Los Angeles Art News, Art Blog

ART BLOG

ARTICLES FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2011
Contributing Bloggers: John Harbinger Jr.and David Harbrenig

Friend us again

. Our Facebook page was deactivated due to a technical problem, so please help us build a new network of L.A artists and art enthusiasts as quickly as possible
Artlanow Members & Friends are welcome to post information about their current and upcoming exhibitions and events on our fan page

Art really can get your pulse racing

I’ve written about this before – and I’ll probably write about it again as the results of new researches are published. It’s the question of what kinds of physical response viewing art can trigger. A recent research, conducted at a Swiss museum has concluded that art can get the pulse racing and the skin tingling –real and measurable physical responses suggesting that aesthetic appreciation is a full-body experience.

Three hundred and seventy-three people visiting the Kunstmuseum in St. Gallen agreed to wear special gloves measuring four physiological responses as they strolled through an art exhibit featuring 76 works of contemporary art. The exhibits included paintings by Monet, Munch, Klee and Warhol.) Researchers from the University of Bern found an association between the gallery-goers’ reported aesthetic appreciation of the artworks and three of four measurements of simultaneous bodily stimulation. The 4 measurements were of heart rate, heart rate variability, skin conductance level and skin conductance variability. Skin conductance, if you are wondering, is the phenomenon where the skin becomes a better conductor of electricity when either external or internal stimuli occur that are physiologically arousing.

I have visited exhibitions and had some of my own physical responses: the hair of my arms stood up with excitement or I’ve wanted to pull out the hair from my head because of disappointment.

You can find out more in the journal Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts.

It’s not easy to be an art dealer/gallery owner. Why do they do it?

I think it’s safe to say it’s not the easiest business in the world. In fact, it is one of the hardest. More than 90% of people, who open art galleries, lose pots of money and eventually close. So I guess, unless you have a driving passion for art, and are willing to accept a high risk on your business venture, there is no logical reason to become an art dealer.

Successful art dealers - those who survive and flourish - do so because, beyond the ability to cultivate a network of artists, they are able to connections with collectors and museums and interest them in the work of their artists.

An art dealer/gallerist must be a social-minded person, who enjoys spending time with people in the art world and cultivating relations with them. Much of his/her business is conducted at openings and in sales proposals made to collectors and museum curators.

The very best dealers develop reputations for anticipating swings in taste and value. A few, at the very top of the business, can even become the forces which dictate such changes. Some successful dealers seem to be able to create demand for an artist by simply agreeing to represent him or her.

Since Art covers such a vast amount of periods, styles and types, most successful dealers tend to specialize. It has professional advantages but, at the same time, galleries that develop reputations for representing specific styles can see their fortunes rise and fall as tastes change. Anticipating these changes is difficult, even for the most experienced professionals. A good dealer must, therefore, be attuned to overall developments in the art market, not just in his/her specific area, in order to re-adjust the business. On the practical side, an art dealer must have the business and sales skills needed in any entrepreneurial venture. Having a strong capital base is also essential for long term survival since gallery cash flow in the business is variable. Those dry spells when there is no money coming in from sales can kill the business.

If after reading all this you still consider yourself a potential art dealer, then I can only say–Good Luck!

A Non-Visible “work of art” is sold for $10,000

Here’s a story I found at the Huffington Post art news section on July 22^nd about a bizarre new project called the Museum of Non-Visible Art, which takes conceptual art to a whole new level. In simple terms, the idea of the museum is that the works of art don't exist physically. Instead they are imagined by the artist. When you purchase the "work of art" you get just a card which defines the concept behind the potential actual work. You can hang the card on an empty wall and read from it to "describe it to your audience." Check out their website at www.nonvisiblemuseum.com for more information.

Now the amazing thing is that the museum just made one big sale. A woman paid $10,000 for a piece title "Fresh Air" described as:

“A unique piece in which the air you are purchasing is like buying an endless tank of oxygen. No matter where you are, you always have the ability to take a breath of the most delicious, clean-smelling air that the earth can produce. Every breath you take gives you endless peace and health. This artwork is something to carry with you if you own it. Because wherever you are, you can imagine yourself getting the most beautiful taste of air that is from the mountain tops or fields or from the ocean side; it is an endless supply.”

Basically she bought nothing except air. For those of you who know the term Luftgeschaeft this is certainly one.

The $10,000 was forked over by a new media producer who “identifies with the ideology of the project” and was particularly inspired by the project’s mission statement “to exchange ideas and dreams as currency in the New Economy." (Let me know if any of you understand what that means.)

She always feels that the act of purchasing "Fresh Air" supports her own thesis about a concept she terms "you-commerce," which is the marketing and monetization of one's persona, skills, and products via the use of social media and self-broadcasting platforms. By the way, the money from sales goes toward taking the Museum of Non-Visible Art on the road. One can only ask “to where, and with what pieces, to show, since there are no actual artworks.”

Does the size of a piece of Art matter?

It’s a question I found posted on an online artists’ forum. Some of the replies by participants are quite amusing and downright strange. In addition to the disappointed and frustrated artists who wrote to say they sell neither their small nor their large paintings (still blaming the bad economy), the followings “pearls of wisdom” were among the replies.

A) “I concentrate more on painting smaller paintings because most people live in small houses or apartments where there is no room to hang large works. Small art is more affordable therefore easier to sell. However, since some of my preferred subject matter doesn’t lend itself to a small format. I’ll keep the larger paintings I’ve done until the economic horizon brightens. It does create a bit of a storage problem though.”

B) “It's been my experience that all my paintings sell, but it's nice to have little ones to offer to those who are tight-fisted.”

C) "Smaller paintings don't take less skill and talent. I don’t price my work by the square inch. I believe that if the art is good, no matter what the size or price, it will sell. It just a question of patience….”

D) "I use my small, less expensive works to reel in the serious buyers for the larger ones. How many working folks can afford to spend $2000 or more on a large painting?”

E) “My smaller paintings seem to sell quicker to the impulse buyer because of the lower prices. I would rather feel that the buyer was buying my work because he really loves it, rather than because it’s affordable. I get the impression that it is bought just to fill a space on the wall.”

F) “My art teacher told us to first master painting on a large canvas before turning to small size. Big works = small problems. Fixing small works is a big problem.”

G) “Most artists price their work by size. I do not think this is a fair way of presentation although the public prefers to see relative consistency in each artist prices. I want the price of any piece I do, to be based on how I consider the work in relation to my other work. Size shouldn't matter, at least in art.”

H) “I have sold small paintings for what I thought were large sums because they were great pieces; I have also sold large paintings for less. Other paintings of mine that I didn’t particularly like sold instantly and some, that I really like, have never sold. I’ve decided to try to gauge people's reactions before I put a price on my paintings.”

I) “If I've toiled over a piece of work and, in my own opinion, it’s good, then I feel that I should charge more. I have to admit though, that I've also sold pieces that took me no time at all. I think it all seems to boil down to taste rather than size and price.”

J) “Size does matter; so do color, feel and subject matter. A lot of buyers think about whether a painting will go with the décor they already have and the space they want to fill. Once I had a potential buyer ask me if I could redo a painting in a smaller size. I said no, of course. It’s like asking for a Mona Lisa in a size 10.”

Steal a Rembrandt? You won’t get away with it.

In 1975, Myles Connor Jr, disguised with a false beard, heavy rimmed glasses, a tweed suit and fedora, strode out of Boston's Museum of Fine Arts carrying Rembrandt's "Portrait of a Girl Wearing a Gold-Trimmed Cloak" (1632). An accomplice, waiting on the museum steps, used a machine-gun to hold off guards, and the men sped away in a car. It happened in the middle of the day and was over in seconds. The brazen audacity of the theft was of the kind you’d find in a Hollywood thriller movie.

You can read about that and many other art heists in "Stealing Rembrandts" a book by Anthony M. Amore and Tom Mashberg which tells the story of modern art theft through the thefts of this single artist's work. More than 2000 paintings, drawings and etchings survive from the 17^th Dutch master’s work, many of them small enough in size to fit into a bag or to simply put under an arm and be spirited away into the night (or day!). Some 80 of Rembrandt's works have been pilfered in the past 100 years making his work the number two choice of art thieves after Picasso.

For example, Rembrandt’s portrait of "Jacob de Gheyn III" (1632) has been stolen four times from London's Dulwich Picture Gallery since 1966. In 1972 thieves made off with his "Portrait of St. Bartholomew" (1633) which was hanging in the Worcester Art Museum. In 2000, thieves stole Rembrandt’s “Self-Portrait” (1630) in Stockholm using a speedboat to make their getaway. There are some great “cinematic” tales and insights in this book which reveal how brash some of the art thieves can be in their exploits.

In their book they interview museum personnel, and convicted art thieves to glean information about security systems and how thieves overcome them. The authors' account of encounters with the latter should shatter any impressions readers may harbor that art thieves are often debonair, sophisticated connoisseurs “à la Pink Panther or à la Thomas Crown Affair. According to the book, they are typically, un-educated small-time, brutal thieves and drug addicts and are far from being criminal masterminds. One convicted man they interviewed for the book stole two Rembrandts from the Taft Museum in Cincinnati in 1973, ignoring two much more valuable ones hanging nearby. After getting caught and serving three years in prison, he was released, only to be arrested again for robbery. This time it was for stealing candy and toothpaste.

Some of the anecdotes are mind boggling; of thieves slashing paintings out of their frames (literally damaging the goods they are hoping to sell) and of instances where thieves have attempted to “clean up” old paintings with chemical thinners to make them “look better” for sale. While museums spend millions to store Old Masters in temperature-controlled environments etc. thieves have tossed stolen Rembrandts into car trunks, stored them outdoors in sub-freezing barns and shacks, carried them about in plastic shopping bags, and hidden them under beds." While all this bungling and mishandling is going on, the thieves seem to be un-aware of the fundamental problem of art theft:

Art crime, especially of masterpieces, is usually pointless since the thefts are so publicized, the spoils are almost impossible to sell. Finding a rich buyer who is prepared to pay good money for an art work he/she will never be able to show to anybody except a few “criminally like-minded friends” is pretty hard.

Anyway, it is an enjoyable read. “Stealing Rembrandts” by Anthony M. Amore and Tom Mashberg published by Palgrave Macmillian.

Goodbye Cy

Goodbye Cy. No matter what you think about his work, nobody can deny that Cy Twombly’s abstract expressionist, calligraphic, graffiti-like scribbling, scratches, drippings and rubbings-out have generated a lot of heated discussion and evoked impassioned reactions. Isn’t that partly what art is about? Whether you are among his detractors or admirers, Cy’s death last week (July 5) in Rome aged 83, after battling cancer for several years, marks the disappearance of one of the last US abstract expressionism titans of the 20^th century. Powerful, raw, repetitive, overly dramatic, sometimes ridiculous yet always captivating and provocative, his art and his presence will be missed.

In 2010 Twombly was invited to paint a ceiling in the Louvre museum in Paris. The last artist to be accorded this honor was the French cubist painter Georges Braques in 1950. The addition of Twombly’s work into the classic works by past French and Italian masters has caused a furor among conservative art lovers. If you are going over to Europe, a major show of Cy Twombly's work is currently at the Dulwich Picture Gallery in London ("Twombly and Poussin; Arcadian Painters", until 25 September, 2011.

I fail to see similarities in their respective artwork however, apparently Twombly was once quoted as saying he had “profound dialogue with the work of Nicolas Poussin, and if he’d had a choice to be born in another time and place he would have liked to be him.” There’ll be time for them to talk now……

Goodbye Cy

Blog July 15 2011

In conjunction with the previous blog “Art Competitions – Are they worth the money?”

You can decide: The following is info - actual July 2011 - about a call to all artists worldwide to compete in a competition with the possibility to “show their art at premier international art exhibitions” (so says the publicity blurb).

I quote: “ShowArtists.com is unique in that the online competition is used to find the best art and best new art talent to show in LIVE exhibitions. Winning artists exhibit their art in live in fine art exhibitions at destination world art fairs and premier art locations on three continents.
The 2011-2012 art exhibition schedule allows competing international artists the opportunity to show art in London, UK, Los Angeles, USA, Santiago, Chile and Milan, Italy. Art entered for each art competition is visible to the public on the website, making ShowArtists an easy, one stop venue for fine art collectors and galleries to find new international art and artist talent.”

Artists can enter ShowArtists art competitions any time at http://www.showartists.com.

The London, UK Group Exhibition Competition is now open for all artist entries.

Art Competitions: Are they worth the money?

First of all, let me say, I wish they were all free because $30 here and $50 there – it all adds up. But, I guess, nobody works for nothing and everyone has bills to pay so I’ll allow that the fees are “to cover costs.” Secondly I wish they were more transparent. I wish the organizers of art competitions would publish full lists of how many artists enter the competition and be more forthcoming about how winner decisions are made. Thirdly I wish there were more opportunities for criticism and feedback. When I enter a competition, and my work is “cast aside” I would at least like to know what the reasons are (again without paying an extra fee). I think this could be both constructive and inspirational.

Some fellow artists tell me they abhor the idea of competitions as it is contrary to the pureness of their artistic nature. To that, I say c**p! Everything in this world is a competition – where there are winners and losers and anyone who is serious about pursuing art professionally must accept this, and risk taking, and rejection as part of the real world.

But, let’s look at the practical side. There are literally hundreds of art competitions out there nowadays –most of them online and most of them by organizations of small reputation. To win one of these might be a morale booster for many emerging artists, perhaps a daunting goal for a beginner but let’s be honest; few established artists bother with them unless it is organized by a well-known gallery or institute.

First-time competitors might do well to first enter their work in local and regional art shows, where there is a smaller pool of artists and where they can learn the ins and outs of exhibitions and competitions.

But at whatever level you do decide to participate in an art competition, you can increase your chances of success by doing some research beforehand. For example, viewing the work of past contest winners can provide insight into an organization or art publication’s style or preference. If it’s possible, run a search on the backgrounds of the jurors or gallery organizers to see what type of work they sell. One practical way of increasing your chances of a prize or award is to enter a theme-specific competition suited to your type of art.

Though expenditures can add up over several competitions, one way to view the outlay is as an investment in one’s career. Remember the joke about the guy who constantly prays to God to grant him to win the lottery. One day, while he is fervently praying, the skies open and a voice from above tells him “Here’s a tip! I can’t help you until you buy a lottery ticket.”

If you don’t submit your work, you’ll never win an art competition of any kind.

Become an Art Detective

Fancy yourself as a sleuth? Why not take a couple of courses in art and heritage crime detection, and enjoy the splendors of Umbria, Italy at the 3^rd Annual Conference of ARCA (the Association for Research into Crimes against Art). There are still some openings available for July 9^th & 10^th at the 2011 get together in the town of Amelia. If you are interested in art fraud, art theft, trickery and deception, and you’d like to sign up or get more info about the activities of ARCA please email Derek Fincham : fincham /at/ artcrime.info

Art crime represents a $2-6 billion per year enterprise with most of the loot going to fund international organized crime syndicates and, nowadays, even terrorist organizations. They either use stolen art for resale, or to barter on a closed black market for an equivalent value of goods or services. Art crimes perpetrated by individuals are rare and art crimes perpetrated for private collectors are rarest of all.

It is not surprising that the yearly seminars by ARCA take place in Italy. That country has by far the most art crime, with approximately 20,000 art thefts reported each year. Russia has the second most, with approximately 2000 art thefts reported per year. Italy’s government takes art crime seriously and has appointed a police art squad, employing over 300 full-time agents.

We, in the USA, are the world’s primary art consumers for both legitimate and stolen works so maybe, you’d like to take course or two, you can help the LAPD Art Theft Department solve a few of their outstanding cases.

The number of research groups studying art crime in all its forms: ARCA