Hi Clint- Interesting post. Removing all the preconceived notions from one's mind before viewing a piece of art is a wonderful way of really examining the work itself for what it is. That being said, as you know, art is a fickle matter. What make be a masterpiece if some people's mind may not be so in others. My two cents for what it's worth...

I love your article Clint. The entire time I was reading it though, all I could think about are the struggles I have with modern art. I know I am going to get slammed for this. Please be gentle. But I wish I could be more open minded, I really do!
I love visiting art museums but sometimes I don't understand why some of the modern pantings are even in museums! I really struggle with some of the more simplified modern paintings that consist of ... perhaps only one color on the canvas, and nothing else. I saw a collection in Indianapolis in which a foundation had spent $100,000 for four paintings that were each painted a single color with one red box painted in the center. Nothing else! Or there's the one I saw at the LA Art Show last month that had one red line painted through it. I think it was priced at $40,000. Please note that I am not criticizing all modern art. Most are incredible paintings! But I have seen plenty of art in museums that I sadly think should have probably never left the studio. Intrinsic value? I don't get it.

Clint, this blog really spoke to me. I love the idea of picturing my work in a museum - changes the way I feel about my finished pieces.

Last Saturday evening, I attended the Settler's West miniature show/event. While looking over the 300 or so works there, I judged a handful of artwork as masterful, but all of them took on importance because of the gallery event.

Location, location, location... also how we frame and present our work makes a difference.

I agree with your post about context influencing the perceived value of art. I have a slightly different twist on that approach.
Many know my work as an abstract painter. My recent project of painting 100 portraits in 100 days features small, detailed portraits which I display on my blog along with the reference photo I worked from.
I can sense the surprise in some of the comments from people who did not think I was capable of painting realism, let alone a portrait. They see value in creating a likeness. They can easily judge how close I came to replicating the person's image.
Painting a portrait, where I KNOW how it's supposed to look when it's done, is much easier that painting an abstract where it all has to come out of my head.

I should have proof read before I hit "submit". My comment should have read "talent is displayed in many places" not "may places". Oops!

Clint: This is one of your best articles in my opinion. I had seen the youTube 'experiment' by Joshua Bell awhile ago and concur with your statements. Perception IS it!

Every time I think I've read your best blog you do another one. I had seen the Bell video a while ago and what you say is absolutely the truth.

Because I have been given the opportunity to be introduced into the China market, I have accepted their terms of engagement. The Chinese are brilliant business people and they know their art well, but they also know how to market it. I was told that in China you have to become famous before you can anticipate selling your work. There are two markets there. One is decorative and the other is the collectors market. Whichever market you are interested in pursuring dictates how they market your work. Chinese artists understand that collectors have to be taught what is good enough to be collected. This is a simplified statement and doesn't speak to all collectors, but goes along with what you were saying about context.

There are many great artists that have been marketed correctly and have become famous, but there are even more great artists that haven't been given the opportunity to be marketed correctly that are lost in the crowd. Obviously Pollock had a good manager.

I was asked by an artist how I felt about FASO. He said that he was intimidated by the large body of artists affliated with FASO. He felt that there was too much competition for him to succeed. So I told him that, of course, I was very pleased with FASO and one of the main reasons other than feeling as part of a great art community, ease, technical suport, etc., that FASO was the best at marketing their artists. Because in the end, if you are serious about selling your art, that's what has to be done.

Reading great books like "I'd Rather Be In The Studio" by Alyson Stanfield and my most recent read, "Starving to Successful" by J. Jason Horejs are essential to obtain a better understanding of the game we all must play if we want to be on the short list.

I like this Clint.
Context defined as : 1)The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. 2)The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

So true. Take something out of context and it develops a whole new value or meaning.

As an artist, I'm excited to the notion that my art is created for a purpose no matter where it is hanging.

Thanks for being bold enough to point this out - so many people just go with the flow, whatever that may be at the moment. Judge art by it's quality, what a concept...

Great article Clint,

The idea of taking a work out of context and looking at its value without the hoopla is fascinating. Most people have issues with "Modern art" because they take it out of the social and political context in which it was created originally. I am speaking here with regard to the works of the, Dadaists, Abstract Expressionists and the likes starting during the turn of the century. Their works were not meant to be aesthetically pleasing by any means. I am not speaking about contemporary "Modern art" from our decade. The Jackson Pollacks, Max Beckmans, Marcel Du Champs from the past ,etc. that fill the modern art museums are worth millions because they were created with the intention of making dramatic political statements during an extremely choatic, violent time in human history, the span of the two world wars. These artists were trying to express their feelings and intentionally defying the traditional norms about art. Redefining it literally. A very fresh and incredibly thought provoking concept at the time. Hitler had a show put together for them called the "Kunst Entarte" or "Degenerate Art" in an effort to ridicule them. In the end he failed because the exhibition went on to travel to many parts of Europe and was seen by thousands of people, making it one of the more successful art events of that time. The public was ready to absorb these new ideas at that point in history. Anyway, anyone without much technical ability could have produced the same works, yes, but to have chosen to do so at the right time and get the world's attention is another matter. They were very smart in that sense. And courageous as well. I am not partial to the Abstract expressionists works in general and do find that basically no craft is involved and have no problem stating that. On the other hand I do respect them for their desire to make art a vehicle for thought provoking expression. By bringing attention to themselves and their works with it's "shock" quality they were able to express the world's outrage at the insanity of the effects of the wars. The works were representative of the insanity enveloping the world then. They wanted to redefine art and make it their own. For this I give them credit. Art is an ever changing phenomenon that is influenced by many things. So I think in the end you do have to look at it within the context that it was created because if not its value would only be dependent on the visual impact not the "why" it was created. The "why" and the aesthetic quality go hand in hand in my opinion. Just my two cents.

Context is a tricky thing.

When you look at a painting, for example, it's more than a combination of colour, composition, and technique. It was created in a moment in time.

Art reflects what takes place in society. The artist who created it takes his or her place beside it. If an artist breaks boundaries and sparks a new way of thinking, can we judge the work *only* by what's left behind on the canvas?

Is it enough to simply gaze at what's on the wall, or should we look farther? And if we don't look beyond the boundaries of a frame, what does that do to our own creative explorations?

You got me thinking, Clint, thank you for that.

I do enjoy reading the articles posted here tremendously. I hope to comment more often as it keeps me connected with current thoughts on art in general! Fascinating stuff all around.

Just a note on the diversity of art. Went on a tour at MOCA and many of the pieces in the current retrospect exhibit are actually instructions, that's right a piece of paper that allows the museum to make the work of art. It is the concept that matters, not the work itself. Some of these works were not to my liking but I believe that an idea can be art.

CORRECTION the paper above was 36"by 18'. That would make a difference!!

See, it may be possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear... or even vice-verse.

Excellent thoughts, thank you.

So what does this say about putting your art work up in a restaurant, a book store, selling it piece by piece on the street dressed as bum, or in a tux?

Bill

excellent points. Just to add, great art is great art, no matter the context. Bad art is bad art no matter where it is shown. The only thing that changes is the perception.

tom

beautifully said Rich.

Rich Moyer, thank-you for an uplifting comment in regards to Modern/Contemporary fine art. Your words speak of an intelligent source and based upon reading your knowledge and looking at your art, it instantly commands respect when viewing your contemporary works. You have increased my awareness and others I am sure. That`s what this forum/blog can do, it can change the world.

My boyfriend constantly teases me that he's going to start just throwing paint on canvases and he'll make more money than I ever will. And he probably would.

Yes, art is subjective, but I cannot consider everything I see as being art. I seem to remember that the masters used to strive to achieve realism, and their interpretation, to me, is art. If I need to struggle to understand a bunch a squiggly lines in order to imagine what the artist was feeling abou society or his reality at the time the piece was created, well, let's just say I'd rather not waste my time. I know this is a comment that will offend many, but if a horse could paint something just as exciting, well, you know what I mean . . .

I often said that if I need to smoke something, or stand there and pretend to understand a bunch of squiggly lines or clumps of paint as having some deeper meaning than what is obvious, then I'll gladly accept my status as an idiot. I remember also rolling around in the mud and having a wonderful time when I was a child and dirtying my mother's floor. I doubt she thought that was art.

This one "touched a nerve" so to speak. Not only with me, I see by the number of comments. I happen to be one of those who agree with you about Pollock, but that is not my point. Art is subjective to us all. Education, or the lack of it does not render us incapable of opinion regarding what we like or don't like. Music and Art both bring forth passionate feelings, which is why we like them so, and why we artists beat out brains out on a weekly basis to tend our passion. For people who know what they like and feel passionately about it context is irrelevant.

I guess what I question is not everyone’s right to have an opinion about art, but the fact that many so called experts have maneuvered them self into positions in which their opinion and ‘expertise’ matter more than that of common man. If you were to ask 500 people if they thought a Pollock, or any truly avant garde Modern piece was art I daresay very few would classify it as such. But these are most likely not “fashionable” people. Art is fashion, and ever will this be so. As Heidi Klum says, “one day you’re in and the next day you’re out.” Time will tell for us all.

Hi Clint and all commentors,
I truly enjoyed this post and all the commentary. I tend to agree with Clint about Polluck and love the concept of context! Indeed art is like fashion in a sense as someone pointed out. It all depends on what's "In". I'm glad classical art has made a comeback. I do like some non representational art as well but I guess it all depends on whether you are looking at your art as an investment or something you enjoy or both.......Investors buy what they are told will increase in value.....art lovers buy what speaks to them......the best is if your art lies somewhere in the space where these two ideas intersect....it will speak to the art lovers and the investors....Either way we will forge onward because we must! Thanks Clint and All for some great insights! Joanne

Excellent article Clint. While I was reading this I was reminded of when i was in college, they replaced all the ragged furniture in the dorm lounges to leather furniture and nice looking stuff with large screen TV's and the works and it drastically cut down on trashed lounges. Same concept I guess.

Hi Bill, Great point about the perception of artistic validity to the uninformed....I think you hit the nail on the head with that statement!

And do you ever wonder if all those people who rave about Pollock's paintings really do it because they want to be cool, and all the cool people rave?
Thanks for a good "thinking" article Clint.

Yes!! I have often seen supposedly valuable paintings, and thought to myself that if I had painted that I would be under the bed in my box of failures.

with all due respect, I think pollock had a ton of phenomenal work...along with the failures...the same failures that we all have. Anyway, we can have differing opinions, as long as someone else has the facts. (hah)

Clint,
Excellent post. The key points are Intrinsic Value and Context. As far as the Rembrandt issue goes most people will only respond to academic representation because that all they have attempted to understand. Mark Rothko's famous statement:
"There is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism. There is no such thing as a good painting about nothing". Of course many people prefer art that doesen't have to be explained.
Dan McCaw stated that the academic basics are an acquired skill. It's like learning to drive a car, but it's (ART) is NOT about driving it's about the journey. I respect technical ability, but if I can photograph it and there is no emotion
it's not art for me, it's illustration.
I can curate a show with 20 landscape artists and if the work isn't signed they all look like the sme person painted them.

Holly,
Agree with you totally....

right place, right time, etc....a little talent, a lot of perserverence and a tremendous amount of luck and/or connections....like anything else in life.....sometimes it's just who you know....or who you hang out with.....

To Rich,I would susspect that most of the 'Artists'can Actually paint!and most have the wrinkles from squinting to prove it!Since I am 54 I wont be around to see the bubble pop in modern museums art collections!But mark my words Sir,it will HAPPEN!

...And....as to this:

"I can curate a show with 20 landscape artists and if the work isn't signed they all look like the same person painted them."

REAlly??? All landscape paintings look the same to you? Hmm. I'm not even sure what to say to that.

To Bob Matheson,

Gee Bob, just when do ya think that "Bubble Pop" of yours is going to be? I'm almost 61 ...lol

You should be aware that the now world wide reverence for the "French Impressionists" (who happened to paint in a style similar to yous) were roundly pilloried and laughed at in their own time. Back then, ONLY academically trained photographic realists sanctioned by the French government could hope to be shown and few if any of them were actually successful.

The Arts establishment, Royalty, and the general Public thought this "Modern Painting" was all folly and they were ridiculed with comments like "how childish", etc..... they're worth many Millions today, aren't they, and with so many "artists" attempting to emulate their technique and subject matter. Think they're gonna Pop too?

And what about Picasso...a much later historical time period, but still a "MODERN" Artist, and they laughed at him too, when Alfred Stieglitz had his first show in America, at his New York Gallery...anyone could have picked up a couple originals for a mere $125......talk about a good investment!

For the record: I appreciate ALL Good ART...Impressionistic, Realism, Abstraction, Performance, etc.... and I personally own 42 Impressionistic / American Realism Oil Paintings purchased by ME as part of my collection, and have been an avid collector since the mid '60's.

It dosen't matter the style or medium to me, but to condemn all other types of art because it dosen't conform to what is familiar and not readily understood, seems at best narrow minded...especially with some of the negative comments from this posting being "I do art for the common man" which equals what, if not banality? or how about "If I have to think about it, etc" well God forbid you'd have to actually think!....lol.. hence my earlier posts.

Rich, very well said. I can see that in your Contemporary work, you have reached a high degree in understanding art. There are principles that all styles of art have in common just as much as there are many types of people`s choices in religion. We all try to reach an ideal somehow.

Thanks for the follow-up Mike, I kinda figured your first post was incomplete. And that was stirring many of us. You both made good points.

I was glad you mentioned Wyeth also. We all know he was criticized for being an “illustrator”, but I have yet to see anyone who could create something that spoke the way his work does. And Rockwell...in a completely different way.

Many forget that some of the greatest works of art only existed because they were commissioned (read commercial). You named all my favorite illustrators, thanks.

I commend Clint on creating an exciting dialogue with the post, it seems to have gotten everyone's blood flowing, and we're all getting a chance to clear the cobwebs having to think more deeply about what we are creating and why.

All of us have to choose what our goals for our art will be...like the old advertising phrase, good, fast, cheap...pick any two.

tom

Tom,
Had to laugh because I had forgotten good, fast, cheap, pick any two! We all wish we could be like Frank Lloyd Wright in total control. Line the collectors up outside and give them a number.

Like the sign in the diner that reads:
"This ain't Burger King. You don't get it your way you take it my way or you don't get the damn thing".

Mike, thanks for the great in-depth reply and for taking the time to check out my work--glad you liked it.

I'm glad you clarified your first post--because after you did, I agreed wholeheartedly with everything you said. Just a matter of missing information in the first post (all too common on these little threads).

cheers :)

Clint, based on the number of people who have commented here I'd say this was one of the most important observations offered here that I seen to date. I guess I should mention that I agree absolutely. I think success like guilt can sometime be derived by association. There is a lot more to it than just being there but I think most people here will know what I mean.

I know that everyone has different ideas of where to show their art and how to price it but I think after the initial thrill of being offered a spot in a gallery or a restaurant or a show or anywhere the artist needs to think about who is going to see that work and what are the chances of selling it to those people AND more importantly in my mind if the venue is not correct will they somehow be penalized by collectors in the long run.

I have heard the Van Gogh analogy for years and it is not a valid rational for not selling your work.

The IRS reminds us that if we are not making money our art is just a hobby.

There are professional standards that are set day one at art school that must be understood and then achieved. You hit the mark or you're toast. It's back to automatic transmission school to make a living.

The artists at the top of the food chain who command high prices have earned it and deserve it.
Hard work and enjoying the process is just par for the course. Most of the top artists have worked eight hours a day six days a week for twenty years and taken huge risks before they achieved success.

Getting your work into the right CONTEXT is the name of the game, no whining, no excuses. This is what Gladwell's book is about and what Clint was trying to get across.

Designer Massimo Vignelli stated the rules clearly:
Look at everything, know everything, develop a critical mind.

History, theory and criticism are the three the three fundamental elements to grow in a professional life.

History will provide you with the tools for understanding. Theory will be the philosophy of why you are doing it. And criticism will provide you with the ability to CONTINUALLY master what you are doing.

It IS incredibly difficult. But, hey we have Clint and FASO.

To Mike Kelly....Your cogent thoughts are "spot on" and speaking from a 25 plus year fulltime Professional's point of view, I can attest to it all....INCLUDING the enormous difficulties in maintaining whatever level of success you achieve, in both good economic times, and bad.

Giselle McMenamin
I finally read your post. Thanks for taking the time. I've never been a Pollack fan. He did handle paint like a whip. Personally I love Rothko and de Koonings late paintings. With your level of awareness you may enjoy reading these books if you haven't already.

The Power Of Art by Simon Schama

He covers eight painters: Caravaggio, Bernini, Rembrandt, Davis, Turner, Van Gogh, Picasso and Rothko. He puts the work in context with the time they painted.

Paint-ing Today by Tony Godfrey

The author works at Sotheby's a takes the reader through 40 years of contemporary painting. It's informative, authoritative and challenging. The book covers both abstract and figurative painting,
over 16 categories with an average of 20 painters per category. Well written covering pros and cons. I must admit that some of the work is still crap, but to those that are brave enough to challenge themselves to think out of the box even a little bit it's a good read.

I agree with almost everything everyone has said here but have seen J. Pollock's name spelled differently a couple of times.

One more point here. Here is something I've wondered about for a number of years now and it revolves around Picasso's early work versus his last few years. I've wondered if some of those last painting were done as either a joke on the whole art world, kind of I can paint anything and it will sell no matter how bad it is OR I can sell anything with my signature on it so let me go slap some paint on a canvas and print more money.

Has anyone ever seen the movie "Who the #$and percent is Jackson Pollock?" Don Hewitt, the creator of 60 Minutes, tells the true story of an ornery 73 year old former truck drive who takes on the pretentious world of fine art. Teri Horton buys a $5 painting at a thrift store. A friend suggests that it could be an authentic Jackson Pollock worth up to $50 million. Nothing will stop Teri, her lawyers and forensics experts from proving to the impenetrable art world that this trash-talking trucker is actually the extremely wealthy owner of a genuine Pollock. I thought it was very amusing and artists especially would find it entertaining.

Rich,

Thanks for the heads up on the book. Sounds like something I'd enjoy reading. That said, I just reserved it at the library. Can't wait to get my hands on it.

Michael

I'll add one more to this list. I've no idea of the historic accuracy but I found the 2004 movie Modigliani starring Andy Garcia very entertaining if not a little depressing in the end.

Typos!!! Damn artists can't spell.

Mike,

I never read it or hear it before. It's just something I always wondered about. Interesting to learn that I wasn't wrong.

Tuva,
Good post. Takes the art discussion full circle.

This whole conversation has been very interesting.

I stumbled on a list of the 100 favourite (english spelling) artists published by the London Times....

I am not trying to be instructive here, just sharing interesting facts about public preferences. These are the top 50. And look who came in number 7!

1.4MM votes as of this listing:

1 Pablo Picasso 21587
2 Paul Cezanne 21098
3 Gustav Klimt 20823
4 Claude Monet 20684
5 Marcel Duchamp 20647
6 Henri Matisse 17096
7 Jackson Pollock 17051
8 Andy Warhol 17047
9 Willem De Kooning 17042
10 Piet Mondrian 17028
11 Paul Gauguin 17027
12 Francis Bacon 17018
13 Robert Rauschenberg 16956
14 Georges Braque 16788
15 Wassily Kandinsky 16055
16 Constantin Brancusi 14224
17 Kasimir Malevich 13609
18 Jasper Johns 12988
19 Frida Kahlo 12940
20 Martin Kippenberger 12784
21 Paul Klee 12750
22 Egon Schiele 12696
23 Donald Judd 12613
24 Bruce Nauman 12517
25 Alberto Giacometti 12098
26 Salvador Dalí 11496
27 Auguste Rodin 8989
28 Mark Rothko 8951
29 Edward Hopper 8918
30 Lucian Freud 8897
31 Richard Serra 8858
32 Rene Magritte 8837
33 David Hockney 8787
34 Philip Guston 8786
35 Henri Cartier-Bresson 8779
36 Pierre Bonnard 8778
37 Jean-Michel Basquiat 8746
38 Max Ernst 8737
39 Diane Arbus 8733
40 Georgia O'Keeffe 8714
41 Cy Twombly 8708
42 Max Beckmann 8690
43 Barnett Newman 8643
44 Giorgio De Chirico 8462
45 Roy Lichtenstein 7441
46 Edvard Munch 5080
47 Pierre Auguste Renoir 5063
48 Man Ray 5050
49 Henry Moore 5045
50 Cindy Sherman 5041


enjoy

tom

Tom,

That list is pretty interesting. I do wonder though if "favorite" for the public is just a matter of exposure to these artists. If so, then we're back to the same thing with the "art community" dictating to the public what they want them to believe is "art".

I'm sorry, but as an example, just because the Metropolitan Museum of Art thinks Damien Hirst's Shark floating in a sea of formaldehyde is art "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living", I don't really have to believe them. Although lots of people now know his name. Coincidently, he's not to far from the Pollock canvas...

Michael

Hi Tom,

From one unknown to another, I'm with you. The best thing to happen to a artist is have thousands of people hating their work and stirring controversy over it. We should all be so lucky as to get there

Hi Tom, How about posting the second half of the list??? You have gotten my curiosity up and besides I didn't see John Singer Sargeant on it yet....just wondering where he landed. Thanks, Joanne

I love this post! Nothing stirs us up more than topics like this. It has to be one of the longest posts on record, and we're still going! Love it!

Rich,
Good Golly Miss Molly!!! THAT'S a resume.

Here are 50-200 in the POPULARITY POLL.

There are obviously many names most would agree masters missing from the list. To me, that's more about awareness than greatness.

50 Cindy Sherman 5041
51 Jeff Koons 5028
52 Tracey Emin 4961
53 Damien Hirst 4960
54 Yves Klein 4948
55 Henri Rousseau 4944
56 Chaim Soutine 4927
57 Arshile Gorky 4926
58 Amedeo Modigliani 4924
59 Umberto Boccioni 4918
60 Jean Dubuffet 4910
61 Eva Hesse 4908
62 Edouard Vuillard 4899
63 Carl Andre 4898
64 Juan Gris 4898
65 Lucio Fontana 4896
66 Franz Kline 4894
67 David Smith 4842
68 Joseph Beuys 4480
69 Alexander Calder 3241
70 Louise Bourgeois 3240
71 Marc Chagall 3224
72 Gerhard Richter 3123
73 Balthus 3090
74 Joan Miro 3087
75 Ernst Ludwig Kirchner 3084
76 Frank Stella 3078
77 Georg Baselitz 3048
78 Francis Picabia 3046
79 Jenny Saville 3034
80 Dan Flavin 3024
81 Alfred Stieglitz 3017
82 Anselm Kiefer 3010
83 Matthew Barney 3005
84 George Grosz 2990
85 Bernd And Hilla Becher 2980
86 Sigmar Polke 2966
87 Brice Marden 2947
88 Maurizio Cattelan 2940
89 Sol LeWitt 2926
90 Chuck Close 2915
91 Edward Weston 2899
92 Joseph Cornell 2893
93 Karel Appel 2890
94 Bridget Riley 2885
95 Alexander Archipenko 2884
96 Anthony Caro 2879
97 Richard Hamilton 2878
98 Clyfford Still 2864
99 Luc Tuymans 2862
100 Claes Oldenburg 2843
101 Eduardo Paolozzi 2839
102 Frank Auerbach 2836
103 Dinos and Jake Chapman 2827
104 Marlene Dumas 2827
105 Antoni Tapies 2825
106 Giorgio Morandi 2824
107 Walker Evans 2823
108 Nan Goldin 2819
109 Robert Frank 2818
110 Georges Rouault 2818
111 Jean Arp 2817
112 August Sander 2809
113 James Rosenquist 2808
114 Andreas Gursky 2804
115 Eugene Atget 2802
116 Jeff Wall 2790
117 Ellsworth Kelly 2789
118 Bill Brandt 2787
119 Christo And Jeanne Claude 2782
120 Howard Hodgkin 2781
121 Josef Albers 2781
122 Piero Manzoni 2777
123 Agnes Martin 2771
124 Anish Kapoor 2768
125 L.S. Lowry 2761
126 Robert Motherwell 2754
127 Robert Delaunay 2747
128 Stuart Davis 2742
129 Ed Ruscha 2731
130 Gilbert and George 2729
131 Stanley Spencer 2720
132 James Ensor 2719
133 Fernand Leger 2718
134 Brassai (Gyula Halasz) 2717
135 Alexander Rodchenko 2715
136 Robert Ryman 2711
137 Ad Reinhardt 2709
138 Hans Bellmer 2700
139 Isa Genzken 2699
140 Kees Van Dongen 2698
141 Weegee 2698
142 Paula Rego 2695
143 Thomas Hart Benton 2689
144 Hans Hofmann 2684
145 Vladimir Tatlin 2679
146 Odilon Redon 2653
147 George Segal 2619
148 Jorg Immendorff 2611
149 Robert Smithson 2435
150 Peter Doig 2324
151 Ed and Nancy Kienholz 2293
152 Richard Prince 2266
153 Ansel Adams 2262
154 Naum Gabo 2256
155 Diego Rivera 2239
156 Barbara Hepworth 2237
157 Nicolas De Stael 2237
158 Walter De Maria 2229
159 Felix Gonzalez-Torres 2228
160 Giacomo Balla 2225
161 Ben Nicholson 2221
162 Anthony Gormley 2218
163 Lyonel Feininger 2216
164 Emil Nolde 2213
165 Mark Wallinger 2211
166 Hermann Nitsch 2209
167 Paul Signac 2209
168 Jean Tinguely 2209
169 Kurt Schwitters 2209
170 Grayson Perry 2208
171 Julian Schnabel 2208
172 Raymond Duchamp-Villon 2208
173 Robert Gober 2208
174 Duane Hanson 2208
175 Richard Diebenkorn 2207
176 Alex Katz 2207
177 Alighiero E Boetti 2206
178 Henri Gaudier-Brzeska 2206
179 Laszlo Moholy-Nagy 2205
180 Jacques-Henri Lartigue 2205
181 Robert Morris 2205
182 Sarah Lucas 2204
183 Jannis Kounellis 2204
184 Chris Burden 2204
185 Otto Dix 2203
186 David Bomberg 2203
187 Fischli and Weiss 2203
188 Augustus John 2203
189 Marsden Hartley 2203
190 Takashi Murakami 2203
191 James Turrell 2202
192 Isamu Noguchi 2201
193 Robert Mangold 2201
194 John Chamberlain 2201
195 Charles Demuth 2200
196 John Currin 2200
197 Alberto Burri 2200
198 Arnulf Rainer 2200
199 David Salle 2200
200 Hiroshi Sugimoto 2199


I think deciding what is art, and what is not if fine, but it can lead to defining limits on creativity and innovation. I just saw one of Picasso's bovine prints. It's interesting how he used line to segment the form. Hirst did that as well. (hah)

have fun!

Mike,
I thought the same thing about "the list." While I do not know all the artist's work, how many are realistic painters? "Abstraction presents refreshing possibilities for giving voice to human emotion." Great quote, Mike. I did notice however that many of the artists were known for creating a new way of handling their focus or subject matter. All art can not be just realistic. If you view an abstract, it is perfectly fine to say "I don't get it." What about that abstract that holds your attention? To me art is all about communication to the viewer. I do not like all abstract art. I appreciate abstract art in which the elements and principles are the stars of the show, period.

As I said before, I love to explore the unknown besides painting realistically. Recently at a professional art show I won Best of Show (realistic piece) and 1st place (abstract). When the judge was told, "you have selected the same artist for BOS (Let the Light Shine Through) and 1st (Fantasy XX), the judge said "there is no way the styles are so different!" Her decision was not changed. I know other artists hated that. How can an abstract win over realistically rendered subject matter? Some judges are looking for something "new and exciting."

I also agree with Tom Weinkle who said, "I think deciding what is art, and what is not is fine, but it can lead to defining limits on creativity and innovation." Just as we do not have to agree we all love every kind of music. I think we can appreciate it, but not prefer listening to it. The same can be said about art,cinema, dance...all the arts!

You'll need to distinguish between art and collectible art. Art can occur anywhere and even a usually mediocre artist can create a masterpiece when his heart is touched and he manages to convey that in his work.
I've always thought that he museums featured artists who found a new viewpoint, took a previously undiscovered direction or found a different way to express themselves. Surely you have to give Pollack credit for that. I don't especially relate to his work but he is unmistakeable isn't he? I mean you don't find his art at any point earlier in mankind's history and while he has been imitated since, he was the first to get attention for this type of style.
But that is not the same as creating something that moves people when they look at it.
When friends have asked me what makes a good work of art I have told them it depends on what matters to them.
Painting of the Hudson River aren't especially meaningful to everyone but to someone who grew up in that area and were imprinted with the beauty of the area paintings of the area are meaningful
I tell my friends to ask themselves before they buy art of any kind: Will this still move me in a decade? Will I still find something meaningful in it when I'm old? Will I be happy looking at it every day of my life? If they can answer yes they should take it with them regardless of the cost, whether it's 50,000 or 50 dollars (providing they have it at all that is!) The bring it home and give it context, right there in your home. Where you display it in your home can give a work importance or make it trivial too. Context - we can give it or take it away.