Further to (for instance) this, Peter Whittle on the frightened arts and their irrelevance:
Art has not shocked, provoked or otherwise challenged for years now. The belief that it does, should or could is almost endearingly quaint when one hears it voiced… If you doubt this, then try to think of a novel, play, film or piece of installation art which, for example, seriously criticises the doctrine of multiculturalism. With a tiny number of honourable and genuinely brave exceptions — Lloyd Newson’s DV8 dance troupe’s 2011 production of Can We Talk About This? being one — there is a deafening silence on what is one of the most urgent issues of our time. Similarly, the chances of the BBC commissioning a drama which explores the experiences of an ageing white couple in an area transformed by mass immigration — surely a subject with real dramatic potential — are virtually nil. And if such a project ever did see the light of transmission, the audience could be forgiven for predicting quite accurately all the conclusions that would inevitably be drawn.
On a whole host of issues — foreign aid, climate change, social inequality — the viewer, gallery-goer and novel-reader, far from being shocked, provoked or given even a slightly alternative perspective, generally know exactly what they are going to get. For our cultural establishment, there is a right and a wrong way of looking at such issues and as a result the arts, far from being “challenging” or “cutting edge,” have essentially become the providers of window dressing, a sort of visual aid unit, for the views and assumptions of the political and media class.
Johnathan Pearce on deserving this and that:
If a person is born with great intelligence and this enables him to create wealth, he might not “deserve” it, but neither do those lucky enough to be born in a world containing this person, so they do not deserve the fruits of that wealth, nor do they have the right to seize it on some spurious redistributionist, Rawlsian grounds.
And with these notable coincidences in mind, Mark Steyn notes some more:
A couple of weeks back, cancer patient Bill Elliot, in a defiant appearance on Fox News, discussed the cancellation of his insurance and what he intended to do about it. He’s now being audited. Insurance agent C Steven Tucker, who quaintly insists that the whimsies of the hyper-regulatory bureaucracy do not trump your legal rights, saw the interview and reached out to Mr Elliot to help him. And he’s now being audited. As the Instapundit likes to remind us, Barack Obama has “joked” publicly about siccing the IRS on his enemies. With all this coincidence about, we should be grateful the President is not (yet) doing prison-rape gags.
How many makes a pattern?
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets in the comments.
Yeah, I got that LC…if you’d bothered to read my response to you. I doubt you noticed, but I also pointed out that you misrepresent what, and again let’s get the boy’s name right this time, Worstall…Tim precisely, actually said in regard to Adam Smith. I was looking for the source of Worstall’s relaying of Adam Smith. This being the internet, games of telephone are rather unnecessary.
Also, ahhh…never mind.
There’s this, from Chapter 10 of Wealth of Nations:
Taken from http://geolib.com/smith.adam/won1-10.html
Now that could reasonably be paraphrased as ‘when you consider the joy and interest of a job you expect those that are interesting and joyful to be lower paid than those that are less so’: but note that this is only one of five factors that he identifies, so perhaps a better paraphrase would be to insert between ‘expect’ and ‘those’ the qualifying clause ‘, all else being equal,’.
And ‘you shouldn’t get paid for it’ would be a very inaccurate reading indeed.
Ahhh….David, I f’d up a bracket in my comment @ December 02, 2013 at 19:15
Lauran
Your paintings are atrocious. Just admit it. Your drawing is mediocre, your colours are garish, and the paint is applied without any love or care or imagination. Your subject matter is boring. It all adds up to the impression that your breeze through these works without any effort.
I’ve met dozens of painters like you at art school. You never cease to amaze me in that you seem to think a lot of people are going to value this type of work, when it’s so obviously amateurish dreck.
Practice more. Practice a lot. Draw from life. That is my advice to you.
@Anon: You joker!
Somebody close the bold door. There’s bold spilling out everywhere. I’ll have a go…
Now my comment just looks stupid.
This is surreal
A surreal ethereal version of the Circus Maximus, and I think Caesar just held his hand out and turned his thumb down
(the bold tag and the sheepish message from WTP just add to the comedy, btw. I vote to reinstate the bold spillage!)
Thing is, I’ve known artists who get vast amounts of encouragement from friends and sometimes family for producing relatively inoffensive, and quite meaningless splodges of colour on a canvas. Friends will wax lyrical over how talented the artist is.
I always imagine the producer of the splodges must have these dark nights of the soul where they wonder if they have any talent at all. Having a sort of semi-creative life myself, I’ve never had the heart to pop the balloon of anyone’s self-worth. I see others have no problem, though 🙂
Lauran..
i think the concept you are failing to understand, is one of trade-off…
ie Total Job Reward = Job Satisfaction + Remuneration
this clearly is a personal value, and has nothing to do with other people expecting you to work for nothing.
Somebody close the bold door.
I leave you alone for a couple of hours and when I get back there’s a cigarette burn in the rug and bold all over the place. I say we ignite some torches and chase WTP from the village.
I always imagine the producer of the splodges must have these dark nights of the soul where they wonder if they have any talent at all. Having a sort of semi-creative life myself, I’ve never had the heart to pop the balloon of anyone’s self-worth. I see others have no problem, though 🙂
My mother insisted on putting one of my early paintings up in her lounge, and my wife put one up one up in our bedroom. I hate them both! (the paintings, that is) but they both insist on their apparent quality. It’s just one of those things. Family and friends must be the worst barometers of a new artist’s skills.
Part of me is kind of feeling a little bit bad for Lauran … on the other hand, I’ve just laughed so hard at the preceding exchanges that I thought I might rupture something.
This blog’s tip jar has been duly hit.
This blog’s tip jar has been duly hit.
May your boots remain fragrant on the longest of yomps.
. . . I say we ignite some torches and chase WTP from the village.
Now, now, David, you’re only allowed to do that if WTP is electronically animated and a stitched together assemblage of random body parts.
Otherwise you’re going to have to stick to the traditional methods of pointedly staring off somewhere else, exhorting that the populace demand a delivery of hemlock, or just calling in an assassin of some quality to just whack ‘im.
Can I just say that, while I agree that commercial enterprises not paying artists whose work they make money off is disgraceful, asking for donations is what charities do, and it doesn’t have to be a donation of money, it can be time, effort and skill. Whatever, a donation is voluntary and you’re within your rights to decline to donate anything. But you can’t fault them for asking.
Nik Brown – don’t feel bad for me, people are entitled to say any crap they like and they obviously have. I can’t imagine why you tipped David though.
I feel bad for you, Lauran. Sorry.
“… I say we ignite some torches and chase WTP from the village. ”
N-n-n-now let’s not do anything hasty…Think of costs of recruiting, training, the legal fees of onboarding a new idiot. Granted the new one may not have such fat fingers…look over there in the tip jar (scatterscatterscatter).
…people often do ask artists to work for free. Not because our work isn’t deemed good… but rather because of people’s ignorant and bizarre attitudes to art work.
Right. The rude masses don’t like my output enough to pay anything for it, and that’s their fault for being ignorant and bizarre, so their government should compel them to pay for it. Lauran, I actually like (a little) some of your stuff – but not nearly enough to pay for it. On what basis would you extort money from me (some of which would go to other artists whose work I like better), to fund the continuing production of a product I don’t value?
Amateur artists getting underpaid for the work they do (and having that work undervalued) is certainly A Thing that exists. This friend of mine, who does absolutely stunning work and is also (unfortunately from a money-making standpoint) an incredible sweetheart who frequently gives away freebies, has a very hard time convincing people that they should pay full value for her commissions. I’ve heard similar complaints from other talented artists, though usually they’re hobbyists who don’t do art as their full-time job but instead take commissions on an occasional basis. The underlying issue, I think, is not so much a lack of value for art as a lack of appreciation for the amount of time and effort that goes into it–and changing that is not going to be enforced top-down on the culture by art subsidies or better education. In my friend’s case, salvation from people ripping her off came from a more practical friend of ours taking on the role of her manager and telling people they could pay full value or not get anything at all. Which seemed to work pretty well, from what I’ve seen.
…But this is also why I feel comfortable telling people if they want art from me they can pay what I get paid hourly at my day job, because it gives me a good benchmark for what an hour of my time is worth–and therefore what a four-hour piece of art is worth.
At least, if I were more confident in my own artwork, that’s how I’d offer it. I’m just a dabbler, however, and have never felt particularly comfortable doing commissioned work given I know many people much better than I.
Well, I for one have learned something from this.
To suggest that we have an oversupply of arts graduates, even to acknowledge the realities of supply and demand, is to hold views “deleterious to the human spirit.” To note that some people will tolerate lower pay to do things they find gratifying is also a no-no. And if an artist makes paintings that aren’t selling well, or at all, then something must be wrong with the general public. Because aesthetic discernment means liking whatever it is an artist does, however ineptly. My plan to make a killing with incredibly heavy and uncomfortable porcelain shoes is looking better by the minute.
N-n-n-now let’s not do anything hasty
[ Feels weight of tip jar. ]
Stand down, angry rabble. I’m feeling a sudden warmth for my fellow man.
The TypePad spam filter is still playing up. If anyone has trouble posting comments, email me and I’ll pry them loose.
Adam Smith’s belief that if you enjoy your work you shouldn’t get paid for it.
Wow. An artist *and* a historian.
I read this…
“A very particular and telling illustration of people’s strange attitudes to art production is given in the tale of how my new painting ‘Healing in Theta’ evolved… I was asked by a women’s breast cancer organisation to do some live art for an event. Both of the people I spoke to in reference to this said that they were highly excited by my art and were extremely complimentary about it – unlike yourself, but that suggests you haven’t bothered to look it – and both of these people were doing paid work for the event. But still they asked me to ‘donate’ my work. Ridiculous.”
And then I looked at the art they didn’t offer to pay for…
http://lauranchilds.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/1thetaglenn2.jpg
And then I looked at the art they didn’t offer to pay for…
I take it you’ve seen Ms Childs’ elaborate, if somewhat puzzling, explanation for that painting’s, um, features? You see, it’s not merely a painting; it’s actually “a story about spiritual healing, self-healing, changing one’s DNA” and “absorbing star energy in DNA.” The generous application of glitter paint “alludes to spiritual energy.” And hair is “spiritual antennae.” A Rastafarian said so.
As you can imagine, the painting’s gestation was nothing short of a spiritual odyssey:
And then tragedy struck.
Yes, it’s simply incredible. Those breast cancer funds were being diverted from Ms Childs’ creative greatness and spent instead on something frivolous. I see dark forces at work.
That was entertaining once, but I too want to stick up for Grayson perry who has a lot of very acid and pertinent things to say about the phoneyness of the modern art world. Perry doesn’t really belong in the company that is being foisted on him. His pottery isn’t to everyone’s taste, but we can all agree it’s well made at least and earns its keep. He got there by selling stuff to real people not arts institutions. Like he says, if you had knocked on his door a couple of years ago he would have gladly sold you a pot for £50 (the investment of a lifetime). And he is very funny.
The Caduceus of Fried Eggs. I like.
Actually, I’m not sure that a breast cancer charity — you know, the kind that raises money to be put into understanding the aetiology of breast cancers, and how best to detect and treat them — would be particularly happy about paying for a piece of artwork which is ‘really about self-healing and not going to allopathic doctors’.
Breast cancer charities (and other cancer research organisations) are, I think you’ll find, quite in favour of doctors and treatments that actually work, rather than homoeopathic remedies or other such stupidity.
Nik Brown – don’t feel bad for me, people are entitled to say any crap they like and they obviously have. I can’t imagine why you tipped David though.
Well I must admit I tend to feel a little sympathy for anyone who finds themselves both clearly outnumbered not to mention completely out of their depth. But now having perused a little of your website, it’s clearly the case that you are possessed of quite a thick skin, perhaps even a Teflon-coated one; for it takes an incredibly thick skin to make the following complaint, as you do on your website, when you recount your disappointment at not being paid for your work Healing in Theta, which you had undertaken in response to a request … from an organisation connected to breast cancer:
Mysteriously, despite my connection’s extreme excitement about me live painting, the request was withdrawn with budget restraints cited as the reason. Given the extreme funds that go into the breast cancer industry, this seemed incredible to me. [bold type as in the original]
Are you actually saying these words?
Do you truly genuinely find it so ‘incredible’ that funds raised by members of the public through charitable events and donated to research into breast cancer should not then be diverted to buying a painting (no matter what the quality or who the artist is)?
Reading that makes me suspect strongly that I am actually corresponding with Tina Fey right now, and that ‘Lauran Childs’ is in fact a recently invented comedy-character sketch persona à la Borat or her version of Sarah Palin.
This suspicion seems well on the way to being confirmed by the fact that you apparently charge a rate of $50 – $100 an hour for writing that proves to be of highly questionable quality, judging by the books you have written under the name of “Lara Adams” in How to Look Young and Beautiful Forever and Rock Star
On another note, should it turn out to be the case that you are not an invention of Tina Fey’s comedic imagination, please be aware that it is not only artists and musicians etc. who get asked to do things for free, but almost anyone who has a particular skill.
I have an uncle who is a car mechanic who is regularly called upon by relatives and friends to do a professional job on their cars, for which he only charges for the parts. I have a number of bilingual friends who are frequently asked to do translations of all manner of things as a favour; and, responding to requests to do so, I have volunteered my time to teach both illiterate British high school kids as well as refugees and asylum seekers from the conflict in Afghanistan.
Moreover, of all my friends who are employed on a quote-unquote 35- or 37-hour a week contract, I don’t know a single one who doesn’t do 45-50 hours regularly and 60+ hour weeks are not unknown either. Whether that should be so or not is an entirely separate argument, but the fact remains that anyone who is an adult and who has a job will inevitably end up doing work ‘for free’ regardless of what line they are.
I had to look up “allopathic”. Apparently it’s a term used by homeopaths to describe real medicine.
So basically, we have an artist who demands money from a medical charity because they’ve got plenty of it and spending it on medical research and treatment is a waste of time, because all those women (and men) with breast cancer can just get better through willpower, positive thinking and distilled water.
She should stand by her principles. If she believes in homeopathy, she should get paid in homeopathic quantities of money. It should have the same spending power as actual banknotes.
Minnow,
I too want to stick up for Grayson Perry who has a lot of very acid and pertinent things to say about the phoneyness of the modern art world.
By all means do. Mr Perry may well be a swell guy and he seems to have been granted “national treasure” status, at least among some, but I’m not a fan of his art. I think he’s a better self-publicist than an artist. And to be fair to Peter Whittle, his criticism of Perry centres on how his “daring” comments were very belated and for the most part unremarkable, except insofar as they were delivered in a frock during a Reith Lecture. (As Whittle says, “In keeping with art itself, Perry’s observations were rather behind the times.”) Given the art establishment’s grandiose claims of radicalism and relentless self-congratulation, one might have hoped for something more cutting and precise, and said much earlier.
That said, I’m going to watch Mr Perry’s Channel 4 series All in the Best Possible Taste in the hope of being surprised.
Not everyone is going to like Perry’s pottery of course (although I think it is very pretty) but it is a little unfair to criticise him up for being inadequately radical when the artworld’s absurd claims to daring, shock and radicalism are some of the main targets of his satire. He only wears dresses, by the way, because he likes to and doesn’t think he should have to pretend he doesn’t. He makes not larger claims for it, he isn’t ‘his own artwork’. There is no intention to epate the bourgeoisie wrapped up in the tights and heels. Of course a large section of the bourgeoisie do seem to get themselves epated anyhow, but you can hardly blame Perry for that. I don’t understand the force of the ‘self publicist’ criticism either, when your income depends on selling stuff, you had better get good at publicity if you don’t want to live in an attic with tiny frozen fingers.
I don’t understand the force of the ‘self publicist’ criticism either,
It wasn’t meant as a criticism of self-publicity. The man’s in show business. It’s what he has to do. I just think he’s better at that than at making things that are beautiful.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/national-treasure-status-granted-to-pretty-much-everyone-2013120381654
Well, I’ve just watched Perry’s documentary series about class and taste. It isn’t great TV and it didn’t hold my attention throughout, but it’s occasionally insightful and funny (the various definitions of tartiness, fretting about the sugar content of yoghurts, etc). I think it’s more interesting than the tapestries he produced as a result of it, which seemed superfluous. As so often there’s an emphasis on the artwork being about something and relying heavily on that, as if that were an adequate compensation for the thing being visually unappealing.
To be honest, the “artwork” in question is somewhat reminiscent of what I remember seeing wandering around the pre-GCSE art student exhibitions. It’s of a sort with what some of the lesser-to-moderately talented students were producing at that juncture.
And no, I couldn’t do better. But then, being a fan of the idea of the concept of comparative advantage, I understand that there are other things I’m less bad at that I could be doing – and, more importantly, that people are prepared to pay me for.
I would LOVE to get paid for doing my hobbies – but nobody is going to in any way that I could reasonably live off, and turning a hobby into a business can rapidly turn you off the hobby. In any case you end up spending more of your time on other issues than the actual former hobby, unless you are one of the lucky few.
“As so often there’s an emphasis on the artwork being about something and relying heavily on that, as if that were an adequate compensation for the thing being visually unappealing.”
It’s surprising to read that because the usual complaint about Perry, what makes him a bit of an artworld outsider, is that the stuff he makes is too pretty, too easy, too obvious in its appeal and not challenging enough. It seems the poor love can’t win.
Minnow,
the usual complaint about Perry, what makes him a bit of an artworld outsider, is that the stuff he makes is too pretty, too easy, too obvious in its appeal
What I mean about the tapestries is that they rely for their effect on spotting references – a particular ornament, a choice of newspaper – rather than on any obvious visual aesthetic, at least to my eye. They’re more of a collaged puzzle than a visual reward, in that you have to ‘read’ the content, identify the components and guess at what they might signify. It’s hard to engage with this kind of art in an unselfconscious way, which to me seems quite limiting. Though, I grant you, that’s probably a matter of taste. Your mileage may vary.
It seems the poor love can’t win.
He’s a Turner Prize winner with a CBE, a media career and presumably a healthy bank balance. I’m sure he’ll cope with my lack of interest somehow.
Careful David:
My plan to make a killing with incredibly heavy and uncomfortable porcelain shoes is looking better by the minute.
Noting that hipsters’ demand for adulation leaves them with no trace of taste or style, apparently they’re already ahead of you.
An interesting question comes to mind to ask these examples of The Greatest Artist Of The Millenium.
Dear TGAOTM. Following your ongoing and heart rending pleas, hearts have been installed and we need to see which one of two exclusive choices you would accept, you choose, and you can only choose one of the following.
A) You are universally acknowledged as The absolute master of what you do, your name is cheered in the streets, you will be remembered forever, and you get absolutely No payment whatsoever. You will always have to do something else to get food and a roof.
B) You are paid extremely well for what you do and are totally free to go off and do and explore and make and create anything that you wish, totally at will, where you will forever remain anonymous, absolutely no one knows you for what you do, even as they have and make use of what you do every day.
I feel sorry for Lauren.
She impresses me as someone who was mistreated terribly as a child and as a result never really matured beyond a certain point. I’ve known people like her, who end up latching on to certain turns of language or “scenes” and then mimic the tropes so that they can belong to something that seems intelligent or meaningful. It’s the best they can do.
As for her artwork’s apparent amateurism, Picasso’s cubism was often criticized under the “even I could do that” clause; however, when you look at his early work, you see that he could do photographic as well. The stylization and conceptualism came later.
Does Lauren have earlier works that display a talent for, say, portraiture? I ask that in earnest. Because the ability to accurately reproduce a face is the art world’s equivalent of music’s perfect pitch.
Correction: Lauran, with an A instead of E.
My apologies.
“Your mileage may vary.”
It does and always will – as with football and, no doubt, most things about which people get passionate and personal, opinions will always vary and so they should. Earlier in the thread somebody mentioned, with what seemed to be much reverence, the Fall. I remain an old punk rocker with a taste for loud & demanding music but have never been able to figure out the appeal of the Fall even whilst being accutely aware that it seems a given that they (he) are (is) to be respected. Same goes for the Ramones – they just sound like Showaddywaddy on a bad night to me; why they are cool totally escapes me. The point is, it doesn’t matter. However great Mark E Smith may or may not be his overall popularity is fairly accuurately reflected in his record sales from which he appears to make an adequate but unspectacular living. I have never heard him complain that his position as an alternative ‘national treasure’ should be recognised with hand-outs fom the arts council. Then again I haven’t paid much attention to him so perhaps he has.
On the other hand if the earlier contributor was referring to the other ‘The Fall’, the one from which Mark E lifted his band name, then I would have to agree to its genius. My wife disagrees – she apparently couldn’t finish it for risk of an outbreak of self-harm.
We both bought our own copies. Voluntarily.
Earlier in the thread somebody mentioned, with what seemed to be much reverence, the Fall.
That would be Paul. And I’m not touching that one.
Steve. Mark E Smith is well-known for his work ethic, something he mentions in practically every interview. And he’s on record many times bemoaning the fact that pop groups can get government grants and other hand-outs. He’d be in full agreement with David on this particular issue.
He’s always been satisfied with the meagre living he makes and is under no illusions that The Fall will ever achieve anything approaching mainstream success: “Do they think I’m daft? Oh no, the new single didn’t get to number one!”
I adore them. But I fully understand why most people (the cloth-eared fools!) don’t.
In other news, Pope re-iterates Catholic teaching on abortion, leftist mob attacks cathedral in Argentina:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/feminist-mob-attacks-cathedral/
Aren’t we forever being told that obsession with money is bad, and we should all look to increase our spiritual happiness in terms which are not materialistic? Then wham! I’m an artist, and I want money more than anything else – including free publicity. Not very consistent, is it?
I once took a photo in Seoul, posted it on my blog, and some chap popped up in the comments asking if he could use it in his book. Sure, I said, provided you credit me with it, which he duly did (the book was published). I never thought of asking for money, I was more interested in the bragging rights of having a photo published. Now if I had dozens of people asking to publish my photos (I don’t, that was a one-off) I’d probably chance my arm at selling the rights to one, and if that was accepted, selling more, and so on until I could plausibly make a living out of it.
What I don’t do is start taking random photos and blubbering that nobody is buying them and I might need to go and get a job somewhere. Surely doing art for a living comes as a result of people being willing to pay for your work, not simply by declaring that this is what you’re going to do?