Government grants make art worse...

[Anonymous]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-jaworski/government-grants-make-ar_b_930728.html

To make money as an artist in Canada, you have two choices: appeal to the crowd, or appeal for a grant. The former requires strong sales, good marketing, and a solid business plan. The latter requires an ability to fill in forms...

William Hopper, author of the Heathen's Guide to World Religions faced the crowd/grant dilemma in the book publishing business. Having started out independently printing and selling his work, he eventually secured a publishing deal to re-release the wildly popular book through normal channels.

Hopper unwittingly entered the modern world of grant-oriented pulp. He tells me that the publisher (who will go unnamed) used a spell-checker to 'correct' the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin words used in the text. As none of these were in the dictionary, substitutions were made and promptly forgotten about.

Hopper was furious. He got the rights to his book back, but not before he learned a valuable lesson:

"When your primary income comes from government grants, you have no incentive to do a good job," Hopper explains.

[1713860067]

1713860067

[1713860067]

1713860067

[1713860067]

1713860067

[1713860067]

1713860067

[onesalt]

Actually artists have no incentive to do a good job these days anyway because they can literally smear their own shit on a wall and call it modern art and get paid millions for it. I've literally seen bits of wood with nails in them called things like "Honour" valued at 30 grand. The most notable example I can think of is that fucking ass who just stuck 1.7 million dollars worth of diamonds to a plastic skull, called it "art" instead of "tacky shit" and was paid 15 million dollars for it.

Fuck artists.

[Anonymous]

I think it's fair to call anything art if it can be valued by a private individual at such prices. What makes your voice so important over a man who would put so much of his own value into a piece?

[SgtSpike]

Actually artists have no incentive to do a good job these days anyway because they can literally smear their own shit on a wall and call it modern art and get paid millions for it. I've literally seen bits of wood with nails in them called things like "Honour" valued at 30 grand. The most notable example I can think of is that fucking ass who just stuck 1.7 million dollars worth of diamonds to a plastic skull, called it "art" instead of "tacky shit" and was paid 15 million dollars for it.

Fuck artists.

Haha, completely agree.  A good portrait or nature scene would be awesome to see in a modern art gallery, but you see no such things.  Instead, there's random junkyard bits thrown together, then displayed as "abstract".  Someone out there must enjoy that stuff in order for people to keep making it, but it must just be among the artist crowd!

Guess I'll keep garage-saling to find good paintings that don't look like a 7 year old did it. 

[Anonymous]

Actually artists have no incentive to do a good job these days anyway because they can literally smear their own shit on a wall and call it modern art and get paid millions for it. I've literally seen bits of wood with nails in them called things like "Honour" valued at 30 grand. The most notable example I can think of is that fucking ass who just stuck 1.7 million dollars worth of diamonds to a plastic skull, called it "art" instead of "tacky shit" and was paid 15 million dollars for it.

Fuck artists.

Haha, completely agree.  A good portrait or nature scene would be awesome to see in a modern art gallery, but you see no such things.  Instead, there's random junkyard bits thrown together, then displayed as "abstract".  Someone out there must enjoy that stuff in order for people to keep making it, but it must just be among the artist crowd!

Guess I'll keep garage-saling to find good paintings that don't look like a 7 year old did it. 

These pieces are a lot more if you actually contemplate them for once... The easiest piece to appreciate isn't necessarily the best.

[onesalt]

Actually artists have no incentive to do a good job these days anyway because they can literally smear their own shit on a wall and call it modern art and get paid millions for it. I've literally seen bits of wood with nails in them called things like "Honour" valued at 30 grand. The most notable example I can think of is that fucking ass who just stuck 1.7 million dollars worth of diamonds to a plastic skull, called it "art" instead of "tacky shit" and was paid 15 million dollars for it.

Fuck artists.

Haha, completely agree.  A good portrait or nature scene would be awesome to see in a modern art gallery, but you see no such things.  Instead, there's random junkyard bits thrown together, then displayed as "abstract".  Someone out there must enjoy that stuff in order for people to keep making it, but it must just be among the artist crowd!

Guess I'll keep garage-saling to find good paintings that don't look like a 7 year old did it. 

These pieces are a lot more if you actually contemplate them for once... The easiest piece to appreciate isn't necessarily the best.

If I have to contemplate how paying someone to polish a piece of granite and then call it something pretentious like "honesty" counts as a masterpiece of artwork as opposed to a vividly and incredibly well painted artistic piece then it doesn't deserve to be called art, sorry. I absolutely detest artists who put in essentially no effort into their work and get away with it. There is some good modern art but it's only good because it's impressive rather than because it's some douchy shit.

example:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NpINLHeo8rM/Sx5QJTf6hjI/AAAAAAAAvm8/7yvLCNm4Xg0/s400/7.jpg
good modern art.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Hirst-Love-Of-God.jpg
pretentious douchy shit.

[Anonymous]

You correlate the amount of labor with value. That's not how life works. I don't believe every man should be paid handsomely for digging a ditch. He should be paid for a ditch that serves a valuable purpose.

There pretentious pieces that sell for a lot obviously meet a lot of desires for a lot of people. That's all that matters.

[Gabi]

Actually artists have no incentive to do a good job these days anyway because they can literally smear their own shit on a wall and call it modern art and get paid millions for it. I've literally seen bits of wood with nails in them called things like "Honour" valued at 30 grand. The most notable example I can think of is that fucking ass who just stuck 1.7 million dollars worth of diamonds to a plastic skull, called it "art" instead of "tacky shit" and was paid 15 million dollars for it.

Fuck artists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit

A tin was sold for €124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23 2007[1]; in October 2008 tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of £50-70,000. It sold for £97,250[2]. The cans were originally to be valued according to their equivalent weight in gold — $37 each in 1961 — with the price fluctuating according to the market[3].

And there are 90 tins

Expensive shit is expensive.

[SgtSpike]

Actually artists have no incentive to do a good job these days anyway because they can literally smear their own shit on a wall and call it modern art and get paid millions for it. I've literally seen bits of wood with nails in them called things like "Honour" valued at 30 grand. The most notable example I can think of is that fucking ass who just stuck 1.7 million dollars worth of diamonds to a plastic skull, called it "art" instead of "tacky shit" and was paid 15 million dollars for it.

Fuck artists.

Haha, completely agree.  A good portrait or nature scene would be awesome to see in a modern art gallery, but you see no such things.  Instead, there's random junkyard bits thrown together, then displayed as "abstract".  Someone out there must enjoy that stuff in order for people to keep making it, but it must just be among the artist crowd!

Guess I'll keep garage-saling to find good paintings that don't look like a 7 year old did it. 

These pieces are a lot more if you actually contemplate them for once... The easiest piece to appreciate isn't necessarily the best.

But that's the thing.  To me, art is something beautiful and amazing.  Not something I have to contemplate to get the meaning of.  Art shouldn't have meaning - it should just be beautiful and amazing.  Problem is, it seems all "artists" have gone from creating things that are beautiful and amazing to things that are ugly, look like they were made by a gradeschooler, and have "meaning".  Bleh.

[Anonymous]

Actually artists have no incentive to do a good job these days anyway because they can literally smear their own shit on a wall and call it modern art and get paid millions for it. I've literally seen bits of wood with nails in them called things like "Honour" valued at 30 grand. The most notable example I can think of is that fucking ass who just stuck 1.7 million dollars worth of diamonds to a plastic skull, called it "art" instead of "tacky shit" and was paid 15 million dollars for it.

Fuck artists.

Haha, completely agree.  A good portrait or nature scene would be awesome to see in a modern art gallery, but you see no such things.  Instead, there's random junkyard bits thrown together, then displayed as "abstract".  Someone out there must enjoy that stuff in order for people to keep making it, but it must just be among the artist crowd!

Guess I'll keep garage-saling to find good paintings that don't look like a 7 year old did it.  

These pieces are a lot more if you actually contemplate them for once... The easiest piece to appreciate isn't necessarily the best.

But that's the thing.  To me, art is something beautiful and amazing.  Not something I have to contemplate to get the meaning of.  Art shouldn't have meaning - it should just be beautiful and amazing.  Problem is, it seems all "artists" have gone from creating things that are beautiful and amazing to things that are ugly, look like they were made by a gradeschooler, and have "meaning".  Bleh.

Well, the latter gives me endless amount of pleasure mainly because I can talk about them with people I am viewing it with and the creator. A realistic portrait can add a nice accent but can they make good conversation? To me the real value is in the conversations that can be had over with it.

It's like looking in the clouds. In the end, it's a matter of opinion. There is no objective value that can be placed over art but price is a good indication of how much value the majority assigns to a piece.

[SgtSpike]

Actually artists have no incentive to do a good job these days anyway because they can literally smear their own shit on a wall and call it modern art and get paid millions for it. I've literally seen bits of wood with nails in them called things like "Honour" valued at 30 grand. The most notable example I can think of is that fucking ass who just stuck 1.7 million dollars worth of diamonds to a plastic skull, called it "art" instead of "tacky shit" and was paid 15 million dollars for it.

Fuck artists.

Haha, completely agree.  A good portrait or nature scene would be awesome to see in a modern art gallery, but you see no such things.  Instead, there's random junkyard bits thrown together, then displayed as "abstract".  Someone out there must enjoy that stuff in order for people to keep making it, but it must just be among the artist crowd!

Guess I'll keep garage-saling to find good paintings that don't look like a 7 year old did it.  

These pieces are a lot more if you actually contemplate them for once... The easiest piece to appreciate isn't necessarily the best.

But that's the thing.  To me, art is something beautiful and amazing.  Not something I have to contemplate to get the meaning of.  Art shouldn't have meaning - it should just be beautiful and amazing.  Problem is, it seems all "artists" have gone from creating things that are beautiful and amazing to things that are ugly, look like they were made by a gradeschooler, and have "meaning".  Bleh.

Well, the latter gives me endless amount of pleasure mainly because I can talk about them with people I am viewing it with and the creator. A realistic portrait can add a nice accent but can they make good conversation? To me the real value is in the conversations that can be had over with it.

It's like looking in the clouds. In the end, it's a matter of opinion. There is no objective value that can be placed over art but price is a good indication of how much value the majority assigns to a piece.

Hard to argue with that.  I suppose the difference between you and I is I like to see the effort put into the actual art, vs effort put into the idea of the art.  Well, and I don't typically have conversations about artwork - in fact, I would rather avoid having conversation about artwork.  It is to look at (or listen to, depending on the form of art) and be awed by, not to converse about.  That's just my opinion, but I understand where you're coming from too.

[deuxmill]

Actually artists have no incentive to do a good job these days anyway because they can literally smear their own shit on a wall and call it modern art and get paid millions for it. I've literally seen bits of wood with nails in them called things like "Honour" valued at 30 grand. The most notable example I can think of is that fucking ass who just stuck 1.7 million dollars worth of diamonds to a plastic skull, called it "art" instead of "tacky shit" and was paid 15 million dollars for it.

Fuck artists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit

A tin was sold for €124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23 2007[1]; in October 2008 tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of £50-70,000. It sold for £97,250[2]. The cans were originally to be valued according to their equivalent weight in gold — $37 each in 1961 — with the price fluctuating according to the market[3].

And there are 90 tins

Expensive shit is expensive.

Good for him he took the stupid rich guy's/women's money. He should eat more and shit more and get more money for it. I'm kinda amazed he puled it of. Still deserves respect. The buyer on the other hand =))

[Fakeman]

I think it's fair to call anything art if it can be valued by a private individual at such prices. What makes your voice so important over a man who would put so much of his own value into a piece?

It's the magical blessing of the very very rich that makes truly great art. I wouldn't expect you rubes to understand.

[Anonymous]

I think it's fair to call anything art if it can be valued by a private individual at such prices. What makes your voice so important over a man who would put so much of his own value into a piece?

It's the magical blessing of the very very rich that makes truly great art. I wouldn't expect you rubes to understand.

I never said such a thing. What I mean to say is that a free vote towards a piece's beauty is worth nothing. It's by the exchange of ones value that can truly determine the value of a piece whether the price be relatively high or low.

[JA37]

Yes, one anecdotal example tips the whole system.
Down with grants. Booh! They're all the sux0rz!

*sigh*

[Vitalik Buterin]

Yes, one anecdotal example tips the whole system.
Down with grants. Booh! They're all the sux0rz!

*sigh*

It wasn't an anecdote. It was an argument (when your income comes from grants you have no incentive to do a good job) with one anecdote to help express the point.

[Rassah]

Speaking of anecdotes:
Guy comes in to a car mechanic's and says "My car is making a strange noise." The mechanic leans in to listen to the engine for a bit, then takes out a hammer and hits the engine hard. The noise stops.
"That'll be $50 dollars."
"What? Just for smacking it with a hammer?"
"Hitting with the hammer was $5. Knowing where to hit is the other $45"

This isn't specifically aimed at this situation, but I think still applies. That crappy single stripe of shit on a canvas is likely stripe #250+, and probably took a lot of practice for the artist to be comfortable with their results of trying to express their feeling and emotion through it (artists are usually their own worst critics, and will find fault with their stuff way before anyone else does). If valid, and others can recognize the subtleties of emotion, or frustration, hidden in that single stroke, let them value it and pay however much they wish. If the artist is just being a pretentious ahole, chances are no one would have ever heard of them, anyway, since everyone already paints shit stripes on paper every day.

As for public grants, I do think it may give an artist an unjustified sense of being appreciated, validating their work, at least financially, when their work actually has no merit and isn't actually valued as art by anyone else. On the other hand, there are plenty of great artists who lived poor and died peniless.

[FirstAscent]

Speaking of anecdotes:
Guy comes in to a car mechanic's and says "My car is making a strange noise." The mechanic leans in to listen to the engine for a bit, then takes out a hammer and hits the engine hard. The noise stops.
"That'll be $50 dollars."
"What? Just for smacking it with a hammer?"
"Hitting with the hammer was $5. Knowing where to hit is the other $45"

Reminds me of web design, which should be done by trained graphic artists. I showed a friend a fairly simple home page of some web site. He was an IT director fantasizing about becoming a web developer, not even really understanding the difference between a designer and developer. Point is, I showed him the home page of this site which I thought looked really clean and nice.

I said to him, "Look at that. What do you think? That's not easy to do."

He said, "That? That's simple. I could do that in PhotoShop and create HTML from that."

I then proceeded to tell him in no uncertain terms that he could not. The first point he was totally missing was before doing the technical work in PhotoShop, you've got to visualize some random thing in your head which could be any of a number of infinite things, and it has to look good. What colors? What shapes? What layout? How do they interconnect? What's the overall tone? Does it communicate effectively? Is it harmonious? Is it unique? Does it have the proper feel for the site's purpose? Just because it's simple does not mean it's easy.

He just assumed the above process kind of just happens as you fire up PhotoShop. What he thought was the real work was just the final step.