• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

How do you measure up as an artist?

Charlotte Thompson

Well-known member
Michael

of course it was
and my reply was in jest*
LOL no fear on my part I assure you-
what is the Ivory Tower I thought all this was merely discussions on art free to say whats on ones mind
not an Ivory Tower-

Charlotte-
 

Rod Witten

pro member
Hi Rod,

So, for you, is it sufficient for just you to be moved by your own work? How about if you are moved and then start another work? Many artists stop one pieces to start another, because of some inner or practical reason.

So do you measure your own work as "art" only when it's completed to the final idea? That, to me is almost capricious. To me, at least, once a work gets an identity and starts to make demands on the artist as to what will be next, then the art lives. It's still art even though not mature. We'll that's just my own view. A Van Gogh just 3/4 complete would still move us a lot!

Asher

Asher,

There are far too many "works in progress" that never get completed. Most often we have seemingly good excuses for this but in actuality it may be the fear of stopping and saying to ourselves "this work is finished to the best of my ability". It takes courage to stop tinkering, sign it and and send it on its way to whatever outcome it may find. Completing the execution of " intent ..." is a primary measure for me.

And while I agree that "art lives" while in an unfinished state, if a person never completes (including signing and presenting) a work of "art" can they seriously call themselves, or be known as, an "Artist" ? And let's not get into whether, or not, that unsigned painting is a Van Gogh.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher,

There are far too many "works in progress" that never get completed. Most often we have seemingly good excuses for this but in actuality it may be the fear of stopping and saying to ourselves "this work is finished to the best of my ability". It takes courage to stop tinkering, sign it and and send it on its way to whatever outcome it may find. Completing the execution of " intent ..." is a primary measure for me.

And while I agree that "art lives" while in an unfinished state, if a person never completes (including signing and presenting) a work of "art" can they seriously call themselves, or be known as, an "Artist" ? And let's not get into whether, or not, that unsigned painting is a Van Gogh.
Hi Rod,

I don't think we need to measure our value of artists by the number of pieces finished, signed and presented to the world. Art has so many reasons for being made. Externalizing ideas for one work in music may be part of a later symphony. For me, the process of making art effects the artist. So I don't think the number of unfinished pieces matter. I'd prefer to get praise from others and a good sum of money, but am happy just seeing what I've accomplished.

If the criterion for judging oneself as an artist is the extent to which one can provide for one's self and family, then yes, the only way of measuring success is to sell enough, signed or not! In these circumstances, awards, honors and recognition might help of course.

Asher
 

Charlotte Thompson

Well-known member
Asher-

I agree with this statement by you whole heartedly-





"but am happy just seeing what I've accomplished. "


says so very much about what art truly is-
it's never about the money
art must always be first
and if!
the money comes then great-
I don't think you can truly create with the idea of money first-


Charlotte-
 

Rachel Foster

New member
As an aside, I love the ivory tower. It's important, though, to remember what is outside of our safe, warm, ideologically constructed towers.
 

Charlotte Thompson

Well-known member
Rachel-

Ivory Tower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Ivory tower)
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Ivory Tower (disambiguation).
The term Ivory Tower originates in the Biblical Song of Solomon (7,4), and was later used as an epithet for Mary.

From the 19th century it has been, originally ironically, used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually has a pejorative connotation, denoting a willful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research; and academic elitism, if not outright condescension by those inhabiting the ivory tower. In American English usage it ordinarily denotes the academic world of colleges and universities, particularly scholars of the humanities.

Contents [hide]
1 Religious usage
2 Modern usage
3 References
4 See also
5 External links



I ask you dear Lady
in all honesty
with al lthe reply
could this be in all reply
in to hat is warm to another-is cold to ANOTHER
merely a display of personalitys in art
and
how we reap! that!


Charlotte-
 

Rachel Foster

New member
I'm not sure I understand, Charlotte.

I think freedom in art is necessary, though. I think we need to remember that art may be so far outside of the expected we cannot evaluate it properly at first. I think we also need to remember that if art does not "speak" to others, it will not "communicate" as it were. How one approaches it is best determined by one's goals, I think.
 

Rod Witten

pro member
I'm not sure I understand, Charlotte.

I think freedom in art is necessary, though. I think we need to remember that art may be so far outside of the expected we cannot evaluate it properly at first. I think we also need to remember that if art does not "speak" to others, it will not "communicate" as it were. How one approaches it is best determined by one's goals, I think.

Rachel,

I prefer "touch" as oppose to "speaks". Art is always chattering and and for some we need earplugs. 8=)
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Artist

I did not always see my self as an artist but now I do.

When I am commissioned to do a portrait my tools are not a paintbrush and oils but the camera.

When I am shooting for myself, my tools are no different than the artist with a sketchbooks and pencils. I still craft my vision. I just use a different talent. Sometimes the image works and other times not. Just like the painter, he might use a color that is off to the image.

When I frame it and hang it, I am the only one that needs to admire it. But I am trained enough to not waste money by framing what I think will not please others and sometimes I don't care if it does or doesn't.

To make my art better, I must study art of others. I went to Santa Barbara not long ago to see photos of the old Hollywood Photographers and more look at their lighting. That is influencing me at the moment.
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
I think freedom in art is necessary, though. I think we need to remember that art may be so far outside of the expected we cannot evaluate it properly at first. I think we also need to remember that if art does not "speak" to others, it will not "communicate" as it were. How one approaches it is best determined by one's goals, I think.

Very well stated, Rachel. Such remarks could have come from a museum curator's mouth.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I think freedom in art is necessary, though. I think we need to remember that art may be so far outside of the expected we cannot evaluate it properly at first. I think we also need to remember that if art does not "speak" to others, it will not "communicate" as it were. How one approaches it is best determined by one's goals, I think.

Very well stated, Rachel. Such remarks could have come from a museum curator's mouth.

This is why it's helpful often for the artist to set the stage for the imaginary "special-universe" represented by, (and or in which the image lives). That way at least we have context and the currency of values and imperatives the artist possesses. A title helps. Still, it's not all the sole responsibility of the artist to give meaning to each piece independently. After all, the artist likely works within frames of reference that are known to their followers. The observer might need to put in some effort too. This may require a knowledge of a body of work by the artist, a social, political, mythological or esthetic setting, other art and, or, a related school to which the image refers.

Asher
 
Last edited:

Rachel Foster

New member
This discussion has caused me to be newly aware of the profundity of the shared passion found here. So many people, most of whom are quite talented and very knowledgeable, coming together and discussing such the topic in such breadth and depth is ... amazing!
 
Top