<p>If you or your child have any interest in painting like the old masters, i.e. Caravaggio, here is an interesting article:</p>
<p>[Brandon</a> Kralik: Today’s New Old Masters Outshine the Avante-Garde](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Today's New Old Masters Outshine the Avante-Garde | HuffPost Entertainment)</p>
<p>Awesome article! My son is at MICA, and he is also an old masters style painter. Caravaggio is his idol. LOL <a href=“Adobe Portfolio | Build your own personalized website”>Adobe Portfolio | Build your own personalized website;
<p>I find the agenda and the tone of this article troubling. I’m someone who respects technical drafting and rendering in art. However, these things are not ends of themselves. You don’t gain the kind of ability to draw/paint exactly as you perceive from nature for the sake of being a skilled technician. Gaining these abilities is a way of gaining a kind of power, and power is not an ends to itself, you gain it for a reason - because you have a desire to do something with it.</p>
<p>Now, I also believe that visual art is a language. And that language is strictly form, which exists in negotiation with concept; meaning that form is the structure of concepts and concepts are the reason that this structure exists in the first place. With that being said, the study of form as a hole should be pursued instead of merely only “representational” form. Like it or not, art that exists after neoclassicism is part of the language of art as well and just as valid. </p>
<p>Skillfulness is just the concept of executing an action in such a way that the desired outcome is achieved consistently. In this way, all measures of skill are arbitrary since skill is defined in such a way that executing an action in a way tangential to the desired outcome becomes understood as “unskillful”. It should also be noted that the ones who define skillful execution are historically always part of the cultural elite and sustain that very elitist structure through determining what is and isn’t skillful. True, drawing a straight line takes a degree of skill (because executing such an action requires one to adjust and use a drafting utensil in an unnatural way), but so does the ability to make an exact copy of an abstract action painting (since intuitive actions must be imitated exactly in such a contrived manner). This is all to say that you could define skill simply by listing a set of actions which are difficult to accomplish with a certain tool that does no inherently lend itself to that action yet you can also define unskillfulness in terms of listing actions that are easy to execute with a tool. Painting a straight line free hand is skillful and hard because straight lines are not inherently created by freehand painting, but painting a straight line with masking tape is easy because masking tape lends itself to the creation of a straight edge.</p>
<p>My issue with the article is that it denies the notion of skill in contemporary art by identifying a cultural elite which sustain the structures of modern/contemporary art instruction. However, at the same time, the article does not question the premise of a neoclassicist cultural elite (who disseminated the notion of skill and technical virtuosity), and insists that this cultural elite’s opinions of skill are the only valid ones. Essentially, my beef is that the same method (that the author attempts to dismiss modern/contemporary art) can be used to dismiss neoclassicism just as easily. But the author pretends otherwise. </p>
<p>Besides this issue, there is the issue of history that the article sidesteps. Neoclassicism alienated artist like Jacques Louis David, Gustave Corbett, Manet, Georges-Pierre Seurat, and Eug</p>
<p>All that being said, there are plenty of institutions that will encourage this form of art instruction. I just get awful vibes from that article.</p>
<p>Timkerdes, the author of the article (I don’t know him) seems to be just expressing his frustration with not having the option to learn drawing while at university. I have heard this same complaint from many aspiring artists.</p>
<p>Not sure where the idea of “cultural elite” comes from. Artists throughout history have always been craftsmen, part of the working class. Of course there will always be arguments and differences of opinion on what constitutes the best technical skill. But the fact that there are differences should not prevent art schools from teaching the basics of drawing from life, teaching students the ability to draw exactly what they see. The development of these skills should not be viewed as “elitist” or as the end goal. The successful neoclassical artists go on to develop their own styles.</p>
<p>I’m not an artist, but I am a musician. Music conservatories and universities teach music from the masters; baroque, classical, Romantic, contemporary, modern, jazz, etc. They have been slow to add popular and commerial music, but many have done so. All the schools teach methods of the old masters: Bach, Beethoven Mozart etc. Scales, etudes, exercises. Learning the old is the foundation to learning the new. Musicians also do not agree upon who the best classical performing musicians are. But they all agree one should learn the basics first.</p>
<p>My daughter is a full-time professional painter who studied at one of the schools mentioned in the article, the Florence Academy of Art. These schools do actually teach a wide variety of topics and skills. They start by having students copy drawings from the masters; Charles Bargue come to mind (drawings from the 19th century). Then they are taught to draw from life. After one year they learn how to paint. My daughter also studied medical school book anatomy, and had to replicate what she learned with clay sculpture. Virtually none of the graduating artists stick to painting nudes; they branch out with their own style. She is glad she learned to draw and paint anything; the only limits are her imagination. If an artist does not learn to draw this well, he/she could find themselves limited due to lack of technical ability.</p>
<p>"Neoclassicism alienated artist like Jacques Louis David, Gustave Corbett, Manet, Georges-Pierre Seurat, and Eug</p>
<p>I’ll just add that I think the title of the article was a bit unfortunate. I’d like to know what the author defines as Avant Garde for one thing. I also noted that the author included his own work in his gallery of New Old Masters which is also unfortunate. But I agree with woodwinds take on the lack of the article in general and have stated my own displeasure at the lack of technical instruction in many of today’s art schools.</p>
<p>Typo correction
But I agree with woodwinds take on the article in general and have stated my own displeasure at the lack of technical instruction in many of today’s art schools.</p>
<p>“Not sure where the idea of “cultural elite” comes from.”</p>
<p>It comes from the fact that the one’s who control the instiutions of art determine the standars of art. So someone like Clement Greenberg - a critic of abstract expressionist painting - is a cultural elite because he used his influence as a powerful critic to set a standard for art which could make or break careers depending of how closely an artist followed that standard.</p>
<p>“Artists throughout history have always been craftsmen, part of the working class.”</p>
<p>Art became distinct from craft during the rennaisance period. From then on it was treated as a liberal art like philosophy and languages. At this point artists became part of the intellectual class.</p>
<p>“Of course there will always be arguments and differences of opinion on what constitutes the best technical skill. But the fact that there are differences should not prevent art schools from teaching the basics of drawing from life, teaching students the ability to draw exactly what they see. The development of these skills should not be viewed as “elitist” or as the end goal. The successful neoclassical artists go on to develop their own styles.”</p>
<p>I don’t think that it’s “elitist”, I think the way that the author defines skill is very narrow - based principally on the ability to depict the observable world in drawing and painting. My argument is that this idea of technical ability is old hat. Learning techniques in film/video, animation, graphic design, typography, weilding, wood working, casting, 3d modeling, programming, lithography, etching, silk screening, encaustic painting etc…all require tremendous skill but you wouldn’t get that idea from that article. It’s a misrepresentation.
And I agree with what you said, artists will find themselves limited due to technical ability if they don’t study technique in depth. The problem is that the author’s idea of technique is so narrow it’s “limiting”.</p>
<p>What you say about music is true and makes sense. See, the way it works for art is different. There’s a lot of stuff to learn and drawing/painting from observation is just one of those things. You also need to learn about 2d form and composition isolated from representation, the 3d equivalent of that, the theory of color, the theory of art, and conceptual practices. That’s just the first year. What I’m trying to say is that there’s a lot of things that are necessary to learn in studying art and alot of these things that are necessary to study happened within the last 3 hundred years. Not studying these things is about the same as not studying the last 3 hundred years of architectural advancements (if you major in architecture). </p>
<p>“From reading the article I would suspect that those “alienated” artists you reference are one’s whose work the author would enjoy.”</p>
<p>My point in bringing up those artists is to show that artists were disenchanted and thought neoclassical standards were limiting. Artists like these are directly the reason why art has evolved in the way it has. I agree with everything you said past this point. I’d only just add the reminder that there is A LOT of technique to learn in art that has little to do with representational art and is often times even more technical than the kind of art the author of that article advocates.</p>
<p>I also agree with your point about being disinterested in art that needs to be explained in an essay accompanying the work. But conversely, art that pretends the last 3 hundred years didn’t happen is just as bad.</p>
<p>One other further thing.</p>
<p>Besides the issues I voiced about that article. There is also the sense conveyed by the author that artists who don’t buy into the author’s beliefs are unskilled. That producing work that is grounded differently makes them somehow deficient in terms o talent and ability and that they make art in the way that they do because they don’t have the skill to draw and paint realistically. </p>
<p>“f you think that the big name schools nurture talent then have a look at the work from these schools who are proudly exhibiting their 2013 MFA graduates…Personally, I am not surprised that Columbia Universities 2013 MFA thesis exhibition is so extremely mediocre or that the 2013 MFA exhibition from Yale University, which claims a unique vitality, displays nothing of the sort. Even graduates of the Art Institute of Chicago offer artistic visions that are just plain dull. I have been around long enough to know what to expect from the Art world.”</p>
<p>I doubt that I am blowing things out of proportion. besides that, the author is, frankly,
kidding himself. I know plenty of people who are quite capable of drawing and painting from observation with the same technical facility that students display at atelier programs, but instead produce other kinds of work. Even De kooning (who initially studied at an academy) was skilled at classically drawing and painting from observation.</p>
<p>“Learning techniques in film/video, animation, graphic design, typography, weilding, wood working, casting, 3d modeling, programming, lithography, etching, silk screening, encaustic painting etc…all require tremendous skill”</p>
<p>timkerdes, you’re not suggesting that art majors study all that, are you? That would make one a Jack of All Trades. Although I agree they all require tremendous skill, I don’t agree that all those trades/skills belong under Fine Art. In fact, most of those are not Fine Art. It’s not that they are less important or require less skill; they just belong in a different category. And I disagree with you regarding the comparison to music; the two fields are very similar. Music majors however do not study ALL the instruments of the orchestra, nor do they study Early Music, Jazz and popular music, etc. equally. They specialize.</p>
<p>The main point of the article, as I read it, is: If one wants to study drawing and painting in a BA or similar program at a university, one would expect to have solid instruction in the basics of drawing and painting. Unfortunately, many universties do not offer such detailed instruction. Students seeking an art education need to look closely at what the university, academy, or atelier offers, and see if it matches what they want to learn.</p>
<p>“Learning techniques in film/video, animation, graphic design, typography, weilding, wood working, casting, 3d modeling, programming, lithography, etching, silk screening, encaustic painting etc…all require tremendous skill”</p>
<p>“timkerdes, you’re not suggesting that art majors study all that, are you?” </p>
<p>No, my purpose in listing the things that I did was to highlight (a portion of the) categories in art which require skill that the author of that article overtly dismisses. All of those categories (with the exclusion of programming) are certainly part of the category of fine artist. Film/video artists, printmakers, graphic designers, and sculptors are still fine artists aren’t they? So how is it a fact that “most of those are not fine art”? There are also plenty of techniques painters can learn to make technically strong paintings that have little to do with traditional oil painting practices or really the material of oil paint but still remain quite technical.</p>
<p>“And I disagree with you regarding the comparison to music; the two fields are very similar. Music majors however do not study ALL the instruments of the orchestra, nor do they study Early Music, Jazz and popular music, etc. equally. They specialize.”</p>
<p>I’m no musician and I have very little knowledge of music education but I do know about art/architecture education and there are fundamental subjects that all artists need to study that are not strictly drawing and painting. Even if all you want to study is painting, it is still fundamental that you study 2 dimensional design, 3 dimensional design, color theory, and conceptual practices. These subjects are fundamental for and painters and exist outside of the area that the author discusses. Maybe music majors are very similar but they also differ significantly to art majors in that the developments of the last 100 years are considered just as fundamental as any older development in visual art education.</p>
<p>“The main point of the article, as I read it, is: If one wants to study drawing and painting in a BA or similar program at a university, one would expect to have solid instruction in the basics of drawing and painting.”</p>
<p>You see, that point gets derailed when the author reduces the notion of skill to a style/idiom from the late 17th and early 18th century while discrediting art that succeeded that period. Remember, different is not deficient. Painting practices outside of the idiom of neoclassicism are for the most part just as skillful. They just have somewhat different measures of quality. And at virtually all of the top art institutions, students do receive solid instruction in drawing and painting.</p>
<p>Here’s another interesting article:</p>
<p>[The</a> Answer Sheet - Art Expert: The Problem With School Art Programs Are Teachers Who “Can Barely Draw”](<a href=“http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/david-levy-the-problem-with-sc.html]The”>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/david-levy-the-problem-with-sc.html)</p>
<p>on why K-12 students aren’t being taught how to draw, written by David Levy, former Director of the Parsons School, The Corcoran, and the New School of Music.</p>
<p>timkerdes wrote: “And at virtually all of the top art institutions, students do receive solid instruction in drawing and painting.”</p>
<p>I disagree with that. Students are not being given solid instruction in drawing and painting. The New York Academy of Art used to provide such instruction, but no longer has instructors with the requisite knowledge. Practicing drawing maybe 6 hours a week at university will not give a student the skills with which to draw well enough to get work after graduating. Atelier students practice drawing and then painting 10 or more hours per day.</p>
<p>My 22-year-old daughter has friends who just graduated from SCAD, VCU, MICA, Parsons and others. None of them are working or can find it. They have only basic skills. On the other hand, my 25-year-old artist daughter who studied at the ateliers of Florence Italy has plenty of work, as do most of her contemporaries who studied classical or realistic art.</p>
<p>Every good art school will have the students, certainly during foundation year, studying the old masters and working on representational techniques (along with other things, of course).</p>
<p>“Practicing drawing maybe 6 hours a week at university will not give a student the skills with which to draw well enough to get work after graduating. Atelier students practice drawing and then painting 10 or more hours per day.”</p>
<p>Again, ateliers are highly specialized, it’s kind of all they do. Fro personal experience I want to say students at art schols spend something like 12 to 15 hours doing work for each class, taking at least 4 studio art classes a semester. This is from personal experience. Saying they spend 6 hours a week practicing sounds innacurate. Actually, from personal observation most people I’ve seen work from 10 am to 11 pm every week day, do little work on saturday, and work from 6 hours to all day on sunday. The hours of practice add up either way. Now I’ll freely admit that they don’t spend all day rendering images from observation but they do spend all day experimenting with materials, building canvases/panels/gessoing, making studies, making paints, making paintingsdrawings from observation/invention.</p>
<p>This is all to say that it’s true that art schools do not think producing strictly mimetic paintings are not as valued (in general) at colleges than ateliers, but the production of formal images with a degree of conceptualism is still highly valued. So the focus of practice may be different but it isn’t less technical, which is the assertion that I’ve been responding to frm the initial article.</p>
<p>“My 22-year-old daughter has friends who just graduated from SCAD, VCU, MICA, Parsons and others. None of them are working or can find it. They have only basic skills. On the other hand, my 25-year-old artist daughter who studied at the ateliers of Florence Italy has plenty of work, as do most of her contemporaries who studied classical or realistic art.”</p>
<p>Your being vague when you say work. What kind of work? exhibiting in a gallery? commissions? Fellowships? becoming professors or instructors? Becoming assistants to other artists or technicians? Illustrators? I don’t really know what you mean. Also note that talent/facility and employment do not necessariy correspond. Also, only basic skills in what exactly? Drawing and painting from observation? That might be true. But is only true to the same extent of saying that the students who study at ateliers would have basic or little skill in formal 2 dimensional design, color theory, basic knowledge in material experimentation and usage/mixing mediums, and basic knowledge in theory and conceptualism that art students from a 4 year post-secondary institution would possess.</p>
<p>“Your being vague when you say work. What kind of work? exhibiting in a gallery? commissions? Fellowships? becoming professors or instructors? Becoming assistants to other artists or technicians? Illustrators?”</p>
<p>My daughter, who studied at two ateliers, and her friends/contemporaries, all work as full-time painters/artists. The ones I’ve met sell their work themselves through their websites, and /or are represented by galleries. Their work is shown in the big art magazines. Some of them at times work part-time as instructors at an atelier. Others will put on occasional workshops overseas. None of them work as university professors, assistants or technicians.</p>
<p>“students who study at ateliers would have basic or little skill in formal 2 dimensional design, color theory, basic knowledge in material experimentation and usage/mixing mediums, and basic knowledge in theory and conceptualism that art students from a 4 year post-secondary institution would possess.”</p>
<p>It is certainly true that atelier students would not study materials not used in representational drawing, painting and sculpture. I think they do learn a great deal about color however. As for other skills, they easily transfer. For example, my daughter studied representational sculpture with clay. In some of her paintings, she paints dolls. She made the dolls herself, molding the plastic to make faces. </p>
<p>Of course ateliers are specialized, and that’s why students can spend 10 or more hours a day drawing from life. But students going to ateliers know exactly what they will be doing, and what they won’t.</p>
<p>“Also, only basic skills in what exactly?”</p>
<p>The young, 22-25 year olds I see here who attended university art programs, have very basic skills in representational drawing, painting and sculpture. They cannot sell their work. I just met a 29-year old MFA from a “top” US art school who told me he is a representational artist. I looked him up and saw that his work is very basic, unskilled. I can understand why he sells little of his work, prices it very low, and tries to earn money by working as a curator. Having said that, if students focus on the other subjects taught at art schools, and there are many of them, they may be completely prepared–animation, commerical, digital art, etc. I do know one 22-year year old BA grad from George Washington who I think will do well. She has just published her own children’s book, which she wrote and illustrated herself. But she had the skills already going into school–her dad taught her representational art for years, and she was already selling her artwork at age 15. Her drawings are “basic” compared to an atelier student, but she doesn’t need any more to do what she already does well.</p>
<p>I think our universities are fine for teaching commerial art and art that is not representational. The problem I’ve seen is that many incoming students DO want to become representational artists, and then are disappointed when they have not learned enough at university to do that. They then either go to ateliers, teach themselves, or give up and do something else.</p>
<p>“The young, 22-25 year olds I see here who attended university art programs, have very basic skills in representational drawing, painting and sculpture. They cannot sell their work. I just met a 29-year old MFA from a “top” US art school who told me he is a representational artist. I looked him up and saw that his work is very basic, unskilled. I can understand why he sells little of his work, prices it very low, and tries to earn money by working as a curator.”</p>
<p>That’s kind of just one example. Here are 5 grad students from UCLA and Yale, both are top MFA programs. Would you say these artists are lacking in the skills department? Would you say that the way they paint is because they lack the skill to do otherwise?</p>
<p>[Paintings</a> : JAMES MILLER](<a href=“http://jamesmillerart.com/]Paintings”>http://jamesmillerart.com/)
[devanshimoyama[/url</a>]
<a href=“http://waydemcintosh.■■■■■■■■■■/archive[/url]”>WAYDE McINTOSH: Archive](<a href=“http://www.devanshimoyama.com/#!work/c199t]devanshimoyama[/url”>http://www.devanshimoyama.com/#!work/c199t)</a>
[HOME</a> : Sarah Awad](<a href=“http://www.sarahawad.com/]HOME”>http://www.sarahawad.com/)
[RYAN</a> SLUGGETT](<a href=“http://www.tellesfineart.com/sluggett5.html]RYAN”>http://www.tellesfineart.com/sluggett5.html)</p>
<p>Also, your making a faulty correlation between skillful painting and financial success in the art world. For the most part, representational painting is more of a niche area and not the main focus in the commercial art world. By and large, the most successful artists are typically NOT representational painters. I’m not saying it’s impossible for the contrary to occur, I’m speaking about the general tendency of the contemporary world. Collectors purchase work simply because they like the work - find it appealing. There are plenty of representational painters who have little technical ability who still find success as a painter. There isn’t a direct relationship between ability and financial success in art unfortunately.</p>
<p>“By and large, the most successful artists are typically NOT representational painters.”</p>
<p>Could you explain this statement a little further or provide some documentation. This is a pretty blanket statement without any back-up. I’m not even sure you could verify that most museum or gallery shows are non-representational. But if you can feel free to share your info.</p>
<p>As for your examples, didn’t exactly knock my socks off. There were a couple that were reasonably strong as far as representational but I’ve noticed the new trend is an overly painterly approach which is certainly exhibited in your examples. That’s all well and fine but as examples of masters candidates from ANY school most of them were pretty run of the mill. </p>
<p>There were a couple that were strong but…personally yeah, I’d say that if you’re presenting them as examples of people who are really technically skilled those particular examples of work at least seem kind of average. I don’t see anything that indicates that an avenue or way of working is by choice or lack of skills. Skill level is okay but not spectacular, that’s judging by the examples you’ve given. And of course that’s a very subjective statement.</p>
<p>Also you make another blanket statement about collectors. I’m not so sure the greater percentages of collectors buy art because they like it. There’s certainly a certain segment that approach collecting art as an investment, or even gamble. They rely on gallery owners to suggest works by young artists that are likely to rise in value. It’s not all about “liking” a piece of art. For some it is, sure, but there are others who have other reasons for purchasing and donating art even. And that’s about finances and tax write-offs. And of course some just get a kick out of being part of a scene. Many many reasons.</p>
<p>Timkerdes, I think I sounded jaded and cranky in my previous post, which I am . . . so please don’t take it personally. </p>
<p>I think this discussion about representational art being good or not is sort of a moot point. Art is basically good or not. I do think there could be more emphasis on basic drawing and other skills, it’s a personal thing but sometimes I feel all this talk talk talk about art wastes time that could be spent doing art. And yet, I often talk talk talk about art because it can be interesting.</p>
<p>But as I pointed out earlier I also thought that the author of the article that originated this post was a bit self-serving by including himself in his examples of “good” work. </p>
<p>I think atelier/studio settings are good for some, not everyone. And vice versa, art schools aren’t for everyone. I’m hypercritical about what I respond to because I’m so old and maybe I’ve seen too much stuff to have fresh eyes. I’m only partly joking. So please don’t take my comments as personally directed to you. As I said, I’m a bit old and cranky however I’m also experienced and have been around a bit so do take some of my comments as sage advice, although you might have to add a grain of salt now and then.</p>
<p>“Could you explain this statement a little further or provide some documentation. This is a pretty blanket statement without any back-up. I’m not even sure you could verify that most museum or gallery shows are non-representational. But if you can feel free to share your info.”</p>
<p>I don’t think I said that. I said that the most financially successful artists are for the most part not representational painters. That’s much different than saying that “most museum or gallery shows are non-representational”. I was talking purely about the general trend of the kind of contemporary paintings that sell. A little clarification in case of future confusion. Figurative artist isn’t synonymous with representational artist (maybe you know this already, but maybe someone else doesn’t). Examples of figurative art would be expressionism, symbolism, surrealism, magical realism, pop art, (some) dadaism. When I say representational painters don’t represent the majority of painters who command the highest prices, I’m talking about painters who work from observation and make paintings that are a measure of that reality.</p>
<p>[1</a>. Damien Hirst ? The 15 Richest Living Artists | Complex](<a href=“The 15 Richest Living Artists | Complex”>The 15 Richest Living Artists | Complex)</p>
<p>Here’s a list of the purported 15 richest living artists. Of the 15 only two are representational painters, Chuck Close and Gerhard Richter (who isn’t even strictly representational). The other painters on that list are figurative but obviously not representational. Furthermore, it should be noted that the only two representational on the list are representational only through photo-realidm. There are no realist painters on that list, or neoclassicists or romanticists, or any other group of painters who fall under the category of “representational painter” on that list other than the two photo-realists. Actual photography is (pun unintended) the most represented of representational artists.</p>
<p>[List</a> of recent Whitney Biennial artists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recent_Whitney_Biennial_artists]List”>List of Whitney Biennial artists - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>That’s a list of artists in the last few Whitney Biennials. Proportionally, there aren’t many representational painters on that list from what I’ve seen.</p>
<p>[dOCUMENTA</a> (13) - dOCUMENTA (13)](<a href=“dOCUMENTA (13) - dOCUMENTA (13)”>dOCUMENTA (13) - dOCUMENTA (13))</p>
<p>That’s a list of artists who participated in Documenta.</p>
<p>[List</a> of most expensive paintings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings]List”>List of most expensive paintings - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>A list of the highest priced paintings. There doesn’t seem to be a single painting on that list by a representational painter from the last 100 years on the list.</p>
<p>Below is a list of galleries who participated in the armory show. Clicking on the list shows the artists represented in each gallery.</p>
<p>[The</a> Armory Show - 2012 Exhibitors - Pier 94](<a href=“http://www.thearmoryshow.com/exhibitors/2012_exhibitors_94.html]The”>http://www.thearmoryshow.com/exhibitors/2012_exhibitors_94.html)</p>
<p>Now, these obviously aren’t all the venues for selling art. But without question they are the most known and the ones that exhibit artists who command the highest prices. </p>
<p>“There were a couple that were strong but…personally yeah, I’d say that if you’re presenting them as examples of people who are really technically skilled those particular examples of work at least seem kind of average. I don’t see anything that indicates that an avenue or way of working is by choice or lack of skills. Skill level is okay but not spectacular, that’s judging by the examples you’ve given. And of course that’s a very subjective statement.”</p>
<p>I’m not presenting them. I randomly picked them from the webpages of Yale and UCLA’s graduate program. Woodwinds says that the technical ability of the artists that come from these programs are basic. Regardless of your opinion about them, it’s at least obvious that this much is untrue and the certainly don’t exhibit any less skill than the artists in that first article. Furthermore, you seem to only be considering technical ability in terms of rendering. You should examine how some of those pieces were put together materially a well. Though, what is your standard of a technically accomplished contemporary artist? </p>
<p>“Also you make another blanket statement about collectors. I’m not so sure the greater percentages of collectors buy art because they like it. There’s certainly a certain segment that approach collecting art as an investment, or even gamble. They rely on gallery owners to suggest works by young artists that are likely to rise in value. It’s not all about “liking” a piece of art. For some it is, sure, but there are others who have other reasons for purchasing and donating art even. And that’s about finances and tax write-offs. And of course some just get a kick out of being part of a scene. Many many reasons.”</p>
<p>Of course. Your right in saying I’m talking about only a segment of collectors. Yet what I was responding to was the notion that the perceived skill of the artist is what determines what work sells. I am saying that the segment of art appreciators who are also collectors buy work strictly based on the fact that they like the work. Your favorite painter is not necessarily the best painter. Giorgio Morandi is admired by many, but I wouldn’t say he exhibits any kind of technical virtuosity at all. Attributing a lack of sells to a lack of technical ability is incorrect because the primary reason these sorts of people purchase work is for no other reason than that they like it. Even then, regardless of what I said, the list of reasons you supply for why collectors might purchase works of art has little correlation to the idea that artist who produce skillful work will sell more work than less skilled artists.</p>