Join for FREE | Take the Tour Lost Password?

deviantART

 
:icontalescaper:

=Talescaper

Art, photography, journalism
ProfileGalleryPrintsFavesJournal
Wears a tinfoil hat Blind to Pageviews

Art vs Fame! Titlefight!

Fri Jul 6, 2007, 4:50 AM
Image hosting by Photobucket

I recently read that Salvador Dali hated cinema as a medium, but used it because he could reach a public that would never set foot in a gallery to see his paintings. Especially in this age, less than a century after Dali started his cinematic endeavours, cinema has become the medium in which to reach the large public. It has also become the artform with the biggest salary, so to speak. This brings up a question that has started to become more and more important since Warhol invented "Popular art". Can art created to please masses still be art? Progressive artists should never be asked to compromise their often unpopular views in order to be able to produce their work. Of course they have been for centuries, but the compromises of today are getting harsher, it feels. Sometimes I feel that the only way to justify the things I make (and the things you see in my gallery) by saying that I like doing them. That they are for nobody but myself and that I do not aim to make a living by it. Which is quite far from the truth.
On the other side of the spectrum are the people who make things aimed at pleasing as many people as possible. It is not their goal to create something new, but quite the opposite: they know the public wants something to identify itself with, something nice and familiar. These people can be creative in the literal meaning of the word, but they lack the artistic mindset to make something more than beautiful or even truly original. My problem with all this is that it’s these people who seem to reap the most recognition and have the largest share in the attention of the public.
I think there are two ways to go at this, two different compromises. If we compromise our products and make what the public wants to see, our art will no longer be our own. Or we can compromise the uniqueness and availability of our work. Think about Keith Herring, for example, whose work has been reduced to assembly line products. Or indeed Dali. Whose work, despite his huge popularity and the reproductions on posters, t-shirts, clocks etc has lost none of its strength.

Dalí & Film - A Groundbreaking Show At Tate Modern
Did Dali really love cinema? (Dutch)






Sandor82's Last.fm Weekly Tracks Chart

Visitor Map
Create your own visitor map!







Devious Comments

love 0 0 joy 0 0 wow 0 0 mad 0 0 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0
:iconkyotaneko:
wow- you really hit on a heartstring of the art world! I sometimes get very frustrated at these two sides of the coin. I have quite a bit of traditional work that i havn't posted on DA, but I have gotten to show in traditional galleries which I enjoy and the art community accepts as i have gotten several awards for this work. However, not many of these paintings have sold and the majority of the public (example: people i work with) are less than accepting of it and would rather see me do something "prettier" or less abrasive. I think that much of our struggle comes from the age old art tradition of art being a luxery, to be had by the rich and higher class, and since our work is unique and a piece of ourselves, should come with a high price. Yet in today's society, the majority of consumers, I feel, now have to their advantage ( and our great disadvantage) art of mass production- why buy an origial oil portrait, when you can go to a photographer or even Wal-mart, and purchase decorative pieces for your home that may come without origionality, but also without the price tag. While an art carreer has always been a struggle to gain notarity and thus marketability, I think this has increased it. One upside is that with this art for the mass public, there is a bigger market to tap into while creating our own art for higher purposes- just as older artists of the renaissance and all other periods would take commissions in order to have the means to make their own art that we now treasure so much.... wow that was a long rant ^^; .. sorry!

--
The world needs people who really care about something and work hard at it. -Alphonse Elric
:icontalescaper:
Exactly what I mean! The public does not want a piece of you or an insight in your emotional struggle or philosophies. They want something pretty.
By the way: a lot of classic artists who did portraits etc for commissions had an even better scheme. They'd put little details in their work to show their own opinion of the commissioner... Something in the background, something subtle. I'm not entirely sure of any examples I could name, but if you step into your local museum with such paintings you'll see what I mean.
Thanks for your elaborate reaction :D I've enjoyed it.

--
Supporting and informing deviants near you
--
Sine Somnis, Sumus Nemo.
:iconkyotaneko:
I know exacly what you mean- where masaccio painted the doners on either side of his trinity and even painted the inscription by the coffin "I WAS WHAT YOU ARE AND WHAT I AM YOU SHALL BE" to inspire the viewer to even deeper thought. I sometimes do fear the art for the masses to take away from our expression, but I guess I can take a lesson from those artists that included their own thoughts even in commissioned work.

--
The world needs people who really care about something and work hard at it. -Alphonse Elric
:iconkyotaneko:
yeah, guess It was pretty elaborate _ ^^; it's a great topic your brought up though

--
The world needs people who really care about something and work hard at it. -Alphonse Elric
:iconataratis:
so how about those artists, that make their own thing but end up somehow pleasing the masses?
I mean, I agree, and it is hard to go above and beyond what it known and comfortable, but when is something original? and then another question should also be asked: what is art and what are the different kinds of art. there is freelance, artists that just make what they make and people can decide to buy it but is their own thing. Their is art in categories, furniture, graffiti even make up.. to name a few random things. They are not all as easily used for expression yet they all seem to be unique, and doesnlt all art in a way communicate with the public? I mean, if it doesnlt I guess it become ignored and left to be unknown. no commun ication, no attraction or repulsion.
WOW.. sorry, rant!

--
Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.
-Oscar Wilde

What do you do with critique? 

55%
22 deviants said I think about which suggestions I want to keep and include them
15%
6 deviants said I think about it a lot, but rarely include any of it
10%
4 deviants said I apply all suggestions immediately in my work
10%
4 deviants said I listen to what people say, but not much more
8%
3 deviants said I never let anyone critique my work
3%
1 deviant said I often get angry. I find most critiques offensive

Journal History

Prints

Listening

Endorsements



Site Map