I may not know art, but I know an asshole when I sees it.

The BBQ Pit
21

Give that man a cigar! This Blake asshole assumed that all of the works on display at Art-O-Matic were by unknowns. A perfect way to subvert the conventions of the genre (hang on, I have to get my hip-waders on… mmmggggh! there.) and redifine the art qua art would be for a “discovered” artist and an art critic to trade bodies of work for one gallery opening – the discovered artist would bank on his or her clout to get the critic’s pieces into a jury show, and the critic would take a discovered artist’s work to a “vanity” show like Art-O-Matic. Then get some asshole like Blake to review both shows.

My guess: he’s a critic because he’s been to art school, and wasn’t able to support himself through the (ahem) most obvious career path. :smiley:

22

Exactly.

I suppose this is a good time to share a tale I know I’ve shared before. But here it is again:

When I was in art school I was a big geek. I loved it, was studying very hard, and was very earnest and sincere. Trying to get the most out of it, and since it was a great school with great teachers, I was getting a lot out of it.

However, I noticed many students in some of my classes had a laid-back, lazy, apathetic attitude. Many of us geeks loved art and breathed it and had a sketchbook with us everywhere, while these apathetic types acted like drawing or painting anything other than their assignments was a chore. They didn’t seem to love it—didn’t seem to thirst for excellence. They needed to get an education in something, I guess, and for whatever reason they chose art. I won’t say that they had nothing going for them, but a lot of them were just so-so artists. They also often looked down their noses at those of us who were geeky and enthusiastic.

One weekend I went to a comic book convention and saw that a lot of booths with artists showing their own work. Because I was going to school myself, I asked these artists where they’d studied. Most of them shrugged and said, “I never went.” All of these artists—all of them—were awesome. Sure, it was comic book art, not something high falutin’, but they were damned good. Great drawing skills, great technique, great color sense, and so forth. They were just really good at what they were doing, because they loved creating art.

I went away from that experience really shocked. I used to think that a formal art education was something meaningful for everyone, because I knew that it certainly was for me. But it isn’t that way for everyone. Some people coast through art school. Some people are fed a line of bullshit by their teachers. Without wasting space with too many specifics, I’ve seen and heard of too many people who are told by their professors that they don’t need to have any skills, that “expressing” themselves is more important, and so forth. This results in people with no real skill but with “credentials.”

In my experience and in the experience of most of my arty friends, most art galleries and juried shows do not make sure you have an art degree before they look at your work. I’ve been in a fair amount of galleries and shows, and never, never has anyone asked me what my “credentials” are. So it’s very likely that many people in high falutin’ galleries do not have a degree. Actually, I know for a fact that many do not.

It’s also true that many accomplished artists will still participate in the kind of art show like ArtOMatic. Why? Because it’s fun! Because it’s an art show, man, and all their friends are gonna be there!

The guy who wrote this article is a twit.

23

Hold the phone Nelly - “art school credentials” does NOT belong in the same phrase with “Thomas Kinkade”. He is the worst kind of pretentious hack out there and most assuredly NOT a product of art education.

I don’t think there’s really a single “art world” - there’s the “NY Cutting Edge” art world, and there’s the “Educated in Art and Making a Living” art world, and there’s also the “Sunday Painter” art world. In my experience, there’s plenty of art to love and to hate in each of these worlds.

And I agree with the pp who noted the public’s ability to call b.s. When I’m doing portraits, most of them hit the mark but a few miss. That’s just the way it is. I can see it, and so can my customers. We almost always agree on successful versus unsuccessful drawings.

24

Are you kidding? Why would you think that? I don’t know if Kinkade has any formal education, but all sorts of other hacks have had a formal art education. All sorts of no-talents or barely-can-produce-anythings are products of a formal education. The art education does what it can with them (but sometimes it fails at that) but in the end, the artist chooses what they want to do with their skills (or lack thereof).

An art education, sadly, is absolutely no guarantee of anything. It often can be profoundly important to an artists’ development, but plenty have done without it and done well for themselves, while many who have had it have gotten very little from it—certainly nothing that helps them make good artwork that will be accepted in galleries or purchased by art collectors.

From an article about what’s currently going on in some art schools:

This is my experience as well. Some of the absolute basics that artists should learn (if they have any interest in working with semi-realistic drawing, using color theory, etc.) are not being taught, or at least not taught well enough. I saw examples of this during my days as a student, and some of my friends (including some art teachers) have some of their own stories to tell.

Very true indeed.

25

I’m so sorry to be ehe bearer of painful truths, but according to this site, Thomas Kinkade did indeed go to school for art - at the University of California, Berkeley. Is this the Kinkade we’re talking about? 'Cause, to mine unedumacated eyes, his stuff looks like crap. Like the $15 “Masterpiece Recreation Originals” my grandmother has above her couch. But I do like purple, so it has that going for it.

26

Well, I stand corrected in terms of Kinkade’s “education”. I still maintain, however, that his “art” is absolutely awful and violates every principle of design, composition, value and paint application that I was taught. It’s ironic that people in school NOW aren’t getting the basics, when Kinkade must’ve been in school a good 30 years ago & he didn’t learn them then, either.

I’ve seen those descriptions too, yosemite, and it makes me sad. Really, I think the problem is the pressure on artists to write the latest chapter in innovation/destroying traditions in order to be considered serious by the NY art world. Aesthetic principles and skill aren’t respected there anymore. Now I’ve seen good cutting-edge stuff, but also plenty of junk, just like every other genre. And then the public winds up alienated - which is the point, sometimes. The snob factor is real and I find it disgusting.

Frankly, Gopp’s argument could be turned on its head. One could argue that the pretentious in-club of the NY art world is drawing far more than its share of resources and attention, and that projects such as the Art-o-Matic are far more deserving. Art belongs to everyone. And how do people become more discerning consumers if they’re not exposed? People’s taste evolves, they will learn to spot better work and will develop higher standards if exposed to enough work.

27

Take heart, Blake Gopnik: In three weeks, Artomatic will be gone, but you’ll still be a pompous ass.

28

His last paragraph rests upon the implicit assumption that the existing credential system identifies all the “art that matters” with such perfect reliability that there is no point in looking elsewhere. Since this premise is absurd on its face (one need only compare past credentials with the verdict of history, as JohnBckWLD pointed out), this argument fails.

29

I would pay $50 cash on the barrel head to watch this. :smiley:

30

I just can’t let this go. I should be paying attention to my kids (my son found the Costco bag of Cheerios & dumped them all over the floor) but this is too much.

In Chicago we have an annual event quite similar to Art-o-Matic. It’s called Around the Coyote and takes place in the late summer. They recently added a winter show. They’re juried, but it’s pretty loose - they go out of their way to accept as many people as possible. Before I had kids I did a winter show and it was an absolutely wonderful experience. Sure, there was some boring, crappy, highly derivative, unprofessional artwork. But there was also a ton of stuff that was interesting, compelling, fun. I really liked some of the “outsider” art - it was a bit rough, but full of emotion. And the place was packed with people of all ages, including children. I sold a bunch of pieces – and what got me is, people picked out my best stuff. A lot of other artists sold work as well, probably most of us did.

We also have a Serious Art show called the Navy Pier Exhibition. It takes place in May. I only went once, years ago, because it gave me such a headache. The atmosphere was so tight and scary and rigid. There was probably some really good work there, but I didn’t see it. What I saw was pretentious. And they didn’t have the crowds, the families, the music, the fun.

Just think how tragic it would be if music was parceled out the way art is. We need more art festivals, not fewer, including more artists, not less. This rarified air attitude has got to go. The stuff I saw on the Art-o-Matic page, and the links Strainger supplied, looked interesting and worthwhile to me.

31

Blake Gopnik, by his own admission, is a pretty vicious critic (watch the Romare Bearden video found in the OP’s gelato link). If an acid tongue is his m.o., then his Art-o-Matic review should have come as a surprise to no one. This has no bearing on whether his opinions are valid or not, of course.

I’ve mentioned before that among Thomas Kinkade’s many faults, his grasp of perpsective is rather tenuous. It just dawned on me yesterday, though, after following one of the above links and ending up looking around one of his online galleries, that I’ve seen the same problem elsewhere. Where? Jack Chick. I’m quite serious. Do a side-by-side comparison sometime. The same awkward proportions. The same front-to-back mismatches. I’ve no idea what this means, but the similarities are uncanny.

32

Mi sister calls them fartists because they think their stuff is serious shit while in reality it just smells bad.

33

If you want to make money being an artist, one of the most important parts of art school, according to an artist I talked to, is the part where they teach you how to navigate the art world. The shows, juries, hanging in the right circles, where and by who’s comments you get your exposure – all this is equal to, if not more important than the actual art.

There will always be someone who likes what you create. It may be critically acclaimed, or it may be Kinkadeian. It may be unpolished, it may be unimaginative, it may be thoroughly delightful. But there is an audience for it. Anyone who tries to limit what the masses are exposed to really isn’t much of a friend of the arts.

34

If there was a nobel prize for missing the point, Blake Gopnik would be a serious candidate.

The whole point of Artomatic is that it’s an amateur art show. For those who don’t know about it, a group of artists and fans take over a big empty space–often a retail space between clients, this time a former museum–and basically convert it into a giant art installation. much of the pleasure comes not from the art works themselves but from the way a previously mundane space is turned into something festive and magical. The individual artworks are not isolated on blank white walls but blend and merge into each other. Also Artomatic is about more than the visual arts. There’s also poetry, music and film. Last saturday they screened Lets Rock Again, a documentary on Joe Strummer. There are four big floors full of stuff. When I go to most art shows or museums I see energy being drained from people. Artomatic energizes people and makes them excited about art. I know it inspired me to get back to writing.

And the art itself is nowhere near as bad as Gopnik says. Yes there’s a lot of mediocrity and a few pieces that are very bad, but there’s quite a few pieces that are worth a look, and a few that I really enjoyed.

As far as the money argument goes; It’s an open debate about whether public money should support the arts at all. But given that it does, I’ve seen it go to much less worthy things than Artomatic.

SteveMB I would like to use your line in the angry email I’m going to send to the post, if that’s OK with you.