Who's more important the artist or the gallery?

Jay Babina wrote

on 14 Jan 2011 10:12 AM

Since my favorite "Workshop" magazine is no more I now get American Artist in it's place. The issue before last (January 2011) had an interesting series of articles on ""11 upcoming artists to watch". The thing that struck me right off was the fact that there were no pictures of the artists but a picture of a gallery owner who was commenting on the various artists work. What's wrong with this picture? Obviously the artists picture wasn't important to the magazine yet a picture of the people selling the work was. I would have liked to seen the artist and perhaps more than a gallery owner who sells that artists work along with many others who they feel they can make money on. Granted many gallery owners have artistic taste and good intentions but when the artists becomes a faceless nobody other than the commodity they produce, I think there is a bit of reassessment that needs to happen with the magazine that calls itself "American Artist" and not American Gallery Owner.

Paul Sullivan wrote

on 29 May 2011 10:16 AM

Jay— I'm just sorry that it took me so look to catch this post.

I agree with you on this. I saw this American Artist article when it ran and could not figure out the logic behind the piece either.

Paul Sullivan

DanaD12 wrote

on 29 May 2011 10:27 AM

I missed this also.  And, Jay, I completely agree with you!  That also goes for exhibition curators.

Just very recently, I won a rather large award for a painting and the photo in the newspaper had one of the exhibition's members holding MY painting!  I was not a happy camper, to say the least! 

KatPaints wrote

on 30 May 2011 7:28 PM

How did we all not see your post Jay??

I haven't seen the magazine, but this is really odd. Imagine if someone won an Oscar and an owner of a movie theater held up the statue for a photo instead of the actor. This is just so bizarre. Why would people do this? Are they lazy and just not want to spend the time contacting the artist?

As a side topic which may or may not be related, I think we as artists also need to inform people that creating art is enjoyable, but it takes effort. People do not take art seriously and avoid giving artists credit for what we do. They don't understand the process. Art is generally not taken seriously as a profession and is seen as a "fun" activity. I realize that there are lots of people creating art for their enjoyment and this is fine, but people who decide to earn their income from a creative pursuit have difficulties dealing with an uniformed public. For many this is a business and all laws apply to artist as well. Getting proper credit is important.

I try to paint en plein air each weekend and people will always approach me. (I'm not saying I mind this, but it has gotten me to think.)I am not selling my work at this point in time, but eventually I will. If someone were to create a stone wall in a park, my guess is that people might look, but not interrupt the person because they are viewing the person as working. Art is not work to most people. Many also consider the art to be separate from the artist. They have no idea of the time, previous mishaps, and learning that took place in order to create the piece. It's magic to them and they feel as if they have taken an active part in bringing it to the world.  So I guess they consider having someone else hold up the painting for the photo is OK???

DanaD12 wrote

on 4 Jun 2011 6:55 AM

I have people constantly asking me how long it took to paint 'that' portrait!  My answer is always "about 50 years, give or take a few years while raising my children".   Seems to get the message across. 

jackiesimmonds wrote

on 12 Dec 2011 4:12 AM

I haven't seen the magazine either, but I do think this is a dreadful insult to the artists concerned.  I despair of publishers who do things like this...they either have no sensitivity whatsoever, or are simply just ignorant.

Have you written to the magazine about this?  If not, I would suggest you do so.  It is only when artists make themselves heard that things will change.  Perhaps the magazine's editor would be contrite enough to publish an apology along with photos of the artists concerned.

Jackie

jackiesimmondsartyfacts.blogspot.com