Can Art Be Taught?

Add a Comment

14 Comments

Comment by Walter Thomas Scott Jr. on September 30, 2009 at 12:01pm

One more bit of info I'd like to pass on here . My biggest patron ( he's bought 28 of my paintings since 1999 to date )took my wife and I out to dinner one night and told me " I really thought your work would sky rocket in value more than it has already " I quickily said "The painting you're thinking of getting isn't $5,000 , it's $15000, okay" He laughed and I thought for moment and added " Maybe you could help me , we spent twelve thousand on advertising for gallery last year in all the medias with not much to show for the money we spent ." "How do you find the art that you collect so we can aim our cash in those directions to get more patrons like yourself ?" He sat back in his chair and he said "You're not going to like what I'm about to tell you , But finding you and the art is half of the joy of our experience in collecting art to begin with . " Thats the truth folks , he is a very big patron of the arts through out the world with more art in one room of his homes than most galleries have in they're entire inventory . With that info how do we capitalise on getting these patrons to FIND us without spending a fortune on the tried and untrue format of the advertising we've been using .

Comment by Walter Thomas Scott Jr. on September 30, 2009 at 10:51am

Marketing art versus making art is a struggle I go thru every single day with having my own studio gallery in Newport, RI. But in comparison to being in a small fishing boat in the middle of winter at the age of 56, it's one I embrace whole heartedly and for me , is a lot of fun . The art is usually in one already and the old adage practice makes perfect comes into play if the artist is successful and creates more for the demand . Marketing the art is something I'm still working on and so far I feel I've kept my head above water while learning to swim . But the basic thing is to be SEEN ! We've just had a major lesson driven home that to make money it looks like we're going to have to spend a lot more and move our gallery to where the art lovers ARE rather than getting them to COME to us . The rent in this area we're looking at is a killer starting at $3500 a mnth for a hole in the wall . And right now we're thinking of talking to other like minded artists on doing a partnership type of co-op gallery in 2010. One thing we've found is that the patrons like having a speacial relationship with the gallery and if possible , the artists . Never having been to one , I can't help but think that the experience for them must be along the lines of that of a day spa . From their experience with us , the best marketing is word of mouth from the patrons to their cirles. Other lesson learned and topic for future discussion is keeping our art from becoming 'Wal- Mart " versus "Fine-Art"and chasing off the aforementioned group of patrons that really make things happen . In trying to grow my name I've gotten my work into other galleries with mixed results in this economy . One place I was doing well in had me remove my work as an established artist saw me as a threat to their market and demanded I leave the gallery or they would . My work doesn't command the amount of the other artist so I was asked to leave . In defense of the gallery , they felt terrible about it and made arrangements with another gallery for my work to be shown in, truth can be stranger than fiction folks , 'an I could write a book !

Comment by Alexandra Dawes on September 23, 2009 at 9:47am

Marketing strategies are for the most part extremely important in getting noticed. Unfortunately people often buy artwork for investment alone.
This is no help to those talented artists struggling to make a living through art.

Comment by Elaine Bailey on September 19, 2009 at 1:01pm

If a person is interesttet in selling their artwork--marketing strategies are more iportant than the art itself. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is very very true. To get into the big leagues - one needs a manager so that person can concentrate on their painting and not be bothered with the marketing. Two different breeds of cat for sure. Formal training looks nice on a resume, but it's not what really makes the artist. The innatee talent of knowing how to put color together and creating good composition is either there or not.

Comment by Shirley on September 15, 2009 at 6:17pm

To Mrs. Mundewadi--I just went to your page and deeply admired your work, especially Calming Stillness, Fusion of Energies, and Opening of the Third Eye. Very nice. You should have nothing to fear as to the quality of your work and its appeal in the art world. It is different and colorful. Check out Zatista.com on the internet to see a lot of artwork selling at all levels of prices and medias, at a low cost. Best wishes...

Comment by Sara Williams on September 14, 2009 at 4:47pm

Inspiration cannot be taught, but technique can be learned. That's how my publisher puts it, and I believe that's why so many artists and writers do formal training. Meanwhile, there's an interesting study of how artists work in the July/Aug Psychology Today. It is archived online.

Comment by Shirley on September 11, 2009 at 4:00pm

Re: Ms. Rizwanas question for discussion.

If you are happy making artworks that give you that wonderful feeling of creativity and satisfaction, then you are a successful artist.

If you base success on the selling value of your work, then you are successful if the artwork sells well. Here, marketing strategies come into play and will help.

Here's hoping you combine the two!!

Comment by Mrs.Rizwana A. Mundewadi on September 11, 2009 at 3:22pm

Feelings are expressed much better when you are free from bondages of set knowledge. As i started learning about colours and compositions no doubt my works may improve in visual impact but the thrill and happiness making it is something i don't know whether it will come back. The innocence of playing with colour. I wish i could undo the knowledge and go back to raw art.

Comment by Don Barnes on September 10, 2009 at 8:45pm

What do we consider art education? Is it a fine arts degree from a local college or training at a local art institute? Does it mean that someone trained at New York's Art Students League or the Art Students League of Denver? Does a degree mean as much as, or more than, consistent work with currently lauded artists?

The reason this distinction is important is that each of these options will have a different take on "What Is Art?". For example, Jackson Pollock was a student of Thomas Hart Benton, who would never validate Pollock's abstract work. At present, though, more people will recognize JP as a great artist than will even recognize THB's name.

This brings the question, should Pollock's style be taught? (Of course, it cant be because no one knows how he accomplished some of the his effects.) Technique like John F. Carlson's can easily be perpetuated, but at what point does that duplicator become an artist in his own right? I remember one person answered a similar question by saying, "If it sells, it's art. If it doesnt, it's inventory."

Comment by Lance Dooley on August 28, 2009 at 3:03pm

We must be careful categorizing people in to "self taught" and "trained" categories. What if someone is self taught for many years and is very creative and then decides to go get some serious training (I'm not talking about a workshop, but rather a 2 or 3 year program)? The "trained" artist then mixes with various social circles and is cast into ... "oh, he/she is skilled but has no creativity".

• 1
• 2