# Is the art world too "elitist"?



## mishele (May 9, 2012)

I've been thinking about this topic since my opening this weekend. I started reading the catalog of artist bios and statements and realized that they were mostly about their accomplishments rather than their art. Has the art world sold it's soul to the devil??  Does a degree really make your art better than someone w/ out a degree? A degree equals more money in most areas, should it in art? I have more to say but I'll let you guys play w/ this first.....

Have fun!! I want to hear what you think!!!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 9, 2012)




----------



## bentcountershaft (May 9, 2012)

I have opinions that cover the spectrum on the world of art, but essentially it's just like any other group.  It's all about being on the inside to those on the outside.  To those on the inside it's about making those on the outside want in.  You don't want to make people "get it" you want to make people _want_ to "get it."


----------



## IByte (May 9, 2012)

mishele said:
			
		

> I've been thinking about this topic since my opening this weekend. I started reading the catalog of artist bios and statements and realized that they were mostly about their accomplishments rather than their art. Has the art world sold it's soul to the devil??  Does a degree really make your art better than someone w/ out a degree? A degree equals more money in most areas, should it in art? I have more to say but I'll let you guys play w/ this first.....
> 
> Have fun!! I want to hear what you think!!!



Only for a careers that you need to be certified for like lawyers, doctors etc.  But art computer, photography, is more based on experience, but in the art world definitely a portfolio.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 9, 2012)

Mishele, I always knew you were some kind of elitist artsy fartsy lady. 


JEEEEEEEZE. 







Totally kidding BTW. Artists that are too absorbed in themselves are douchey to the core. You, on the other hand, are an artist and a damn nice person too. No douchey-ness on you!


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 9, 2012)

I think art is sold based on who the artist is. In many cases the artist has been created by a gallery that has chosen to display the work of a "new and exciting" artist, people get sucked into believing that this artist is the next great thing and the work has now become more valuable based on the hype.  The same thing can be said in photography, there are photographers that people want to be like,  simply because of the reputation that has been created.

An interesting story about Karsh, great portrait photographer, it was his wife that started the hype about this new photographer,  someone had gone into to his studio to ask about having his portrait shot, he asked about Mr Karsh, she replied it's just Karsh, you wouldn't refer to God as Mr God. 

Having the right name also makes a difference, an artist with the name "John Smith" is less likely to have people stand up and take notice, but changing his name to french and just using "Jean", would make a difference.  "Art by Jean", sounds better than "Art by John Smith".  It's just perception.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (May 9, 2012)

Aren't the bios written by the artist themselves? Shameless self promotion....


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 9, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Aren't the bios written by the artist themselves? Shameless self promotion....



In the art world, like many other areas, the people that can sell themselves generally have more success than people that can't.  Regardless of talent or lack thereof.


----------



## Ysarex (May 9, 2012)

Absolutely!

Joe


----------



## GeorgieGirl (May 9, 2012)

I don't think those that self promote are really all that good because of it.  The work speaks for itself and the self promotion... Well it just speaks self promotion. In fact in my opinion it detracts from any sort of respect for the person....in the end we want to like the persons.


----------



## KenC (May 9, 2012)

mishele said:


> I've been thinking about this topic since my opening this weekend. I started reading the catalog of artist bios and statements and realized that they were mostly about their accomplishments rather than their art. Has the art world sold it's soul to the devil??  Does a degree really make your art better than someone w/ out a degree? A degree equals more money in most areas, should it in art? I have more to say but I'll let you guys play w/ this first.....
> 
> Have fun!! I want to hear what you think!!!



The answers are yes, no, and no.


----------



## Derrel (May 9, 2012)

I don't think it's too elitist. Why??? Because the people who actually MAKE IT in the art world have to work their ASSES off, and the vast,vast majority are simply "failed artists". So, no, I do not think is elitist. Instead, I think it is much more of a meritocracy, in which those deserving of success seek out success, and then MAKE success, and those who are of lesser abilities simply do not achieve success, and go into other careers where a regular paycheck, benefits, and a 401k are very real possibilities.


----------



## Tony S (May 9, 2012)

It's an artist bio.... it's supposed to be about the artist.  The artists comments can be what ever they want, as an artist they don't have to conform to a set ideal.
  Get comments on the art itself from the art critics and buyers.


----------



## pgriz (May 10, 2012)

Hmmm...  My wife is an artist, teaches art.  One of her good friends is an art gallery dealer.  Several of her other friends are also working (as in starving) artists.  So we have some exposure to the art scene and what goes on.  The number of people who understand "art" are as numerous as the people who understand "photography", which is to say, not very many, and usually don't agree with each other even if they are "knowledgeable".  The rest rely on "assumed wisdom" - comments by critics (or other experts) that they appropriate as their own.  Which is why so much "art" is rather paltry, but succeeds because it is well promoted. 

And art is no different than any other human activity, where perceptions trump almost always the "objective" reality.  We, as a society, willingly believe that some gook in an attractive bottle will somehow make us look like an airbrushed (or photoshopped) version of Cindy Crawford or Drew Barrymore.  We willingly believe that wearing the gear endorsed by some celebrity, will somehow make us "better" or more attractive.  In art, writing a lot of words that breathlessly describe the piece "as breaking with the tradition of Hewitt, Tradinskyi and Volschkoff, the artist's work show a willingess to create a new bold direction of fusing chroma representation with the abstract tonality of Brazinski", means that no-one will actually understand, but it really sounds profound.  And therefore, desirable.  Woe be to the sceptic that looks up Hewitt, Tradinskyi and Volschkoff and finds out that they are made-up names, and that chroma representation is also known as using colored paint.

As for Mishele's original question regarding art as "elitist", it has to be.   It's a little like stock investing, in which one buys a stock "because it has good upside potential" and relies on making a profit by selling it to a greater fool.  People sometimes buy art because it speaks to them and creates an emotional resonance.  But usually, it is bought as an investment, because once the name becomes famous, it will be worth much more and you can sell it to the next and greater fool.  But to make that work, you need to talk up the unknown artist as someone worth following.  

A number of years ago, we went to an art gallery showing the work of an artist who was just starting out.  She had some cute concepts, but nothing that my wife or I thought was particularly brilliant.  However, this lady was smart about her self promotion, and made sure that everyone who saw her art got onto her e-mail list, and was very aggressive in booking her work into various art galleries, and having various groups review her work and using these reviews to build a positive impression.  After about five years of hard work, we see her stuff showing up in high-end galleries and we've read recently that she has been nominated for some prestigious awards.  Her stuff has not evolved tremendously in the five years, but the body of favorable reviews and contacts and exhibitions that she has organized give the impression of someone making waves in the art world.  

It's not all hocus-pokus and fluff.  There is definitely good stuff being made.  But you need to develop an eye for yourself, and to learn to critically assess what you are looking at.  That takes time and effort, and too many people would rather just pick up someone else's opinion and appropriate it as their own.  Thereby giving the fashion elite their power to influence.


----------



## mishele (May 10, 2012)

Do I think the art world is elitist......sure do....lol Do I think that is a bad thing....yes and no. In a perfect world I would love to see art taken at it's face value rather than how much money can be made off of it in 5 years. Money adds an element to art that usually is not planned by the artist...lol Money dirtys the mind.
Now back to reality, I understand that gallery owners are running a business and they need to invest in people that take themselves seriously. The galleries that I've been looking at need you to submit a resume along w/ your work.  I'm building that resume by being in these shows.

I guess jumping into the art world kinda reminds me of when I first started in Photography. I remember how heart broken I was when I learned that every single photo you see has some sort of PP done to it. lol Now I'm realizing in the art world, that it's not just your work that is being judge, it is YOU ! =)


----------



## jwbryson1 (May 10, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> I have opinions that cover the spectrum on the world of art, but essentially it's just like any other group.  It's all about being on the inside to those on the outside.  To those on the inside it's about making those on the outside want in.  You don't want to make people "get it" you want to make people _want_ to "get it."



This is spot on and a very good observation.  It's not about "getting it," but rather about wanting others to WANT TO get it.  It makes the whole thing very "romantic" and pressing.  Very well said.  :thumbup:


----------



## GnipGnop (May 10, 2012)

I suggest you look into mass culture theories like Structuralism, Post Structuralism, Modernism, Post Modernism, theory of the spectacle, etc. You'll find people have been critically thinking about the topic of "art" and it's political, cultural and social implications for quite a long time. You'll also find a more informed and thoughtful discussion amongst the scholars who spent their entire lives devoted to this school of thinking.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (May 10, 2012)

mishele said:
			
		

> Do I think the art world is elitist......sure do....lol Do I think that is a bad thing....yes and no. In a perfect world I would love to see art taken at it's face value rather than how much money can be made off of it in 5 years. Money adds an element to art that usually is not planned by the artist...lol Money dirtys the mind.
> Now back to reality, I understand that gallery owners are running a business and they need to invest in people that take themselves seriously. The galleries that I've been looking at need you to submit a resume along w/ your work.  I'm building that resume by being in these shows.
> 
> I guess jumping into the art world kinda reminds me of when I first started in Photography. I remember how heart broken I was when I learned that every single photo you see has some sort of PP done to it. lol Now I'm realizing in the art world, that it's not just your work that is being judge, it is YOU ! =)



So Michele, what is your impression of their resumes? Do they appear to be factual, grounded or down to earth, or are they pretentious and overstated?


----------



## mishele (May 10, 2012)

The whole art world is a little pretentious, isn't it? lol 
The artists wrote what they thought would sell their work. Some of them, IMHO, were a little over the top w/ the accomplishments, but hey they should be proud. Did their cold list of accomplishments make me enjoy their work more? Nope. But I can see how an investor would like to see that. It gives the artist some credibility and shows dedication.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 11, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't need a resume. I just read their artist statements and that tells me enough to know whether they are the kind of people I would want to associate with or not.
There are ALOT of pretentious artist statements it seems....


----------



## EDL (May 11, 2012)

I guess everyone has their own definition of what art is and what it should be.

For me it is far less about the artist than it is about the work.  I am not looking to buy the artist and place him/her in my home, but rather the photo, painting, sculpture, etc.

Perhaps I have a far too simplistic view, but I am perfectly capable of deciding if I like a work or not, without all the pretentiousness that may surround it.

I also have a tendency to attribute skill, or at least my perception of skill behind the creation of the work.  For example, I am much more interested in seeing the work of one of the artists painting or chalking those 3D scenes on a street (the ones that look real) than I am some highly regarded fluff who splatters paint on a canvas and calls it art.

To me the street artist has some serious skills, it doesn't take much to splatter paint.

I'd much rather see what Paul Cadden comes out with next than anything ever done by Andy Warhol.  

I do get the whole investment thing though, but that's a lot about money and promotion and less about the real art, IMHO.  I guess if you consider the very rich, pretty much everything in their social circles is really about money.


----------

