WetCanvas
Home Member Services Content Areas Tools Info Center WC Partners Shop Help
Channels:
Search for:
in:

Welcome to the WetCanvas forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit our help center.

Go Back   WetCanvas > The Town Center > Café Guerbois
User Name
Password
Register Mark Forums Read

Salute to our Partners
WC! Sponsors

Our Sponsors
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 05:13 AM
Hairy wolf Hairy wolf is offline
Lord of the Arts
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,990
 
A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism



A grand work by Daniel Richter




A grand work by Adrian Ghenie

I think that we sort of came to a general agreement in another thread, beyond too much philosophizing, that money is quite likely the best measure in establishing the true value for a collector of a work of art. Each and every one of us, including people like myself who “paint for ourselves”, wants the world to see
our work and even more so buy it. Let’s leave hypocrisy behind us, ok? How many of us want to be another Henry Darger? (A poor janitor who created wondrous works on very long and narrow rolls of paper that were only discovered after his death and are now among the most expensive items of “outsider art”).
Ok, enough with that. But in this regard, I posted here two examples of works by two relatively young contemporary artists: one German, the other Romanian working in the UK. None of us should doubt their technicals abilities. They are superb. However, in comparison with photorealism masters (whose names I can not recall now, but Derek can help....) works of these two and others in this category sell for prices 10 or 20 times higher than super realistic pieces.
Why? Because their work goes far beyond showing off technical ability. It reaches certain places in the souls of viewers and potential buyers by means exaggeration, distortion, arbitrary coloring, interesting made up compositions. All of these things are very meaningful and are worth a lot of money to those who know how to fully relate to them and can afford to buy them.
Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #2   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 05:17 AM
Hairy wolf Hairy wolf is offline
Lord of the Arts
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,990
 
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

Ps no relation between Daniel Richter and Gerhard Richter....
Reply With Quote
  #3   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 07:54 AM
ianuk's Avatar
ianuk ianuk is offline
A WC! Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,734
 
Hails from England
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

The modern artists you show do no more in my estimation than copy the scream of munch, add a bit of Schiele and others, paint a distorted face because they know Basquiat was popular, make it messy and Bob's your uncle, sold! to highest bidder. Unlike you and others, I see nothing original whatsoever.
Reply With Quote
  #4   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:26 AM
musket's Avatar
musket musket is offline
A WC! Legend
Grafton, NH
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 23,061
 
Hails from United States
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

Since you paint for yourself, I assume you have some other form of income? I wasn't a hobbyist. I had bills to pay.

Neither painting touches my soul. Maybe other people's but not mine. I can do existential angst without outside help, thanks very much.
__________________
We cannot define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, "You don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says, "What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? ~R.P. Feynman
Reply With Quote
  #5   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:50 AM
Hairy wolf Hairy wolf is offline
Lord of the Arts
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,990
 
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianuk
The modern artists you show do no more in my estimation than copy the scream of munch, add a bit of Schiele and others, paint a distorted face because they know Basquiat was popular, make it messy and Bob's your uncle, sold! to highest bidder. Unlike you and others, I see nothing original whatsoever.

The influences you managed to find here are remarkable. How many time can the wheel be reinvented?
And Munch, Schiele, Kirchner blah blah were not influenced by let’s say Goya, El Greco?
Are you saying that you prefer photorealism?
And yes, I have other sources of income. Thank God.
Reply With Quote
  #6   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:52 AM
stlukesguild's Avatar
stlukesguild stlukesguild is online now
A WC! Legend
A large urban setting in the Mid-West
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 11,448
 
Hails from United States
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

I posted here two examples of works by two relatively young contemporary artists: one German, the other Romanian working in the UK. None of us should doubt their technicals abilities. They are superb. However, in comparison with photorealism masters (whose names I can not recall now, but Derek can help....) works of these two and others in this category sell for prices 10 or 20 times higher than super realistic pieces.
Why? Because their work goes far beyond showing off technical ability.


Is that why they sell for such prices? There are plenty of artists whose work goes far beyond showing off technical ability who can't sell for anything approaching these prices. And then we have the photo-realistic works of Chuck Close and Gerhard Richter (among others) who sell for prices in the stratosphere.

Superstar status and the corresponding stratospheric price range have little to do with anything beyond the desires of the super-wealthy collectors who view art objects as one of the ultimate luxury items... and those who pander to them (dealers, advisors, curators, etc...). Are we to assume they are the only ones who count? This doesn't seem to be the situation in other art forms. Kaija Saariaho, John Adams, Philip Glass, Pierre Boulez, Krzysztof Penderecki, etc... may be musical giants within the "classical music" genre... supported by super-wealthy patrons. But they earn nothing like Lady Gaga or Katy Perry or Taylor Swift whose music sells to a mass audience. The same applies to literature. There are few real literary aficionados who would suggest that J. K. Rowling is one of the best writers of all time... or even just today... regardless of her financial success. Financial success and sales records have little if anything to do with artistic merit.

Returning to the traditional visual arts... painting, sculpture, etc... we find the majority of artists cannot count upon the patronage of the super-wealthy. A little research leads you to discover that the average sale price of a work of contemporary art is a bit over $25,000... but this average is greatly skewed by the astronomical prices of the highest-priced work of art. The median price of a work of contemporary art is just a bit over $1300. Within the vastly larger market of contemporary art... outside of the market of the super-wealthy... craftsmanship and technical skill remain at a premium. Highly-skilled "realists" can demand a higher price than the average neo-Impressionist/Expressionist/Abstract Artist. Those who find meaning in art and who know how to fully relate to works of art are not limited to the very rich. Marketing your art in response to the imagined desires of the super-wealthy collectors of the moment seems pretentious at best... and naive if not down-right foolish.
__________________
Saintlukesguild-http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." - John Keats
"Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea."- John Ciardi
Reply With Quote
  #7   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:56 AM
Hairy wolf Hairy wolf is offline
Lord of the Arts
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,990
 
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

Quote:
Originally Posted by musket
Since you paint for yourself, I assume you have some other form of income? I wasn't a hobbyist. I had bills to pay.

Neither painting touches my soul. Maybe other people's but not mine. I can do existential angst without outside help, thanks very much.
As for people who make a living off selling their work, I keep on asking myself a simple question: are there enough walls in the world for all that stuff to be hung??...
After all, in many third world countries there are millions of buildings and huts where not one single work of art is hung.. 😔
Reply With Quote
  #8   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 09:02 AM
musket's Avatar
musket musket is offline
A WC! Legend
Grafton, NH
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 23,061
 
Hails from United States
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

My stuff didn't go on walls. I was a 3D guy, not 2D.

Really, what is the big deal? What is this bee in your bonnet about money?

What are you selling, if not your work?
__________________
We cannot define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, "You don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says, "What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? ~R.P. Feynman
Reply With Quote
  #9   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 09:05 AM
Hairy wolf Hairy wolf is offline
Lord of the Arts
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,990
 
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

Quote:
Originally Posted by musket
My stuff didn't go on walls. I was a 3D guy, not 2D.

Really, what is the big deal? What is this bee in your bonnet about money?

What are you selling, if not your work?

I see.... ok... so we’re talking about tables, pedestals here. Ok.
I sell financial services.
Reply With Quote
  #10   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 09:10 AM
Dcam's Avatar
Dcam Dcam is offline
A WC! Legend
NorthWest NJ.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,094
 
Hails from United States
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

One of my professors at NYU was Idelle Weber, a leading woman photo-realist. She was so open to all the various ways and styles in which we students worked. She was a real appreciator of art in all its forms.
I got so tired of the painterly professors who would yell loosen up loosen up constantly. You are working too tight.

Why go beyond photo realism if it works for some?

I don't paint photo-realist, but I do adhere to good rendering because I like representational works.


Hairy, you know that photo-realism is a major art movement from art history. Usually the artist would take the photo and then work from it.
Idelle Weber is famous for her paintings of garbage......yes, trash in the street. Anyway what she and other photo-realists would arrive at were an excellent photo and a painting....TWO works of art. Not bad. She didn't just walk around with a cell phone and shoot pictures. She too careful compositions with a professional camera.


The images you posted remind me of the waking dreams I had when coming out of anesthesia......horror. I'm not sure I could live with these in my home.
Reply With Quote
  #11   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 09:15 AM
Hairy wolf Hairy wolf is offline
Lord of the Arts
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,990
 
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dcam
One of my professors at NYU was Idelle Weber, a leading woman photo-realist. She was so open to all the various ways and styles in which we students worked. She was a real appreciator of art in all its forms.
I got so tired of the painterly professors who would yell loosen up loosen up constantly. You are working too tight.

Why go beyond photo realism if it works for some?

I don't paint photo-realist, but I do adhere to good rendering because I like representational works.


Hairy, you know that photo-realism is a major art movement from art history. Usually the artist would take the photo and then work from it.
Idelle Weber is famous for her paintings of garbage......yes, trash in the street. Anyway what she and other photo-realists would arrive at were an excellent photo and a painting....TWO works of art. Not bad. She didn't just walk around with a cell phone and shoot pictures. She too careful compositions with a professional camera.


The images you posted remind me of the waking dreams I had when coming out of anesthesia......horror. I'm not sure I could live with these in my home.
Thanks Derek! Waking from anesthesia, huh?!?...:😆😀
I’m not sure about that Richter, but I wouldn’t mind the Ghenie in my living room.
Reply With Quote
  #12   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 09:21 AM
Dcam's Avatar
Dcam Dcam is offline
A WC! Legend
NorthWest NJ.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,094
 
Hails from United States
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

Yes after surgery, I had terrible dreamlike images before being fully awake.
Reply With Quote
  #13   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 09:33 AM
ianuk's Avatar
ianuk ianuk is offline
A WC! Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,734
 
Hails from England
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairy wolf
The influences you managed to find here are remarkable. How many time can the wheel be reinvented?
And Munch, Schiele, Kirchner blah blah were not influenced by let’s say Goya, El Greco?
Are you saying that you prefer photorealism?
And yes, I have other sources of income. Thank God.

I have no preference in art. Only what strikes me and touches some sense, some related memory. Nevertheless, I am not taken in by Kandinsky saying he saw an image hanging upside down and discovered abstract. Hans Schmithals was creating abstract when Kandinsky was still studying law and economics. That Kandinsky pioneered abstract, there is no doubt. However, I can't be doing with all the hype. Warhole is interesting in that he was painting a consumerist society and expressing such with his vision.
The paintings in the original post are from a far lower league with no more vision than that of a rocking horse

I never requested your sources of income
Reply With Quote
  #14   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:07 AM
musket's Avatar
musket musket is offline
A WC! Legend
Grafton, NH
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 23,061
 
Hails from United States
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

Quote:

I think that we sort of came to a general agreement in another thread, beyond too much philosophizing, that money is quite likely the best measure in establishing the true value for a collector of a work of art. Each and every one of us, including people like myself who “paint for ourselves”, wants the world to see our work and even more so buy it. Let’s leave hypocrisy behind us, ok?

I'm sorry to derail this one a little, but I myself sold three pieces to one of the most prominent collectors of art and antiquities in the world (now deceased). His collection was very eclectic. He owned de Koonings. He owned antique duck decoys. He owned the Guennol Lioness. The entire Guennol Collection in the Brooklyn Museum was on loan from him, as were many pieces in the Cloisters. He had enough money to buy anything he wanted to buy. I very much doubt money had anything to do with his decision to buy my work. I'm an unknown. My work had no investment value. He bought the pieces purely on what he considered to be artistic merit. As to how he found out about me, just another example of the power of connections and luck.
__________________
We cannot define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, "You don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says, "What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? ~R.P. Feynman
Reply With Quote
  #15   Report Bad Post  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:16 AM
Hairy wolf Hairy wolf is offline
Lord of the Arts
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,990
 
Re: A simple assertion: going BEYOND photorealism

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianuk
I have no preference in art. Only what strikes me and touches some sense, some related memory. Nevertheless, I am not taken in by Kandinsky saying he saw an image hanging upside down and discovered abstract. Hans Schmithals was creating abstract when Kandinsky was still studying law and economics. That Kandinsky pioneered abstract, there is no doubt. However, I can't be doing with all the hype. Warhole is interesting in that he was painting a consumerist society and expressing such with his vision.
The paintings in the original post are from a far lower league with no more vision than that of a rocking horse

I never requested your sources of income

Sorry, Ian. Someone else did...🤓
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:57 PM.


© 2014 F+W All rights reserved.