The weak link in the virtuous circle

Quality, or the lack thereof, is difficult to explain, but I know it when I see it. In life, relationships, and art, everything hinges on it.

Robert: The concepts expressed in this posting hit very close to the “why” I am sitting on almost fifty years of unpublished poetry, and “why” I refuse to show my artistic endeavors to a “democratized” public. Perhaps, our grandchildren’s generation will be ready for my little contributions to the cultural heritage. That is, if freedom of expression is still a viable option. That’s looking very very doubtful, these days. ~DM

I see this cycle all the time in my town. Those who have very little real art knowledge, try to sell their art secrets or marketing strategies to hyper eager novice/hobbyist painters. I see so many beginning painters who are middle aged or older, who have some money, being sold a – be an artist quickly- scheme. I believe these folks who tell painters they have the one and only secret to success in the art world- are scams and this encourages the vicious circle by putting more substandard art in front of the public and hurts all hard working, professional artists.

While there is pleasing logic to the virtuous / vicious circle way of seeing artistic success that you write about aren’t there some well known examples of success in spite of lack of recognition. Some of the best known come from the beginnings of the modern movement ie the work of Van Gogh, Cezanne and many others of their generation. Wasn’t the ability, certainly in Vincent’s case, to persist in his unique vision in spite of being largely ignored by established galleries in his lifetime, part of his greatness? Commercial and critical success can sometimes be driven by fashion so that a sense of alienation is hard to resist among those of us for whom fashion is not a major consideration. Perhaps we have to content ourselves with the satisfactions that come from dogged persistence. Then the appreciation of a relatively small audience becomes all the more encouraging to us. Yes, there’s certainly value in that!

Very nice article, Robert. All my life I have enjoyed learning, mostly about what makes humans different from animals, or what makes me different from a jungle beast, but also how an engine works or how to use a new software program and on and on. Painting provides me with an avenue for exhaustless learning; moreover, I indulge myself with the idea of making a living selling my increasingly quality paintings, using my brain to decipher marketing, but truth be told that is merely an indulgence, a sidebar, to what is really going on: my soul enjoys the creativity. Whoever I am decides what is quality work and what is not. The public convention of signing one’s work is an act in which I frankly have no emotional investment. I do it because that is what we seem to do. I would paint likely for the sheer challenge and enjoyment of it, and in fact this is exactly what I did when a small child. Perhaps I got a lot of encouragement from my parents with each crayon on newsprint submission, but perhaps there were many scribblings that were wadded up and tossed as I experimented with color and composition. The Bhuddists spend many hours creating beautiful colored sand mandalas, exacting work that requires concentration, only to blow the work into oblivion and start another. Goldsworthy creates from nature, has a photo taken, and leaves the work in the deep woods, or by the seashore, to an unknown, but inexorable, fate. Our works, regardless of quality, will return eventually to a state of potential. Quality is an aspect of the expression of one’s soul. And I’m told that the soul is perfect.

Robert, didn’t you once mention that one of your instructors told you you’d never make it as an artist? Probably, more than a few of your contemporaries are glad you didn’t take that option to heart. I hope that more than a few struggling painters will not be discouraged by your seeming insensitivity toward their own attempts. Since you have achieved some standing in the “courts of artistic relevance”, your words can help to encourage or discourage those who aren’t up to contemporary marketable commodity. And, I have no sympathy for those winey “professional artists”, who feel threatened by the untried, untutored “folk artists”, who are “damaging the marketplace” with their low value products. If your art can’t even compete with the “substandard”, perhaps you are not so talented nor “professional” as your pompous suppositions might proclaim.

Well said Stuff and Balderdash.

StuffandBalderdash, Regarding your last paragraph, another context to be considered is the market to which one ‘markets their commodity’, the premise implied being that the market is arbiter of quality. One who is clever at marketing and whose goal is sales might degrade the quality in order to sell. Given our current high ratings for reality TV, factoid news, staged drama, etc. in the Nielsen ratings one might legitimately question ‘the market’s’ ability to judge or desire quality from an artist. Competition for sales dollars requires all kinds of compromise, from painting for decor, for current fad, for the lowest common denominator, for specific niches, etc. Yes, there is relative quality among trash, so I’m not sure who is best suited to identify and proclaim a work of quality. Probably needs a definition that satisfies, but for the same reason there is no consensus as to the definition of art, I doubt there will soon be a definition of quality that satisfies all contexts. Whiny professionals may not be solely bumping into the competition from “folk artists”, but also bumping into a marketplace that has no desire or wherewithal to own fine art.

I believe there have been and always will be some definite requirements for quality art…they are simply- composition, knowledge of color harmonies, quality mediums, to name a few. When an artist breaks these traditions, it should be done with an underlying understanding of the basic concepts of art. In my previous response, I was discussing fine art, not folk art, which another discussion altogether. I have seen fine art in galleries that call themselves folk art galleries and folk art in fine art galleries. My point is that this is confusing and does not help the public understand art in general. P.S.- I have nothing against folk art !

Good art is what the old judge said about pornography…You know it when you see it. No link, though.

ok, i’m going to print this and put it up in my workshop. regardless of what others may call quality, i know i can always strive for more of it.

I like this idea of using economic theory and applying it to art and artists. What need do I have to go up to the studio? I will just let the Invisible Hand do my painting for me!

I found today’s entry very helpful. I immediately grabbed my notepad and wrote down your examples of quality. They have helped me define my goals, allowed me a few pats on my back, and given me some things to contemplate. I feel I have achieved enough on the list to be begin showing my work, now I just need to do it.

I have worked and taught as an artist for 25 years, and the link in the circle that continues to evade me is the marketing link. Sales of original paintings are few and far between in northern Indiana. I have work in two galleries, exhibit in regional and state-wide jury shows which would seem to indicate a competent level of quality. What can be done to create better marketing opportunities?

Dedication, practice, hard work – these are less fashionable virtues I think – and to equate them with ‘genius’…… wow! It makes the possibility of being a genius within the grasp of each of us who is willing to hang in there, learning, and participating in ‘intelligent effort’ – we are all capable of this!

I am not a commercial artist, I don’t paint to sell, I sell what I paint. An artist must be true unto his or herself no matter what the trend of the day happens to be.

The thing that keeps bugging me is something that relates to what I read about Van Gogh’s life but still translates to our time and rings a red alarm to me. Vincent defined real art as something that would enhance life of common people. He attempted on several occasion to produce prints that would be affordable to people who are not rich. He has little interest to place his art with the rich, except to make his brother dealer happy. Today as well art is defined as something that enhances human condition. So then why is it that most artists define art as stuff that gets into museums or gets sold for huge bucks to rich collectors. The reality is that 99% of people never step into museums or buy high priced art. Most common exposure to art is through public media and decorations. But we say that is not real art. So how can our mission to enhance people’s lives with our art be accomplished? If we don’t accomplish that, how can we say that we are making art? Is our stuff just a luxurious commodity which we deny to the 99% of people? I would be interested to hear if anyone else has thoughts about this topic.

Robert, Thank you for another insightful article. All of your points are well taken, though I continue to explore the meaning of quality. One might suggest, as in science, that a skilled and faithful reproduction of an experiment (or work of art) is necessary to convince ones’ peers that a product is viable. Of course art is not a science, let alone an exact science. If I cannot reproduce a piece of work of similar ‘quality,’ what does that mean? For example, if I can play a piano sonata consistently well, but cannot recreate a painting of a quality deemed similar to a previous work, does that put into question my ability to produce quality paintings. I’m tempted to ask if painting is a performance art, subject to the same or similar criteria as performance art. No doubt, a serious artist must work consistently to develop their skills, and achieve reliable techniques. Yet the goals of one artist, for example realism, can be materially different from another artist, for example impressionism. Both artists may produce respectable results, yet neither could readily produce worthy paintings in both genres. In short, the standards of quality that characterize one genre are not necessarily applicable to other genres. It’s true, a lot of worthy art is conditional, if not provisional, and cannot be subject to the same standards, of the ‘public,’ or even the artist. As well, some art is transitional, leading into new areas of creativity. Perhaps that justifies a decision not to show every work that significantly deviates from a previous body of work. If quality is to be judged, it should be grounded with a complete understanding of, not only the goals of the artist, but also the often ‘illusive’ process that is art. I cannot fault the professional artist trying to make a living that necessitates a degree of conformity they would otherwise disregard. Perhaps there is a place for such. The problem, as I view it arises, when said artist, or critics/supporters pretend that this art is somehow representative, unique and a special example of modern artistic achievement. The issue is also the fact that quality is as subjective as objective in the context sited. A highly respectable painting in an academic setting may be judged as average by an international body of judges. What is one to think in a field of differing opinions about ones work with respect to quality, if you are an accomplished artist by most measures? Clearly one must choose to either ‘follow their bliss,’ and therefore work, and create in terms that fit their artistic instincts, or to whatever degree, conform to some convention so as to remain acceptable, or even in some cases employable. I offer this opinion for your serious consideration. Thank you for allowing me to participate.

Dear Balderdash; Genn is only urging artists at all levels and all genres to become inspired to do work of higher quality. Fair enough?

An artist’s forum like this that encourages artists to think more about what they are doing, what they are putting out is good for the Universe. Thanks to all the wise and experienced ones who contribute. UK

If being brilliant was easy there would be a lot more brilliance around. As a gallery owner I have to say that most of the work that is regularly offered to us is quite ordinary.

Artists who think their weak link is marketing are often wrong. The commonest weak link is quality. Robert spends zero time on marketing because his work has a degree of quality. The galleries that handle his work are inspired to do the marketing for him. When someone shows some interest in his work the dealer goes to bat for him.

In general terms the virtuous cycle should prove itself as a true theory. But to an increasing extent marketing interrupts the loop and skewers the desired result of quality. The lowest appetites are fed while the higher are ignored. Examples: 1) Television has sunk to such depths I can surf through 400 channels and not find one program worth my interest or time. The medium may be the single greatest catalyst for bringing reading back in vogue. 2) Out of the hundreds of movies released every year maybe a dozen are the best of cinema. The rest simply make money. 3) Considering the EU, the US, and Asia’s financial challenges leaders apparently missed this economics lesson. The desired “payback” is political strength of the party in power, and hang the solvency of the nation. 4) Industry purposely settled on programmed obsolescence long ago. Consumers are indifferent to replacing purchased goods shortly after the warranty expires while we’ve been indoctrinated to want the newest gadget on the market. 5) And art? One only has to visit the MOMA in any major city to see nonsense along side integrity. I’ve walked away bewildered more often than being moved. The many wrenches in the cog of the virtuous cycle are influence, serendipity, craze, and the worst, educated pretentiousness. Having said that, the only thing an artist (or writer) can do is have a sense of direction. Your absolute goal is quality and you may never be compensated for that effort … and you’ve got to be okay with that and press on regardless.

Quality, Quality, Quality, well, as we learn many of us earn, at art fairs, social settings, potluchs and such. I give away quite a bit of my art to a couple of people I knew from bible study years ago in another city, send it to them in the mail as I learn techniques. I don’t usually send the original. I feel God blesses me for sharing with a person who will rarely get to an art gallery. Furthermore, my art is very religious in that it is usually scripture quotes or hymnal quotes, in calligraphy, along with some illustration and flourishes in penwork. Not a whole lot of demand for such as yet. However, I have in my possession 250 “placemats” or laminated 8.5 x 11″ penwork pieces of flourished Spencerian penmanship. If I cannot offload it onto home-schoolers or religious people like myself, it will have to be given away after I die. I do hope it’ll fetch a nice price. It takes me 1/2 hour to do a piece, usually, in black and white pen and ink, and then I sell for about 3.00. Maybe I’m stuck in a vicious cycle of not marketing well. But I am a novice penman and I do enjoy producing art and I am definitely flourishing, literally.

Painters have been sold a pile of optimism. It’s easier to sell optimism than pessimism. This blog of Robert’s usually comes down on the side of realism–that is, realistic expectations when the artist has done the basics. Excellent message in an age of entitlement.

One other point, in response to a comment about -whiney professional artists- someone talked about in an earlier post, that when the word professional is used, it means to me, that someone is trying to earn their living from art. This is not a judgement on quality or attractiveness or skill, it simple means that someones livelihood is solely based on selling their art. The word professional means they have to take the art they produce maybe a bit more seriously, than say the weekend painter but it isnt (at least not to me) a put down to other painters.

Years ago I asked an art teacher what it is to be ‘professional’ and she laughed and said she had been told that a ‘professional artist’ is one who can put paint back into the tube…