<p>“Also don’t you think those contemporary artist who employe crews of help could be argued to be working in the centuries old true atelier / studio method.”</p>
<p>I think if the artist was in control of the composition of the work they become the artist. If you simply present the concept, then it would be more accurate to call you a patron. But when someone starts saying “this thing goes here, that goes here, that goes there, don’t use this etc…” they become the artist because they composed the work.</p>
<p>“I think artsmarts is correct that abstract/non-representational art and realistic/representational art are like…”</p>
<p>I just want to clarify, Just to make sure that we are on track. In what way are representational paintings being compared to non-representational painting? In terms of gallery sales? In terms of skill? I’ve said from the start that there are different measures of skill to approach different kinds of art forms. Never once have I said that non-representational art is technical in the same sense that representational art is. I’ve said that non-representational art is just as technical as representational art, but in different terms.</p>
<p>In response to:“timkerdes, the Vanni paintings are colorful and pretty, but it’s just not my kind of…”</p>
<p>You see, that statement kind of sums up the problem. I get the sense that your unable to evaluate/discern a painting’s visual qualities/technical considerations without examining it through the lens of representation. I didn’t ask you if you liked it or to evaluate the paintings in terms of representationalism. As I’ve said since the start, the idea of skill extends beyond representational painting. Printmaking isn’t a technical for the same reason that figure drawing is technical but because of the fact that it is typically a process art that takes many steps and material/chemical alterations to produce a print. I asked only what you thought of it in terms of skillful execution. </p>
<p>To illustrate:imagine drawing a circle. This circle represents the discipline of painting and all the ways it has been coinceived. All of the various idioms and styles of paintings are contained in this circle. Now draw a much smaller circle within the first. This smaller circle contains all forms of representational painting. Now, seeing how the smaller circle is only a portion of the larger, would it be right to evaluate the discipline as a whole based on one manifestation of that discipline? It’s sort of the pitfall of mistaking the tree for the forest. </p>
<p>Honestly, I can tell you without hesitation that, as an artist, I would have a much more difficult time executing something similar to the Vanni paintings than to the paintings you’ve shown me thus far. </p>
<p>In response to: “For me, art requires creativity and skill. A real elephant is no one’s creation other than its parents. A toy elephant…” </p>
<p>It doesn’t really matter if you make the “materials” or not for something to be art. The elephant is not the creation of the artist, nor is the volvo. The creation of the artist is the relation that is made by combining these two things. Paint out of the tube isn’t art until it’s combined with other paint, and canvas to produce a painting. For something to be art, all it takes is for you to present something under an art context. It’s the relationship that matters. If you can present a work as art and experience it under an art context, it is art.</p>
<p>Now, the way your approaching art can lead to absurd conclusions - such as collage isn’t art. Here’s a link of an artist who makes art from pretty much anything.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.sculpture.org/documents/scmag03/nov03/sze/sze.shtml]Sculpture.org[/url”>http://www.sculpture.org/documents/scmag03/nov03/sze/sze.shtml]Sculpture.org[/url</a>]</p>
<p>To make my point (and really, just because I like showing people art) consider Sarah Sze. If you read the article, you’ll find that she makes her sculptures from the most ordinary and mundane materials (tooth picks, clothes pins, styrofoam, measuring tape, fishing line, pill bottles etc)) to produce these intricate architectonic sculptures.</p>
<p>“This is the opposite of where it was 150 years ago. The pendelum is swinging back, and although I don’t think the biggest sales will return to only-representational art, there may be a better or different balance in the future.”</p>
<p>The way art is now, I don’t see it returning to being predominantly representationalism as it was in the past. The art world is a global one and more diversified than it has ever been at any point in recorded history. The art world has also never been better in sales (I saw a few articles recently about the art market having record breaking sales). There isn’t one movement or style that dominates contemporary art. The art world would actually have a worse balance if it was predominantly representational. Sure, the future is anyone’s guess, but it’s quite unlikely that the balance will be thrown back to the way it was 150 years ago. It’s about as likely as architecture moving back to the way it 150 years ago.</p>
<p>In response to:“so I am more interested in looking at the thousands of artists just trying to make a living, or making a very good living, but still not in that top stratesphere.”</p>
<p>The vast majority of artists ARE NOT making the kind of money as the 15 in the list. But even for those who are just making a good living, the same balance is true. Most of the artists I was thinking of were the kind who price their work around 10k to 50k.</p>
<p>“I want to make the point to prospective art students that they should look carefully at the art schools they want to attend. What kind of art do they want to do? Will the school teach them how to do that? When my daughter was considering where she should study, she went online and looked up all the professors’ work. She wanted to be a representational artist, but could not find any work at universities that she liked, so she went to an atelier where she DID like the work she found online (both made by the teachers and by the students).”</p>
<p>Your point is valid here. Students should know their options. And for someone who already has a degree and wants to focus on painting from observation and nothing else, I can definitly see ateliers as being a good alternative instead of getting a second undergraduate degree. Or if it isn’t important at all to get a degree, it can also be a good alternative. However in response to a problem that was brought up earlier, there are american schools structured like academies but with academic subjects introduced to the curriculum. PAFA is a good example.</p>
<p>“With the internet today, many artists can sell their own work independently. While I have no idea how many abstract art-type artists do this, I do know many successful representational artists who earn a very good living this way. They pay taxes–I do them for my daughter–but they have no need to go through galleries unless they want to. My daughter does both.”</p>
<p>It probably goes both ways. There’s no reason to believe that selling work independently from galleries would be exclusive to representational painters. Perhaps portrait commisions would be but nothing else.</p>