny to say that on the one hand the "art world" is so avant garde that they regard all kinds of unusual media as art, but somehow they're also very anti-digital?.

Who said that?
Many "modern art" galleries promote certain styles.
In doing so other styles are excluded.
Digital art is not getting wall space in many "modern art" galleries. I regularly visit galleries that promote "abstract", "installation" and "conceptual" art. Visual digital art is only occasionally represented.

I feel like this is just more fantasizing by a frustrated amateur artist

Lol.....you're a card...

 

[chilango]

I s'pose it depends upon what "sort" of digital art we're talking about.

Digital "painting" etc.? Sure, it's not "esteemed" as high art by and large (with exceptions such as Hockney's forays into using his iPod).

But more "interactive" or "installational" stuff is well represented IME.

 

[Treacle Toes]

not a chance in hell. sorry, bubbles.
why do people always say stuff like this?
there's emotionally charged, passionate arguing, then there's people whose opinions and persona you find so unappealing you wish you never came across them. nothing sexy about that feeling.

I was joking Miss Caphat I am surprised you never realised that!

Jeez
You thought she was on about you?

I was, on about you both actually!

 

[Miss Caphat]

digital art, articles about recent exhibitions etc

major one in London featuring Hockney, etc: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennife...ses-art-meets-hacking-for-digital-innovation/

sold out digital art exhibition London https://www.barbican.org.uk/digital-revolution

another one http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whatson/mirrorcity-23-london-artists-86590?dt=2014-10-14

 

[Treacle Toes]

I s'pose it depends upon what "sort" of digital art we're talking about.


Digital "painting" etc.? Sure, it's not "esteemed" as high art by and large (with exceptions such as Hockney's forays into using his iPod).

But more "interactive" or "installational" stuff is well represented IME.

Isn't the Turner prize or whatever full of digital stuff this year?

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I s'pose it depends upon what "sort" of digital art we're talking about.

Digital "painting" etc.? Sure, it's not "esteemed" as high art by and large (with exceptions such as Hockney's forays into using his iPod).

But more "interactive" or "installational" stuff is well represented IME.

Exactly

 

[Miss Caphat]

also, yes, galleries tend to specialize in certain styles. therefore, they all exclude certain types of art. there are far more galleries that sell more mainstream art than conceptual. I would venture a guess that it's over 1000 to 1, probably quite a bit more

 

[chilango]

Isn't the Turner prize or whatever full of digital stuff this year?

Dunno.

But it's a bit of a red herring anyway. Certain "styles" of digital art don't get the status that bubbles (and many vocal internet art forum posters) believe it deserves.

Not coincidently this style shares much with styles of painting that many of the same group equally complain about a lack of status for.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Isn't the Turner prize or whatever full of digital stuff this year?

I could be wrong but I thought there were two film makers a print artist and someone with slide projections to sound.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I was joking Miss Caphat I am surprised you never realised that!

I really wasn't sure!

 

[chilango]

also, yes, galleries tend to specialize in certain styles. therefore, they all exclude certain types of art. there are far more galleries that sell more mainstream art than conceptual. I would venture a guess that it's over 1000 to 1, probably quite a bit more

It's not about that really. It's about status. About recognition and validation from the very critics and institutions the complainers claim to despise.

That's the sad irony.

 

[Miss Caphat]

It's not about that really. It's about status. About recognition and validation from the very critics and institutions the complainers claim to despise.

That's the sad irony.

ok.
I guess, I just am not picking up on their being all that much tension in the art world, personally, after coming in contact with many many artists along the way (art school /gallery/ art center positions/teaching, etc).
It seems like artists for the most part gravitate towards what they like as far as genre and style and media, and how they choose to express themselves comes pretty naturally, and if anyone makes it, conceptual artist, metal sculptor, or graphic designer/ illustrator, then kudos to them because it's never easy!

 

[Miss Caphat]

that being said, I can see how the more mainstream digital artists could have a point about not being taken seriously. what kind of stuff are we talking about here, in general?

 

[chilango]

ok.
I guess, I just am not picking up on their being all that much tension in the art world, personally, after coming in contact with many many artists along the way (art school /gallery/ art center positions/teaching, etc).
It seems like artists for the most part gravitate towards what they like as far as genre and style and media, and how they choose to express themselves comes pretty naturally, and if anyone makes it, conceptual artist, metal sculptor, or graphic designer/ illustrator, then kudos to them because it's never easy!

It's not in the art world you'll find this tension it's on Internet forums.

(Though I experienced it occasionally at art school from some if my more mature, traditionally minded peers who resented "sheep shit" getting better grades than paintings )