Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
How much substandard stuff can the art world accumulate?
Everywhere I see there is competition, competition, competition and more competition in the art world. People are giving importance to the quantity of art work an artist produces and number of art shows he or she organizes. Art galleries and auction houses see the number of art shows in the CV of an artist to select his work. There is pressure on artists to create more.
Artists are running out of ideas and are carbon-copying*, copying or producing substandard work to meet this criteria of "large number of shows". "Creativity" is suffering as a result. If creating capability of an artist suffers, it is in a way the "death of a person as an artist".
Tell me, can any artist produce hundreds and sometimes even thousands of pieces of art work in his life time without compromising on quality? Can his brain think and produce something new, high quality work at least once in a week in his long career? No, I don't think so. Practically speaking this is not possible**. A masterpiece can be produced very rarely - not every week. If art works can be produced everyday they will only be substandard stuff. They can't stand the test of time.
In the earlier times masterpieces were created by all the artists as there was no pressure on them. Artists had freedom and they created works only when they were ready for them. Leonardo da Vinci created very few works. Yet all of them were master pieces. So did several other masters. Because there were no market forces then that made them run the rat races.
Everybody in India knows that a well known artist first took money to create a hundred pieces of art work and then created them. It was the money and the market that made the artist to create work and not the "inspiration" or "creativity" that was responsible for his work. It is anybody's guess what the quality of the work in such cases would be. It doesn't matter even if he was a senior -most artist here with years of creative experience. Can a best artist create hundred pieces of good quality work in a limited time frame? I don't think he can.
Now the question is how much substandard stuff can the world tolerate and accumulate? Artists are depending on good marketing strategies and sometimes their names acquired earlier instead of good art work to move up and go to the top. Are all these artists producing the best work? Definitely not. Then why is the world consuming it?
Because the marketing mavericks are recommending it. This artificial glory that is being thrust on some artists and their works is taking them to the summit.
If the world is prepared to lap up this type of substandard stuff, well who am I to say no?
Go ahead world and join the party. But please excuse me because I am made of different stuff.
*Please read my earlier article here: https://artlab.ning.com/group/Criticisms/forum/topics/are-we-runnin...
**I am not talking about theoritical capabilities of brain. Yes, theoritically, human brain has unlimited capabilities. But if you take practical capabilities into consideration there are several parameters that restrict the creating capabilities of the brain. Ordinary human beings can use only a small percentage of capabilities of their brains at any given point of time. They cannot tap into unlimited power of their brains without a superhuman training.
Artists are running out of ideas and are carbon-copying*, copying or producing substandard work to meet this criteria of "large number of shows". "Creativity" is suffering as a result. If creating capability of an artist suffers, it is in a way the "death of a person as an artist".
Tell me, can any artist produce hundreds and sometimes even thousands of pieces of art work in his life time without compromising on quality? Can his brain think and produce something new, high quality work at least once in a week in his long career? No, I don't think so. Practically speaking this is not possible**. A masterpiece can be produced very rarely - not every week. If art works can be produced everyday they will only be substandard stuff. They can't stand the test of time.
In the earlier times masterpieces were created by all the artists as there was no pressure on them. Artists had freedom and they created works only when they were ready for them. Leonardo da Vinci created very few works. Yet all of them were master pieces. So did several other masters. Because there were no market forces then that made them run the rat races.
Everybody in India knows that a well known artist first took money to create a hundred pieces of art work and then created them. It was the money and the market that made the artist to create work and not the "inspiration" or "creativity" that was responsible for his work. It is anybody's guess what the quality of the work in such cases would be. It doesn't matter even if he was a senior -most artist here with years of creative experience. Can a best artist create hundred pieces of good quality work in a limited time frame? I don't think he can.
Now the question is how much substandard stuff can the world tolerate and accumulate? Artists are depending on good marketing strategies and sometimes their names acquired earlier instead of good art work to move up and go to the top. Are all these artists producing the best work? Definitely not. Then why is the world consuming it?
Because the marketing mavericks are recommending it. This artificial glory that is being thrust on some artists and their works is taking them to the summit.
If the world is prepared to lap up this type of substandard stuff, well who am I to say no?
Go ahead world and join the party. But please excuse me because I am made of different stuff.
*Please read my earlier article here: https://artlab.ning.com/group/Criticisms/forum/topics/are-we-runnin...
**I am not talking about theoritical capabilities of brain. Yes, theoritically, human brain has unlimited capabilities. But if you take practical capabilities into consideration there are several parameters that restrict the creating capabilities of the brain. Ordinary human beings can use only a small percentage of capabilities of their brains at any given point of time. They cannot tap into unlimited power of their brains without a superhuman training.
Views: 181
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on
-
Yes, I will answer all your Qs by writing articles on them.
Yes, I don't like the word challenge when we deal with friends. Just ask me I will answer.
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:It seems now the art center is on the Internet!Yes, science is universal , so is art but varies vastly depending on the cultures it thrives on . However, some people are creating these artificial barriers. However, there will be influences of different places on art but not on science. So science is more universal than art.
Ninon CZ said:There is science in art and art in science, but they cannot be reduced one to the other. Science is about objectivite discourse and art is about subjectivity..art is very personal. Science is an objective discourse.
Science has its own world. There is no "Indian" science and "Western" science there is just science which stands alone. Science begins on a global/humanity/universal level. Art is the opposite and begins at the individual level. Art on the other hand is very subjective and personal.
To make Picasso carry all the West on his shoulders is too much. So, to attribute Picasso as a "Western Artist" is not keeping with fact. The center of art was in Paris and then Italy.
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:Science & art are not exactly opposite , Ninon. Art Lab is created to explore the relationship between art & science. There are discussions on this network that try to show this relationship. These days almost all the established artists are depending on hype. Marketing people are creating these artificial summits. This is a fact. If you choose not to see it, we can't say anything about it! Yes, artists need buyers to survive. Buyers can buy anything they want. But please don't let them try to tell the world what they are buying is the best.
Krishna
Ninon CZ said:The "science is the true language of creation?" Was this a joke or are you serious? Science is the exact opposite of art. You can express your art in scientific terms if you choose to, but it is not THE only way.
"Impossible" for who? This is not a proven fact and I have given quite a few examples of prolific artists.
Artists cannot survive on other artists "hype" nor does this limit or expand their work. If everyone is "selling" and no one is "buying" all art would die. This is a bogus statement from all angles.
Prince Freakasso said:Dr.Krishna congrats to a scientific mind,you are right now the only person speaking the true language of creation.I am amazed!Yes it is impossible for any artist to churn out masterpieces simultaneously.Even in Da vinci's case,The "Mona Lisa"takes precedence over other works by the same artist. Even biologically in a family,one child may become a winner and a genius,the rest are also ran.The strange thing I find (mind you this is my feeling,not meant to be the
gospel) is that artists are into a kind of lobby,enjoying each others umbrella protection.
This attitude of ego, so called seniority and groupism is gradually ringing the death knell of genuinely creative art and artists. I beleive that the artists battlefield is on the gallery wall.Open to debate,criticism,defeat or appreciation,yet we find senior artists afraid to compete with emerging ones. Most artists are into hyping each other up,and this had lead to most of the art being substandard.Art selling on the reputation of an artist is fine,but it should and must have creative expression.This Artist,Gallery,Collector and Media nexus needs to do a rethink,to enable art reach it's true zenith. All the best....PRINCE
-
-
Ninon, good artists don't belong to any region. They are spread everywhere on this planet. Moreover, even good artists can produce bad works & average artists can sometimes come up with master pieces. However, realistically speaking, the scope of even a good artist producing masterpieces every day is very less. Prolific doesn't mean good. If we see only superficiality of things I am afraid we might feel all the visually appealing ones as good art works. Again" good " is a perception in the art world & it differs from region to region & individual to individual.
I am working on the challenging Qs you asked me & give you answers soon.
Ninon CZ said:In your opinion, who is a "good" or admirable artist? Who do you admire and look-up to in the art world? Also, I mentioned some other artists that I esteem as highly and as genius as Picasso. Are any of these acceptable in your opinion?
Jackson Pollock
Marc Chagall
Paul Cézanne
Georges Mathieu
By my liking Western Artists it does not mean that I don't like Indian or other artists. I have studied a lot of art lately by others, but I simply have no exposure to famous, historical Indian artists. I am not even sure what the history of Indian art is and this might be a good subject for another blog.
-
-
Like I said earlier the word "good " is a perception in the art world. The definition differs from place to place & individual to individual.
Ninon CZ said:"Junk" I suppose is a personal opinion. I don't agree that the artists I have listed created junk and a lot of others don't think so either.
I gave a short list simply because Picasso was a problem, however, it appears those on this board think that the other famous artists are also a problem. What can I say?
As to women artists...that could be even MORE problematic if we are looking for socially acceptable individuals. I admire the above artists and others and find it in poor taste to not only call their work "junk", but also to talk about their morality. I haven't seen anyone suggest anyone else except "Escher."
We are each entitled to our own artistic preferences and to have those preferences respected.
Minnie W. Shuler said:Can a genius in art exist without the popularity , not just in his lifetime but later for many years? Does the economical success of an artist dictate in any way his/her genius? Are there no women genius on your short list? I think, sadly, the artists on your list also opened the door on a lot of junk art...called abstract for want of any better term. Just as the computer has created a new field of altered art - also producing a lot of junk too and some good. The demand for digital products, including games and movies, is producing a great deal of art...is it all junk or can some of it be considered fine art? In the movie "The Man from Snowy River" there are some fantastic scenes of wild horses running, some unbelievable shots coming down a steep mountain. Do you have to paint the scene for this to be 'real art'? Hmm.
Ninon CZ said:1.) Genius:
A genius (plural genii or geniuses,[1] adjective ingenious) is a person, a body of work, or a singular achievement of surpassing excellence. More than just originality, creativity, or intelligence, genius is associated with achievement of insight which has transformational power. A work of genius fundamentally alters the expectations of its audience. Genius may be generalized, or be particular to a discrete field such as sports, statesmanship, science, or art.
2.) Genius in history:
Jackson Pollock - a major figure in the abstract expressionist movement.
Marc Chagall - associated with several key art movements and was one of the most successful artists of the twentieth century.
Paul Cezanne - Post-Impressionist painter whose work laid the foundations of the transition from the 19th century conception of artistic endeavour to a new and radically different world of art in the 20th century. Cézanne can be said to form the bridge between late 19th century Impressionism and the early 20th century's new line of artistic enquiry, Cubism. The line attributed to both Matisse and Picasso that Cézanne "is the father of us all" cannot be easily dismissed.
Georges Mathieu - gained an international reputation in the 1950s as a leading Abstract Expressionist. His large paintings are created very rapidly and impulsively.
Picasso - He is one of the most recognized figures in 20th-century art. He is best known for co-founding the Cubist movement and for the wide variety of styles embodied in his work. Picasso demonstrated uncanny artistic talent in his early years, painting in a realistic manner through his childhood and adolescence; during the first decade of the twentieth century his style changed as he experimented with different theories, techniques, and ideas. Picasso’s creativity manifested itself in numerous mediums, including painting, sculpture, drawing, and architecture. His revolutionary artistic accomplishments brought him universal renown and immense fortunes throughout his life, making him the best-known figure in twentieth century art.
-
-
Where are your pics of your work?
Marcelino Ferreiro Paz said:Hope everything goes all right, takes minutes to know if I did it right. I`m a mess with computers.Want to tell you that I work digital art for about two years, ( close to what Minnie said : 60 years and four hours). Would like Ninon
to know I support her, because She knows these files , She mentioned 4 or 5 painters but She knows hundreds of either sex.I want Krishna to know that I`m also made of a different staff .Just invited me to see some digital work,
but I can`t right now because of my screen, but you are all invited(digital art).More or less I guess good staff .
Want to remind everybody that only very few people in the world buy art. Prices of it is very much like gambling, if you face Galleries , unless you are dead or become kind of Damien Hirsch. My art is not on sale, I live out out of my handcrafts.I`m waiting for the right moment at the right place. You see, handcraft is one of the thing I price
for the amount of time that took me, difficcult to calculate, but more or less there I go. Arquitecture aswell, considering investment, in both. Within a few days I`ll be in terms to try to find a solution to your maths problems, Minnie, my old computer was too slow and got angry within a few minutes. Let you know once I repair my screen.Love those tests. Hope this conversations lead us to open our eyes and learn from each other.Yours. PAZ
-
-
If we see superficiality of things, we will feel all visual treats as great pieces of art. I always see the depth of the mind of the artist that created an art work to judge it. The art work reflects it. Sometimes even descriptions tell the real story behind the art works. That is why I usually give descriptions because individuals are not yet fully global to understand the works properly from all the parts of the globe.
Goodness in art world is a perception & the standards differ from region to region & person to person.
Minnie W. Shuler said:I know that some ponder their work carefully and approach it with much more thought than others. I am not sure that makes it better. Serendipity does play a roll in almost every piece. Yes, there is skill built up on many years of practice. Leonardo's Mona Lisa was painted over a period of years, but it seems he was quite distracted with other things througout those years, producing a great volume of work and observation...inventions. Each of us has an inspiration or slavemaster that we get obsessed with and 'follow the genius' so to speak. Sometimes partly finished projects linger until we get the drive to engross our intellect with them again. Whether that process is lengthy or very fast seems to vary with the project and the inclination of the artist. I know personally some artists who are very prolific and very good. I do not know if their works are masterpieces, but they certainly aren't junk. I know others who take months and years to do something, the same is true. Talent and imagination or creativity seems to be the deciding factor more than time. If an artists' work is to be judged as 'junk' because they have created a lot of it, I think we're in trouble. On the other hand, Dr. Challa, you are right to be concerned if artists' careers are being determined by quantity of work. There is a painting called "The Spirit of 76" which depicts tattered drummer boys marching with the continental army, also tattered. This piece, I understand took about 25 years to do. It's fantastic. Certainly under the regeim of 'quantity' art brokers, this arist would not have had a chance at a career. The price people are willing to pay for art must be entered into the equation. If an artists wants to live on his art, he will starve or produce quantity he can sell at a cost the common man can afford. I think this pressure to create does produce some susbtandard works. Just because a person picks up brush, camera, mouse or pen and produces an image, it doesn't make them an artist. The market is flooded with the work of amatures thinking too highly of their own work. That is too bad, but I see no reasonable method of weeding out such work. Often the gallery wall is never seen by the commoner, but the local fairs and festivals are. And, there is usually some very attractive art there. Art is subjective, therein lies the delimma The online experience provided to not so savey art consumers is gradually changing the grip of art critics on the determination of what is great art; Certainly, if not what is great, what is popular.
-
-
Please read the new article "Scientific explanation of creativity" and the data I added just now. Yes, if an artist cannot discard junk ideas he will produce such type of work only. If individuals create unlimited quantity of work, most of it will only be substandard. That was what I was trying to say all the while. There is difference between theory & practice. How many artists try & get the superhuman training before starting their careers to tap the unlimited potential of the brain? Practically none. So to say an artist can produce unlimited quantity of work & all that can be good work too is not correct realistically speaking.
Krishna
Ninon CZ said:Thanks Minnie ~ I suppose the point I am trying to make is that I don't believe that there is a limit to creativity and there is no limit to what a mind can produce. People are the ones who set limits on themselves and others, but these are artificial barriers. I would never say that someone's work is junk...I understand that you are not saying that...but everyone creates all art mostly from the heart. So, for that person, if for no on else, it is beautiful. I find various artists work beautiful, not for the visual realism but for what it does to my mind and how I perceive.
-
-
Yes, I know about this site. But it doesn't give a full picture about Indian art. It touches only the top few. It is created for commercial purposes. However, atleast you can learn about the top (created by the market forces again & many don't agree with the list) few Indian artists.
Krishna
Minnie W. Shuler said:http://www.cyberadsstudio.com/SPEAR/nsbendre/thumnailimages.htm I found this nice link that tells about some Indian artists. It is interesting to read their stories and get to see some of their work. Very nice.
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:My article " A masterpiece in my opinion" will be published in a news paper magazine soon. I cannot give details until it is published. As soon as it is published , I will post it here. When you read it you will know what a master piece or good work in my opinion is.
That article also describes who a good artist is.
Ninon CZ said:In your opinion, who is a "good" or admirable artist? Who do you admire and look-up to in the art world? Also, I mentioned some other artists that I esteem as highly and as genius as Picasso. Are any of these acceptable in your opinion?
Jackson Pollock Marc Chagall
Paul Cézanne
Georges Mathieu
By my liking Western Artists it does not mean that I don't like Indian or other artists. I have studied a lot of art lately by others, but I simply have no exposure to famous, historical Indian artists. I am not even sure what the history of Indian art is and this might be a good subject for another blog.
-
-
There are thousands of Indian contemporary Artists. We have not much information about artists of other eras. No website gives full picture of Indian Art Scene. Very often the lists created are biased- that is what my artist friends here tell me. Even blogs on Indian art scene are market oriented. Perhaps if you could visit as many as websites you come across on Indian Art as possible, you will get an idea & can come to your own conclusions. That is what I do.
Krishna
Minnie W. Shuler said:I found several other sites, some with more artists but fewer works. Do you have a site you reccommend?
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:Yes, I know about this site. But it doesn't give a full picture about Indian art. It touches only the top few. It is created for commercial purposes. However, atleast you can learn about the top (created by the market forces again & many don't agree with the list) few Indian artists.
Krishna
Minnie W. Shuler said:http://www.cyberadsstudio.com/SPEAR/nsbendre/thumnailimages.htm I found this nice link that tells about some Indian artists. It is interesting to read their stories and get to see some of their work. Very nice.
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:My article " A masterpiece in my opinion" will be published in a news paper magazine soon. I cannot give details until it is published. As soon as it is published , I will post it here. When you read it you will know what a master piece or good work in my opinion is.
That article also describes who a good artist is.
Ninon CZ said:In your opinion, who is a "good" or admirable artist? Who do you admire and look-up to in the art world? Also, I mentioned some other artists that I esteem as highly and as genius as Picasso. Are any of these acceptable in your opinion?
Jackson Pollock Marc Chagall
Paul Cézanne
Georges Mathieu
By my liking Western Artists it does not mean that I don't like Indian or other artists. I have studied a lot of art lately by others, but I simply have no exposure to famous, historical Indian artists. I am not even sure what the history of Indian art is and this might be a good subject for another blog.
-
-
Ninon says - People use only 10% of their brains. And if all the brain is used they can create innumerable or unlimited master pieces. This is a Myth: We use only 10 percent of our brains
Fact: Physicians and comedians alike, including Jerry Seinfeld, love to cite this one. It's sometimes erroneously credited to Albert Einstein. But MRI scans, PET scans and other imaging studies show no dormant areas of the brain, and even viewing individual neurons or cells reveals no inactive areas, the new paper points out. Metabolic studies of how brain cells process chemicals show no nonfunctioning areas.
The myth probably originated with self-improvement hucksters in the early 1900s who wanted to convince people that they had yet not reached their full potential, Carroll figures. It also doesn't jibe with the fact that our other organs run at full tilt.
http://www.livescience.com/18076-medical-myths-doctors-countdown.html
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
Badge
Birthdays
Birthdays Today
Birthdays Tomorrow
© 2024 Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.
Powered by
