MOst artists that we consider famous where not as popular among the public during what could be considered their ‘Prime’
If you are going to bring up Kinkade, that abomination, we had better take this to the Pit so that I can fully respond.
I believe part of the point of the OP involved a lack of artists that are recognizable as “_________, the world famous painter” BEYOND the “arts community.” Thus Picasso, Dali, Warhol – names that a large section of the moderately-educated could recognize, that popped up in mainstream movie/TV dialogue, whose faces showed up frequently in LIFE or other such general-circulation magazines in their lifetimes.
However, when you look at it more carefully, you notice something – Picasso and Dali were cultural icons in the 50s through 70s but their fame as artists had been made decades earlier – before the shift hansel describes. This is not a unique phenomenon, who was it that said that if you’re an fine artist or scientist, by the time you become a mass-media celebrity it means the bulk of your real contribution to your field is already behind you? I don’t remember it now.
One, almost trivial, factor may be copyright. Having tried it myself, it’s extremely difficult to find affordable poster reproductions of contemporary or near-contemporary art. Take Damien Hirst, who’s already been mentioned in this thread. Although he’s a household name in the UK (admitedly for his installations) and his paintings are familiar to anybody with even a passing interest in the visual arts in this country, you simply will not be able to buy a poster of one of them. With a handful of exceptions (Heals are currently running a series of Julien Opie prints for example), such artists don’t dilute their market value by authorising such mass market reproductions. Whether they’re accessable or not as art hardly comes in to how commonplace they are. By contrast, Monet and Van Gogh are fair game for anybody wanting to run up a dirt cheap print.
It ain’t pastels anymore, its pixels. Honestly, the majority of ‘famous’ painters became truly appreciated after their demise. Michaelangelo, da Vinci, (my art history has been rolodexed out by visual basic, I think…)and other Renaissance artists were sought after in their own lifetimes, but it seems to me that with the decline in the monarchy in europe (the people who could afford to spend big bucks for a 10’X 10’oil of themselves at the time) so the depreciation of the artist. In our time, “Jurrasic Park” ™ could be considered most certainly art. (I don’t mean the movie itself, just the CGI)
Actually, modern corporate patronage far exceeds anything the Kings of Europe, the Church, or any other historical patrons ever did.
Most major metropolitan areas have “1% (or 2%) for Art” programs that require a percentage of the total price of major construction projects to go towards art purchases. This unfortunately has tended to put those funds in lowest-common-denominator art committees and art consultants who will litter your walls with inferior products.
But I have to disagree with the “no household names” thing in general. They may not be painters, but artists like Andres Serrano and Robert Maplethorpe are probably known to most Americans. Most Brits would probably recognize Damien Hurst. There art stars out there.
Oh, BTW, you mangled this quote:
“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”
-Mencken
It actually goes “underestimating the TASTE…”
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Actually, this isn’t headed for MPSIMS. It’s headed for Cafe Society.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
What about Pollock? They made a movie about him!