a 'successful' artist

[joethelion]

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.

[Andrea]

Excellent, these lines made me almost vomit like a travel-sick:

...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...

But fear not, I´m an amateur, art is still a relaxing hobby for me

I´m really looking forward to read your dissertation, especially section 2 and 4.
In a way I hope you will contribute your own thoughts to the study of the deeper meaning of being a successful artist and not only leave that section 2 be in itself with quotes from others. But again, I´m just a naive amateur.

Now I´m thinking of Ernst Billgren and his book - Vad är konst? (What is art?)
100 questions and answers about art, you should read it.

[Andrea]

Question No.. 23
How do I become successful?

The short answer: Make someone happy.
The long answer: .....

[joethelion]

Originally Posted by Andrea

Excellent, these lines made me almost vomit like a travel-sick:

...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...

But fear not, I´m an amateur, art is still a relaxing hobby for me

I totally understand why it would make someone feel sick - especially reading those two points.

But I think it's really all down to how you interpret the terminology. For example - "identifying your target market" => "Who am I making this work for?"

Am I doing it for myself? For 'the public', is it intended on going into a commercial gallery, an artist - run space, or is it a 'public work'

for example - Christo & Jeanne-Claude's work "the Gates" - how well would that "work" if it was in a gallery, as opposed to a gigantic installation in Central Park?

"Managing Expenses" => are the materials I am using appropriate for the piece I am constructing?

...to draw example from my personal life - there's a classmate of mine creates these very... I don't want to sound dismissive... but... "simple" images (like, one piece was about the average size of a cookie, and in the center of it was a 'ghost' like in the Pac-Man video game) -> except the 'disc' that the ghost was on, was made out of ebony. The ghost was made out of some precious material... and if I'm not mistaken - she also used ivory (and multiple other pieces of her's used antique ivory)

...but the work wasn't about using these precious (and controversial) materials in a "silly" way or making any sort of commentary about the 'connotations' of using ivory - it was just "oh hey - I've got this stuff, and I'm going to use it"

...now how successful was that piece? And how much did she think about her source materials? If it didn't matter that she was using ebony & ivory (amongst other expensive materials) - then why use them in the first place?

'generating value' - ok - this is one part that I personally find very "icky" - but it's like... I think we all can think of examples of famous artists that have pieces sold for ungodly amounts of money - yet, are actually kind of crap. One has to think, how did they position themselves in a manner to garner that kind of exposure?

[Andrea]

Today I walked approx. 6 hours in the Picasso Museum in Barcelona. I don't know if his education was equal to a MPhil and Phd in art but he has at least not lost focus while he painted his version of Las Meninas. No antique ivory, just very simple black and white.
I love the painter most of all