Don't Ever Give Up

Danl,

Something better than Static 2?

How could that be?

Yes

What does being "better" have to do with it?

I agree David..."Better" doesn't matter...The real question is....."Do you have something in you portfolio that someone is willing to pay this much for?"

Well personally it reminds me of peg board or that paper game where you fill in the boxes...so yes I think my work is better...but when has it ever mattered what the artist thinks of their own work beyond the creating of it?

DK,

it is a put down. He needs to do that.

Danl, stop beating up 84 year old ladies in public.

Dave

David-

Not a put down...just a look at reality. Perhaps she did something that no one else has done. An innovator. A marketer. But a fine artist?

You would probably shake your head in wonderment if this piece was selected over your Acts Of War.

My market is not her market and visa versa. They do not have to be.

You are belittling her work.

Her work is not relevant to my work.

Danl, repeat after me...."I am not bitter".

Dave

Maybe I should have asked the question as you did.

I am joking, not bitter.

We project ourselves onto modern art. Into the art.

Dave

Sharon, it's not even about what's in your portfolio, it's about how well you've played the game.

Val, that was the first thing that came to my mind, "someone took a photo of peg board" but I have seen things like this sell before, personally I think it is a case of some one not really knowing art, but rather wants to be on the "cutting edge".
I read an article once that indicated that the value of most art was in who owned it before you, rather than the quality of the art it's self.

TL Mair
tlmair.com

DK,

The game as Bridget played it can only be played with originals.

I play with digital files. I can not enter into her game.

Again Danl, I am not bitter.

Dave

Who knows what is better than something else, you just have to remember beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I just hope I can get a fraction of that selling price one day, sooner rather than later would be preferred. :)

David-

In a juried art show: Your work is creative. Innovative. Interesting. Provocative. It shows skill and artistic ability. It depicts your ability as an artist.

But the Acts Of War loses to a sheet of dots.

You don't have to shake your head. I will

John-

It would be interesting to put Bridget's Static 2 work in an FAA contest and see how many "eyes of the beholder" would vote for it.

Danl,

I was in a Juried show earlier this year. There were around 350 entrants at $30 an entry.

The final juror was Ann Temkin MoMA curator for painting and drawing. The final cut was 25 artists.

I did not make the final cut.

Was my technique better than those other finalists? Probably not.
Was my work more cutting edge? A new structure of art theory? Probably so and well beyond those other artists.

But the competition was not who is adding the most to art theory. So my art was irrelevant to the show.

I am not bitter.

Dave

Thanks for the encouragement
Better doesn't always go with the money.

David-

I have worked on numerous juries. It seems that I never agree with other jurors.Regardless of the criteria, no one sticks to it.

It can be read as encouragement.

Or as teasing

or as belittlement

or as fruitless comparisons.

The question that bucks modern art is why make better art?

And that assumes some art is better than other art by a definition that is unknown.

In an age of relativity everything falls in on itself. No definition for better.

Dave

Danl,

Please link me to an artist or two living today that are furthering art theory.

You know the art world. Who is actually in your book adding to the theory?

Side note Danl there was one juror selecting the final 25, and Temkin selecting the final artist.
The show as not by committee in this case.

Dave

"If Bridget Riley can fetch 5 Million for this piece, imagine what you can get for your work."


So, if someone were to remove a few dots (or add more), and change the color of the background and dots, it could conceivebly (sp?) be sold as a derivitive work, possibly. Not that I would try it, but I bet there are some that might. Some well-heeled client bought the original, so there's possibly a buyer for a similar work. Just speculating. :)

It's the lightning strike, the rock star, the lottery ticket. It was done in 1966 and was probably controversial and groundbreaking at the time.

You know, for every creator that makes it big there are millions of talented people who remain unnoticed. This is true in any industry, in every walk of life.

It's being in the right place at the right time with the right image. It's not a goal that is achievable with predictability, it's a result that can't be duplicated reliably.

As such the content doesn't matter. It got in front of the right audience at the right time.


EDIT: Her work is really great. Google her name and check out what she was doing. I can see why her work draws the prices it does. She started speaking a new visual language.

Monsieur Danl - you cant measure art by on FAA content couse most of voters dont really know what art is and looking some effect of painting or photography

David, B
I must say your most recent work of magnifying image focal point is very innovative in thinking.
your work makes me think of the appreciation of old master's paintings at the same time your work allows me to see the appreciation of technology.
I think that is very valuable in our generation. It speaks volume.
In Fine art it requires more than copying the image, it requires an idea that produced by unique mind and level of thinking. I am still learning to do that.

Cynthia Decker21 Minutes Ago
It's the lightning strike, the rock star, the lottery ticket. It was done in 1966 and was probably controversial and groundbreaking at the time.

You know, for every creator that makes it big there are millions of talented people who remain unnoticed. This is true in any industry, in every walk of life.

It's being in the right place at the right time with the right image. It's not a goal that is achievable with predictability, it's a result that can't be duplicated reliably.

As such the content doesn't matter. It got in front of the right audience at the right time.


EDIT: Her work is really great. Google her name and check out what she was doing. I can see why her work draws the prices it does. She started speaking a new visual language.


CYNTHIA, YOU ARE SO RIGHT !

OpArt was an art movement, not exactly a fad.

That said, I find it curious that in the past week there's been so much debate in different threads about the validity of nearly 50 yr old avant-garde art movements. We've passed modern, post-modern, post-post-modern, neo-expressionism, neo-realism, neo-anything, really. The value of art is for historians and collectors, not makers. Knowing the history of art can be informative, and transformative for a creator, but to get hung on on resell value is a waste of energy.

I wondered how much profit Bridget Riley actually saw from the resale of her work--many artists see nothing. After some brief googling, I found this on the Christie's website:

"Special Notice

Artist's Resale Right ("Droit de Suite"). Artist's Resale Right Regulations 2006 apply to this lot, the buyer agrees to pay us an amount equal to the resale royalty provided for in those Regulations, and we undertake to the buyer to pay such amount to the artist's collection agent.
VAT rate of 5% is payable on hammer price and at 15% on the buyer's premium "

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/bridget-riley-static-2-5037926-details.aspx

Turning to wikipedia, I found info on The Resale Rights Directive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_Rights_Directive

I think this is a very cool development. I didn't realize it had been enacted in Europe. So, the goal isn't just, "Never Give Up." The goal is also to live long enough to see the resale of your work at auction where maybe a collector will pay some big bucks. Caveat--the resale cuts have a maximum to the artist of €12,500. So anything selling over 2M isn't worthwhile to the artist other than to drive up the prices of the rest of their works.

So! Take your Vitamin C, folks! Live long and prosper!

There seems to be a lot of jealousy on this site. The fact is that modern art exists and "Static 2" infact sold for millions. Just do your thing and be happy.

Also known as the Van Gogh syndrome. "Don't worry you'll be discovered after your dead." Works well for those with a trust fund.

You can not get around our needs for being paid. And if you do it is because someone else in your family got paid for their
efforts elsewhere.

What are you talking about Dave, B
So darn busy missed all these shenanigans. Thank God everyone left finally.
What are you talking about "show me the money"
How much do you want? Please don't marry a professor if you need money.
I worked my ass off for my own money so I can do what I wanted to do. call smart business strategy

BTW--when I was researching the details, I googled "static 2 bridget riley provenance." Guess what came up in the first page of results? This discussion. So now we're all tied to Bridget Riley's star.

Keep in mind the results are personalized to what Google thinks you want to see. Doesn't come up first for me.

Although everyone is bashing this piece of art, it speaks volumes that it is being discussed nearly fifty years later. Maybe, just maybe, the artist was on to something.

Edward, it came up on the first page, but not first (it was eighth). Yeah, I know big brother google is really creepy that way.

Maria, I hope I don't come off as bashing because I'm not at all. I love all art, and what I don't love, I challenge myself to understand until I can at least relate, or walk away from it with an informed point of view. And yes, that's the point I was making. Fifty years later, and people are still getting riled up and debating its value and merits as art.

Should we still hate Yoko?
(I don't, btw. I love her.)

"Although everyone is bashing this piece of art, it speaks volumes that it is being discussed nearly fifty years later. Maybe, just maybe, the artist was on to something."

I think it is mainly being talked abut because someone was fooled into thinking it is really good art to the point that they forked over that kind of dough for it. Or it this is their way of of showing the world that they have so much money they can blow it on something a trivial as this so called art piece.

To me that is the same as saying OJ Simpson is one of the most famous football players in the world. Ya, he is, but why is he famous?

I am old school and when I think of art, I do not think of anything that any 5th grader can do with a straight edge and black sharpie. And I am not buying into "the art is the idea that some one was creative enough to do it". Just because someone can think up nonsense it does not mean they should do it. Well not in the real world anyway... but that seems to be the norm in the art world these days.

That is how we get things like pee in a jar and some idiot hiring some one to actually shot them and calling it art. People anointing dumb pranks as art, is like I said, a big part of the reason most people are turned of by art these days.

And we wonder why voters are throwing art out of our schools as fast as they can. The see this stuff and say not only no, but hell no.

I think of art I want to think that Bouguereau, Alma-Tedema, Gerome, Raphael, Leighton, Sargent, Rembrant, da Vinci, Waterhouse, Michelangelo and a few hundred others with "real" original ideas and real talent had the right idea. Not some one that had a nightmare and decided to vomit it all over a piece canvas. Or duplicate a piece of pegboard. And what about this guy that goes around the world draping islands and deserts in plastic? More nonsense in the name of art.

Hyoye S - You make me smile! I too worked my butt off earlier in life so that I could have the life I have now. If my photographs make me money, great. If they don't, oh well. I'm doing what I was meant to do and loving it. Success isn't always about how much money you make.

WARNING!!

Non-Sequitur UP COMING!!!


RE:.. Bridget Riley's Circle Series (1990's)




I was involved in circles way back in the 60's.

One of my projects in the construction of the Metropolitan Opera House, NYC was to design and have produced a "transparent" gate for the lobby of this edifice

My solution was this pattern of thin bronze circles.



It's still keeping people out, 50 years later.

Lorlee-

"Success isn't always about how much money you make."

Agree 101%

Today's artists create for the money. They market their work like the "Oxy-Clean" info-commercial.

"It will look great over your Lazy-Boy. You'll never see this art in any other bathroom. It brings out the color in your fingernails. All about money!

Not about art.

Roger, you are amazing

Very cool Roger!

.....
Dali and Andy Warhol appeared as pitchman in TV commercials. Picaccos was a great marketer. Duchamp pulled publicity stunts. How far back are we considering this "modern art"?

"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art."

Andy Warhol

Edward-

"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art."

It's all about business and getting rich. Nothing about fine art.

So you hand off the marketing of your work to others and keep your hands away from that dirty work of marketing, huh? Good for you.

Edward-

Work that sells itself without fireworks, flashing signs and gimmicks is deemed (in my opinion) worthy.

An unworthy piece needs all the publicity and marketing it can get.

I see. Just old school gallery sales are legit. Because the amazing quality of the work just sells itself like magic.

The genius artist simply creates a masterpiece and poof - it sells.

RE:..".Create a better work of art, and the world will beat a path to your door."

BALONEY!!

Edit:

Or perhaps "Bologna"

Roger-

A better piece?

No.....Just a piece that will be enjoyed by others..

M. D.

The others must know that this piece exists.

Roger-

I have a few pieces that hang in galleries and commercial locations. I hope people will enjoy viewing them.

Roger, you are the genuine article. Really just so impressive on every level. I am a fan. You really should write a memoir, I'd buy a copy in a heartbeat! I bet you're fun at parties too. :)

Loriee, You've got it made. happy for you,, So true.

I worked my ass off for my own money so I can do what I wanted to do. call smart business strategy

Hyoye,

I would expect nothing less of you, Hyoye.

But people making art like van Gogh need a richer brother to support their habits.

Someone somewhere has to make the money and it is honorable.

Dave