Subscribe to Art Biz Blog feed
Mark Stevens & Annalyn Swan: de Kooning: An American Master
Join our Twitter book club this summer. See Pages above.
Sharon Waxman: Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World
Lindsay Pollock: The Girl With the Gallery: Edith Gregor Halpert And the Making of the Modern Art Market
LOVE this book! It reveals so much about the early American art market. Halpert was a true pioneer.
Criticism: The analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of an artistic work.
Using the above definition, do you seek out criticism of your art from others?
How do you prepare yourself for it? What do you do in response to good and bad criticism?
Image ©Vickie Martin, Edge of the Universe
I couldn’t help smiling at recent articles about the discontent with Luis Jimenez’s 32’-high bright blue Mustang, which was installed a year ago at the entry to Denver International Airport. Mustang’s glowing red eyes look down upon you as you drive to the terminal. The anti-Mustang troops have garnered attention from every major media outlet, including the NY Times and Wall Street Journal.
It was déjå vu for me!
When I worked at the Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art at the University of Oklahoma, a smaller version of Mustang evoked similar responses. The red eyes were “demonic” and the horse “possessed.” The horse was on the corner of a lot in a prominent campus location and the university even built a rose garden around it--which was weird at first, but then it strangely seemed perfect to grow beautiful, thorny roses around a kitschy fiberglass sculpture with glowing red eyes.
Photo courtesy Denver International Airport ©2009 Estate of Luis A. Jimenez, Jr. / Artists Rights Society, NY.
How sad if everyone liked public art immediately! Think of how boring art would have to be in order for it to be 100% likable. It would blend into the background.
Great art provokes dialog. It gives us something to talk about, something to rant about, something to embrace. Pleasant art quietly blends into the background.
I am a staunch supporter of this sculpture, which tragically fell over and killed the artist while it was being fabricated. I love driving by it and showing it to visitors I drive to the airport.
I think of this controversy as being related to the “obscene art” brouhaha that erupted against the National Endowment for the Arts when it was associated with (didn’t fund directly!) the Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit. Testifying in a US Senate Subcommittee in 1990, Garrison Keillor said:
It’s kind of how I feel about Mustang. Those of us who really love it didn’t have a reason to express our appreciation publicly before those who despised it spoke out against it. Sad indeed. And if it were to be removed, I can just imagine the outcry and the rallies of support. Fortunately, all public art in Denver must remain in situ for at least 5 years. That ought to be enough time for people to get used to it.
If it takes a team of experts to collectively agree that a certain painting is, for example, by Rembrandt or Pollock, should the fake Rembrandts and Pollocks be less valuable?
Is there such a thing as originality?
Is it my job, as an art-marketing consultant, to tell a potential client that he or she might not have the talent they need to succeed in a certain area?
I've always thought this wasn't my job and have steered clear of it--leaving the art-making and technique critiques to someone else. But am I doing a disservice to people? Is it unethical to take their money and encourage them to promote this work vigorously if I don't think it can make the cut? (Remember: I see a lot of art. I know the competition out there.)
Sometimes I'm able to discourage them from going off in another direction and focus on work I think is stronger. It's great when I can do this. But what if they feel very strongly?
I recently tweeted about this, but I think it's worthy of a blog post. And I could sure use your words of wisdom.
Inspired by last week's Deep Thought about art and politics.
The arts used to be considered an indicator of a society's advancement and standing in the world.
Are they still? If they are, how so? And is it just artists that think this?
If they aren't, why not? What has replaced art and how did it happen?
Is there just one art world?
Is there more than one art world? If so, how many? And how are they defined?
Is commissioned art inherently of lesser quality?
Does the fact that you, the artist, must please another person with the work make it less important? Or does it mean that it is somehow tainted, impure?
Michele C. Cone wrote an interesting, although brief, overview of a panel discussion at this year's College Art Association meeting. I would love to get this discussion on audio. Anyone?
Read about it here (I think the subtitle says it all): "A Faustian Bargain? Emerging Artists, Critics and the Market"
This seems to be the week of lists, so we’ll just go with it. (Top 10 Films about Artists)
Beverly Solomon sent me a link to the Art News Blog that let me to “The Works of Art that Matter Most: 50 Works of Art to See Before You Die” by Jonathan Jones of The Guardian. He started with 20 and then has asked for input. 
I agree enthusiastically with the Rothko Chapel. I'd replace Matisse's "The Dance" with "Harmony in Red." I'd add Brancusi's "Bird in Space," John Singer Sargent's "Madame X," Rodin's "The Gates of Hell," and any of Ellsworth Kelly's or Agnes Martin's paintings.
Also on my list: Giotto's St. Francis frescoes at Assisi and Donatello's "David." (I second Boticellis' "Birth of Venus" mentioned previously.)
I'm slightly disturbed by the dearth of women artists on my list and the complete absence on the other lists. Is anyone else? What about more non-Western art? (Read the comments and you’ll find other suggestions.)
Image: Henri Matisse, Harmony in Red. Collection of The Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia.
