Painters aren't famous. [Archive] - ConceptArt.org Forums

karmazon

January 22nd, 2010, 08:06 PM

riceface

January 22nd, 2010, 09:59 PM

this is a weird topic... i rather u compare artist... i know that comic book artist with 1/10th the skill of concept "salary" job earners, are way more famous and richer

Wollstonecraft

January 22nd, 2010, 10:08 PM

Thomas Kincade. -yes he sucks... but rich and famous he is hmmmmm.

Jack the R

January 22nd, 2010, 10:24 PM

Come back in a hundred years and see who's more famous, Lil' Jon or Picasso.

catcon

January 22nd, 2010, 10:27 PM

yeah painters aren't usually famous until after they die. Because when they die, Business are able to market and exploit them...

Dorkthrone

January 22nd, 2010, 10:38 PM

Salvador Dali's actually pretty famous.

Jaytea

January 22nd, 2010, 10:44 PM

I think the art world and the mainstream are separated by a thin line. When it comes to art, people think old-fashioned landscape painters and the Mona Lisa. I haven't once met someone in person who knew Jon Foster or Frazetta...

karmazon

January 22nd, 2010, 10:48 PM

Come back in a hundred years and see who's more famous, Lil' Jon or Picasso.

Salvador Dali's actually pretty famous.

Good job reading the first sentence of my post.

Thomas Kinkade has his paintings everywhere and might be rich, but not many people actually know his name.

OmenSpirits

January 22nd, 2010, 11:04 PM

It won't happen in the United States.

You're more likely to find fame in a culture whose past is engrained with art as a normal part of life.

Europe, Asia, etc., but not the U.S.

karmazon

January 22nd, 2010, 11:07 PM

It won't happen in the United States.

Why do you think that is?

OmenSpirits

January 22nd, 2010, 11:13 PM

We go through ages instead of incorporating each aspect of those ages into the core of society.

The golden age of illustration, the golden age of jazz, etc. we place periods of time, and then move on without truly taking the aspects of those times, and passing it along to the next generation.

If it's new, shiny, we partake of it, but for only so long as it is en vogue to do so.

We are inherently a disposable society, but hardly ever retaining what was best of our past, leaving it to history books and those of us who find value.

Psychotime

January 22nd, 2010, 11:17 PM

Makes nostalgia even better.

Jack the R

January 23rd, 2010, 01:24 AM

Good job reading the first sentence of my post.

No, I acknowledge that people are more likely to know bad rappers than good currently living artists, but if you step beyond the present it's not likely many rappers will be remembered at all.

BTW there are plenty of people who know Giger. Not everyone knows his name, but they certainly have seen the Alien. In that sense I'd say he's bigger than any rapper. I doubt if my mother's heard anything by Snoop Doggy Dogg, but she knows the Alien.

If you go by works there are plenty of visual artists who are bigger than rappers. The problem is that the movie studios don't choose to promote or acknowledge them the way record studios promote their artists. It's bizarre when you think about it. H.R. Giger is practically a franchise unto himself. Why the film industry never picked up on that is beyond me. They'll make a movie for 50 Cent, but they won't make a movie just for the art of H.R. Giger. Ridiculous.

Ivory_Oasis

January 23rd, 2010, 02:41 AM

It won't happen in the United States.

You're more likely to find fame in a culture whose past is engrained with art as a normal part of life.

You see... that is the problem right there. Art is actually a huge normal part of life for the US (and other developed countries).

But, it isn't in the form of a painting anymore. That isn't how people consume art anymore. I don't have a single painting on the wall (which is typical)... but I do have a TV and several computers. Why pay an artist to draw you a single pretty picture to look at when you can turn on a TV and be exposed to all kinds of modern variations of art?

The "need" for an oil painting is not here in modern day. There are so many works of art and they are thrown at us constantly through our modern changing screens.

BUT, the foundations of painting and making pictures like that is still very much needed (and appreciated, just look how people have responded to avatars art direction).

The reason that the general population does not know artists name is simply a case of marketing. When a great picture is thrown at the public, it is done so under the "name" of whatever they are trying to sell. Game illustrations (like the lovely guildwars paintings), movie posters, matte paintings....all are done FOR someTHING else (instead of being presented to the public with the name of the artist).

Basically, companies want to put all the work of marketing into something they OWN (which is whatever brand they are pushing). They don't own an artist and aren't trying to build up the artists fame (it doesn't really serve them), so they just leave that part out (or just stuff it in the credits somewhere).

I think that is really the greater shame, that graphic artists are being lumped into a pool of nameless interchangeable workers....only recognized for what they do by other artists...

Baron Impossible

January 23rd, 2010, 03:19 AM

You'd need to become your own brand, like Damien Hurst or Banksy, and create your fame from controversy. Even then your fame is limited and localised. People mention the likes of Kinkaid but I doubt one in 100 non-artists worldwide has heard of him, and fewer still would recognise his art. I've never met a non-artist who's heard of Frazetta, even those who've shown an interest in the subject.

Face it, there's no fame and comparatively little money in it for the genuine artist. No artist living or dead has achieved the notoriety of Beckham, and that includes Picasso, and none will achieve his level of earnings either (what is it now, £1m+ a week?). Which is fine because it shows that we're in it for the right reasons.

Lyndsay Harper

January 23rd, 2010, 04:09 AM

In order for an artist most probably like me to bridge the gap between the art world and the mainstream society, part of your art must become a franchise.

There are many reasonable ways of doing that. There's no need to be blatantly controversial. I don't find Damien Hurst all that shocking and its more an issue with how vanilla people are and how most normal people in into quite strange things which creates confusion in a marketplace driven by finding a target audience and manipulating them and even eventually discarding them for a larger more and safer audience in return for more money.
An level headed artists doesn't really need fame or money, not if they're really good anyway. They're most happy just creating, so they usually don't see fame and money as the only way to live a happy life.

It take a rare individual to really have enough want of fame and love of art to be "successful"

oh the fame oh the fame
oh the guilt oh the guilt!

ajvenema

January 23rd, 2010, 04:40 AM

why would a painter be famous, and a carpenter not?
maybe we're just overestimating ourselves.
obviously the world is more interested in soccer and music. and why would they all be wrong? it looks like soccer and music can offer the people something they wont find in art.

MatejaPetkovic

January 23rd, 2010, 05:08 AM

Well it is because you are asking 12 year old boy who is not interested in art and painting. But i don't wanna insult your friend, it is actually what interest certain individual have. In today's world of television, internet, banners, bilboards, etc. there is allot of things going on.
About you said he knows rappers and don't know any painter is because he watches those rappers from age 5-6 on tv, concerts, internet, but you don't see any painter so commercialy exploited, so he can even get chance to be noticed

M

squidmonk3j

January 23rd, 2010, 05:47 AM

why would a painter be famous, and a carpenter not?

Because, in terms of fame, Jesus is a tough act to follow?

Oh, and

name a famous, living philosopher.

ajvenema

January 23rd, 2010, 05:53 AM

Because, in terms of fame, Jesus is a tough act to follow?

Oh, and

name a famous, living philosopher.

hehe, you're sharp:)

Xeon_OND

January 23rd, 2010, 07:42 AM

People nowadays are way more interested in photography than drawing or painting. Go to any interesting place and you'll see tons of people holding all kinds of cameras shooting like mad, but not a single one is holding a pencil or brush.

Why draw or paint, when a camera can take an exact shot of the subject in all it's glory? Throw in Photoshop and you start wondering if there's even a need for artists.
(though there's some things a camera can never do, such as capturing the imaginative)

Verdict?

Artists become legends. Only after they die.

Bruce Pluto

January 23rd, 2010, 07:50 AM

To respond to your first quiz-itation.

FRANK FRAZETTA- still living (and imho one of the most copied and influential artist that ever walked the planet)

Now, artists reaching rock star ( or rap star) status. One in a ca-zillion! Most any artist wanting to become famous 1; have to be unique, 2; have to acquire an ability to focus interest on themselves and 3; have to have stamina.

The list could go on and on because there’s no formula to achieve this. Some of it may be contributed to pot luck, and hard work of course.

Ok, that does not mean that someone can not gain success and fame in the art world. Every member here has been influenced by an artist, or several. If someone enjoys art enough to want to make a career out of it they shouldn’t be looking to be on a show like “America’s got Talent”, or “ The World’s got Talent”. Best just to work, make a lot of money and be happy. Oh, and be able to walk down the street without being mobbed by fans.

Bruce

tobbA

January 23rd, 2010, 07:52 AM

I think it's because music is a lot easier to mass market. A musician can record an album, send it to the stores and all his fans will buy it. They'll tell their friends and so on. Then they'll all come to his concert and pay him even more money and bring him even more fame.

An artist on the other hand usually gets hired by some guy to help develop or market his ideas for a rather limited audience. And said audience might be more interested in the product itself rather than the art that comes with it. In many art fields, such as concept art, the art is not even a part of the finished product, but rather a part of its process.

Before LPs and Cinema actors and musicians were just as unknown as most artists are today.

Both music and movies gets more exposure than art as well. You look at a picture a few seconds, then you're done. A cd you listen to for almost an hour and a movie you watch for several.

I guess the only thing in art that can e compared to that is comics, and I think most comic book fans know the names of their favorite artists and perhaps some that are not as good, but comics aren't as universal as music.

People nowadays are way more interested in photography than drawing or painting. Go to any interesting place and you'll see tons of people holding all kinds of cameras shooting like mad, but not a single one is holding a pencil or brush.

I think that mostly has to do with it being a lot easier tho. Anyone can buy an expensive camera, throw some photoshop filters on the picture and appear very professional. Most people are too lazy to pick up a brush and learn all the things they need in order to become an artist. Which is fine. Because everyone can't be an artist...

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 08:52 AM

People remember a rapper or musician because usually when the song is played over the air, at some point or another the radio station tells you the name of the song and artist who performed it. With current artwork, artists are generally detached from the work unless they're a studio. People make paintings for Disney, comics, movies, etc... but because of the work for hire situation, your name is generally detached.

The only reason I was able to start finding the names of artists was that I was interested in who did the work and had to do the research on my own.

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 09:21 AM

Stephen Mason

January 23rd, 2010, 11:59 AM

if you are looking for fame then i think there are defiantly easier ways to get it rather than being an artist. Fame can harm the legitimacy of your work so i would concentrate on art and forget everything else.

comparing being a painter to being a rapper is like comparing a football player to a brick layer. x

vineris

January 23rd, 2010, 01:38 PM

Truthfully, I can name more artists than rappers. If my life depended on naming a mid-list rapper I'd be dead meat.

So clearly the problem is that you hang out with the wrong people. :)

But yeah, Arshes Nei is right. There's a lot of really famous images, and if they all came with the artist's names emblazoned on them like musicians have on albums and authors have on book covers, artists would be famous. But they don't, so you might easily be familiar with an image and have no idea who actually made it.

OmenSpirits

January 23rd, 2010, 03:30 PM

You see... that is the problem right there. Art is actually a huge normal part of life for the US (and other developed countries).

But, it isn't in the form of a painting anymore. That isn't how people consume art anymore. I don't have a single painting on the wall (which is typical)... but I do have a TV and several computers. Why pay an artist to draw you a single pretty picture to look at when you can turn on a TV and be exposed to all kinds of modern variations of art?

The "need" for an oil painting is not here in modern day. There are so many works of art and they are thrown at us constantly through our modern changing screens.

BUT, the foundations of painting and making pictures like that is still very much needed (and appreciated, just look how people have responded to avatars art direction).

The reason that the general population does not know artists name is simply a case of marketing. When a great picture is thrown at the public, it is done so under the "name" of whatever they are trying to sell. Game illustrations (like the lovely guildwars paintings), movie posters, matte paintings....all are done FOR someTHING else (instead of being presented to the public with the name of the artist).

Basically, companies want to put all the work of marketing into something they OWN (which is whatever brand they are pushing). They don't own an artist and aren't trying to build up the artists fame (it doesn't really serve them), so they just leave that part out (or just stuff it in the credits somewhere).

I think that is really the greater shame, that graphic artists are being lumped into a pool of nameless interchangeable workers....only recognized for what they do by other artists...
The OP asked about living painters being famous not artists in general.

karmazon

January 23rd, 2010, 03:53 PM

Some clarifications are needed:

First, I'm not asking this question because I just want to be a famous through art. If I wanted to be famous I'd shoot up a mall or something.

Second, it's cool that you can name living artist, but you're interested in art. If I was interested in professional kite flying I'd knew the top people of the sport. I'm not interested in Kanye West's music or anything he does, yet I know his name and what he does.

Now, all other forms of art - music, acting, literature - they are forms of entertainment. How can painting be such?

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 04:19 PM

I'm not interested in Kanye West's music or anything he does, yet I know his name and what he does.

Now, all other forms of art - music, acting, literature - they are forms of entertainment. How can painting be such?

You also know what Stan Winston does (did), you know what James Cameron does, you know what Pixar does, you know what Marvel, DC, Lucas Arts and Disney also do.

Now again in terms of painting many are known into the names I mentioned above. You're not clarifying the situation, but dancing around the issue. The above are known for art, but many use a lot of people to make the art they do. due to the fact this is a mostly work for hire, the company gets the credit.

You can think of it two ways, it's like knowing a Record company over a singer. Kanye West is in the news for what he does BESIDES the fact he's a rapper. If painters decided to crash the awards show via Kanye West style, we'd also know about them more. Not to mention they (being the musicians) are not only heard over the air but are featured in gossip, you see a music video featuring said musician. they invite him on a talk show, news interviews etc.

I mean unless you want to go the Bob Ross route, the art is really what is seen, however it's usually done as a group effort.

Here's the other way to look at it, can you name any famous background singer? (And there are a lot). That's basically what the collective of artists/painters are working in the industry, they're background singers for a company.

Let's look at a Painter like Ernie Barnes (now deceased). What made me aware of him, was when Jimmy Walker was playing the son JJ in the TV show Good Times - he was a painter. It was Ernie Barnes who had done the actual paintings, but they needed JJ to look like he painted something. Ernie Barnes also did sports illustrations and Olympics posters/murals.

So why is X person famous over a painter, simply because of TV/face time. Painters are busy painting, so that their works can be seen. Musicians in this day and age are needed to have face time to push records, after all video killed the radio star.

ajvenema

January 23rd, 2010, 04:46 PM

i think there are a lot of famous painters that everybody knows, but they're mostly dead for 50 years at least.
for some reason there has to be a selection, and who survives that selection is a very few painters, and they get into art history. no idea who actually makes art history. now THAT would be an interesting discussion i think:) after all history is very subjective.

I think there are quite a few living painters selling their stuff for lots of money, but i cant really think of the names right now. there not famous anyway. Not by the masses. but they have money. and still a chance to make it into the art history. I'd go for that over being famous:)

Nrx

January 23rd, 2010, 04:54 PM

ajvenema

January 23rd, 2010, 04:58 PM

We focus on the product not on the performance really, muscians dancers films comedians all think about the delivery as much as the actuall content

i'd quite like to be famous, and i'd very much enjoy being rich, being poor is shite.

i think banksy and andrew are on the right track, making art more performanced based, weve gotta increase the scale and start to think in terms of performance if we want the fame and money, but i dont think alot of people are really interested

i think you have a good point. probably its the old thing that artists often are not really commercial. lot of them are only interested in creating, and feel like the people should just like what they make. but thats not interesting enough anymore to be famous.

karmazon

January 23rd, 2010, 05:17 PM

You also know what Stan Winston does (did), you know what James Cameron does, you know what Pixar does, you know what Marvel, DC, Lucas Arts and Disney also do.

Now again in terms of painting many are known into the names I mentioned above. You're not clarifying the situation, but dancing around the issue. The above are known for art, but many use a lot of people to make the art they do. due to the fact this is a mostly work for hire, the company gets the credit.

You can think of it two ways, it's like knowing a Record company over a singer. Kanye West is in the news for what he does BESIDES the fact he's a rapper. If painters decided to crash the awards show via Kanye West style, we'd also know about them more. Not to mention they (being the musicians) are not only heard over the air but are featured in gossip, you see a music video featuring said musician. they invite him on a talk show, news interviews etc.

I mean unless you want to go the Bob Ross route, the art is really what is seen, however it's usually done as a group effort.

Here's the other way to look at it, can you name any famous background singer? (And there are a lot). That's basically what the collective of artists/painters are working in the industry, they're background singers for a company.

Let's look at a Painter like Ernie Barnes (now deceased). What made me aware of him, was when Jimmy Walker was playing the son JJ in the TV show Good Times - he was a painter. It was Ernie Barnes who had done the actual paintings, but they needed JJ to look like he painted something. Ernie Barnes also did sports illustrations and Olympics posters/murals.

So why is X person famous over a painter, simply because of TV/face time. Painters are busy painting, so that their works can be seen. Musicians in this day and age are needed to have face time to push records, after all video killed the radio star.

You are VERY confused about what I'm asking.

Everyone else has good points. Here's also something to think about: musicians have concerts, actors have movies, people go to both to relax and have a good time and hang out. How can a painter have the same kind of a show? Also, the other form of art I mentioned - literature - doesn't have the exposure of music or movies, and authors don't have the flashy aura about them like rock stars or actors, yet an average person would be able to name a bunch of living authors.

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 05:26 PM

You are VERY confused about what I'm asking.

Everyone else has good points. Here's also something to think about: musicians have concerts, actors have movies, people go to both to relax and have a good time and hang out. How can a painter have the same kind of a show? Also, the other form of art I mentioned - literature - doesn't have the exposure of music or movies, and authors don't have the flashy aura about them like rock stars or actors, yet an average person would be able to name a bunch of living authors.

No, actually I'm not. It's again face time. Artists such as painters are not as attached unless it's publicity stunts. Authors again are interviewed and given face time. Or you have a direct reference as to the creator. You know, like Oprah's book club and stuff? OR "movie based on the novel by..."

Artists because a lot of the work may be group effort is not the same way. You mostly see these in a work for hire situation.

RyerOrdStar

January 23rd, 2010, 05:31 PM

If you're referring to traditional painters that show in galleries, there are a few reasons that are probably coming together to create today's situation.

Regular people have been scared away from artmaking by the years of modernist claptrap that made galleries inaccessible and elitist. Now people are just afraid to go there 'cause they think it'll be more artsy fartsy mumbo jumbo that they won't get. Nobody wants to be looked down on and told they're stupid. Even though many galleries nowadays are going more representational and they might see something there they actually like. You'll notice most museums (like the Louvre) that have pre 19th century art are still heavily visited.

Music is everywhere, and the popular stuff (backed by record companies that have oodles of money) is shoved down our throats constantly. How can the average (pretty lazy) person ever get out of that muck to find something he/she likes, let alone know the name of.

There's also that annoyingly persistant idea that visual artists have some sort of magical 'talent' that no one else has. With technology everyone knows that pop stars can be created. But paintings are still works of the hand and the brain, and that might be unaccessible for some people.

Let's not forget the fact that there's not much you can do with a painting except look at it. Music you can dance to, you can sing to, you can play at parties, etc. It's inevitable that most people are going to find music more useful/helpful to them and thus are going to know more about the people that make it. Plus, you can clearly differentiate different voices by their sound -- it's much harder for non visual people to see the difference between artists' techniques and paintings.

I'm interested in art, love it, but actually I know very few names. I have a terrible memory for names. But show me a picture and I'll recognize it all the time. Does that mean I 'know' less artists? No, I just can't remember people's names.

Nrx

January 23rd, 2010, 05:32 PM

i think you have a good point. probably its the old thing that artists often are not really commercial. lot of them are only interested in creating, and feel like the people should just like what they make. but thats not interesting enough anymore to be famous.

yeah i agree, but its not like there arnt starving rappers rock stars poets and dancers out there busting there asses to live the dream. From what i've seen most artists either end up being humble aimless or so seperated from common sense that the average person can't relate (hi fine artists! /wave)

if you look at an artist like bansky, he's cocky and has a aim, given its only small (to make people laugh is my guess anyway) but look how thats worked out for him

and andoid, he enjoys the attention of performing and trys to influece other peoples night out by making it extra special, i reckon that will work out exceedingly well for him too with some luck.

a good muscian will think about his music, his lyrical content his stage presence and image, we only seem to really take serious thought to our style, maybe if we start thinking about the other stuff we can change somthing

meh my rant, i plan to be rich and famous dunno bout the rest of ya :P

karmazon

January 23rd, 2010, 05:41 PM

No, actually I'm not. It's again face time. Artists such as painters are not as attached unless it's publicity stunts. Authors again are interviewed and given face time. Or you have a direct reference as to the creator. You know, like Oprah's book club and stuff? OR "movie based on the novel by..."

Artists because a lot of the work may be group effort is not the same way. You mostly see these in a work for hire situation.

Yeaaaaaah, you're still confused. Here's a hint: I'm not asking to explain the current situation, I'm asking for ways to change it. How can a painter gain the same level of fame as a rock star.

ZenzybaR

January 23rd, 2010, 06:52 PM

Yeaaaaaah, you're still confused. Here's a hint: I'm not asking to explain the current situation, I'm asking for ways to change it. How can a painter gain the same level of fame as a rock star.

Create drama around oneself and make people want your work simply because you made it instead of the fact that it's good.
Abuse someone famous, cuss a group of people on TV, smash up a club, create a scandal.
Artists are too busy sitting in their kitchens/bedrooms/studios in their slippers, instead of going to award shows and getting drunk. Silly boring artist, who wants to know you.

Most people are stupid sheep and follow the hype, rather than looking for quality.

And what's with the hate on rap, I don't listen to mainstream rap but some people like Lupe Fiasco are trying to make a change and create work which really isn't just for money. Many people say he needs to dumb down his lyrics cause it scares away potential buyers of his music and he responds with 'Dumb it down' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Et1siZhTk&feature=fvst)
A lot of people aren't bothered to sit down and listen to more than a catchy beat and stupid lyrics like Soulja-Boy, and Flo Ryda.

More people know Brittany, RHCP, and Lady Gaga than any living artists. Why would they, you never hear about them. They aren't on adverts, they don't crash cars, they don't blow their money on coke. Why would anyone know about them?

Perfect example: Tiger woods. Apart from him, name a golfer.

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 07:33 PM

Yeaaaaaah, you're still confused. Here's a hint: I'm not asking to explain the current situation, I'm asking for ways to change it. How can a painter gain the same level of fame as a rock star.

uhhh *whooosh* Explaining the situation explains how one can get that recognition. But thanks for playing, some door prizes may or may not be handed out this round.

karmazon

January 23rd, 2010, 07:58 PM

Perfect example: Tiger woods. Apart from him, name a golfer.

I was thinking about that how it pertains to painting. Painting doesn't even have one famous, flagship person like that.

And Arshes Nei just save yourself the trouble.

Edit: Actually, I apologize. While your answers are pretty useless, I'm being hostile by discounting them.

Crane

January 23rd, 2010, 08:06 PM

Derren Brown!

ZenzybaR

January 23rd, 2010, 08:25 PM

I was thinking about that how it pertains to painting. Painting doesn't even have one famous, flagship person like that.

I think there's a UK artist named Insa who does some stuff, i hear about him from time to time. I think he also did something with Nike.
Does some pretty interesting stuff outside and about.

www.insaland.com

I think he is on the right track, but he isn't doing anything nuts to get blown up like Kanye.

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 08:36 PM

http://armandfrasco.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hpt.jpg

http://www.publispain.com/posters/coming_to_america.jpg

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 08:38 PM

I was thinking about that how it pertains to painting. Painting doesn't even have one famous, flagship person like that.

And Arshes Nei just save yourself the trouble.

Edit: Actually, I apologize. While your answers are pretty useless, I'm being hostile by discounting them.

You actually need to *think*...about the responses I gave you. I already know what the situation is, and whether or not or how that is going to change. I'm just not gonna sit there and think for you because you're being infantile over the whole thing.

Wuchou

January 23rd, 2010, 08:45 PM

I was thinking about that how it pertains to painting. Painting doesn't even have one famous, flagship person like that.

And Arshes Nei just save yourself the trouble.

No, I think Arshes pretty much nailed it. Individual artists don't get the same sort of media exposure. Sports are a pretty bad comparison because outside of your own fan preference, it's pretty hard to argue when a player or team is doing well or poorly because there is a clear winner and a clear loser. Art is much more subject to taste.

Music is a fairer comparison, but still, music gets more exposure. It's on the radio, music videos, TV, played in the mall, and listened to on the bus or chilling at home. You'll in several of these cases actually get to find out who the artist is and seek more. Everyone is a fan of music. When was the last time a non-artist friend recommended an illustrator to you? When was the last time you saw an illustrator featured on the Tonight Show?

How many people off the street do you think can name the author of the Harry Potter series? How many do you think could name the cover artist(s)? Their works are right on the cover of every one of these incredibly popular books, but the only name you'll find reference to on the same book front is Rowling's. One of these sticks with you reading the book more than the other. I doubt after reading anybody will say "Boy that cover sure made the book," even though it's likely that it caught their eye on the shelf in the first place.

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 08:52 PM

and another...

http://arturhernadi.com/Art/boris_vallejo_psylocke.jpg

Which actually I know people who aren't seriously into art know about him because they see his art on cars and tatoos etc...

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 08:54 PM

Here's another ...

http://citinite.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/sorayama_1.jpg

also...

http://forwardtodeath.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/li-hr-giger.jpg

ZenzybaR

January 23rd, 2010, 09:37 PM

and another...

http://arturhernadi.com/Art/boris_vallejo_psylocke.jpg

Which actually I know people who aren't seriously into art know about him because they see his art on cars and tatoos etc...

lol, i remember seeing that somewhere when i was still just a dumb kid.

Jovian M

January 23rd, 2010, 09:51 PM

Not outside of art communities, no. But I don't know a whole lot of famous rappers, because it's not a culture I'm a part of (or want to be a part of).

jpacer

January 23rd, 2010, 09:52 PM

I lot of people I know who aren't artists and don't pay attention to artists know who Boris is.

Also, now that I think about it, there's another artist that a lot of non-artist people I know seem to know about for God knows what reason.... That artist is....

Todd McFarlane

karmazon

January 23rd, 2010, 10:03 PM

No, I think Arshes pretty much nailed it. Individual artists don't get the same sort of media exposure.

Which is what I said in the very first post and didn't think it needed to be repeated 3 times when I asked for solutions. I mean really? Arshes Nei I never asked you to "sit there and think for me." If you already know what the problem is - good for you. If you feel like posting solutions, which is what this thread is about, go ahead. If not, no one's forcing you to post. I didn't ask to post pictures, nor did I ask anyone to name famous artists.

There's been some really good responses so I know people understand this concept.

Jovian M

January 23rd, 2010, 10:17 PM

Oh, and for achieving that level of fame, as an artist? Be awesome and act like a rock star.

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 10:31 PM

Which is what I said in the very first post and didn't think it needed to be repeated 3 times when I asked for solutions. I mean really? Arshes Nei I never asked you to "sit there and think for me." If you already know what the problem is - good for you. If you feel like posting solutions, which is what this thread is about, go ahead. If not, no one's forcing you to post. I didn't ask to post pictures, nor did I ask anyone to name famous artists.

There's been some really good responses so I know people understand this concept.

Oh just stop whining will you? You started this thread, if you don't like the debate over it, then maybe you should quit.

I just posted several artists that are pretty famous too.

The thing is you said painters.

MANY other kinds of artists are pretty well known. Illustrators, comic book artists, and they're known by people outside of the box of "painter"

What are you going to do, tell companies to no longer do work for hire situations because we have to KNOW the name of the painter? That's what IMDB is for. That's what this site is about. That's what internet is about.

Most artists since you decided to talk about how a musician was famous, ie Kanye West per your own example to me was famous even though you don't know or are interested in his music. If he wasn't being interviewed everywhere well yeah you know what? My post remains true, he didn't get face time, you wouldn't have brought up such a lousy comparison. Most performance artists ie Kanye NEED the face time to help sell records. Otherwise you'd get a Rick Astley thing going. Or oh hey Milli Vanilli.

An artist such as a painter on the other hand isn't necessarily about that. In the case of working in the industry they need to be well known by the next person who hires him/her, they don't necessarily need to be famous on the level of Kanye West who needs to sell the next album. They got the paycheck, and the name. However, artists still get noticed despite this. You have comic book creators like Jim Davis for Garfield or if I mentioned Matt Groening, there will be a few who know the name. You ask some kids who read manga, they'll tell you a Japanese illustrator or two.

A fine artist is going to be a fine artist around the circles who care.

karmazon

January 23rd, 2010, 11:11 PM

Oh just stop whining will you? You started this thread, if you don't like the debate over it, then maybe you should quit.

You're right, that's why I apologized for outright discounting your posts.

What are you going to do, tell companies to no longer do work for hire situations because we have to KNOW the name of the painter? That's what IMDB is for. That's what this site is about. That's what internet is about.

I have no idea what you're even talking about there.

Most artists since you decided to talk about how a musician was famous, ie Kanye West per your own example to me was famous even though you don't know or are interested in his music. If he wasn't being interviewed everywhere well yeah you know what? My post remains true, he didn't get face time, you wouldn't have brought up such a lousy comparison. Most performance artists ie Kanye NEED the face time to help sell records. Otherwise you'd get a Rick Astley thing going. Or oh hey Milli Vanilli.

An artist such as a painter on the other hand isn't necessarily about that. In the case of working in the industry they need to be well known by the next person who hires him/her, they don't necessarily need to be famous on the level of Kanye West who needs to sell the next album.

I'm not trying to be mean, but I barely understand the first part due to grammar.

Second, responding to the bold part - I completely agree. See, I'm not saying that it's not true, and I'm not saying they need to be famous. I'm simply asking how can they be famous like that.

Wuchou

January 23rd, 2010, 11:11 PM

Which is what I said in the very first post and didn't think it needed to be repeated 3 times when I asked for solutions. I mean really? Arshes Nei I never asked you to "sit there and think for me." If you already know what the problem is - good for you. If you feel like posting solutions, which is what this thread is about, go ahead. If not, no one's forcing you to post. I didn't ask to post pictures, nor did I ask anyone to name famous artists.

There's been some really good responses so I know people understand this concept.

No I think you're still missing that you can't just FORCE popularity. Stardom is pretty much a crap shoot. This is why, say, I'll use Twilight as an example; it got popular and now has dozens of imitators trying to ride the wave. If anyone knew how to just do it, if anyone knew high school vampire fanfic was going to be the next big thing, they would have done it first, don't you think?

Movie posters, card games, video games, books, clothing, magazines, album covers, you name it. It's not likely any of these would suddenly rocket to popularity because the interest just isn't there or we'd have seen it already.

The only people that get close are cases like the 'child prodigy' kids that crop up in the news every year. They get plenty of exposure, but only because it's a "wow, neat" thing and not because many of these people following the story are interested in the actual work. Then they just fade away and I doubt anyone could name them again without having to look them up. You can't just make people interested in something, it's all taste. Our culture as a whole does not like the taste of art as much as other things at the moment and there's no real accounting for that.

christersk

January 23rd, 2010, 11:21 PM

somebody have to o something? on earth its stopping the creativity.

karmazon

January 23rd, 2010, 11:22 PM

You can't just make people interested in something, it's all taste. Our culture as a whole does not like the taste of art as much as other things at the moment and there's no real accounting for that.

Yeah I agree, but I'm not talking about making people interested in something am I? I believe I already used the example of people not being interested in rap music, yet knowing rappers' names. They might despise it, but they know it.

vineris

January 23rd, 2010, 11:31 PM

Painting is a little different from other forms of entertainment, because any one painting is just an image. It doesn't have the depth of music or literature or movies.

You can try to make painting into a performance art, but I have a hard time thinking of anything like that that wouldn't be gimmicky, boring and/or take away from the image. And I think if anyone did that then they would be famous because of the performance aspect and not for the painting. It would be kinda like making a song from a poem and then saying "hey, poets can be famous too!" Kinda, but not really.

However, you can certainly have iconic images that stick in people's heads. Logos, photographs, weird internet memes.... So the real question isn't "how can we gimmick painting up so people view it like a rock concert or TV show?" but "how can we make sure the artist's name goes with the image if the image goes viral?" and "how can painters afford the PR firms that make rappers famous?" After that, it's just a matter of painting images that kick you in the metaphorical balls and having the crack marketing team spread them around.

Wuchou

January 23rd, 2010, 11:37 PM

Yeah I agree, but I'm not talking about making people interested in something am I? I believe I already used the example of people not being interested in rap music, yet knowing rappers' names. They might despise it, but they know it.

I think though that it is a side effect to the fact that people do like these other things more. A better metric might be how many songs for those guys can they name, and how many do they know because they were in the news for something unrelated to actual music? A large portion of the population enjoys this, so it gets attention, and those of us not interested learn the name by proxy. A real rap fan could run you down a list of rappers and albums the same way an art fan could run down a list of artists and what projects they may have worked on.

karmazon

January 23rd, 2010, 11:43 PM

I think though that it is a side effect to the fact that people do like these other things more. A better metric might be how many songs for those guys can they name, and how many do they know because they were in the news for something unrelated to actual music? A large portion of the population enjoys this, so it gets attention, and those of us not interested learn the name by proxy. A real rap fan could run you down a list of rappers and albums the same way an art fan could run down a list of artists and what projects they may have worked on.

People don't enjoy serial killers and aren't interested in them, yet I bet an average person can name more than one.

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 11:44 PM

somebody have to o something? on earth its stopping the creativity.

Yes, because art will die if we everyone doesn't know who is a famous painter vs Kanye West.

You're right, that's why I apologized for outright discounting your posts.

I have no idea what you're even talking about there.

I'm not trying to be mean, but I barely understand the first part due to grammar.

Second, responding to the bold part - I completely agree. See, I'm not saying that it's not true, and I'm not saying they need to be famous. I'm simply asking how can they be famous like that.

We seem to be going in circles. You ask how they could be famous and I tell you. Then you complain when I tell you that it's due to the kind of media exposure, I'm not being helpful. I get told I should stop trying. I get told my answers are useless.

The whole difference is that your Kanye West example sucks. Today's musicians, or rap stars are PERFORMERS. This means they need to have stage time. If they don't, it's not likely they'll get up there. You can name Kanye West, but I doubt you can name all of the relevant rappers out there.

For hardcore rap there is a "street cred" or how hardcore they are. I know "of" Rappers who are in Jail for shooting another like Shine, or 50cent, but there are those who were correctional officers and discounted as not having street cred. But it's very likely the average person who isn't interested in the genre doesn't care...

Rick Astley was mistaken as a Black man because his voice was so powerful. Once that video came out and people saw who essentially looked like Howdy Doody out there belting it out, he dropped off into obscurity and pop culture references...or the "rickroll"

Milli Vanilli was created because they needed the visual of performance artists to sell records.

In art, this isn't something that needs to be done. A painter doesn't need the face time so it's not like they need to do the media circuit tours. However, because of pop culture and trends they'll cross over despite this. Boris Vallejo is due to the fact how people wanted to decorate their cars, trucks, and post up a calender of Fantasy art. Sorayama same thing. Giger because of tatoos and the unique work of Aliens.

However for the visual arts it's not just about painting anymore. You have digital painters, cartoonists, comic book artists, character goods artists, etc... so there are artists people can name if you include it.

Much art now is a group effort, you have concept designers in games, tv etc. However, the collaborative effort will be under the name of the studio they work for. Hence, something like LucasFilms is recognized for the special effects, Pixar for their cartoons. Why not an individual? One really big reason is copyright protection and studio profits. The studio is going to pay the lawyers fees not so much the individual when something is infringed upon. The trade off of course is getting paid. The artist's need to be famous in this case really depends on the success of the work, he/she does within the industry. That doesn't mean this system isn't without its faults...

That doesn't mean however they don't get to promote his/her work. That's what this site is for. That's what other art sites are for.

Arshes Nei

January 23rd, 2010, 11:46 PM

People don't enjoy serial killers and aren't interested in them, yet I bet an average person can name more than one.

Uh no. Bad example again. It's because they're on trial and there's a morbid curiosity factor on knowing what they did. They're going to be exposed on the news due to the gruesomeness of the crime.

karmazon

January 23rd, 2010, 11:53 PM

Uh no. Bad example again. It's because they're on trial and there's a morbid curiosity factor on knowing what they did. They're going to be exposed on the news due to the gruesomeness of the crime.

It was a very good example of something isn't popular, yet is well known, refuting the idea that something needs to be popular or that people must be interested in it, for them to know about it.

I'm not saying it's not due to media exposure, cause it is.

Wuchou

January 24th, 2010, 12:03 AM

It was a very good example of something isn't popular, yet is well known, refuting the idea that something needs to be popular or that people must be interested in it, for them to know about it.

I'm not saying it's not due to media exposure, cause it is.

But people ARE interested. Enjoyment and interest aren't always mutually inclusive. People do not like the serial killer or what they did, but there is most certainly interest in what is going on and what will happen during the events surrounding these people.

karmazon

January 24th, 2010, 12:14 AM

But people ARE interested. Enjoyment and interest aren't always mutually inclusive. People do not like the serial killer or what they did, but there is most certainly interest in what is going on and what will happen during the events surrounding these people.

Look at how many people, who weren't even alive during the events surrounding Charles Manson, and how many of them ever even read a book about what he did, know his name. I'm not interested in him, I'm not even exactly sure what he did, yet I know of him.

jpacer

January 24th, 2010, 12:28 AM

IMHO, the only "solution" to this "problem" is education. As has been stated before, most people aren't interested in drawing and painting because they don't know anything about it. They don't understand what drawing and painting actually are. Most non-artists seem to think a good painting is something that looks like a photograph. Hopefully, we're all aware this is not the case. (As Delacroix said, "the artist should not attempt to compete with the product of a machine")

This is partially due to the fact that they have no understanding of the craft and/or processes of drawing and painting. If people were taught drawing and painting with the same diligence and rigor as, say, Math or English they would probably have more of an interest in seeking out and looking at drawings and paintings and would inevitably develop favorites, hence making the creators famous. Maybe...

But since the public school system in no way supports a serious art program...

Black Spot

January 24th, 2010, 02:09 AM

I think cartoonists like http://www.geraldscarfe.com/ are pretty instantly recognisable.

tobbA

January 24th, 2010, 03:28 AM

Though if I don't remember wrong Salvador Dali was pretty famous while he lived. On the other hand that might have had a lot to do with his eccentric personality.

And Luis Royo is fairly known too.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mSPizmyPDjE/SIAKX8w_BbI/AAAAAAAAAFE/5E66i8CHzrs/s400/luis_royo.jpg

ajvenema

January 24th, 2010, 06:08 AM

Uh no. Bad example again. It's because they're on trial and there's a morbid curiosity factor on knowing what they did. They're going to be exposed on the news due to the gruesomeness of the crime.

there's barely anything as interesting as a serial killer.
i think its like a soap.

but thats not what this is about:)

ajvenema

January 24th, 2010, 06:15 AM

what can art do what music and sports can do?
maybe art is overrated by us.

Line

January 24th, 2010, 08:26 AM

Yeaaaaaah, you're still confused. Here's a hint: I'm not asking to explain the current situation, I'm asking for ways to change it. How can a painter gain the same level of fame as a rock star.

Ok, I love this question, and here is my opinion, because that's all we can really provide.

It all has to do with the factors of exposure (how much you invest to get yourself known), chances for product selling (how much merchendise can be produced under your brand to make more cash) and lastly if you have some quality and appeal.

Now to explain. The quality part is self-explanatory, yet it's not totally a must. The fame market is full of people who have absolutely no quality in what they do, yet they are on the peack of the fame scale.

Merchendise. Does any of you honestly feel something like Star Wars really deserves so much merchendise being made for it, all these years? It's a whole industry in itself. The creators of those movies never imagined this thing, yet someone else saw the opportunity and they've milked the cow to the bone. Of course this didn't start with Star Wars, look back to when they made 'the Beatles' skirts for the girlies. So, if your name can produce action figures, tv shows, make up, halloween masks, coloring books, perfume, kitchen appliances, toilet paper and rubber ducks that hatch from a plastic eggs, you're gonna be pushed into fame.

Exposure. This is a factor that we as working people in the art industry have to invest in anyway, but in the 'fame' market they take it to a totally new level. Let me explain with rock and metal bands because I don't listen to pop or rap.

Take KISS for example. Many people know who this pathetic excuse of a band. They called themselvs the biggest rockband in the world almost from the beginning, and their first 3 albums sold poorly! Yet all their money went into marketing themselvs as such. Officially they've been making bad albums for nearly 30, and they sell like crazy!

Ozzy Osbourne. This idiot made great music for 10 years with Black Sabbath, then he decided to piss on the Alamo, bite heads off bats and pigeons and make headlines. Result? More than half of his solo albums are bad, even HE doesn't like them anymore, yet they sell, and he's more famous than the musical genuis who took his untalanted voice and turned it into a thing of heavy metal legends.

Metallica. These guys made good music, yes, but here we are talking about the creme de la creme of image investors. These guys invested money into making each and every metal magazine call them the biggest metal band in the world, they spent millions on promotion (the drummer was rich before making the band) and now Metallica is more like a monster pop band than a metal band due to advertising.

All examples have various levels of quality, from bad to good. All of them have various levels of merchendising and all three have used various ways to gain popularity.

If an artist, a painter, can do anything like that, to gain fame, become an action figure, pose naked and advertise underwear with their signature on it, then hey, do it. Realistically tho, I find that it's more applicable for artists to make a seperate product, or a style that will carve them a market from which they can gain, money first and then some popularity. Then again...there's always the Alamo.

Arshes Nei

January 24th, 2010, 09:02 AM

Look at how many people, who weren't even alive during the events surrounding Charles Manson, and how many of them ever even read a book about what he did, know his name. I'm not interested in him, I'm not even exactly sure what he did, yet I know of him.

Again, it's because it was a huge trial. It's also considered part of history. Just how we know about other painters. Charles Manson has been mentioned in pop culture too. Not every one knows about every murder but yes when you do serial killing the events become ingrained into society. Dead or alive history would have talked about him. PS he's been mentioned in the news often enough when parole or appeals come about.

This isn't a difficult concept to get. I just don't see why you don't get it. Other painters but not all have been mentioned are still alive and people who are not artists, do know about them.

gredgie

January 24th, 2010, 10:41 AM

Honestly, fame really doesn't look worth it.

Pick an option:

A) Million dollar/euro/pound mansion [or as you will come to know it, prison], car and wardrobe. You cannot take the trash out without your picture being on the internet 10 minutes later. You cannot go to the local store for milk without being escorted by like twenty ex-military security officers. You can't easily judge if a hot-gal/guy wants you for you or your status and money. Every action you do will be judged. If the stress of fame makes you break-down, run to an all-night barbers and shave your head, people wont feel sorry for you... it'll just make things worse.

B) You have an average job, average car and average wardrobe. You can take the trash out in a green t-shirt and black jogging-trousers knowing it's been a few days since you last shaved. You can take two hours to do your weekly shopping without being asked for autographs, pictures or being attacked. It's more than likely hot-gals/guys are attracted to you as a person, not your average lifestyle. You wont be judged in everything you do. If the stress of life gets too much, take a week off work and relax some where.

Doesn't option B sound so much nicer than A?

EDIT: This relates to the topic because, I, myself, don't really mind that the average Joe can't name more living painters than rock/movie stars. Just means artists can do what they love, perhaps profit from it, but not be savaged to death but the all-seeing-eyes of publicity.

Armonah

January 24th, 2010, 11:12 AM

Chris Saksida

January 24th, 2010, 11:23 AM

A painter will never be as famous as a rapper, as hip hop is mass culture, while art is more on the intelectual side.

Many people here are mistakting ILLUSTRATORS for PAINTERS, if you want to be a famous painter, you are forced to follow the trends of the mainstream fine arts circle.

If you want to be famous and paint what you really feel; I think Illustration could get you there if you`re good enough, but famous as Alex Ross, not like hip hop musicians.

Arshes Nei

January 24th, 2010, 12:18 PM

Many people here are mistakting ILLUSTRATORS for PAINTERS, if you want to be a famous painter, you are forced to follow the trends of the mainstream fine arts circle.

Not really, because a Painter can be a FINE ARTIST or an ILLUSTRATOR. Also he/she can be both.

JeffX99

January 24th, 2010, 02:15 PM

Off the top of my head: Frank Frazzetta - Michael Parkes - Lucian Freud - Daniel Merriman - Syd Mead - Scott Christensen - Matt Smith - Kevin Macpherson - Don Demers - James Gurney - Daniel Sprick - H. R. Giger - Wyland - Gil Bruvel - Joe Paquet - Michael Whelan - James Christenson - Roger Dean - Clyde Aspevig - William Scott Jennings - Joh Asaro - Lebbeus Woods - Bill Worrell - Gene and Rebecca Tobey - etc.

I like Tone Loc - heard of Ice T, L.L. Cool J and Snoop Dog.

Guess it just depends on the group you ask? But I understand your point (I think) - I don't care for rap but I could probably name just as many musicians that I like as artists - and your average person probably is the same. But how many architects can people name? If you're an architect probably a lot. If you're a physicist or paleontologist you probably could name many of them as well that are prominent in the field.

Anyway, I guess I'm just saying it depends on your focus and interests.

Nrx

January 24th, 2010, 02:44 PM

ajvenema

January 24th, 2010, 02:58 PM

Arshes Nei

January 24th, 2010, 03:59 PM

jesus christ people are fucking negative, if your just gonna point out the why it isnt happening to get your fix of "uhhh huh i know whats going on" then keep it yo yerself, ey? i think we all know why its not happeing, lets talk about what we can actually change :P

Uhh, because in general the kind of fame that makes you associate let's say a rapper in your head isn't exactly positive.

Kanye West is known as a rapper, not necessarily because his work is phenomenal (though it depends on taste) His comments about George Bush hating Black people, and his inability to take criticism himself kind of got more attention than what he actually does. This and the recent upstaging at the MTV music awards.

Because of human nature we remember negativity over positive stuff. This is why you get tired of Presidents/political figures. Why you remember serial killers etc...

The kind of fame that is generally positive usually comes with accomplishments after your death. Or if it was significant enough to bring about a major change. This is why we know about the old Masters because of the development of artwork, or inventions.

We see great work in the illustration field by Matte Painters, and concept artists. We see it from many degrees in the economy because we still need visual artists. However, the method of which is used is changing. Notice the bickering on who is a "painter" - who qualifies as a fine artist even if he/she does commercial work (Frank Frazetta is usually argued about whether or not he's a fine artist or illustrator - he's definitely a painter).

In some ways illustrators, painters and other visual artists (why should we worry about painters only? Why are we ignoring other forms of visual artwork?) are famous, some granted more than others. Then there are studios that are more famous than the individuals. Not everyone remembers who created Batman or Superman but we know the studio that owns it. These comics continue because other artists contribute to it. But really, the kind of fame that is associated with "I know who they are and they do X" has a lot to do with celebrity gossip than anything else. That or his/her career is dependent upon how much face time he/she is in the media.

Do you really want that kind of fame associated with a visual artist? "Who is X banging" "Where did X show up at this party club" "Who did X murder and why is he/she on trial"

After all, can many of you name famous doctors, firemen and law enforcement officials off the top of your head that were involved saving many people's lives? How about a famous living teacher or professor?

Maybe instead of looking at it as "wow you're all being negative" it's an admission that this kind of fame isn't what it is cracked up to be. We don't need Painters on the latest meme from 4chan, or the butt of jokes on late night talk shows.

They need their "fame" where it matters.

Nrx

January 24th, 2010, 05:44 PM

arshes all of your points are very valid and i can respect them as your own.

but you speak for yourself and other people like you, it seems to me like your passion is for the art, but for me i want to have the recogintion respect and admiration of people around me as well as doing somthing i love.
i'd love it if somthing i produced could have as a profound effect on somones life as fashion or music, or hell even dance. and i agree again painters dont need to be the centre of attention and all that balls, but theres been plenty of artists of all genres who've gotten wealthy and gotten a resonable amount of fame without loosing all there free time.

i guess a better question is how can we illustrators make our art more accessible by the general public? or How can i make my art have more value to the every day person?

these are my aspirations and i dont think im alone, i dont think it's impossible and if its a mistake im prepared to make it. i really dont see what your posts are trying achieve arshes?

Arshes Nei

January 24th, 2010, 06:39 PM

i guess a better question is how can we illustrators make our art more accessible by the general public? or How can i make my art have more value to the every day person?

these are my aspirations and i dont think im alone, i dont think it's impossible and if its a mistake im prepared to make it. i really dont see what your posts are trying achieve arshes?

You just said Illustrators. There are many illustrators alive and dead that are famous or well known. Matt Groening, Jim Davis, comic book artists, etc..

Talking about Painters- is what the OP stated (who can fit under the category of fine artist or illustrator), there are still those that are well known and famous. Boris Vallejo, Frazetta, Alex Ross and others. Many painters were still alive and recognized as famous. Roger Dean could be another example.

So I'm trying to understand, when I bring up these why are they ignored? Not every rapper is some household name or any other artist for that matter. Is there some kind of jealousy you see Kanye's West on an image macro or something?

Just what percentage of people being famous is enough for you? You get recognition within the industry too. That is pretty famous considering most (on this site and as artists) of may be and ARE nobodies in the industry itself.

There's also the fact as I said you do need to understand you may have a detachment from your work or participation because of how the piece fits as a whole. After all, how stupid would it look if Lord of the Rings had to put "THIS PAINTING WAS CREATED BY DYLAN COLE" in the middle of the movie as the characters walk by a matte painting?

So with all due respect, it's not just a matter of opinion, but reality of what kind of business you're going in for. If you want fame and face time on all the newspapers and gossip rags then you're probably in the wrong industry. Try something else.

If you are here because you realize you're not going to be front and center stage and as recognizable because your job is to make the experience believable and not distracting then you understand the field. That doesn't mean that you'll be totally invisible, depending on your market you do get recognition.

dpaint

January 24th, 2010, 10:21 PM

I think it is a matter of social class, monetary means and age. As a gallery artist, I see and deal with people all the time who collect art and their houses are filled with it. Of course most of them grew up in wealthy families surrounded by original art and when they became adults they started their own collections. People with money want tangible assets for their money, paintings, sculpture, fine crafts like handmade furniture. When I participate in shows in Laguna Beach or other art towns, everybody knows about art and artists. Laguna Beach, Carmel and Provenctown are built on millions of people coming to them every year to buy art from local painters and other artists. You are correct to say they aren't as famous as U2 but that is a product of the age we are in.

JJacks

January 24th, 2010, 11:56 PM

I don't see why you have to have to have the fame of a rapper to be respected for your hard work. Most working artists are respected by their peers and have fans and do interviews for magazines and such. However besides some commercial illustration, art doesn't have this huge mass market appeal. It's a huge part of our lives, but like what Arshes pointed out, artists' names are not attached with the images that they create. So it takes a little initiative from the viewer to find out more about the artist. The art industry does not (nor does it need to) force feed the artist to the public. The work of a painter is marketed not the painter themselves and the opposite is often true for musicians.

I am not sure why the two industries are even being compared...they are completely different and thus create different results.

Raoul Duke

January 25th, 2010, 12:22 AM

there has only been 1 indisputably famous artist since Andy Warhol in my opinion and that would be Shepard Fairy and as good of an illustrator as he is, his talent is getting noticed, even if it sends him to jail.
http://www.davidhauser.com/MINDdrift/posts/post_shepard_fairey_obey_02_12_09.jpg

Frank Miller is wildly Popular, but most people that know his name and have seen films based on his art, wouldn't recognize his art if they saw an original sketch in the garbage.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/52/300_comic.jpg/250px-300_comic.jpg
Here is a list of marginally popular living artist, but by no means are half as popular as Kim Kardashian.

Frank Frazetta (no longer painting)
Ashley Wood
Todd Macfarlin (no longer popular)
Jim Lee
Banksy (treated like a criminal)
Drew Struzan (few know him by name, but we all know his posters)
Ralph Steadman!(my screen name is sort of an homage to him)
Mike Mignola (not as popular as Guillermo Del Toro)

If it's any consolation just because artist don't get famous anymore, doesn't mean they don't get rich.

That fat kid

January 25th, 2010, 03:07 AM

Now, all other forms of art - music, acting, literature - they are forms of entertainment. How can painting be such?

Why does it need to be? And who said it wasn't?

Museums have more annual attendance than ALL professional sports in the U.S. It averages to about 2.3 million a DAY nationwide, which is approximately 865 million a year. The NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB only average out to about 138 million attendants a year combined.

And, yes, I realize I'm not accounting for everyone watching at home, but think about all the art they see that they don't consider "art," like the advertising? Or all the art historical referencing that goes on that virtually no one recognizes because they simply aren't aware of it.

Painting has its place, it's subtle and quietly powerful, and it reaches far more people than some douchebag who doesn't even play an instrument. Painting doesn't need a microphone or a tv channel to make it more important. And the best painting can define history and redirect its course, so don't lament over our current anonymity, people remember the work, if not the wallcard.

Anid Maro

January 25th, 2010, 03:35 AM

To address why artists aren't as famous as rappers, that has a lot to do with differences in career. Record companies feed upon stardom, they create and end stars, it is an entirely different system from how art operates (e.g. the dual system of fine arts versus illustration, as opposed to the record dominated system of who-is-who).

The comparison is as the adage says "apples to oranges", although perceptive individuals may note that there is potential for the sort of exploitation that drives the music and television industries ("American Artist", anyone?).

As for how artists can be as famous as rappers, well just look at how rappers and other famous folks become famous and apply it to the arts. Arshes Nei was indirectly providing all the answers one could hope for by describing how other disciplines became famous. As she said, think about what she wrote and apply the why to the how and you'll have a variety of answers.

I do have to note though that the winds of time bring change, all that is is not what was. From my understanding, William Hogarth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hogarth) was the 18th century equivalent of a rock star, as well as was Howard Pyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Pyle) for the 19th century. The tides wax and wane with the times, perhaps a century from now an aspiring musician will ask why a guitarist cannot attain the fame of an oil painter.

Though, as a final note, I must mention that fame is overrated. I wouldn't wish such fame upon any but the most mature and stalwart of individuals. One needn't but make a cursory search in order to find examples of individuals who have been outright ravaged by the ardors of fame (e.g. Britney Spears). As far as I'm concerned post-humous fame is a blessing, and this comes from a person who believes that believes that the after-life consists of nothing but worms and dirt. I'd rather do as I please than answer to the responsibilities and pressures of fame.

Whirly

January 25th, 2010, 03:49 AM

Iv never heard of Thomas Kinkade or seen his paintings. Maybe its US thing and Im in the UK.

Just looked him up and I really like the paintings. Why the hate? :(

bhanu

January 25th, 2010, 04:35 AM

Theres a time for everything,
there was a time for painters and not musicians. Its all about the recall value of a thing, when creating a brand , businessman use this term "recall value" , how many times can a thing be recalled.
In the middle ages(or any age before industrialization) painters were national and international celebtities, much more than musicians.
Why?
Because a painter's work could be seen and experienced without the artists being there, but that wasn't the case with the musicians.
In that sense it was a medium that had a bigger reach than music.
Now that the music can be recorded , it can actually go to millions. It has a better recall value , it can be played again and again. While with paintings, the prints arent anything compared to the original paintings(please dont compare the originals to a concerts or something).
I think in the digital age, it can be a fair playground. Now its all about using the media for propogating oneself, creating a brand image and the like.

Ivory_Oasis

January 25th, 2010, 04:45 AM

i guess a better question is how can we illustrators make our art more accessible by the general public? or How can i make my art have more value to the every day person?

Illustrators are just making pretty pictures of someone elses work....someone elses idea and someone elses grand plan.

Making the pretty pictures for a book cover (the product is the book, the art brings it to life...but the writer is still center stage), making the pretty pictures for a card game (again, people are playing the game and just enjoying the art as a part of it...the game is the center), or making the nice visuals for a movie (again, the director is the leader...the one with the vision and the one that is bringing it together).

If you want to be accessible to the general public, you need to be creating something more than just a nice looking picture (because, well, it's just meaningless eyecandy...and this world has a lot of eyecandy).

Artists who combine their art with storytelling are the artists that get the most fame.

How many people have heard of Stan Lee? James Cameron? ...lots! Both of them are artists in the traditional sense, make nice pictures.... but the part that brings them fame is when they combine it with storytelling and bringing their art to the masses in a form that can be consumed (comic books, movies).

If you want to be a famous artist then you need to do more than just bring other people's ideas to life. Do something where what you make is more than just the icing on someone elses cake.

As for respect and admiration of those around you? Who wouldn't give you tons of "wowww!!" factor if you told them you were designing the creatures in avatar as a living?

But... how to accomplish that as a painter in a gallery? Well, what is a painter really doing? They are making a single picture for a very very tiny audience. They might put an interesting idea into it and show something new or clever, but nothing that is really re-inventing anything (and new ideas / clever ideas are ALL over... go to netflix sometime and check out all the different ideas that people flesh out into entire experiences).

Zirngibism

January 25th, 2010, 05:10 AM

I don't see a total exclusivity between "media celebrity" and "artist".

Take this scenario. Suppose someone like Paris Hilton was to take up painting, and do quick paintings in front of live audiences. And she could wear some kind of high fashion and very skimpy outfit while doing it. And paint suggestively, perhaps put some high energy music behind it. It wouldn't have to be very high quality painting at all, just something moderately interesting.
(I mean, we're not talking about "good" here, we're just talking about "painter").

And if an existing acting/music "celebrity" could market him/herself in such a way, they could even create a trend of the public wanting to "see" what's going on in the heads of their favorite celebrities. The gossip magazines could use this as an opportunity to compare artwork side-by-side, compare/contrast the paintings of the latest couple (and act like they could predict whether they're compatible based on their art). There could be "scandals" (like who stole who's idea?), etc... And how about tabloids featuring the latest "art therapy" work by some troubled star? As our culture is very visual (and getting moreso) I can see this as a possibility, in some form or another.

Imagine if people felt they could use a pop star's amateur artwork as a way to evaluate them? Just a supplemental facet to their "brand".

This could be extended into mass production as well. Rappers (since that seems to be our consistent example) could wear prints of their personalized graffiti doodle drawings on their oversized T-shirts. Heck, they could then turn around and mass print those shirts. I'm sure people would buy them.

Of course, that's just an idea for painting itself to get into the spotlight. I'm guessing you're talking about people who paint solely for their living. Same thing, if those people were also young, hot, rich, addicted to something, wore the latest fashions, showed up at many of the parties attended by the paparazi, AND were to turn painting into some kind of performance art, I can see them getting media attention.

(You're were asking for a "solution"-- is that more in the lines of what you're thinking of?)

Anyhow, I hope it never happens like how I imagined above...

Arshes Nei

January 25th, 2010, 08:46 AM

Here is a list of marginally popular living artist, but by no means are half as popular as Kim Kardashian.

For the longest time I had and I still generally have no idea who this person is. However, when I heard the last name, I thought they were referring to the alien race on Star Trek.

tobbA

January 25th, 2010, 09:31 AM

Whirly

January 25th, 2010, 09:57 AM

"Just looked him up and I really the paintings. Why the hate?"

Hope you didn't accidentaly the whole paintings too...

jk :P

Don't know meself. I guess they're a bit too rainbow colored to be 'tasteful' in many people oppinions. Sort of like how most people run into the nearest bomb shelter when you mention, "my little pony".

Ooops lol I edited my post.

I don't see what's wrong with colourful imagery. Not everything has to be dark and gritty.
http://mrshurstsartpage.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/kinkade.jpg

Am I missing something? hehe

JeffX99

January 25th, 2010, 10:33 AM

Arshes Nei

January 25th, 2010, 01:53 PM

Ooops lol I edited my post.

I don't see what's wrong with colourful imagery. Not everything has to be dark and gritty.
http://mrshurstsartpage.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/kinkade.jpg

Am I missing something? hehe

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=33269

Raoul Duke

January 26th, 2010, 01:52 AM

From a 2004 ARTnews article on the 10 Most Expensive Living Artists: http://www.artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=1520
"Entertainment mogul David Geffen privately paid around $40 million, according to sources, to acquire Gray Numbers (1958) from the collection of Kimiko and John Powers a few years ago. It is the highest price known to have been paid, sources say, for a work by a living artist."

So this is what those "rock stars" are buying...
Okay, this is nice for Jasper Johns. But 40 million dollars!! I like Jasper Johns (a little) but where is the painting?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DUNJwr1Ox6k/SAhrnDpq2XI/AAAAAAAAAiE/yZy1c7HQ3Y4/s320/568bg.jpg

Ivory_Oasis

January 26th, 2010, 03:08 AM

Okay, this is nice for Jasper Johns. But 40 million dollars!! I like Jasper Johns (a little) but where is the painting?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DUNJwr1Ox6k/SAhrnDpq2XI/AAAAAAAAAiE/yZy1c7HQ3Y4/s320/568bg.jpg

It's "fine art".... for that world, just forget the countless hours of practice on anatomy and lighting and everything else and simply make something that looks cool and hope it sticks :D

If all else fails...just paint it REALLY BIG or REALLY SMALL and that will work too.

JeffX99

January 26th, 2010, 06:54 PM

For a while now I've been asking friends and other people to name a famous, living painter. Then I would ask them to name an average, living rapper. You can guess the results. People don't know any painters, but have no problem with naming moderately successful rappers.

I realize part of the problem is the nature of both activities - songs are going to be played on the radio, tv, even as soundtrack in movies. Even if you tried to avoid a mainstream song you couldn't. Also rappers are viewed as celebrities and rock stars.

How could an artist achieve that level of fame? How could paintings achieve the level of exposure that songs have?

I believe that qualifies as asking people to name artists.
The people you hang out with don't know any painters. The people I hang out with do.

Your basic question is flawed which is why you're getting so many varied responses. These are all different things. They find different audiences, venues and levels of recognition. Even then people have tried to point out to you that there are in fact many famous living artists, but you refuse to admit your initial assumption was flawed. But since you asked for solutions...

The way for an artist to become as famous as a "celebrity" is to become a celebrity...however that happens. Maybe this story will provide some insight...

During a concert Joni Mitchell had a bunch of people suggesting which song to play next - she laughed and came back with (something like), "That's the great thing about the performing arts vs. painting...no one ever said to Van Gogh, 'Paint another Starry Night again, man!" She's also a painter so works in both realms - music and visual art. I love that comment...it just so clearly illustrates the difference between the two.

But so does the addage: A picture is worth a thousand words.

Another point no one has brought up is the body of work or depth of catalog. A prolific singer/musician with a long career has maybe a few dozen albums/songs that chart? A prolific writer rarely more than 100 written works and most far fewer. A painter creates a far larger body of work (usually).

Performance is ephemeral - it exists in the abstract - between the audience and the performer - at the time of it's execution. Before recording technology it was all "live".

They're just different - if you're interested in combining them then more power to you. Performance artists have been doing it for a long time.

Just some things to think about.

Derek the Usurper

January 26th, 2010, 07:42 PM

JeffX99

January 26th, 2010, 07:50 PM

It's "fine art".... for that world, just forget the countless hours of practice on anatomy and lighting and everything else and simply make something that looks cool and hope it sticks :D

If all else fails...just paint it REALLY BIG or REALLY SMALL and that will work too.

Might want to look up "Lucian Freud" - highest paid living artist currently. I don't care for his stuff but the guy can paint.

JeffX99

January 26th, 2010, 08:01 PM

Sculptors are tougher, I think partly because there are fewer sculptors: Richard Macdonald - Santiago Calatrava - Frank Stella - Richard Serra - Andy Goldsworthy - Dale Chihuly - Michael Parkes - Gil Bruvel - Gene anRebecca Tobey - Bill Worrell

Raoul Duke

January 27th, 2010, 01:21 AM

I have to say this.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DUNJwr1Ox6k/SAhrnDpq2XI/AAAAAAAAAiE/yZy1c7HQ3Y4/s320/568bg.jpg
Talk about paint by numbers!

el coro

January 27th, 2010, 01:35 AM

fuck fame.

c36

George Abraham

January 27th, 2010, 01:57 AM

They are out there, just not in the same streams as rap aritsts.

Julian Beever - Optical illusion street art dude.
Pricasso - Dude who paints with his penis.
Southafrican arist Zaphiro - Cartoon artists have something in common with rap artists as they almost get sue'd as much.

el coro: LOL at the avatar. Did not know what that was about untill I saw a feature on the youtube wonder boy the other day. I think he's secret is the "saving angel wearing a cape look" ;P

dpaint

January 27th, 2010, 01:18 PM

As JeffX99 pointed out your argument is flawed from the beginning. Rap music is a miniscule piece of the music industry with the top performers only selling tens of millions of albums individually. Compare that to Pop music artists selling close to a billion albums individually ( 200 times the highest rap artist) and you see how insular and out of touch you sound. Thomas Kinkaid Everybodys favorite Artist whipping boy, makes 100's of millions of dollars a year. Again, way more than rap performers. Damien Hirst, the English conceptual artist makes about the same so who is famous and who isn't?

Arthurkidd

January 27th, 2010, 02:48 PM

Its not strange to see lot of people don't know the names of some famous painter today, since today not a lot of people can understand the expression on a painting like an artist do and also theres not a lot of people are interest in looking at painting.

You see back in the ye oldie days when vehicles where impulsed by horses, boats use the wind to move and internet couldn't even exist in dreams. Back then there never existed the photograph or film, so the only way to capture a moment it was by a painting, making it more rare and innovative. So people that could capture a moment in a canvas have a lot of chance to get famous, the more the artist manage to assimilate a moment the more fame he will get. But now its really hard to gain fame by painting frames, since cameras can do what a painters take hours to accomplish in mater of seconds. Making the people lose interest in painting, they actually don't see all the effort and emotion that the artist tried to express. They just see a image and think thats something that can be easily done with a camera.

Maybe its hard to hear a name of a famous painter cause painting in a canvas its turning kind of primitive, since the world is always evolving and lots of news expression of arts are rising, Most of the people will prefer something more innovative or new. Is real hard for a painting compete with film, digital art and so. Its more probable to hear the name of a present director, musician, game designer, etc. Then hearing a name of a actual painter.

Kraus

January 27th, 2010, 03:23 PM

Visual artists period (traditional painters with the shortest stick, unless they've been six feet under for hundreds of years), are not popular amongst general public because it's the product they did the art for that is popular: movies, videogames, tv-shows...popular media basicly (no, Bob Ross ain't no popular media).

Public subconciously recognises the frontmen, allways did allways will. And the frontmen are allways either directors, writers of a show, or production companies..rarely individual artists.
The only individual artists that are popular were the ones parading as the frontmen (Tim Burton or Stanley Kubrick), but these occupied more of a slot than just visual artists, these guys brought their own style, and also directed the afformentioned 'product'...

So popularity = frontman exposure. Frontman exposure, means you're on the begining credit, not end credits.

Luckily society has many subgroups of popularity, meaning if it won't reach the general public, it will reach a general chunk of that public who are involved in art industry..

Raoul Duke

January 27th, 2010, 04:42 PM

why aren't scientist or engineers famous, or publicly admired for their efforts. I don't know who created the defibrillator, I don't know who found the cure for polio or who the hell created fire retardant. These people are way more important than any artist. So don't worry about fame, just worry about growth.

OmenSpirits

January 27th, 2010, 05:00 PM

Its not strange to see lot of people don't know the names of some famous painter today, since today not a lot of people can understand the expression on a painting like an artist do and also theres not a lot of people are interest in looking at painting.

You see back in the ye oldie days when vehicles where impulsed by horses, boats use the wind to move and internet couldn't even exist in dreams. Back then there never existed the photograph or film, so the only way to capture a moment it was by a painting, making it more rare and innovative. So people that could capture a moment in a canvas have a lot of chance to get famous, the more the artist manage to assimilate a moment the more fame he will get. But now its really hard to gain fame by painting frames, since cameras can do what a painters take hours to accomplish in mater of seconds. Making the people lose interest in painting, they actually don't see all the effort and emotion that the artist tried to express. They just see a image and think thats something that can be easily done with a camera.

Maybe its hard to hear a name of a famous painter cause painting in a canvas its turning kind of primitive, since the world is always evolving and lots of news expression of arts are rising, Most of the people will prefer something more innovative or new.

:wtf::er: :wtf::er::wtf::er::wtf::er::wtf::er::wtf::er::wtf: :er::wtf::er:

huh?

dpaint

January 27th, 2010, 06:13 PM

Stephen Hawking isn't famous?

Anid Maro

January 27th, 2010, 07:27 PM

Stephen Hawking isn't famous?

Isn't he a rapper (http://www.mchawking.com/) or something?

OmenSpirits

January 27th, 2010, 08:19 PM

Isn't he a rapper (http://www.mchawking.com/) or something?
He's a DJ.

JJacks

January 27th, 2010, 09:43 PM

:wtf::er: :wtf::er::wtf::er::wtf::er::wtf::er::wtf::er::wtf: :er::wtf::er:

huh?

He actually has a bit of a point.

Art was not only considered an intellectual practice and an important cultural phenomenon, but it was also used to portray people and events (real or mythological). Back then people couldn't get their photo taken, they had to have their portrait painted. Artists had to work hard to recreate historical scenes. When photography came around, people could get their portraits taken and photographers could capture current events as they were happening.

There is no longer an absolute need for an artist to paint something that can be captured on film. Painting, traditional theater,music had to make way for new technology and it's emerging popularity. It doesn't mean that painting and theater and concerts no longer have their place but they are not at the forefront of society and every day living like they used to be.

OmenSpirits

January 27th, 2010, 11:33 PM

He actually has a bit of a point.

Art was not only considered an intellectual practice and an important cultural phenomenon, but it was also used to portray people and events (real or mythological). Back then people couldn't get their photo taken, they had to have their portrait painted. Artists had to work hard to recreate historical scenes. When photography came around, people could get their portraits taken and photographers could capture current events as they were happening.

There is no longer an absolute need for an artist to paint something that can be captured on film. Painting, traditional theater,music had to make way for new technology and it's emerging popularity. It doesn't mean that painting and theater and concerts no longer have their place but they are not at the forefront of society and every day living like they used to be.
No, no, I get that.

It's what's in the bold areas that are :wtf:

Black Spot

January 28th, 2010, 11:11 AM

Well known living artists - Peter Blake, Bridget Riley, David Hockney. All about the same time.

bhanu

January 29th, 2010, 12:48 AM

Its about the media, people. Art media pushes towards so called elite niches in the markets. Connoiseurs and intellectuals , people with big pockets. For an artist to be famous(which is basically being know amongst the masses) he has to work around this already built system.
I dont know why you guys are arguing about whos famous and what. oh and yeah, its also about the face value, how many artists are known by their own faces??
Most rappers and movie stars have just that. YOu will recognize them.

steve kim

January 29th, 2010, 04:10 AM

bhano your avatar has lots of face value :)

Raoul Duke

January 29th, 2010, 04:35 AM

Well known living artists - Peter Blake, Bridget Riley, David Hockney. All about the same time.
Gee looks like I'll have to do a google search.....get the point.

bhanu

January 30th, 2010, 04:51 AM

bhano your avatar has lots of face value

awwww, shut up , hehehe. Are you saying that I am a rockstar???
Actually steve does have a point, how many people here, has an his/her own face for an avatar.

kennygeeze

February 1st, 2010, 02:56 AM

Illustrators are just making pretty pictures of someone elses work....someone elses idea and someone elses grand plan.

.

There's a lot more to being an illustrator than that... and there's more to being an illustrator than *just* making pretty pictures.

http://www.christophniemann.com/man/bpages/gallery1/gallery1b.html

Illustrators are visual problem solvers. Through creativity they bring an idea that only previously existed in writing or an abstract concept and then communicate it in an instant, visual read to their audience.

Many visual problems do not have literal solutions and this is apparent if you look at the link above.