I haven't reread what has been said. So I may be a little redundant. But based on your comment, I think this hasn't entirely been covered.
Interesting Dial-a-Cliche about the galleries not wanting digital.
I think the resistance to digital is largely because you were dealing with Art sellers. And they cannot control the numbers of copies of digital art and one reproduces just as well as the next. And great art can be done without a lot of personal expertise. The machine can do a lot of it. Besides that, forgeries and unauthorized copies, too easy.
And anybody who posts something on the internet can sell it, with no price control among the various sellers which gets into ethics regarding people selling your work. If the artist is selling their work directly to the buyer and they are undercutting the galleries because the galleries take such a huge cut, then the galleries are doing nothing but promoting the artist for free. They aren't in work for free business.
While many artists do giclees (for those who don't know: prints on stretched canvas), many do the original in traditional media.
But I doubt that any artist interested in presenting their work in an optimal way would not use the computer to some degree. I would bet dollars to donuts that many giclee paintings have been diddled one way or another on the computer -- whether for color balance or fixing an edge of a stroke or even removing a weed from a field of flowers.
Anyway, it's the same argument I heard when I was starting out long before the PC, that illustrators were not welcome to submit their art work. We, as illustrators, tried to figure that one out since the skills of many illustrators was formidable and we loved art. Came to the conclusion it was all about exclusivity and ownership and containing saturation of the artist in the world. Doesn't have a thing to do with Art. All business. And how elitist one's clientèle believes what you're selling is. If they're elitist, or the people with money who buy art are, then they set a tone consistent with that to appeal to those investing in art.
I found that when trying to sort through much in the art world that didn't make sense, just swap your artist's beret for a business man's hat and it all makes perfect sense.
And as we know there came a point in which those realistic artists (illustrators) did well -- in the Southwest Art movement, selling to a bunch of oil men and beef growers who suddenly brought tons of cash to the table, along with there very earthy tastes.
Heck, look at Thomas Kinkaide. He was trained as an illustrator and a guy who started painting backgrounds for animation (if my info is accurate). And he just created his own market and got rich as all get out. If you start selling and have numbers, any of these snobby gallery owners will be tumbling over each other to get to sell your art.
I am not a fan at all off Kinkaide as an artist aesthetically, though he doesn't offend me. But he paints like an animation background painter. And he found what people wanted to buy and gave it to them -- in huge quantities. And to add to it, he would crib a few notes from Scripture onto his paintings to seal the deal.
In another field, long ago in my youth there used to be an unwritten rule that Doctors and Lawyers wouldn't advertise because it was crass. Well, we know how that went too. If money is being generated, the world will cow tow. The bottom line is the bottom line.
Sort of the Professional's version of the "What is Art" argument.
Then it's just a matter of where one draws the line for their own work. What is right for them individually. And one goes for it. Pros, amateurs, hobbyists, everybody's got their own reasons for doing what they do. And hopefully it's working for them.
Like Bob Dylan sings, "Ya gotta serve somebody."
Bartender, fix me a moon river. . .in a TIFFANY GLASS!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by gzairborne
