The What Is Art debate is as endless and ultimately unenlightening as the What Is Videoblogging debate. Is a light turning on and off art? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Creed It is if it is. Is there a God?
Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 8-Aug-08, at 12:00 PM, Jim Kukral wrote: So if the intent of creating a piece of "art" is to sell it in such a manner. is it still considered true art? Or is it marketing/creating a product? I'm not sure it can be both? If it can be both, then can it be argued that a website design or well written email can be art then too? Maybe I am an artist after all! Jim From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:55 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground Both. And exclusivity or very limited availability is a very well used art selling technique. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jim Kukral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is this art, or marketing? > > > > http://www.onethousandpaintings.com/home/ > > > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> ] > On Behalf Of Rupert > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:32 PM > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <mailto:videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground > > > > I love discussions like this. They get me thinking on my feet, my > argument evolves. We have time to think. > > Yes, Quirk. It's true. Tons of artists make a living and there *is* > a lot of money in art now. Investors have been piling out of other > markets and into art. Look at the massive prices at auctions at > the moment. > > And John, I don't think we 'get' networks with a higher order. I > think we make them. We can now. But then how commercially > successful they are depends on their accessibility and marketability, > and how hard you work to bring them to people's attention amid all > the noise. > > As Quirk points out, art can have commercial success. As Jen points > out, Stan Brakhage never made a living from it. What he was > interested in doing was not in that accessible middle ground. If you > want to get rich from your art, make stuff with which you can > aggressively pursue the public's (and the media's) attention. > > The reputation and value of much modern art is intertwined with the > reputation and profile of the artist. The thing that the YBAs like > Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin and Sam Taylor Wood discovered in the 90s > was the selling of themselves as controversial, celebrity artists. > > They traded on sensation and beauty and controversy and their own > reputations snowballed as a result. > > They used celebrity clients and newsworthy subjects and used > mainstream news media to do this. Their breakthrough works were > things like a shark in a tanks of formaldehyde, an unmade bed in a > gallery, a portrait of Elton John. Now their work sells for millions. > > Obviously, there are many similar stories through the centuries. And > often artists are just successful for being brilliant. But a lot of > times, artists who are immediately commercially successful use either > humour or controversy. Or both. As well as being brilliant. > > Hirst, Emin, Lynch, von Trier - all these people are shameless self- > publicists. They have agents, dealers, PR. They make extreme works > of art, say shocking things, come up with stunts, provoke controversy. > > They make themselves interesting to people who think they aren't > educated or skilled enough to understand modern art. Even if those > people then go to a dinner party and say "The world's gone mad. A > light turning on and off just won the Turner Prize." > > Kent is just telling you what these guys have been doing for years. > Only Kent's just focussing on building and monetizing an online > audience. These other artists are thinking about a wider, smarter > public and media. > > Because the shows that go 'viral' from just being online are the ones > that appeal to the blogger/geek/teen demographic. To reach a better > audience who are going to value your work properly, you have to go > out into traditional media and get their attention. > > You maniacs at Wreck and Salvage should be playing this game in the > real world - your work is *ripe* for it. At the very least, you > should be at the centre of media disussions about copyright and art. > If you personally don't feel like making public appearances, that's > fine - look at Banksy: for 10 years, nobody knew who he was - but > then get someone else to put your work out there. Do shows, put > yourselves in the news. Make appearances in welding masks. > > And John, your millions of views prove that your work is accessible - > you battle with people in public, replying to YouTube videos, turning > them into brilliant funny pieces of theatre. Even my wife liked that > Christine Breese video. > > But when you get featured on YouTube, most of your audience is the > Ask A Ninja target audience - hence the teenage trolls & haters. > When you post elsewhere, you reach people like me who see the work > and creativity that goes into what you're doing. That's the audience > you've got to work on. > > Be more 'up' yourself. You're an artist. Why not treat yourself as > self-importantly as the video artists who get their work in galleries > and get grants? Make some crazy controversial shit that rips up a > big newsworthy figure like the YBAs did in the 90s. > > Then go out there, get attention from some content-hungry features > editors by telling them that what you're doing is shocking and new > and funny and a new kind of art. They love all this crazy internet > bullshit. Give them an excuse to print it by staging a real life > event using your video work. Hype yourself, or get your girlfriend > to do it for you. > > I'm still not convinced that this will mean you can get Donations or > successfully get people to Pay to download your videos online. The > culture's too different online at the moment. But surely you can > raise the value of your art, for sale and grants offline, if you're > clever. > > Does that sound like turning it into a business, or selling out? I > don't know. Hirst's shark sold a few years ago for $12m. And "For > the love of God", a diamond-encrusted platinum skull, sold last year > for $100m. Is he a sell-out? > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.tv > > On 8-Aug-08, at 8:42 AM, Adam Quirk wrote: > > The header of your blog has a quote from Woody Allen, an artist who > makes > money from his art. > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Jim Kukral <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:jim%40jimkukral.com> > wrote: > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1601 - Release Date: 8/8/2008 > 9:02 AM > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1601 - Release Date: 8/8/2008 9:02 AM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
