Calculating the Market Price for Beauty

[NoSeRider]

CALCULATING THE MARKET PRICE FOR BEAUTY (http://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2009/01/calculating-market-price-for-beauty.html)

The blogger notes that technical skill is now being overshadowed by quirkiness
and promotion. Apparently, the individuality of a piece is more important then
technical ability and skill. There has to be a psychological rapport more then an
appreciation of merit in skill.

Eh, it's the lounge.

[ceberae]

Perhaps the blogger needs to consider that the ability to capture the viewers attention and curiosity is as much a skill as interpreting the 3D form into a 2D image. Personally, out of the 6 images presented, 2 that jump out at me are by the artist that the blogger is calling "less skilled". This one in particular (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zMsg9U8UoyM/SV7AuBCwcuI/AAAAAAAAC_o/V5leZ9NaDUU/s1600-h/Currin1a.jpg) - I see a character, not a life drawing model. I wonder what that woman in the painting was about to say. A skill to create an interesting character - is still a skill. Does it deserve a bigger monetary compensation? I don't have an opinion on the matter - if someone wants to pay 5 mil for a painting, it's their money.

[Prometheus|ANJ]

Since none of those women are properly equipped with armour bits, giant boots or Gatlin-guns, I have to give em all thumbs down.

...anyways.

I think that art is about stimulating parts our brain and thus creating feelings. Exaggeration and distortion of proportion and colors can be used to create strong feelings which are very subtle or nonexistent in reality, and this is a wonderful thing. It would be a waste to not make use of it.

Also, as a concept artist, I'm much more interested in idea than rendition. Technical skill can probably get in the way of interesting ideas in many ways. Sometimes a technically skilled artist can be too confined, or able to sell a turd thanks to the rendering. I think a great concept should survive even with minimum rendering.


That said, I think I prefer Gottlieb's pieces (even if the only feeling which they create is 'human figure painting session') mainly because Currin's pieces reminds me of those eerie old pestilence paintings :G

[Grief]

i do enjoy me some naked wimminz.

[Rist]

Adrian Gottlieb (http://www.adriangottlieb.com/) are just life drawing studies, whereas John Currin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Currin) implements an imagination into the study of the female form. Drawing from modern qualities only adds to the suspense.

Its like comparing a Realist to an Expressionist.

[2100]

I think you should stop reading that blog. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He thinks Andrew Wyeth is an abstract expressionist (see Jan 16 post)

I'm familiar with both Gottlieb and Currin... There should be no contest, Currin is both more interesting, and more skilled. To the trained eye, his technique is flawed. But to the art world, that's part of the appeal.

I think the point where skill=value in a painting caps off around 10k. After that it's about marketing.

[GaussianRaider]

There's a pretty long discussion going on in the comments, Rob Howard took a very extremist stance on modern ateliers.
"The creative spark is beaten out of them. They become as corporatist as a cubicle worker. Whatever joie de vivre they may have had when entering the atelier has been ground into paste upon leaving. Yes, a few do manage to survive but most end up as dull as wallpaper paste. They know it so what do they do...these callow renderers with no life experience and even less job experience feel fully qualified to teach. So we end up with the bland leading the blind."

[dashinvaine]

Artists with 'quirky' identifiable styles have always stood out, even if their style was the result of flaws. Currin, the second artist in the blog, does slightly naive nudes reminiscent of Cranach the Elder. Cranach did alright during the Renaissance despite the presumable plentitude of technically superior artists with a better idea of how the body is put together. Either Frederic Leighton or E B Leighton were vastly superior painters to Burne Jones and Rossetti (in terms both of realism and pure beauty), but it is the latter who have books written about them.


It could also be that Currin's paintings look more engaging and less stuffy than Gottlieb's, which may make them more appealing...

[B u r l]

Currin paints porn. I don't think there's a great deal else to it except for that, and the ironic element which is he paints in the traditional manner (and it probably helps him to stick around longer). You can't really compare the 2 artists, as craftsmanship doesn't matter in the art world he's in. In Currin's case it just serves as part of the idea and makes it more quirky. I find his stuff fun, but hollow. I prefer Gottlieb more, but I wish he'd tackle contemporary issues and ideas more.

[Rist]

It seems present figurative artists are only concerned with reliving the renaissance period. Did Modernism teach us anything? (people with lack of a constructive response would say, "yeah, not to relive modernism! L0L!!!")

It seems the art world is running out of steam, as if dyeing or waiting for the next big push.

[Flake]

I think you should stop reading that blog. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
I couldn't disagree more. I might not always agree with Apatoff but the guy knows his stuff.
He thinks Andrew Wyeth is an abstract expressionist (see Jan 16 post)
Did we ever get that "whooooosh" smiley?

[kev ferrara]

Apatoff indeed does know his stuff... better than ninety percent of the artists I know. If you cannot see the degree to which Andrew Wyeth is an abstractionist, I beg thee... rethink.

Currin combines Botticelli with Vargas. This may not be interesting to you, but nobody's ever done that before. What gottleib is doing shows remarkable skill, but, in my opinion, lacks poetry. Although I wish I had experience painting at that skill level.

[NoSeRider]

I think Gottlieb paints from a live model and photo reference.

I think Currin is taking concepts from early Renaissance artists like Sandro Botticelli and capitalizing on it.....with his nudes anyway.

I don't think anybody is exhibiting anything 'new'.

I do appreciate the technical skill of Gottlieb more then Currin. I think people have an affinity to Currin's pieces because it more in line with 'entertainment', images that are bombarded to us by television and print. It's more about the familiar then the technical. I think Currin would be considered a Lowbrow Artist, and Lowbrow art is usually more about cultural values then execution.

I think Gottlieb has greater 'technical' skill though.

I wrote that. However, I replaced infinity with affinity. Still learning English even though it's my native tongue. I posted anonymously because people are scary.

kev ferrara and I agree on that Botticelli thingy anyway.

Eh, so I called attention to myself. What artist isn't a narcissist?

[GaussianRaider]

Apatoff indeed does know his stuff... better than ninety percent of the artists I know. If you cannot see the degree to which Andrew Wyeth is an abstractionist, I beg thee... rethink.

Currin combines Botticelli with Vargas. This may not be interesting to you, but nobody's ever done that before. What gottleib is doing shows remarkable skill, but, in my opinion, lacks poetry. Although I wish I had experience painting at that skill level.

Yes, is definitely reminiscent of Botticelli, personally I like the work of both artists, what I really didn't like are some aspects of the discussion there, I don't think one needs to be a zealot of a particular style/philosophy and there's no need to belittle one's art to compliment the ability of another artist.
The point made by Howard are debatable and he stated them in an absolute manner (and with strong expressions).
As an economics major, I also have to take distance from, if I understood correctly, Apatoff's point of view (or indignation); markets aren't made to be fair and prices are not indicator of technical ability.
I'm sorry for the mistakes, english is not my first language.

[dashinvaine]

It seems present figurative artists are only concerned with reliving the renaissance period. Did Modernism teach us anything? (people with lack of a constructive response would say, "yeah, not to relive modernism! L0L!!!")

It seems the art world is running out of steam, as if dyeing or waiting for the next big push.

I don't like 'Modernism'. It was a totalitarian cult dreamt up by socially-controlling demagogues, insisting on the rejection of all historical traditions in favour of what was essentially just another style (and a particularly soulless and unpleasant one at that). It's smartest move was adopting the very name 'modernism'. It implied that anyone who didn't like it was out of touch with the times and opposing progress. 'Modernism' in art is now as old-fashioned, stale and academically entrenched as ever Classicism was. (Since then, we've had the gross vulgarity of 'pop art' and the unsufferable bullshit of 'conceptualism'. No wonder artists with real talent and taste have looked back nostalgically to the pre-'Modernist' art, the art of painters like Bouguereau and Lord Leighton. This stuff was exquisite, magnificent, dignified and graceful. Skill and beauty, story-telling and sentiment were the cornerstones of this art. It was more worthy in every way than anything that followed. Only under-appreciated 'illustrators' preserved any of the skills that had once defined 'artists'.

There again it's a bit depressing seeing a gifted artist churning out exquisite paintings that look like they were done 130 years ago. There are surely way of being classical and modern at the same time, respecting the tradition that is the heritage of western artists without becoming a fossil or throw-back. What we need is classicism with the benefit of hindsight.

[Rist]

I don't like 'Modernism'. It was a totalitarian cult dreamt up by socially-controlling demagogues, insisting on the rejection of all historical traditions in favour of what was essentially just another style (and a particularly soulless and unpleasant one at that). It's smartest move was adopting the very name 'modernism'. It implied that anyone who didn't like it was out of touch with the times and opposing progress. 'Modernism' in art is now as old-fashioned, stale and academically entrenched as ever Classicism was. (Since then, we've had the gross vulgarity of 'pop art' and the unsufferable bullshit of 'conceptualism'. No wonder artists with real talent and taste have looked back nostalgically to the pre-'Modernist' art, the art of painters like Bouguereau and Lord Leighton. This stuff was exquisite, magnificent, dignified and graceful. Skill and beauty, story-telling and sentiment were the cornerstones of this art. It was more worthy in every way than anything that followed. Only under-appreciated 'illustrators' preserved any of the skills that had once defined 'artists'.

There again it's a bit depressing seeing a gifted artist churning out exquisite paintings that look like they were done 130 years ago. There are surely way of being classical and modern at the same time, respecting the tradition that is the heritage of western artists without becoming a fossil or throw-back. What we need is classicism with the benefit of hindsight.

Agreed. Have you been to a an art school that teaches contemporary art? Now that is a nightmare. All these tutors adoring some sloppy paint job on canvas and never even mentioning classical art. You can even see their influence on me in my own work. As soon as I escape I will probably look for a Classical focused Atelier or something (learn from real tutors).

One thing I do thank this kind of course for is that it has made me more original in my work.

But really I don't think you can degrade the past 100 years as Degenerate art. There are lessons to learn there that you will not learn from classical painters.

[DavePalumbo]

I kind of fail to see how this is a genuine comparison, the artists are not after the same thing and it's obvious in 2 seconds. If classical figure studies move you, you'll probably prefer Gottlieb, if you want something with story, humor, and tinted through the lens of the artists personal quirks, then you'll probably prefer Currin. Alot of people probably like them both, alot of people probably wouldn't like either one. So what's the point of the argument, that one guy makes more money? When is that something new?

boo hoo, the world is so unfair... (blah, I'm so cranky lately :P)

[Jasonwclark]

Fuck, 5 million dollars is a lot of cheddar. :$

With that kind of money you could buy a 64 pack of crayolas for every first grader in the state of California.

603839

You could put a visiting art teacher in every elementary school in the Bay Area twice a month, for a good decade.

You could endow a local library with every book Loomis ever wrote, as well as all the art books published by Dover, Taschen, and Thames and Hudson in the last 35 years, and you'd still have enough left over to fund a beefy annual scholarship or two.

Not to bag on Currin or the dude who bought his painting - I suppose they can light their cigars with 20s if they want to - but the way some people blow through cash is just beyond ridiculous to me. They could get so much more out of the investment, if they just stopped to think about it for half a minute.

[Rist]

I think money like that being spent on mud on canvas explains why our economy is in the shit (not just art dealers, but people like them who waste a lot of money).