Some news: I may have another trade lined up.
I want to thank everyone who has approached me about trading since my last trade and apologize to those I haven’t contacted. This damn thing called a job has kept me too busy to respond to everyone. So thank you.
I won’t say much about my next potential trade, lest I jinx it. But I will say that I am very excited: the conceptual, the existential and the astrological are all lining up very nicely.
I have been thinking about the nature of art lately and have been inclining to some bizarre form of Kantianism.
Kant’s view can be understood best by considering a peculiar claim he makes about genius: genius only occurs in art.
Kant’s view strikes many as strange, since most people would readily apply the ‘genius’ label to a scientist like Einstein or a mathematician like Kurt Gödel.
But according to Kant, a true genius makes the rule according to which others are judged. Mathematicians and scientists, though they can be intellectually extraordinarily gifted, nonetheless must at the end of the day respond to some set of objective facts that, so to speak, force their hands.
Artists, on the other hand, are not so constrained. That is partly the result of the elusive nature of beauty: there is no actual specification of artistic beauty that demands our assent as beautiful apart from some standard that results from artists producing their art.
That sounds fairly abstract, I know. Here is a way to think about it. Until Van Gogh painted Starry Night, nothing in the world would have recommended that he paint his painting in quite the way he did. But once produced, Starry Night itself becomes some kind of standard that defines beauty, so much so that one is inclined to think: of course that’s the way Van Gogh painted Starry Night.
Well, at least Kant’s view starts to sound good to me if I say it enough times. But then, most views of beauty are like that.
That beauty; that damn, damn beauty!
Monday, March 7, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The Underbelly
Although artists may aspire to beauty, where there is money to be made, there will be people trying to make it. And where there are people trying to make money, there will be people trying to control the market.
Beauty it would seem has an underbelly.
After my latest trade, I corresponded with two different artists who talked about the underbelly of the art world. Regina Valluzzi (whose art can be seen here: http://www.nerdlypainter.com/) is both a research scientist and an artist. She made the following comments.
One thing I have noticed is that artists will protest vehemently about being sorted into categories that seem to describe accomplishment level, for example "amateur" "student" "emerging" "established" "acclaimed". Nevertheless, they (we?) do self-sort into levels.
According to Regina, the art world consists in levels of increasing perceived value. At the top are the untouchables: Rembrandt, Picasso, Van Gogh, etc. At the bottom are beginning artists. And there are several levels between.
And who controls entry from one level into the next?
This is where beauty’s underbelly begins to pop out. One might think that the answer would (or should) be beauty: an artist goes from one level to the next when he or she paints increasingly beautiful paintings. But alas, it would appear that the control rests, at least in some important instances, with the galleries.
Laura Zurowski, who has a very cool website called ‘The Lovelorn Poets’ (http://www.lovelornpoets.com/), put the point to me this way:
The art world is ripe for a dismantling just as the music industry was shaken by the likes of Napster, MySpace, and other mechanisms (like the now defunct Aimie Street) for musicians to share their work outside of the corporate controlled music/radio industry. The elite "gallery" structure, which positions itself as the arbiter of quality and value, has done nothing but make most individuals feel that art is beyond their reach both financially and intellectually.
According to Laura, the galleries have imposed a structure on the art world that artificially separates art from most individuals.
And Regina pointed to the influence of galleries as well:
I suspect that buzz and other social factors in the art world create a sort of resonance or "virtuous cycle" as somebody transitions between levels. For example, if gallery representation is the mark of a newly established no longer "emerging" artist, gallery exposure may quickly lead to critical attention and more gallery representation.
Beauty thus has an underbelly; and that underbelly apparently has an enabler: art galleries.
At some point I hope to pursue the issue of beauty's underbelly, since it presents so many fascinating questions. But for now, I am most concerned about a problem that it presents for my project.
If I am going to trade up to a Van Gogh, I am going to need to jump from one level of art to the next. But how can I do that, especially if artists and galleries are hyper sensitive to perceived status and won't trade between levels?
As Regina said:
There are a few established artists who will trade with emerging artists, but generally they want to select the work they'll receive...As you continue, purely tactical trading is likely to send you on an extremely tortuous route through each band, and I question whether pure tactics will bring you a net trade-up (case in point - BOO).
You need a strategy.
I think Regina is right: I need a strategy.
I don’t have one of those.
But I know whom to ask:
Universe:
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
Beauty it would seem has an underbelly.
After my latest trade, I corresponded with two different artists who talked about the underbelly of the art world. Regina Valluzzi (whose art can be seen here: http://www.nerdlypainter.com/) is both a research scientist and an artist. She made the following comments.
One thing I have noticed is that artists will protest vehemently about being sorted into categories that seem to describe accomplishment level, for example "amateur" "student" "emerging" "established" "acclaimed". Nevertheless, they (we?) do self-sort into levels.
According to Regina, the art world consists in levels of increasing perceived value. At the top are the untouchables: Rembrandt, Picasso, Van Gogh, etc. At the bottom are beginning artists. And there are several levels between.
And who controls entry from one level into the next?
This is where beauty’s underbelly begins to pop out. One might think that the answer would (or should) be beauty: an artist goes from one level to the next when he or she paints increasingly beautiful paintings. But alas, it would appear that the control rests, at least in some important instances, with the galleries.
Laura Zurowski, who has a very cool website called ‘The Lovelorn Poets’ (http://www.lovelornpoets.com/), put the point to me this way:
The art world is ripe for a dismantling just as the music industry was shaken by the likes of Napster, MySpace, and other mechanisms (like the now defunct Aimie Street) for musicians to share their work outside of the corporate controlled music/radio industry. The elite "gallery" structure, which positions itself as the arbiter of quality and value, has done nothing but make most individuals feel that art is beyond their reach both financially and intellectually.
According to Laura, the galleries have imposed a structure on the art world that artificially separates art from most individuals.
And Regina pointed to the influence of galleries as well:
I suspect that buzz and other social factors in the art world create a sort of resonance or "virtuous cycle" as somebody transitions between levels. For example, if gallery representation is the mark of a newly established no longer "emerging" artist, gallery exposure may quickly lead to critical attention and more gallery representation.
Beauty thus has an underbelly; and that underbelly apparently has an enabler: art galleries.
At some point I hope to pursue the issue of beauty's underbelly, since it presents so many fascinating questions. But for now, I am most concerned about a problem that it presents for my project.
If I am going to trade up to a Van Gogh, I am going to need to jump from one level of art to the next. But how can I do that, especially if artists and galleries are hyper sensitive to perceived status and won't trade between levels?
As Regina said:
There are a few established artists who will trade with emerging artists, but generally they want to select the work they'll receive...As you continue, purely tactical trading is likely to send you on an extremely tortuous route through each band, and I question whether pure tactics will bring you a net trade-up (case in point - BOO).
You need a strategy.
I think Regina is right: I need a strategy.
I don’t have one of those.
But I know whom to ask:
Universe:
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Monika's Thesis
Everything is art.
That is what I am now calling Monika’s Thesis.
Just to make it official, here it is again.
Monika’s Thesis: Everything is art.
Monika Blichar asserted her thesis while we were talking on the phone about the recent trade we were about to make; and I’ve been intrigued by it ever since.
(Just as a quick aside, I’m not sure that I have publicly thanked either Monika or Gregory Dolnikowski for participating in my project. So thank you both. Meeting both of you, albeit over the phone, and trading paintings with you was really an incredible pleasure.)
Now, back to Monika’s Thesis. In some senses of the terms ‘everything’ and ‘art', I think that her thesis is probably false but in other senses probably true. I like claims like that. Indeed, there is something of an art to making them.
Here is a related thesis. I will call it The Ubiquity Thesis.
The Ubiquity Thesis: Beauty is everywhere.
Like Monika’s Thesis, I think that in some senses of the words ‘beauty’ and ‘everywhere’ The Ubiquity Thesis is probably false but in other senses probably true.
Just because I’m in a thesis-making mood, here is one more. I’ll call it The Money Thesis.
The Money Thesis: Economic value tends to track aesthetic value.
Something in me finds The Money Thesis distasteful if for no other reason that that it seems to conflict with both Monika’s Thesis and The Ubiquity Thesis, two theses that I like.
But then again something in me finds The Money Thesis comforting.
But is it true?
That’s always an interesting question to ask.
That’s what I want to find out.
That is what I am now calling Monika’s Thesis.
Just to make it official, here it is again.
Monika’s Thesis: Everything is art.
Monika Blichar asserted her thesis while we were talking on the phone about the recent trade we were about to make; and I’ve been intrigued by it ever since.
(Just as a quick aside, I’m not sure that I have publicly thanked either Monika or Gregory Dolnikowski for participating in my project. So thank you both. Meeting both of you, albeit over the phone, and trading paintings with you was really an incredible pleasure.)
Now, back to Monika’s Thesis. In some senses of the terms ‘everything’ and ‘art', I think that her thesis is probably false but in other senses probably true. I like claims like that. Indeed, there is something of an art to making them.
Here is a related thesis. I will call it The Ubiquity Thesis.
The Ubiquity Thesis: Beauty is everywhere.
Like Monika’s Thesis, I think that in some senses of the words ‘beauty’ and ‘everywhere’ The Ubiquity Thesis is probably false but in other senses probably true.
Just because I’m in a thesis-making mood, here is one more. I’ll call it The Money Thesis.
The Money Thesis: Economic value tends to track aesthetic value.
Something in me finds The Money Thesis distasteful if for no other reason that that it seems to conflict with both Monika’s Thesis and The Ubiquity Thesis, two theses that I like.
But then again something in me finds The Money Thesis comforting.
But is it true?
That’s always an interesting question to ask.
That’s what I want to find out.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Take Me Home, Toto!
Fuck yeah!
Look at that painting. It is my latest trade. I love it.
It is by Monika Blichar, who is an artist and entrepreneur in Vancouver Canada.
I have much to say about Monika and her painting, too much for one blog entry.
But here are some highlights:
The painting is part of a series called 'The Sweetheart Collection'.
In addition to painting, Monika is the founder and president of Mab Ventures, Inc. and the Make and Break Arts Foundation.
Here is a link to the foundation’s Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116132355099793
Both the series and Monika’s entrepreneurial efforts were inspired in part by the advice of her aunt, who told Monika that life is short and precious – Monika’s aunt was sick with cancer at the time – and that Monika must pursue her dreams.
Monika did.
The painting is two feet by three feet.
The series draws inspiration from glam beauties like Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, and Greta Garbo.
Monika’s art foundation has the following goals:
(a) to raise awareness of the arts in the community;
(b) to support artists and offer assistance for community projects;
(c) to offer community workshops, events, and opportunities for arts education and programming;
(d) to provide similar and related services as determined by the membership.
Monika also teaches French to young children.
Monika’s paintings sell for quite a bit of money.
Ok. Enough highlights for now. I will give more later.
But I must say before I end that I am quite pleased with the Universe. So pleased, in fact, that I considered for a moment addressing it in the second rather than the third person. I have decided, though, that it has yet to earn such an honor.
So until then, Universe:
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
Look at that painting. It is my latest trade. I love it.
It is by Monika Blichar, who is an artist and entrepreneur in Vancouver Canada.
I have much to say about Monika and her painting, too much for one blog entry.
But here are some highlights:
The painting is part of a series called 'The Sweetheart Collection'.
In addition to painting, Monika is the founder and president of Mab Ventures, Inc. and the Make and Break Arts Foundation.
Here is a link to the foundation’s Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116132355099793
Both the series and Monika’s entrepreneurial efforts were inspired in part by the advice of her aunt, who told Monika that life is short and precious – Monika’s aunt was sick with cancer at the time – and that Monika must pursue her dreams.
Monika did.
The painting is two feet by three feet.
The series draws inspiration from glam beauties like Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, and Greta Garbo.
Monika’s art foundation has the following goals:
(a) to raise awareness of the arts in the community;
(b) to support artists and offer assistance for community projects;
(c) to offer community workshops, events, and opportunities for arts education and programming;
(d) to provide similar and related services as determined by the membership.
Monika also teaches French to young children.
Monika’s paintings sell for quite a bit of money.
Ok. Enough highlights for now. I will give more later.
But I must say before I end that I am quite pleased with the Universe. So pleased, in fact, that I considered for a moment addressing it in the second rather than the third person. I have decided, though, that it has yet to earn such an honor.
So until then, Universe:
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sarah's Thesis Revisited Again
It is in the mail - my newest trade. It took a while for it all to happen. But according to UPS I should be getting the painting on Friday. Yay!
I must admit that I'm incredibly excited. But I must also admit that I have a residual feeling of consternation. I had hoped that by trying to trade up to a Van Gogh I would gain some insight into the nature of aesthetic value; but I can’t say that I have.
In my last post, I discussed Platonism, which is the view that certain properties, e.g. order, symmetry, unity and diversity, are objective features that works of art can instantiate to greater or lesser degrees; and paintings are the more beautiful the more perfectly they instantiate them.
In contrast to Platonism is the Humean view (named after David Hume, an 18th century Scottish philosopher) according to which beauty is subjective, or to use an oft-quoted maxim, in the eye of the beholder. According to the Humean view, if enough people end up really liking some work of art, it ends up getting a reputation for being beautiful (or at least important.) And if a work of art is deemed important throughout the ages, it becomes a classic.
Although something about the Humean view rubs me the wrong way, it does seem to explain how one could call both Michelangelo’s David and Andy Warhol’s Tomato Soup Cans important works of art. They seem to have very little in common other than the fact that lots of people like both.
In addition to making sense of the wide variety of so-called ‘beautiful art’, the Humean view would also make Sarah’s Thesis potentially true. If the Humean view is correct, then Dominic’s Face With a Line Through It could be getting more beautiful as this project goes on for no other reason than that more people are looking at it and thinking to themselves: I like Dominic’s drawing.
There is on final view worth discussing, namely the Kantian view (named after Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher.)
But I am feeling too excited right now to write much more. I just can't wait for my new painting. As I said already: Yay!
So I will end by making a very simple request of the universe:
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
I must admit that I'm incredibly excited. But I must also admit that I have a residual feeling of consternation. I had hoped that by trying to trade up to a Van Gogh I would gain some insight into the nature of aesthetic value; but I can’t say that I have.
In my last post, I discussed Platonism, which is the view that certain properties, e.g. order, symmetry, unity and diversity, are objective features that works of art can instantiate to greater or lesser degrees; and paintings are the more beautiful the more perfectly they instantiate them.
In contrast to Platonism is the Humean view (named after David Hume, an 18th century Scottish philosopher) according to which beauty is subjective, or to use an oft-quoted maxim, in the eye of the beholder. According to the Humean view, if enough people end up really liking some work of art, it ends up getting a reputation for being beautiful (or at least important.) And if a work of art is deemed important throughout the ages, it becomes a classic.
Although something about the Humean view rubs me the wrong way, it does seem to explain how one could call both Michelangelo’s David and Andy Warhol’s Tomato Soup Cans important works of art. They seem to have very little in common other than the fact that lots of people like both.
In addition to making sense of the wide variety of so-called ‘beautiful art’, the Humean view would also make Sarah’s Thesis potentially true. If the Humean view is correct, then Dominic’s Face With a Line Through It could be getting more beautiful as this project goes on for no other reason than that more people are looking at it and thinking to themselves: I like Dominic’s drawing.
There is on final view worth discussing, namely the Kantian view (named after Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher.)
But I am feeling too excited right now to write much more. I just can't wait for my new painting. As I said already: Yay!
So I will end by making a very simple request of the universe:
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Sarah's Thesis Revisited
In a previous post I mentioned that my former student Sarah Adams proposed the following thesis.
Sarah’s Thesis: Participating in a project like the Van Gogh Project can increase the value of a painting.
It is a fascinating thesis. But is it true?
The answer to that question depends in part on what ‘value’ means.
If by ‘value’ Sarah means economic value, then I am inclined to think that her thesis is true. At the very least the optimist in me thinks it is true.
Suppose for the moment that I end up eventually trading for a Van Gogh. What would Dominic’s Face With Line Through It be worth? It is of course hard to say for sure. But I am willing to speculate that it would be worth some money. Prior to the Van Gogh Project, however, Dominic’s drawing, as awesome as it is, probably would not have made any money on the open market. So if ‘value’ in Sarah’s Thesis means economic value, and if my speculations are correct, then Sarah’s Thesis is true.
But what if ‘value’ means aesthetic value. Could participating in the VGP increase a painting’s aesthetic value?
Initially, one is tempted to say ‘no’. After all, being traded for in a public forum like this does not alter intrinsic features of a painting. So how could it alter a painting’s aesthetic value?
That line of reasoning, however, depends on a certain view of aesthetic value. I will call that view the Platonic view. According to the Platonic view, works of art instantiate to varying degrees aesthetic properties like symmetry, order, unity, and most importantly beauty. And whether they do so depends entirely on their intrinsic features.
The Platonic view does have some plausibility. Look at the Sistine Chapel and you will be hard pressed not to think that it is a work of astounding beauty. It is as if the form of beauty itself guided Michelangelo’s hand.
If the Platonic View is correct, then Sarah’s Thesis is false. Because the intrinsic features of a painting do not change upon being traded, participating in the Van Gogh Project would not increase a painting’s aesthetic value.
But there are at least two other views about aesthetic value that one might adopt. I will call them the Humean view and the Kantian view.
In a future post, I will discuss both the Humean and the Kantian views.
Before I end, however, I have to report the latest exciting news: I am about to make another trade. The artist is based in Vancouver. And her art, in my humble opinion, is awesome.
I can’t wait.
Sarah’s Thesis: Participating in a project like the Van Gogh Project can increase the value of a painting.
It is a fascinating thesis. But is it true?
The answer to that question depends in part on what ‘value’ means.
If by ‘value’ Sarah means economic value, then I am inclined to think that her thesis is true. At the very least the optimist in me thinks it is true.
Suppose for the moment that I end up eventually trading for a Van Gogh. What would Dominic’s Face With Line Through It be worth? It is of course hard to say for sure. But I am willing to speculate that it would be worth some money. Prior to the Van Gogh Project, however, Dominic’s drawing, as awesome as it is, probably would not have made any money on the open market. So if ‘value’ in Sarah’s Thesis means economic value, and if my speculations are correct, then Sarah’s Thesis is true.
But what if ‘value’ means aesthetic value. Could participating in the VGP increase a painting’s aesthetic value?
Initially, one is tempted to say ‘no’. After all, being traded for in a public forum like this does not alter intrinsic features of a painting. So how could it alter a painting’s aesthetic value?
That line of reasoning, however, depends on a certain view of aesthetic value. I will call that view the Platonic view. According to the Platonic view, works of art instantiate to varying degrees aesthetic properties like symmetry, order, unity, and most importantly beauty. And whether they do so depends entirely on their intrinsic features.
The Platonic view does have some plausibility. Look at the Sistine Chapel and you will be hard pressed not to think that it is a work of astounding beauty. It is as if the form of beauty itself guided Michelangelo’s hand.
If the Platonic View is correct, then Sarah’s Thesis is false. Because the intrinsic features of a painting do not change upon being traded, participating in the Van Gogh Project would not increase a painting’s aesthetic value.
But there are at least two other views about aesthetic value that one might adopt. I will call them the Humean view and the Kantian view.
In a future post, I will discuss both the Humean and the Kantian views.
Before I end, however, I have to report the latest exciting news: I am about to make another trade. The artist is based in Vancouver. And her art, in my humble opinion, is awesome.
I can’t wait.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow
That is the name of my latest trade.
The artist’s name is Gregory Dolnikowski. He is a nutrition professor at Tufts University; and he paints in his spare time.
Gregory learned to paint when he was young from his mother who was an artist. (Among other things, she painted the background scenes for displays in the Boston Museum of Natural History.)
Gregory is quite an active artist. He regularly displays his art around Boston; many people commission his paintings; and he even paints at parties. His work can be seen here:
http://www.yessy.com/gregdolnikowski
I had a lovely chat with Gregory before Christmas. Nature often inspires his painting: for instance, a rainstorm that beat down upon the windows in his studio inspired The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow.
Listening to Gregory talk about his painting definitely made me want to paint. He clearly finds immense pleasure in the act of painting. He told me that he sometimes loses himself in music as his brush swirls around a canvas. And he particularly enjoys painting at parties, which I must admit sounds like a lot of fun. Best of all, he has a regular job and so doesn’t have to starve like Van Gogh.
Trading for Gregory’s painting was a great way to end the year. I really do feel like that the universe has given me a Christmas gift.
Maybe next year, the universe will give me a Van Gogh for Christmas.
Of course, to get a Van Gogh, I need to make some trades.
So, just to help the universe along a little bit (especially now that I feel as if it is actively on my side), I can’t help but announce:
I want someone to trade for The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow
I want someone to trade for The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow
I want someone to trade for The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow
If anyone wants to trade for a Dolnikwoski original, let me know.
You can reach me at: pstudtmann@gmail.com
The artist’s name is Gregory Dolnikowski. He is a nutrition professor at Tufts University; and he paints in his spare time.
Gregory learned to paint when he was young from his mother who was an artist. (Among other things, she painted the background scenes for displays in the Boston Museum of Natural History.)
Gregory is quite an active artist. He regularly displays his art around Boston; many people commission his paintings; and he even paints at parties. His work can be seen here:
http://www.yessy.com/gregdolnikowski
I had a lovely chat with Gregory before Christmas. Nature often inspires his painting: for instance, a rainstorm that beat down upon the windows in his studio inspired The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow.
Listening to Gregory talk about his painting definitely made me want to paint. He clearly finds immense pleasure in the act of painting. He told me that he sometimes loses himself in music as his brush swirls around a canvas. And he particularly enjoys painting at parties, which I must admit sounds like a lot of fun. Best of all, he has a regular job and so doesn’t have to starve like Van Gogh.
Trading for Gregory’s painting was a great way to end the year. I really do feel like that the universe has given me a Christmas gift.
Maybe next year, the universe will give me a Van Gogh for Christmas.
Of course, to get a Van Gogh, I need to make some trades.
So, just to help the universe along a little bit (especially now that I feel as if it is actively on my side), I can’t help but announce:
I want someone to trade for The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow
I want someone to trade for The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow
I want someone to trade for The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow
If anyone wants to trade for a Dolnikwoski original, let me know.
You can reach me at: pstudtmann@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
