 
Toybreaker
Member
Username: Toybreaker
Post Number: 53
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 3:24 pm: |    |
+111. Best comment I've ever read on here. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 224
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 3:26 pm: | |
Southen,
I didn't say he couldn't piss in a jar. I just said it was offensive and insulting and neither of those are an art form. So then what is it's purpose?
I was pointing out how far some folks will go in the artistic sense to deem something "Art".
Not pushing my views on anyone. Frankly, I could care less what anyone does as long is it doesn't infringe on me, thats reasonable. But I am curious why you think this "artist's" right to expression is important and mine isn't?
The point I was making was it how it is ok by some to desecrate one religious symbol and not ok to desecrate others. That in itself is hypocritical.
And as far as being upset, Nope Sorry to disappoint you.
The 1st amendment is defending a lot of activities in this day and age based more on what it doesn't say than what it does. Many things being contested were inconceivable at the time this document was authored. Like the laws that were passed pertaining to the flag. I predict more concise wording in the future. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1225
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 3:33 pm: | |
Wow, you advocate editing of the first amendment?
Glad you just came out and said it. That pretty much ends the discussion right there.
Editing the first amendment, okay I'll start. Ready? Sstashmoo is not allowed to speak, on any topic, ever. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 1575
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 3:35 pm: | |
People have been making art to offend for some time.
Michaelangelo painted Biagio de Cesena, the papal Master of Ceremonies in his time, as the Judge of Souls in Hell in his "Last Judgement" mural in the Sistine Chapel. Cuz he didn't like him. Raphael painted Michaelangelo sitting at a box that was curiously out of perspective on the steps in his painting "The School of Athens" because he thought Michaelangelo was a hack. I'm sure they were both offended! But that's art. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 3659
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 3:46 pm: | |
quote:"Why cannot those types be creative and foster their own economy without socialism rearing its ugly head?"
They are dumbass - theyre leaving.
See, the private sector is working as it should. That means the so-called problem is either now solved, or it never really existed. If artists are in demand somewhere, then any here should go there if they want to better themselves.
And I have no problems with bad art being expressed. Just having taxpayers supporting it when there are real problems to tackle. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 1577
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 3:47 pm: | |
"And I have no problems with bad art being expressed. Just having taxpayers supporting it when there are real problems to tackle."
What about in schools? That's taxpayer support of arts. And like I said, if we have to cut that, I want all sports funding cut as well. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1229
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 3:48 pm: | |
I'm horrified anybody would hope to protect what America stands for by making a few changes in the Bill of Rights. Somebody buy this guy a copy of Elmer Gantry, OK? |
Michigan
Member
Username: Michigan
Post Number: 934
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 3:49 pm: | |
RB- i really think a that a lot of people, maybe SST is one of them I don't know, like to see Detroit dying. It make sthem feel good about themselves to see others below in worse circumstance. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 226
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 4:00 pm: | |
Quote: "Wow, you advocate editing of the first amendment?"
No, but I do expect more concise explanation in the form of laws like the recent one's pertaining to our flag.
Quote: "Michaelangelo painted Biagio de Cesena, the papal Master of Ceremonies in his time, as the Judge of Souls in Hell in his "Last Judgement" mural in the Sistine Chapel. Cuz he didn't like him."
Urinating in a cup and setting it on his doorstep would've been much less effort and way more to the point. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 4:02 pm: | |
I love the people who think it's more important to protect a piece of cloth than to protect the documents it stands for, and, in fact, would weaken the bill of rights to protect that piece of cloth |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 4:06 pm: | |
Those who would give up necessary liberty to obtain temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. --Ben Franklin |
Smogboy
Member
Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 5661
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 4:15 pm: | |
Unless someone here is brilliant enough to explain to me what is GOOD art, the point is moot. Like the old cliche goes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
We're all entitled to our own opinions of art. You can hang whatever "masterpiece" you want behind your couch as I should be able to do the same.
And while we're at it, will someone try to define to me what art's purpose is too? Because to me, art is supposed to enlighten, challenge and even expand our own boundaries- sometimes those boundaries aren't comfortable (it seems more so with religious conservatives) but accept the fact that it does make us a better species.
What one group considers sacred might not mean anything to someone else; call it ignorance on their part but where's the personal offense in that? If someone wants to push my buttons (burn my flag, desecrate my religious symbols, spout racial hatred, whiz on my idols or whatever), I should be able to rationally figure out why they're doing that and not take it so personally. I don't have to like it one bit but isn't that what the First Amendment giving all us the right to do with freedom of expression??? |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 4:20 pm: | |
Trying to remember the name of that guy who would ask someone why they wanted to buy his art. If they said anything along the lines of "because it's pretty" he would not sell to them
Decoration is pretty. Art doesn't have to be |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1231
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 4:28 pm: | |
Yes, and anyway, why should we spend our precious tax dollars on canvases with the Virgin Mary that are flecked with elephant poop? Horrible. Offensive to Christians. Much better to spend them on carpet bombing raids to paint town squares in the Middle East with blood and body parts. Much, much better. |
Histeric
Member
Username: Histeric
Post Number: 788
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 4:29 pm: | |
SStashmo - to what recent laws do you refer. I know I haven't watched the news in a long time but I googled and couldn't find any reference to "recent laws" or changes of any kind. |
Mdoyle
Member
Username: Mdoyle
Post Number: 167
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 4:31 pm: | |
Sstashmoo " I just said it was offensive and insulting and neither of those are an art form"
So you tell the rest of us less enlightened folks... what is art? It seems that philosophers have been debating this for centuries. I suppose though the likes of Aristotle and Tolstoy pale in comparison to your opinion on what is and isn't art |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 227
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 4:32 pm: | |
maybe SST is one of them I don't know, like to see Detroit dying.
Where on earth did this come from? Not true. I could pull my business out of the area and have chose not to, it's costing me. I've had several job offers in other cities, refused them. Not a very fair remark. |
Michigan
Member
Username: Michigan
Post Number: 937
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 4:44 pm: | |
Quite simple SST. Instead of discussing how fostering "artist colonies" is helping urban areas gentrify; and instead of discussing how this could help Detroit; you chose to discuss how unfair the media is to christians. That tells me that you are more concerned about how "unfairly" you think that you have been treated then about making Detroit a better place to live and work.
AS I posted before- I don't give a rat's ass what kind of art they make. AS long as it brings much needed dollars and gentrification to Detroit. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 228
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 4:54 pm: | |
Quote: "to what recent laws do you refer.(?)"
I was mistaken, I thought the amendment was recently passed, got some bad info. They have been fighting to get it through the senate for the last 6 years though.
Quote "So you tell the rest of us less enlightened folks... what is art?"
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.. If someone wants to pay 300 bucks for a jar of urine far be it from me to protest. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 229
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 5:04 pm: | |
Quote: "That tells me that you are more concerned about how "unfairly" you think that you have been treated then about making Detroit a better place to live and work."
Sorry if you took it that way. I'll try to be more linear in the future. |
Ladyinabag
Member
Username: Ladyinabag
Post Number: 313
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 5:07 pm: | |
Well, I have to say that I bought an original Stephen Goodfellow off of the wall at The Cafe Detroit for $20.00...."Bitch With Clock". I didn't like her personally (what was my problem?), so I turned around and sold her to one of the girls who worked at the cafe for $150.00. My point....? Good artists really can't make a living at $20.00 off of a club wall in Detroit. They have to go elsewhere. |
Histeric
Member
Username: Histeric
Post Number: 789
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 5:20 pm: | |
Thanks for the clarification. Whew. Thank goodness somebody is keeping the fascists at bay. |
Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 4061
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 5:20 pm: | |
That article has been written a few times over the decades here in the D. Just change a few names and places, fill in the blanks and up it pops like a mushroom. /yawn
Artists have always been leaving the D. I personally know well over a hundred. Big deal. Buh-bye and good luck. Many of them were talented, a lot weren't. [Wanting to be an artist and being one are different affairs.]
One or two actually went on to make a living off their art, the rest dissolved in the anonymity of New York, LA and other dreamlands after struggling along in over-priced rathole apartments paid for with underpaid menial jobs that consumed all their time.
A fair number returned with a different point of view. Detroit wasn't that bad after all. The name of the game in art is getting free time to do exactly whatever you feel like doing. Don't have that and you don't make art. Detroit with its low cost of living, and studio space in particular, is great.
Added to that there is, and always has been, a vibrant non-establishment community of venues and artists - places like Zeitgeist, 555, Charles Johanson, Bo-house, Izzy's Raw Art, Cass Cafe and more with new ones appearing and fading all the time. The raw energy of Detroit with all of its challenges is tremendous grit for expression and creativity.
Any artist who looks to established galleries or government or other grants funding for salvation should forget it. The former takes 50% and the latter can't be counted on; they are just a lottery that might buy you a few months freedom. I have been with galleries and received several grants and lived meagerly as full time artist for several years by those means. Thanks to the web I am more comfortable.
Thanks to the web I dropped all galleries by the late nineties but still show in non-established venues because I like the generally non-BS non-kiss-ass energy they exude. With the 50% slice gone one only needs to sell half as much and the customer is yours for the future, not the gallery's.
Art is very much like a mix of big league baseball and big time finance. If one is overwhelmingly talented or more likely well connected with the art mafia of museums, critics, 'name' galleries and 'major' collectors, one can make a huge pile of money. Afer that the drop-off is extreme, no Triple or Double A ball, just semi-pro ball, working a side job and making art. And why? Because you have to. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1232
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 5:21 pm: | |
SST:
OK, sorry, Christianity doesn't get a pass anymore. What is this, 1903? Anybody with more than a passing familiarity with Christianity's history knows that more people have been killed in the name of Christ than in the name of Caesar.
Some Captain America you are: Tinkering with the Bill of Rights is un-American. If you don't get that, you should probably move to a theocracy.
Your knowledge of the law is surprisingly thin if you thought the anti-flag-burning amendment had passed.
Don't go away mad; just go away. |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1914
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 6:04 pm: | |
Lowell,
I encourage you to send that post into the News as a letter to the editor. (Maybe slightly massaged for a general audience.)
I think your knowledge, experience, and point of view are very helpful to the understanding the issue. |
Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto
Post Number: 3928
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 6:19 pm: | |
for the uninformed philistines who keep bringing up one piece of Andres Serrano's work, made over 15 years ago, his webpage:
http://andresserrano.org/
Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe both got lots of publicity for controversial works that they made in the late 1980's. Those works (Serrano's Piss Christ and Mapplethorpe's photographs of rather unorthodox sexual practices) got them condemned by millions of conservocrites who never even saw any of their work.
Of course, it got them tons of publicity and increased the sales of their work too.
Most of Mapplethorpe's work is either portraits or photos of flowers.
http://www.mapplethorpe.org/po rtraits3.html
BOTH SERRANO AND MAPPLETHORPE WERE RAISED IN DEVOUTLY CATHOLIC HOMES.
As for desecration of the Flag, I've recently seen the US flag used on a bottle of Cola
(All-American Cola), on books of matches
(Freedom Lights the Way) and on styrofoam carry out containers. Apparently, putting the flag on a plastic container that then goes to a landfill does not cause any alarm to the flag fetishists.
As Lowell pointed out, there's a regular cycle of galleries closing up, artists leaving town, and new galleries opening up, and new artists arriving
(or returning, broke, from their sojourns in bigger, more exciting places.)
The silver lining to Detroit? Lots of space for your money, and the ability to own more of your own time.
The curse? A smaller, more incestuous art community and fewer galleries and art buyers.
No matter where you live, to second Lowell,
if you're not plugged into the art mafia, you're just playing semi-pro ball. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 230
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 6:22 pm: | |
Quote: "Some Captain America you are"
It always amazes me how uptight people get when some hypocrisy is brought to light and rattles their otherwise perfect perception.
No offense, just making a point. Which I did. Obviously.
The ridiculous aspect of this is that some think freedom of expression and speech only pertains to them.
"Don't go away mad, just go away" LOL |
Smogboy
Member
Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 5662
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 7:14 pm: | |
SST- I think what some people (and may they forgive me for paraphrasing) disagree so vehemently with you is the fact that you were advocating unlawfulness when it comes to expressing art. Burning a flag (whether its our flag, another nations or any other symbolic icon) is a demonstration of one's freedom of speech. While I won't condone it or like it, I would be hypocritical if I didn't support your right to do so. Why should there be a law to prevent this? How does it affect anyone's daily existence other than someone might find it distasteful? Is a flag burning any more distasteful than what one might consider a piece of bad art?
Art, like words can be hateful and distasteful depending on the receipient. "It's not art, it's trash. And this hateful ingrate is no artist." is your opinion obviously but yet you can't explain to any of us what art is either. I think if you had called it "bad art" or something that just doesn't float your boat is fine as opposed to just labelling someone's creation as "trash" and "not art".
Obviously they considered themselves an expressive artist and what they created as art. Again, it's nothing I would pay to have in my home but who are we to say it isn't art? |
Darwinism
Member
Username: Darwinism
Post Number: 661
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 7:23 pm: | |
Lowell is an artist, a Detroit artist, and those of us who have seen his work can agree that he is in the top echelon. He has been there through the years, done that through good or bad times, and still producing quality artwork to this day.
Why didn't the Detroit News talk to him before approaching the new and unexperienced artists ?
I agree with Jsmyers. Send in the comment to the News. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 232
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 7:41 pm: | |
So essentially, what you're saying is, it's ok to offend someone if you call yourself an "artist"? And if the offended protest they are threatening the artist's rights?
What about that individuals right to protest? |
Smogboy
Member
Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 5664
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 7:45 pm: | |
Darwinism, I don't think the News really cared whether the artists themselves were of a particular age or experience. I think the slant of the article more had to do with the cyclical aspect of the art scene in Detroit. Like Lowell said, he's seen it all and been through it all and has remained committed to Detroit.
In a few more years, the News be talking about the boom in the Detroit art scene. Calmer heads will prevail here. |
Smogboy
Member
Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 5665
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 7:49 pm: | |
SST- I've never said one couldn't protest. But if you do, are you in essence playing into what the artist wanted you to do? Are you essentially hyping the artist more so than they are themselves? There's bad art all around us but seldom do I vehemently give it credence.
Why offer up a stink when you can just ignore it and move on? |
Mauser765
Member
Username: Mauser765
Post Number: 1771
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 8:06 pm: | |
The complete ignorance of the importance of the arts in any civilized society that is being displayed in this thread typifies the problem of the uneducated "Ugly American" - this ignorance threatens our culture and our sustainability.
Focusing on a few stupid or sensational artists to discredit the merit of the entire field is a weak ass straw man argument. Its cheap and hollow. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 233
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 8:18 pm: | |
I think someone above said it best: Huge difference between wanting to be an artist and being one (which I totally agree with). Then begs the question, is the former's work Art? If it isn't then what is it? |
Leoqueen
Member
Username: Leoqueen
Post Number: 1612
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 9:47 pm: | |
This is an excerpt slightly modified of an email I sent to the writer of the article in today's paper---
Ms Marte,
the article in today's paper does not show the whole picture of the make-up and attitudes of the entire community here....and I dare say some of the people you quoted must have been misquoted, or their statements taken entirely out of context, because I know that they would not carry such opinions.
It is MY opinion that the powers that be at the daily papers do not have
our arts community's best interest in mind----otherwise why would such a negative article see the light of day without any aspect of the 'other point of view' being shared? Is it true that the editors there believe that it is impossible to sustain an arts life here?
I am by NO MEANS the only artist who has chosen to live in this arts community and has made a successful, creative life. I can give you lists of names of artists who are living good, productive, lives here. Will your newspaper report
their stories? Just what is the definition of success in the arts, Ms Marte? It can be illustrated, with my own story and many many stories of other people devoting their lives to the arts that are living right
here in Metropolitan Detroit.
Best,
Leoqueen |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 12:54 pm: | |
SST: If you think that making any law abridging the right of free expression will make this country a better place, it's a pity there is no Soviet Union to ship you off to. |
Toybreaker
Member
Username: Toybreaker
Post Number: 54
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:10 pm: | |
I know for a fact that opinions of counterpoint were presented, yet it seems they were destined to reside only on the cutting room floor.
I can attest that there are artists in Detroit making a living solely from their art practice, but one must be very clever about it and NOT just focus on local (or lack thereof) venues in which to market, network, sell and promote. The tools to market oneself globally are NOT hard to use, and I'm sick of the whining coming from the local community about how everything sucks. Detroit can be a constructive incubator for ones work - there aren't as many distractions here to keep you from your studio; space is cheap and money can be saved for travel and materials.
I am not from Detroit originally but I'm about to enter my eighth year here, and I've found it to have been a very productive place to have a studio home base. Yes, I travel a lot to maintain my sanity and yes I do get frustrated at times, but I think my quality of life is better than many of my friends back in New York who are constantly freaking out about their rent rather than making work. Will I finish out my years here, probably not - but I'm beyond tired of the incessant whining. In these 8 years I'm very happy with the direction my career has gone and to be fully self-sufficient from my artwork, to be able to afford both a house and a separate studio - I believe being based in Detroit has certainly helped with all that.
My situation may be somewhat different than others' as my work is currently more design/product based and is easy to ship worldwide, but I still think the premise for getting yourself established is the same and it is no longer limited to geographic location - being locked to a zip code is a very antiquated way to think.
Bruce Sterling recently gave a commencement speech highlighting this very facet:
"Real artists Ship." |
Mauser765
Member
Username: Mauser765
Post Number: 1773
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:10 pm: | |
Even Soviets invested heavily in art programs, regardless of whether it was about state sponsorship. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 235
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:26 pm: | |
Quote: "If you think that making any law abridging the right of free expression will make this country a better place, it's a pity there is no Soviet Union to ship you off to."
Some of these laws are being abused of their original intent. Don't deny it. And don't claim me unpatriotic because I realize it.
Like the seperation of "Church and State" It was originally authored to prevent the states from interfering with the churches. Not throw prayer out of schools. When they made sure "In god we trust" was on all money it wasn't to infringe on your rights or piss you off.
And another reference was made that I was insulting the Art community as a whole, utter nonsense, never said anything of the sort. I love art, even paint as a hobby, not very good at it, but a few think I am. I have enough taste to know it's not art and enough sense to admit it.
"I'd never join any country club that would have me as a member" Groucho Marx |
Smogboy
Member
Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 5671
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:37 pm: | |
"I have enough taste to know it's not art and enough sense to admit it."
SST-I think that's where your viewpoint is a bit skewed. It IS art... it just might not be good art to you. If a reputatble art collector were to come up to you, tell you how wonderful they think it is, would love to have it in their collection and offer you a huge sum of money for it, I'm sure that you'd change your mind. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:49 pm: | |
First of all, they're not LAWS, they're RIGHTS. (This should be the initial tip-off that you don't really understand what you're taking about.)
Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. OK, so that means, really, that Congress shall make no law abridging free speech except when some guy is offended. Er, no ... freakin' ... way.
Face it: You want to live in a state where your points of view, your interpretations of law, are enforced by fiat. That's not a democracy. And, quite sensibly, many people on this forum think you're a crank and would never peaceably submit to the kind of "government" you envision.
Now, do us all a favor and apply for citizenship in a theocracy. And Godspeed, OK? |
Michigan
Member
Username: Michigan
Post Number: 944
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:53 pm: | |
SST- that motto only appeared in 1864, and it took an act of confress to over rule an already existing act of congress that would not allow it.
The seperation of church and state is to keep noses clean on both sides. |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 236
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 4:24 pm: | |
Quote: "many people on this forum think you're a crank" Translation: Nobody likes you LOL
Im not a law expert? Nothing is getting by you I see...
Quote: "and would never peaceably submit"
So you're saying the American people would protest if some rights were altered or taken away? Nice try. Habeas Corpus was removed and there was no considerable outrage. I am totally against it's removal too, that needs to be restored.
You're naive to think that your freedoms aren't disappearing and if they do it means all out revolt. I used to think like that too. You'll get older and realize, nobody gives a shit.
This topic has wandered way off and out of Detroit, FIN |
Southen
Member
Username: Southen
Post Number: 257
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 2:52 am: | |
"Youre naive to think that your freedoms arent disappearing and if they do it means all out revolt"
So government taking away freedoms of others = bad
Christians taking away freedoms of others =........?
You dont like it when someone, government, or controversial artist, tells you how to live yet have no problem telling others how they should. Thats hypocrisy at its finest. Your interpretation of separation of church and state is pretty clever in that you think government should stay out of church, but your religious views should/can be used to tell everyone else what to do. |
Huggybear
Member
Username: Huggybear
Post Number: 304
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 4:03 am: | |
Not to drag this forcibly back to topic, but Detroit is replete with nonprofit organizations and galleries (Detroit Artists Market, Birmingham Bloomfield Art Center, Paint Creek Center for the Arts, CAID, etc.) that support emerging artists - displaying and selling their work, taking low commissions, and getting the word out. This is not mentioned in the article at all. These organizations, on the whole, are underutilized by emerging artists.
(By the way, Jeff Borgeau may or may not be an appropriate person to ask about the issues described in the article).
Detroit is not an easy market, but a lot of people still manage to be successful here by figuring out what people will buy. Serial work (litho, intaglio, photography, ceramics, etc.) may be a dirty word to some people but there are plenty of buyers for it. Things that are under four digits also sell well - particularly when an artist is an unknown. This is no surprise; most of the early works of now-famous artists were sold or traded for very small sums of money at the beginning of those artists' careers. Picasso paid his tailor in small drawings.
There are plenty of good artists here and many successful ones. Where people fail, or say they are failing, ask yourself whether it's due to poor business skills (pricing, marketing, etc.) rather than a lack of appreciation by the public or gallery owners. If I've seen one sin among nonprofit galleries, it's not setting artists straight on what are realistic selling prices. And if I've seen one among professional artists, it's failing to understand that although art involves free expression, living on it requires business skills. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.