Topic: Do you like Art? - Artist friends new website (Read 629 times)
Yeah, with music it's way worse. Pretty much every piece in popular music of the last 30 years is derivative of Pachelbels Canon in D.
I tend to analogize the whole thing to the film industry.
An auteur is a director whose work is recognizable. He makes movies his way, and they have a look to them. All the blockbusters and market driven movies have their innards messed with by the studios (marketing teams and execs).
If you had no idea who directed a movie before watching it, can you identify the director? Most of the Hollywood stuff you cannot. But you can identify a film by Wong Kar-Wai, Yasujiro Ozu, or Stanley Kubrick. Granted, Ozu was a Shochiku director, but they let him do his thing.
Why do studio driven films never really hold up as art? Because they are the product of marketing, testing, and appealing to a wider audience. But they sure do make money, I admit.
An auteur is a director whose work is recognizable. He makes movies his way, and they have a look to them. All the blockbusters and market driven movies have their innards messed with by the studios (marketing teams and execs).
If you had no idea who directed a movie before watching it, can you identify the director? Most of the Hollywood stuff you cannot. But you can identify a film by Wong Kar-Wai, Yasujiro Ozu, or Stanley Kubrick. Granted, Ozu was a Shochiku director, but they let him do his thing.
Why do studio driven films never really hold up as art? Because they are the product of marketing, testing, and appealing to a wider audience. But they sure do make money, I admit.
It's sad but true. Exactly the same with music. Studios go with tried and tested so it stifles innovation because a lot of bands know their own music isn't commercial enough.
I tend to analogize the whole thing to the film industry.
An auteur is a director whose work is recognizable. He makes movies his way, and they have a look to them. All the blockbusters and market driven movies have their innards messed with by the studios (marketing teams and execs).
If you had no idea who directed a movie before watching it, can you identify the director? Most of the Hollywood stuff you cannot. But you can identify a film by Wong Kar-Wai, Yasujiro Ozu, or Stanley Kubrick. Granted, Ozu was a Shochiku director, but they let him do his thing.
Why do studio driven films never really hold up as art? Because they are the product of marketing, testing, and appealing to a wider audience. But they sure do make money, I admit.
An auteur is a director whose work is recognizable. He makes movies his way, and they have a look to them. All the blockbusters and market driven movies have their innards messed with by the studios (marketing teams and execs).
If you had no idea who directed a movie before watching it, can you identify the director? Most of the Hollywood stuff you cannot. But you can identify a film by Wong Kar-Wai, Yasujiro Ozu, or Stanley Kubrick. Granted, Ozu was a Shochiku director, but they let him do his thing.
Why do studio driven films never really hold up as art? Because they are the product of marketing, testing, and appealing to a wider audience. But they sure do make money, I admit.
I personally disagree with the direction the criticism is taking here.
There is nothing worse than an artist who feels compelled by the public to satisfy the least common denominator. Real art is from the heart and mind of the artist, and his world, harnessing his inner human condition, his specific talents, and so on.
There is nothing worse than an artist who feels compelled by the public to satisfy the least common denominator. Real art is from the heart and mind of the artist, and his world, harnessing his inner human condition, his specific talents, and so on.
I went that route because Aztec specifically was mentioning the artist's desire to sell in his OP.
While I certainly appreciate your point, from a historic point of few art for arts sake is a concept that is very very new. If you look at the classical "masters", be it in the visual arts or in music, almost everything they did was commissional work.
Commissioned work follows from building a name, a look, an edge, a uniqueness, often comprised of life experience, and a way of seeing the world. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but if there is one solid point I'd like to make, more than anything, it would be this:
He will get a following, and commissions, by staying true to himself. But that does not preclude experimentation on his part. But that experimentation should come from within him and his own self-discovery.
I can see both viewpoints because i tend to air towards agreeing with greyhawk because I am always telling him to do his paintings of the Beatles and the Liver Buildings so he can make some money but Peter definitely would hit it off with FirstAscent. He isn't driven by money. His art is his life and his life is his art. I really don't want him to change because I see his work as truely unique and original. I've always loved his work and that was my motivation for making the site for him. You cant not appreciate the effort he's put in. He has talent no doubt and he has the work ethic. Now all he needs is a break.
I personally disagree with the direction the criticism is taking here.
There is nothing worse than an artist who feels compelled by the public to satisfy the least common denominator. Real art is from the heart and mind of the artist, and his world, harnessing his inner human condition, his specific talents, and so on.
There is nothing worse than an artist who feels compelled by the public to satisfy the least common denominator. Real art is from the heart and mind of the artist, and his world, harnessing his inner human condition, his specific talents, and so on.
I went that route because Aztec specifically was mentioning the artist's desire to sell in his OP.
While I certainly appreciate your point, from a historic point of few art for arts sake is a concept that is very very new. If you look at the classical "masters", be it in the visual arts or in music, almost everything they did was commissional work.
Commissioned work follows from building a name, a look, an edge, a uniqueness, often comprised of life experience, and a way of seeing the world. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but if there is one solid point I'd like to make, more than anything, it would be this:
He will get a following, and commissions, by staying true to himself. But that does not preclude experimentation on his part. But that experimentation should come from within him and his own self-discovery.
I personally disagree with the direction the criticism is taking here.
There is nothing worse than an artist who feels compelled by the public to satisfy the least common denominator. Real art is from the heart and mind of the artist, and his world, harnessing his inner human condition, his specific talents, and so on.
There is nothing worse than an artist who feels compelled by the public to satisfy the least common denominator. Real art is from the heart and mind of the artist, and his world, harnessing his inner human condition, his specific talents, and so on.
I went that route because Aztec specifically was mentioning the artist's desire to sell in his OP.
While I certainly appreciate your point, from a historic point of few art for arts sake is a concept that is very very new. If you look at the classical "masters", be it in the visual arts or in music, almost everything they did was commissional work.
You maybe missed your vocation as an art critic
Good god no.
I think professional art criticism is a perversion of art itself. People applying rules telling other people why a work is to be deemed good or bad and what they are expected to infer from the work? Totally missing the point of art in my view.I personally disagree with the direction the criticism is taking here.
There is nothing worse than an artist who feels compelled by the public to satisfy the least common denominator. Real art is from the heart and mind of the artist, and his world, harnessing his inner human condition, his specific talents, and so on.
Thanks FirstAscent, it's the age old conundrum of whether to stay true to your art or sell out in a way to appease your audience. I just don't want peter to be one of the poor soles who are dead before their work gets the recognition it deserves.There is nothing worse than an artist who feels compelled by the public to satisfy the least common denominator. Real art is from the heart and mind of the artist, and his world, harnessing his inner human condition, his specific talents, and so on.
Thanks for the feedback
WOW!
I admire your verbiage throughout the site, but may I suggest to somehow mention how you bring both--the discarded wood and people--back to life?
Perhaps, you don't need to, for the art shows the revitalization, hence only being a suggestion.
Love your work and site layout. Smooth!
Quote
A lot of the wood I use is reclaimed wood that has been discarded and forgotten like some of the people who I portray in my art.
I admire your verbiage throughout the site, but may I suggest to somehow mention how you bring both--the discarded wood and people--back to life?
Perhaps, you don't need to, for the art shows the revitalization, hence only being a suggestion.
Love your work and site layout. Smooth!
Thanks Phinnaeus, really glad you like my friends work and my minimal web design skills
I think your suggestion is really good and I have a feeling Peter will like that too. It helps to highlight his methodology. I'll suggest it to him and let you know what he thinks. I should be seeing him at some point this week so I'll put it to him.
Thanks everyone so far for taking the time to look at the site and to feedback. I really appreciate it.
WOW!
I admire your verbiage throughout the site, but may I suggest to somehow mention how you bring both--the discarded wood and people--back to life?
Perhaps, you don't need to, for the art shows the revitalization, hence only being a suggestion.
Love your work and site layout. Smooth!
Quote
A lot of the wood I use is reclaimed wood that has been discarded and forgotten like some of the people who I portray in my art.
I admire your verbiage throughout the site, but may I suggest to somehow mention how you bring both--the discarded wood and people--back to life?
Perhaps, you don't need to, for the art shows the revitalization, hence only being a suggestion.
Love your work and site layout. Smooth!
I personally disagree with the direction the criticism is taking here.
There is nothing worse than an artist who feels compelled by the public to satisfy the least common denominator. Real art is from the heart and mind of the artist, and his world, harnessing his inner human condition, his specific talents, and so on.
There is nothing worse than an artist who feels compelled by the public to satisfy the least common denominator. Real art is from the heart and mind of the artist, and his world, harnessing his inner human condition, his specific talents, and so on.
You maybe missed your vocation as an art critic
Good god no.
I think professional art criticism is a perversion of art itself. People applying rules telling other people why a work is to be deemed good or bad and what they are expected to infer from the work? Totally missing the point of art in my view. Are you an artist yourself? You certainly have managed to tap into his art really quickly
Nah, my artistic talents are... well, they suck. But I like to engage with the works of others. I like the way art is able to trap emotion and can "replay" it for one willing to look at it with open eyes.
Well you certainly have an eye for this stuff. You maybe missed your vocation as an art critic
I appreciate your input very much. Thanks for taking the time to take a look and feedback. I'll give peter the feedback because he needs to know truely what people think rather than just his friends and family
Cheers
J
Are you an artist yourself? You certainly have managed to tap into his art really quickly
Nah, my artistic talents are... well, they suck. But I like to engage with the works of others. I like the way art is able to trap emotion and can "replay" it for one willing to look at it with open eyes.
From an economic POV it certainly would make sense.
The thing about people buying art is they generally don't want to buy art that evokes negative feelings. With your friends work you can see there's a lot of emotion going into his work that on the other side provokes in a viewer feelings of being stuck in a rut, of being in eternal limbo. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want that on my wall.
Now of course going all loveydovey and happy would absolutely not work with him. But his material of choice "wood" can easily carry connotations of new life, of rebirth. I think the piece "Earth Mother" is very strong in that regard and thus stands out from his other work.
The thing about people buying art is they generally don't want to buy art that evokes negative feelings. With your friends work you can see there's a lot of emotion going into his work that on the other side provokes in a viewer feelings of being stuck in a rut, of being in eternal limbo. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want that on my wall.
Now of course going all loveydovey and happy would absolutely not work with him. But his material of choice "wood" can easily carry connotations of new life, of rebirth. I think the piece "Earth Mother" is very strong in that regard and thus stands out from his other work.
you have hit on one of his big motivators, that of reclaiming discarded wood and giving the wood itself new life. This maybe isn't represented as good as it could be because of his subject matter. I have spoke to Peter in length about his work and have even expressed the same concerns that you have. As you say loveydovey wouldn't cut it at all with Peter but maybe the idea of rebirth and hope might be explored more. Mother earth does indeed have that kind of power.
Are you an artist yourself? You certainly have managed to tap into his art really quickly
From an economic POV it certainly would make sense.
The thing about people buying art is they generally don't want to buy art that evokes negative feelings. With your friends work you can see there's a lot of emotion going into his work that on the other side provokes in a viewer feelings of being stuck in a rut, of being in eternal limbo. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want that on my wall.
Now of course going all loveydovey and happy would absolutely not work with him. But his material of choice "wood" can easily carry connotations of new life, of rebirth. I think the piece "Earth Mother" is very strong in that regard and thus stands out from his other work.
The thing about people buying art is they generally don't want to buy art that evokes negative feelings. With your friends work you can see there's a lot of emotion going into his work that on the other side provokes in a viewer feelings of being stuck in a rut, of being in eternal limbo. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want that on my wall.
Now of course going all loveydovey and happy would absolutely not work with him. But his material of choice "wood" can easily carry connotations of new life, of rebirth. I think the piece "Earth Mother" is very strong in that regard and thus stands out from his other work.
That's some pretty fantastic work from a technical aspect, though it seems he could benefit from branching out a bit. Most of his work right now seems to be grounded in the Liverpoolian pub/workers quarter milieu and the human condition of those living there specifically. The works elicit feelings of dashed hopes and stagnation. I don't know how old he is but it looks he might benefit from doing some hiking around other places not so... British.
Thanks for the critique I appreciate your honesty. His work is bleak and I think that's just a condition of his environment like you suggest. His work reminds me of the Ashcan artists who moved away from the pleasant view of US and produced a truer documentary of contemporary America as they lived it. I'm no expert by the way, it's just that his work reminds me of that school of art.
His art IS driven by the dashed hopes of others and the lack of opportunity and it might be hard to steer him away from this viewpoint as he is in his forties. However, he is willing to produce any work for a fee.
I'll feedback to him, maybe it would be good for his portfolio to have the odd carving of a dolphin or other lighter material.
I appreciate your constructive criticism.
That's some pretty fantastic work from a technical aspect, though it seems he could benefit from branching out a bit. Most of his work right now seems to be grounded in the Liverpoolian pub/workers quarter milieu and the human condition of those living there specifically. The works elicit feelings of dashed hopes and stagnation. I don't know how old he is but it looks he might benefit from doing some hiking around other places not so... British.
Hey all. I just made a website for my friend to help him out getting more exposure. Me and our circle of friends all love Peters work but as of yet he hasn't really got the credit we feel his work deserves. Please have a look at his gallery and let me know what you think
If you could help out by buying some of Peters work or just sharing his site with your friends and family I would be really grateful.
Also if you know of any places where Peter could exhibit his work that would be fantastic.
He's based near Liverpool in the UK
Thanks for looking
www.pwnelson.co.uk
If you want more information about Peter and his work you can contact him through the Website or drop me a PM.
Thanks, John
If you could help out by buying some of Peters work or just sharing his site with your friends and family I would be really grateful.
Also if you know of any places where Peter could exhibit his work that would be fantastic.
He's based near Liverpool in the UK
Thanks for looking
www.pwnelson.co.uk
If you want more information about Peter and his work you can contact him through the Website or drop me a PM.
Thanks, John
Jump to: