My Face Is More Important Than Yours!

In the check out lines - Celebrities images are more valuable than food.

Edward I'm sure that is true.

I assume that you might be referring to the good old days in Europe and the USA, strongly influenced by Christianity. The religions of Islam and Judaism have traditionally avoided religious depictions that had images of any sentient beings in them. There have even been times in Christianity, where such depictions were NOT favored.

Generally, then, I am not sure that there has been such a time of hierarchical preferences in images. I have never had the impression that such days ever existed, but this just might be my own ignorance.

I suspect that in Western culture, the human figure had a high position in the image hierarchy, possibly equaled by depictions of nature (flowers, landscapes, trees).

When classical representation fell out of favor, though, I think that any semblance of visual hierarchy whatsoever (that might have existed) also fell out of favor. So, if these days ever existed, then we certainly are past them now.

Rather than the market do you think there is a pecking order in the art world? To be honest when I have juried shows I tend not to consider celebrity images or famous landmarks unless there is something very unique about them.

Robert you are right in that I am talking about the western world. Yes such hierarchy did exist at various times at least up through the late 1800's.

I like a good kitten pic every now and then. And baby pics. And of course dog pics.

Do you mean art? Oh.

Dave

Here is the breakdown as promoted by the academic art world from the 16th- early 19th centuries. History Painting, Portrait Painting, Genre painting, Landscape painting, Animal painting and Still life painting in order of importance starting with history painting as being number one. Do you think in our world there is residue left from this?

I working on the image combined together for my own pleasure.

Or I might have to eat my words.

Looking at the motion picture industry and at the video game industry, I am inclined to say that images of blood, gore, grotesque disembowelment and so forth seem quite popular, hence, quite high on the image hierarchy scale of today.

"Is there a pecking order in the art world?"

MY ANSWER: ... probably, but no for the reasons you might want to suspect. Any art-world pecking order exists for reasons other than images that the artists might create. I generally think of "pecking orders" as being largely determined by the politics of the industry, rather than purely by the products of the industry.

Robert, think I might agree with you but not quite sure what you are saying here.

Now you are calling my work "residue" really?

LOL

Dave

Ronald W.,

I am saying that a pecking order can develop because of an artist's connections or affiliations with people in positions of influence. The appeal of the artwork itself in any hierarchy of visual preferences is easily overridden by the power of these affiliations ... to propel the artist forward in culture, ... just because these affiliations have the influence to determine who and who does not move ahead. Why these affiliations might move one artist's images ahead of another's might have nothing to do with the art. It might have to do merely with the idea of advancing art (any art) for art's sake.

Somebody wealthy, for example, might simply know an artist and like the idea of promoting art, and so chooses the closest artist known to advance in the community. And the proverbial favorite reason, ... someone of influence might be sleeping with an artist, and, ... well, ... the reasons for advancement of THAT artist's images are obvious.

Another reason is money-generating power of the images. The images that stand at the top of the hierarchy stand there because they are the ones that make the most money.

I seem to repeat myself on the subject of zombies, because images of them are everywhere. Zombies are all over TV programming and motion pictures. Images of zombies make money in these industries. They are high in the visual hierarchy, therefore.

Dave B., I often lovingly refer to my own work as "residue".

I agree Robert at least on the short term. In the long run I wonder if this wealthy promotion would have staying power?

I think you have to define "more important" to who? To the political establishment or everyday people?

Edward the level of "Importance was established by Salons and art guilds.

Ronald,

You are looking for generalizations. What do most galleries sell?

It does not matter. If artist xyz sells a ton of landscapes that wont pay my bills.

If said artist xyz sells in NYC and I sell elsewhere why would I care what sells in NYC?

Life is far too short. My art and I have better things to do.

Dave

Not talking strictly about the market here.

As long as money or money-like instruments are the nuts and bolts that run civilizations, I think that the choice of artistic vision can be bought rather than being allowed to evolve through non-monetary interests.

Society can become further fragmented into subcultures that have differing priorities, of course, and maybe the most influential people in these subcultures will determine the visual top of the hierarchy, giving us NOT a standard cultural norm, but rather a MULTITUDE of different hierarchies within which artistic merit and appeal are judged.

I think this is where we are today. Different subcultures have different hierarchies, and what flies at the top in one does NOT fly at the top in another. ... essentially what Edward F. is getting at. I just spelled it out in fancier terms.

Ronald,

The most famous painting is not a landscape...the Mona Lisa.

It makes no difference when we turn to generalities.

Dave

The Mona Lisa ... is famous for being famous.

Its fame is the result of a lineage of stewardship among people of influence over centuries.

A great artist painted it. Somebody mentioned an elusive smile. Somebody mentioned the elusive smile in association with the great artist. The baton was handed to the next generation that kept it famous, because the previous generation had kept it famous, and so on and so on. More than the work itself, the word of its fame, thus, kept it famous and amplified its fame with each passing generation.

Robert,

Generally speaking almost no one says I loved XYZ landscape from 1800. No one really in the
mass market has a landscape image title on the tip of their tongue, but landscapes sell better.

Dave

Ronald, where was this heirarchy of which you speak?

Right here Marlene:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_genres
It is too long to post but it does a good job explaining the history of hierarchy in fine art, in the Christian European world.

The fully developed hierarchy distinguished between:

History painting, including narrative religious mythological and allegorical subjects
Portrait painting
Genre painting or scenes of everyday life
Landscape and cityscape (landscapists were called "common footmen in the Army of Art" by the Dutch theorist Samuel van Hoogstraten)
Animal painting
Still life

That's a historical hierarchy Kevin, Ron is asking if such a thing exists now. I don't think there's a genre hierarchy today but there is definitely a social one, and within those social hierarchies there do tend to be genre hierarchies. or more accurate, certain social art circles only regard certain genres as "Art" at all and the rest is just the drivel of the masses.

Thanks Kevin, also studied it in art history and have read many books over the years that referred to it. David, not sure why you are talking about landscapes as if I said they are number one on the list. All of this broke down rather rapidly but I wonder if there are modern art hating artist out there who long to return to the olden days?

Well yes David but this sets the tone for those who did not seem to understand that historically there WAS such a thing. Is there today? Yes, probably. I think it has left traditional painting and the top dog is conceptual work. Just as an observation of what's on the market. Of course Conceptual doesn't lend itself to POD.

I thought this was interesting as well, speaking of hierarchy:
Until the middle of the 19th century, women were largely unable to paint history paintings as they were not allowed to participate in the final process of artistic training—that of life drawing, in order to protect their modesty. They could work from reliefs, prints, casts and from the Old Masters, but not from the nude model. Instead they were encouraged to participate in the lower painting forms such as portraiture, landscape and genre. These were considered more feminine in that they appealed to the eye rather than the mind.

Dang Kevin, that is very interesting!

People like people. The more famous and recognizable the better. It like a test of the mental faculties to see if they can still place the face. I'd say in the photo world, landscapes fall down to the masses while museums like to see the mark of man or people. A beautiful landscape doesn't say much.

Ed, you must not be listening.

Have to disagree with you to some extent Edward. I have been in Dr offices (where the doc came from a monied background) and high end homes and collecting landscapes, especially French ones done in the late 1800's into early 1900 are very popular. And expensive. Many people like to decorate their homes with landscapes. Sort of a window into another world.

One of the problems that both the Barbizon artist and the Impressionist had to deal with was this hierarchy which had landscape as a lessor form of art.

In Michelangelo's day, you couldn't be an artist unless you passed a certain test: you had to create a painting that contained elements that proved you could handle subjects like cloth, light, stone, perspective, the human figure, etc. If you passed, you could then become a professional and do your own thing (as long as it was representational). Sometimes I think that criteria should be used today. There'd be a lot less bad art out there being patronized by rich fools.