I am sure some of you are familiar with the fine art painting world. How is it doing? What does it have to tell us about the future of fine art LF, now that digital has taken over the world and images live on screens, not prints? Do people want to own one of a kind objects - good news for alt process folks? Or have all but a few of them been starving since photography took away the portrait business?
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
The door-to-door and studio portrait painters of the 1800's only starved if they could not adapt to the new market of portrait photography...or find a nitch market for their skills as a painter. The number of companies that produced paints and brushes probably dwindled until only the best (both in quality and efficiency) survived.
Painting became primarily an art form, rather than a commercial enterprise, though as a commercial enterprise, it certainly did not disappear.
There are more painters now than in in the 1800's, though not as a percentage of the population (but perhaps even by percentage, I do not know for sure).
Analoge photography might follow the same path...and even traditional painting is being affected by digital rendering.
Most of the painters I know here in rural Missouri are amateurs. A few do earn a living at it, or substantually subsidize their income. Long ago drawing and painting may have been stressed more in some schools, resulting in many casual artists. The advent of digital photography discourages labor intensive painting. Drawing and painting does give a rewarding sense of accomplishment that is lacking in snapshots. It is also relaxing, while photography feels more energizing.
One of the first to see Daguerre's photographic images, the French painter Paul Delaroche said, "Painting is dead from this day." Wrong!
Once photography was invented, people said painting was over. So much for the
relibility of presumptuous predictions. Now that digital photography has been invented, people say that both film photography and painting are over. But it is in the very blood of artists to rebel from current conventions. Take for example the
current revival in alternative printing processes. The more electronic gadgets make
things simpler, the more people want to do things the hard way. Me too!
In my area all the arts are basically dead. Photography (which isn't really alive here anyway), painting, sculpture, pottery, wood working, glass, all of it. Very seriously dead. More than one artist has just given up and walked away from it.Originally Posted by Ed Richards
But you'll never hear about how bad the economy really is from the corporate media. Such stories might depress people, and hurt sales in the big box stores...
But living close to where Katrina hit, you've got no experience with that do you Ed? Sigh...
Bruce Watson
My sons both paint, draw, photograph and play music, among other things. Neither owns or uses a digital camera or a computer in the production of art. I'm sure I'm the most pro-digital person in my house. My youngest son wants to study painting full time. He paints in oils, while his brother favors water colors. I think both could develop into serious painters, but only my youngest seems committed to it.
I am a member of an artist cooperative (28 members, a variety of media) and we have a gallery in downtown Arcata. Tracking sales over the past 3 years, our sales are increasing by about 10% a year (that is, comparing let's say June 2010 with June 2009, the 2010 sales are about 10% higher).
The price break has shifted down a little, but we are all amazed (and happy) to see these figures. Reasons? A community that values local products and the arts (Humboldt County has the most artists per capata in California). The advent of staycations (if one can't afford a vacation, then spend a fraction of that cost on art or other improvements to make staying at home more pleasant. A vibrant, recession proof industry (growing weed -- Humboldt Co voted against legalizing weed 54/46). And of course we have a great set of artists in the coop.
Vaughn
While sad, I don't think any of this is a result of photography killing off the other visual arts.
The last time I went to the local gallery there were some of the finest paintings I've ever seen locally, all recent work by regional artists. They seem to be as active and good as ever. I doubt sales are brisk, but that's just the economy.
I have seen signs that alt processes are getting more popular among practitioners. There was someone teaching alt processes in the tiny, remote town where I spent the last 2 summers. There is someone teaching some alt processes at the only public darkroom within 150 miles, a darkroom which practically nobody uses anymore. Thats the only encouraging sign related to that darkroom, so alt may be the last thing to live (and die) there. But who knows if this modest popularity has infected anyone except those doing it.
I know I'm much more interested in B&W and alt processes because I cant afford to do Ilfochrome much anymore.
I think LF and analog in general can do just fine alongside digital. The only problem as I see it, is practitioners of the latter blurring the line as if there is no difference, a "its the destination not the journey" mentality. I'm in favor of letting people decide that for themselves, by giving them brief but useful provenance/process information. Many digital photographers arent doing this now, and many galleries and directors are allowing it. If people know what they are seeing/buying I'm comfortable with whatever they choose. Let them decide of the process is important to them. So digital itself isnt a threat, but the way it represents itself is something of a threat to an educated public, much of which probably thinks analog in all its forms died 10 years ago.
Painting, sculpture and other visual arts are alive and well here in New York. As it always has been, it remains a long shot to ever make a living solely from the work, especially if one is focussed on honing an individual vision that might not be all that commercially viable. That said, I was just at a sculptor friend's group show this past weekend and a wall-hanging sculpture piece sold for $11,500. This was a small (but a quality) gallery on the Lower East Side.
There is an interesting split between Colorado and New Mexico I've noticed over recent years. A friend of mine was a painter in a Co-op in Denver, so I paid some attention to that market up there. She was mentored by a well known abstract painter who sold work in many markets. One thing that was quite clear is that some markets value art much higher than others. Denver is definitely on the low end and generally speaking there are few galleries per capita in Colorado. The same painting from the Houston or NYC market might be priced half here Colorado and still won't sell. Where I live in Colorado Springs, the market is even worse. There are certainly artists living in the area and some are doing well, but its a pretty small art market. There are some bright spots in the mountain resort towns, but often the places up there are filled with chain galleries, and the independents rarely seem to last long.
But taking a 5 hour drive south, you'll wind up in Santa Fe. Even along backroads there are art galleries all over the place... until you hit the CO border again. There is also a wide spread in the pricing of the work carried in these galleries, from craft items on the low end to higher end sculpture, photography and painting. I've run into a COS native Pard Morrison who apparently studied under Agnes Martin for some time, and he seems to do pretty well in the Santa Fe market. He specialized in painted sculptural art.
From where I live, I'd think that the painting market is dead, or on life support, but its been that way for years, long before the recession began. I'd say the same for photography, sculpture, drawing and pretty much everything else related to the arts here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks