View Single Post
  #10  
Old 03-16-2012, 07:10 PM
joethelion
needing Diet Mountain Dew
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,914
Re: a 'successful' artist
right - it's all a bit open to interpretation on how one would gauge what it means to be successful
(which is why I'm trying to get multiple interpretations, which will be given as 'alternate positions' to my idea)

because ... if someone makes the 'most brilliant, emotionally intriguing, and thought provoking piece of artwork imaginable' - but then squanders their career, destroys it, or doesn't promote it - is that artist actually successful? sort of like - if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it - does it make a sound.

and Van Gogh is kinda a tricky person if you look a bit more into him.

(bit of a disclaimer before I say this... I actually quite like his work, and feel that he is one of the most important painters... well... probably ever)

There's definitely the romanticized perception of him as 'the tragic artist' but then... there's also another view of him I've started to see; I'm over simplifying quite a bit here but...

He was also a manic-depressive, ego-centric art collector* that started painting merely as a method to get a regular pay check (he thought he'd make $$$ by doing portraits) and there's even a quote at the Van Gogh museum where he says (I'm paraphrasing) "I want to do something that'll make me famous for a loooongggg time".

And it's like - how much of the perception of the 'artistic value' of Van Gogh's work colored by the "story" of the tragic artist... and how much of that narrative was constructed by Van Gogh's sister-in-law? Plus there's the recent report that Gauguin cut off his ear or how Van Gogh didn't commit suicide

...which kind of makes you think - if it wasn't for these types of stories, would collectors (back in the day) have wanted his work? It's kind of like the "hoax of Nat Tate"


* like seriously - that's what he did with his brother for ages, and - if you've ever been to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam - you'll see how large of a collection he had


---------

Now personally - how I would classify a "successful artist" would be something along the lines of:

Someone who can influence cultural change over an extended period of time... or at the least can make a "comfortable" living based solely on the construction (and sale) of their work. Now - this would also have to be done without compromising one's own integrity ... which in itself is a tricky situation.

Which is why I want to make a bit of a guide ... because it's freaking SCARY how often artists are flat-out exploited by collectors, galleries, and others.

Like, during a 'professional practice' lecture/discussion I went to last week, two of my classmates (who have pieces in a 'proper gallery') were saying how the gallerist 'was their friend' ... who often times doesn't give them their 50% cut of the sale of their work for over six months at a time... and it's like - no - the gallery owner is NOT your friend, they are a business partner, and it limits their expenses by not paying you. Plus ...it's nuts how often I've seen "the relationship between an artist and a gallery is like a marriage" - again... it's NOT.

Or like - if you sell a work to someone - they own the piece, meaning that - if you don't have a formal, signed legal document... they - theoretically - could just start copying and reprinting that image (and make money off the sale of these copies)

...or - how an "emerging artist" is essentially the same as a "new independent business venture" ...especially with concerns of identifying your target market (audience), managing expenses, generating value and so on...

...ok - I feel like I'm kinda jumping all over the place now - and most of this probably sounds like ...well nonsense.

Last edited by joethelion; 03-16-2012 at 07:12 PM.