Through the Eyes of a Dead Artist

It's funny that we often think of artists as geniuses who are somehow vindicated during their own lifetimes. In striking contrast, this is not always the case. Some artists never get to realize the impact that they have on history. They die frustrated, their unsold paintings haunting them as they fade into (what they believe to be) relative obscurity. It is only years later that art collectors and historians give their work significance, sparking interest in the paintings of a dead man. Probably one of the most famous examples of this is Vincent Van Gogh, who was a virtual failure in life. In this touching clip from the British show Doctor Who, Vincent is allowed the chance to hear a docent speak about the lasting impact that "Vincent Van Gogh" has had on painting.

Here's the link to the youtube video: Doctor Who Van Gogh Scene

"They wouldn't know good art if it hit them in the face."

Earlier in the blog, I talked about Banksy's modifications to a humble thrift shop painting, and how that had an effect on its value. Needless to say, with a personality like Banksy's there were bound to be more incidents during the time he spent in New York City. This time, he set-up shop outside Central Park and tried to sell some of his paintings. In the end, the artist who normally auctions off his work for millions only managed to sell a eight pieces for about $420 (generally at
$60 per painting). Banksy explicitly stated that this was simply a one-time stunt, yet the number of Banksy counterfeits sold has gone up dramatically since then. What does this say about how we view art? Do we really only care about the brand behind the piece and not the actual work itself?

Banksy's Central Park Stand

Here's the link to the actual story: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/14/living/banksy-street-art-sale/

Shadow Figures

http://www.thisismarvelous.com/i/4-Amazing-Shadow-Sculptures-by-Tim-Noble-and-Sue-Webster

I thought this was really cool how they made shadow figures pretty much out of trash. So I wanted to share it with you all and see what you guys thought about it. Do you all think it is art?

What is Art?

After hearing multiple theories of what we can consider art. I still ask myself where the qualification begins and when do we exclude certain aspects. I found a video which you will find at the top of this page. This man, in an attempt to explain art, seems to take views from Coomeraswamy, Scharfstein and others and create a view of art I like to relate to. Let me know what you think.

Looking for Art in all the Wrong Places

     One thing that has continued to puzzle me about art is the question of how much does a work's history and social setting influence how we view the work.  What I mean is, will a masterpiece still be considered a masterpiece if it is taken out of the museum and shown to an audience who has no knowledge of the piece or the artistic tradition from which it comes.  This is important to me because I wonder if some artists have become famous not because of their own merits, but because a lot of under-educated art collectors have championed them.
     There is an interesting way to test the effects of showing art to an unknowing audience.  In the following video a New York contemporary artist, I am not familiar with his work but apparently he has quite the following, attempts to sell some of his art on the street.  These paintings that, in the right circles, would fetch a handsome sum, here bring in just a few hundred dollars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdlZtH2zTJU

     The interesting thing is that after the video was released, a "fake Banksy" sold fakes in the same spot and completely sold out.  In this case the celebrity of the stunt made fake paintings very valuable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKCZ0SXRXuI

     I think we can clearly see that the works' fame is definitely what is driving the sale.  This sort of experiment was conducted a few years back in Washington DC where a world famous violinist went into the subway to play some of Bach's most difficult pieces on a antique violin worth several million dollars.  He did not even make the kind of money from tips that a normal busker would.  Take a look for you self and tell me what you think.  Is all fine art the construct of a pretentious "in-crowd?"  (For the record I love the arts, and Bach.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html

Poetry

Art is just a way of expression, right? Anyone who is creatively insightful is considered an artist. I think that poets and writers are all artists in their own way. Because they express their feelings in a creative fashion, while viewing world in different lights. Poets have made the way we feel universal, becasue seeing the written word is sometimes easier than attempting to interpret a painting. Sometimes "letting the art speak for itself" is impossible, and poetry makes it easier. It stands out on its own, and tells the aidience what it is meant to say. The only interpreting that needs to be done is understanding what the writing means to the audince.

In a lot of countries writing is a sacred art. If you can write beautifully and with expression then you are considered a genius. Yet, here in the U.S. writers are unsupported quite often. They are not given the proper attention becasue writing is not condidered a fine art.

Thoughts... opinions?

Destructive Art

I think that art that happens by accident is some of the best kind. It comes off as a suprise when you arn't sure what the end result will be. Take paint darts for example. The best part of the project is the excitement you get when the dart hits the balloon and paint explodes everywhere.

Another example could be when artists smash things into tiny pieces, or throw things and make them shatter. Destructive art could be used in many ways, but is it purposeful? What would critics say about art like this?