Brian Sewell at the Acorn

[whealdream]

 "I feel confident that in future those galleries that stick vehemently to dull art that sells well will reduce in numbers."

Well, I feel even more confident that galleries that stick vehemently to exciting art that doesn't sell will reduce in numbers even more quickly !!
We are all at the mercy of the whims of the rich individual who has surplus money to spend and the rich funding organisations using tax payers money to subsidise galleries that feature unsellable art.... regards MVB  Rainyday

ps that's not to say that  all unsellable art is bad......
or that all sellable art is good

[Jake]

Well, I feel even more confident that galleries that stick vehemently to exciting art that doesn't sell will reduce in numbers even more quickly

Hi Martin

Of course you're right; I think the issue is that sticking vehemently to anything is potentially a problem. There are far too many 'art galleries' in Cornwall; I think St Ives alone has fifty something. This kind of flooding cannot continue forever and eventually the bottom will drop out of the art market, in fact I think it is already happening. So in order to survive I believe that galleries will need to strike a balance; not sticking to exciting art that doesn't sell but not sticking to dull art that does sell either.

[whealdream]

So let's raise a glass to those artists who do sell and in fact subsidise those who don't..........
Every gallery has to have a stable of sellable artists in order to take chances.
 An alternative to this, which I have advocated in the past, would be to hire a venue, fill it full of provocative and exciting art and charge £3-£5 to go in with a % going to the artist or artists concerned. We pay to see music, theatre, poetry, football etc etc ...why not art. If it's bad art it would soon grind to a halt, but if it's good - word soon gets around. I remember that when St Ives International put on David Kemp's Archaeological Relics show at The Count House Botallack in 1998 that he spent hundreds of hours setting it up and reckoned he earned about 50p an hour to do it. There were 12,000 visitors to the show, admission free. If there had been a charge of a couple of quid or so David could have come away with £10,000 +. Art is either a profession or a passtime....
regards MVB

Well, I feel even more confident that galleries that stick vehemently to exciting art that doesn't sell will reduce in numbers even more quickly

Hi Martin

Of course you're right; I think the issue is that sticking vehemently to anything is potentially a problem. There are far too many 'art galleries' in Cornwall; I think St Ives alone has fifty something. This kind of flooding cannot continue forever and eventually the bottom will drop out of the art market, in fact I think it is already happening. So in order to survive I believe that galleries will need to strike a balance; not sticking to exciting art that doesn't sell but not sticking to dull art that does sell either.

[Jake]

Art is either a profession or a passtime....

That may be your view on art, but I could find you any number of artists who could give you a third option.

[Swiftie]

Every gallery has to have a stable of sellable artists in order to take chances.
An alternative to this, which I have advocated in the past, would be to hire a venue, fill it full of provocative and exciting art and charge £3-£5 to go in with a % going to the artist or artists concerned. We pay to see music, theatre, poetry, football etc etc ...why not art. If it's bad art it would soon grind to a halt, but if it's good - word soon gets around.

I recently went to the Tate Modern with the intension to see the Gilbert & George exhibition - before going in a read the large statement they had up on the wall outside - it started off by saying "Art should be for everyone" but then I realised I had to pay ten pounds to get in... I've paid to see shows before but because of this statement I didn't go in... I went to the painting exhibition instead.

[Joseph Clarke]

maybe the hand in hand relation ship between art&£ is providing enough of a barrier to many people. It would be nice if art could be seen as a little more pure than a grubby pound note - I see this as a big problem actually.

Many artists that I know are not in it for the money, and many are in it for the struggle and journey - so I personally am pleased to show work for free and perhaps cast a little light (or dark) into the lives of those viewing it (quiet the evangelist (hallelujah))

p.s I was dredfully mis-quoted in the Independent - thats life I guess !!

[Swiftie]

How did they misquote you?

Thats the problem with telephone talk - I perfer writing it down...

[Joseph Clarke]

Its great to get to the stage where you refuse to take interviews with the Nationals isn't it. I might have a clause in my contract next to nudity only if its tasteful.

I didnt actually say anything as it was printed, but to summarize the points that bugged me the most - re career artists only bit - I actually said that 'if the Tate continue to adopt the same mode of operation then the only artists that are able to come to the suface are career artists and those right under thier noses'. With regards to Tate not showing anything challenging in 13 years - I actually said that 'The Tate had done little to support contemporary Cornish Artists in 13 years'. I am sure there is more, but its early and i dont have a copy with me.

Andy Hughes was kind of right in earlier postings (before I went to London). It does piss me off that the press only look for the negative or gritty bits (no room for subtle nuance - which could benefit the arts perhaps), and yes this is why I dont buy papers anymore

I hoped that the Independent would print that Sewell had said that he had seen work that 'knock the spots of off anything that he has seen in London for years' - had this had happened then I think that the balance of possitive v negative would have been far more even.

Taking this statement made by Sewell and running with it myself I have plans on how to take things forward and roll with it - I would like to expand this positive aspect myself and see if it is possible to get more  art figures saying the same, and as a result actually getting the press talking about the work / the artists and not just the gritty story. This means taking things to London. Ooh exciting.

[whealdream]

Re: Brian Sewell at the Acorn

Quote from: whealdream on March 06, 2007, 11:07:42 AM

'Art is either a profession or a passtime....'

jake reply


'That may be your view on art, but I could find you any number of artists who could give you a third option'.  


So what is the third option?  
 ' I inherited a large amount of money and don't need to sell my work'
 'I took the Queen's shilling (funding) and don't need to sell my work'
 'I am a well paid  professional teacher and don't need to sell my work'
 'I am signing on and don't need to sell my work'
etc etc etc

  Art is either a profession or a passtime... !!    MVB

[admin]

Hi Martin

Just wanted to point out that people like Peter Lanyon were from wealthy backgrounds which means they never needed to make money by selling their paintings...

In fact most of the famous St Ives artists had 'private means' of various sorts...

I dont think there are very many artists who can make a living from their art only are there? A lot of artists have partners who through their work pay the mortgage etc...

cheers

[jondavey]

...who the hell takes Brian Sewel seriousily anyway?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/EtnZsXMWGTM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/EtnZsXMWGTM</a>