[vannrox]

Right on.

[ClearCase_guy]

There was a story in the Wall St Journal yesterday that made me think about this very topic. The story was about Samuel Waksal, founder of ImClone Systems (Martha Stewart financial scandal). But the angle was the selling of Art. The picture included a canvas by Mark Rothko known as "Untitled (Plum and Brown)"

What Rothko did, was paint an entire rectangular canvas Plum colored. Then, he painted a slightly smaller square which was Brown colored.

This was sold for $3.5M. I only which I had the skill to make art that was so fabulously beautiful (and profitable).

[Sabatier]

I couldn't agree more. I strongly recommend that any young aspiring artist avoid the art schools. Go find a good teacher, an artist whose work you admire, someone who is willing to teach the craft. There are many ateliers - private studios - and you can learn so much more there. There are also workshops in most cities where you can learn from an accomplished artist. If you want a university degree get one in computer graphics or web design but if you want to learn how to paint, study with a master painter. Your money will be much better spent and you'll actually develop as an artist.

[u-89]

Too many art school graduates are ill-equipped to see the "art" in everyday life

Seeing art in everyday life is still taught - see Marcel Dumcamp's fountain below. Everyday objects are too often overlooked for their aesthetic qualites by the general public and only when taken out of context can they been "seen". By the way this piece of "modern art" was done in 1917.

[pollwatcher]

The visual fine arts have become far less relevant after the invention of photography. Artists were no longer the primary recorders of history and culture. They are left only with aesthetic premutations to keep art interesting to themselves.
Others seek to regain relevance (and attention) by shock tactics, but it is all a farce - they're only preaching to the gallery-going choir. They will never approach the socio-political impact of a photo journalist, documentary producer, or even the most hack editorial cartoonist.
But, on a slightly different track, art education in the PRIMARY grades has been linked to better performance and visualization skills in "practical" disiplines, such as math. So, let the kiddies splash poster paints around and screen leaf outlines to take home. (or, as a comic once said, "I went to a Children's Art Museum, all the paintings were displayed on refrigerators!")

[u-89]

Actually there is a big difference between non-representational painting i.e. abstract art and what is currently chic in high cultural circles. The abstract painters of old were trained in classical art and excelled at it but they learned from experience that there is beauty in simple color and shape relationships and beauty in the medium itself and in some cases applied paint to the canvas in a manner which allowed the qualities of the paint to be appreciated in their own right.

Today however there is a strong movement of anti-art. This grew from the communist/leftist desire to politicize every aspect of life in order to undermine the culture. Today the political statement is everything. In short there is a focus not on inspiration drawn from beauty but dwelling on the ugly for political purposes, the more outrageous the better as long as it undermines traditional values. Also egalitarianism run amuck has led to the relaxing of certain levels of standards to throwing them out all together.

[Desdemona]

ping

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

"We need to rediscover the foundational principles of great art when it was still in touch with life . . . commit ourselves to the search for styles, forms and subjects expressive of our own time . . ."

Perhaps degenerate art is expressive of our own times.

[buffyt]

AMEN!!!!!

I have a double degree in Art and Spanish from Okla. State U. 1973. [Since then I have taken numerous courses in computers, to play catch-up with technology! But AMEN to that article, just AMEN! Most contemporary art just plain stinks. His name slips my mind, but there is that one artist who likes to wrap huge areas in bright cloth, and I think he is going to do that in NYC soon. That isn't art, that is a WASTE of money, time, and cloth!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are the Van Goghs, Gaugins, Picassos, JMW Turners, Renoirs, Pizarros, Chezannes, Degas, Monets, Manets, Seuratts, Mondrians, Mondiglinais, Klimpts... Where are the masters who did Pinky and Blue Boy. Where are the Remingtons?

[Ditto]

There is a body of 20th Century Art that will be long remembered and admired. That of the Commercial Illustrators.

From Parish to Rockwell, the Dons of the High Art world have damned and demeaned their work while the High Art world has itself degraded into a small circle of meaningless no-talent frauds whose reputations extend no further than their circle. History will balance the scales.

[Betty Jane]

Slightly different perspective. I'm not an artist; I can't draw my way out of a paper bag. But I do know what I like.

My husband's large employer is selling several of its buildings and all of the property inside. This includes the artwork. There are many prints and about 75 original pieces. Prints are $35.00, originals are going for 10% over original buy price in 1998, from $150- $25,000.

I was looking over some of them and picked out 9 prints but don't know any of the original artists. The strange thing is the things that I hate had some very large price tags and I just don't get it. I liked several of the more modestly priced items. Is there any where on the web where you can info about new artists?