pag picture ani wpa mi kaila niya. few days later nakit-an nmo cya sa tv.. artist man diay ni cya uy.. :mrgreen:Originally Posted by vangogh
pag picture ani wpa mi kaila niya. few days later nakit-an nmo cya sa tv.. artist man diay ni cya uy.. :mrgreen:Originally Posted by vangogh
I don't buy this idea. If we gauge the success of a painter through the number of artworks he or she sold then Van Gogh must be a lousy painter. A great artist for me creates paintings, or songs, or poems, no matter if it's "sale-able" or not. Painting, like a poem or songs, is an expression of its creator. When a painter only creates works that the market demands, I'm sorry to say that he's really not an artist BUT a craftsman. A great craftsman maybe but not an artist.Originally Posted by janutok
<When a painter only creates works that the market demands, I'm sorry to say that he's really not an artist BUT a craftsman. A great craftsman maybe but not an artist.>
So does that also mean when a painter's painting becomes what the market demands, then he becomes a craftsman and no longer an artist? like say there is now a market demand for impressionistic era paintings, then manet, van gogh and gauguin are no longer artists but craftsmen?
We have an Abellana oil portrait that is a "realism" type portrait of my mother. It was in the style and medium that was "what the market demanded" of Abellana, but it didn't and doesn't diminish him to just a craftsman. It was his own techniques and his love for the work that imbues and identifies it as an Abellana portrait whenever any fellow artist sees it.
Bro, definitions of an artist should hold true in whatever art field it is, be it architecture, painting, music, or prose. The true measure of an artist is the test of time and would the same mood and message still come out in that time.
Take for example john Mayer, is he just a craftsman because his music is what the market demands, and not an artists?
In that line of reasoning, then all contemporary songs in the 20th century where done by craftsmen and not artists because they were only creating what the market demands be it rock, jazz, broadway, pop or rap. and all classical paintings were done by mere craftsmen because they were doing what the market demanded at the time, be it portraiture, realism, rennaissance, impressionist, abstract, etc.
Throughout history, art has always gone through phases, and each artist was creating in that specific phase, what the market demanded at the time. Few artists are pioneers and instigated trends in the market, that doesn't make the followers of those trends less an artist than the pioneers, Bach followed the trend instigated by Vivaldi and others, In a lot of his music he "borrowed" ideas from vivaldi, but bach became the pinnacle of baroque music and not considered just a craftsman. Beethoven followed in the footsteps of Mozart, nobody can say he was just a craftsman and even if beethoven was the main innovator of the romantic revolution, that doesn't make the rest of the followers like brahms, tschaikovsky, rachmaninoff and chopin just craftsmen.
When do we say an object is a work of art? Only if it is not what the market demands? Art is always first and foremost a reflection of contemporary realities and mindsets, some more readily discernible than others.
Not all artists can be pioneers or innovators, in fact there is little in the field of painting or music today that is totally new unlike when the impressionists came out.
A work of art is something that has been imbued with an ideal, a coherent feel and pride by the artist, crafted with a great command of technique, and will in itself, jump out and talk to the audience by itself. It is not a matter whether it sells or not, to readily make it a work of art. A sale would not be a great validation, but a significant resale would definitely be.
All artists are first and foremost, craftsmen, and I would rather be a great craftsman than a lousy incoherent artist. (Just my preference)
As Artists, you should strive to have people buy your works for the simple reason that it communicates to them through it. But in so doing do not compromiise or at the least be aware of the compromises to your ideals, your emotions, your techniques, your pride, and aspirations.
Todays art is filled with so much variety and artists going off in so many directions that makes it very hard for an aspiring atist to put themselves in a niche and less so to create their own trend. A niche is where you make money because that will be what makes you "unique" and people come to you for that particular aspect, be it charcoal, pastel, oil. portrait, nudes, landscape or whatever style or medium.
As an artist, you can go in the direction of Van gogh, be oblivious to everything around you and then hope that in a hundred years your descendants will be able to sell your works if they even still exist at all, or you can do what artists have been doing for centuries, creating what is expected from them by their benefactors and clients, but doing it with their own sense of identity, ideal, technique and unique "voice" and make some money while still being alive.
In the end, All ART is subjective communication, and beauty (ART) is in the eye of the beholder, All you have to be whichever direction you go, is to be true to yourself, your ideals, your emotions, your technique and give it as much of your heart, mind and body, then, it will always be your ARTISTRY.
Sio jud bay!!!
Dennis "Sio" Montera
mao diay na si kimsuy yap? cool!!! I heard of his famous name lotsa times, and seen that guy lotsa times too and I'm like "woooaaahhh! there's that guy again! payter! payter!" hehehe :mrgreen:Originally Posted by vangogh
maestro na nako sa USC-TC
i wish ma meet nako si Sir Kimsoy
So far, si Sir Yap ug sir Adeste ako favorite artist diri Cebu. Sayang lang wa ko na under ni sir Adeste... payter sad s i Maxwell Migallos, maayo kaayo nang buang.
Romulo 'mulong' Galicano
Similar Threads |
|