Chihuly exhibit at the Boston MFA. Today’s #joinindaily theme is “Orange” (But not Sun Rise or Fall!)

Have you gone to the Chihuly museum at Seattle City Center? (Right at the base of the Space Needle).

I saw the one at the Space Needle, and it’s magnificent.

rare avis why the hate part?

rare avis art is business, for better or worse.  In defense of Chihuly, though, you might want to check out his career path and the theme of exploring the limits of glass as an artistic medium. He seems as bold personally as his work is. That boldness is bound to engender different responses.

rare avis I’m not sure I agree. I think of the distinction between an artist and a hobbyist as a career distinction. Artists are paid to create art. Hobbyists aren’t paid.

I think the opposite, indeed.

To me, the greatest artists are those who do not exploit their art for money.

To me, that takes away from the art: cheapens it.

John Wehrle

 I think the impetus for great art comes from the soul: the artist has to create, period.

They’re compelled.

Start throwing money into the mix and sooner or later, for many, it is going to be the money that motivates them, not the art itself.

In these cases, the art has got to become affected, and I believe profit can do no good for art.

This is not to say that artists should all be poor and starving, but I would not DENY an artist’s worth simply because they’ve never made a commercial career out of it.

What about Van Gogh?

Lascaux?

Are these not true artists because they were not famous in their time?

So many of our greatest artists were ‘discovered’ posthumously.

Does this mean their art is less worthy, or was worthless when they were alive, or that during their lifetimes, they were mere hobbyists?

I think we, the audience, are often quite status conscious about art. Van Gough was an incredibly talented painter who sold very little art in his life. As much as I appreciate his paintings his discovery after his death does fill me with suspicion.

What are we playing at that we like our artists to be dead (preferably tragically so) or unsullied by commercial success.  I have had the same sentiments that you have expressed but over time I have become suspicious of myself as well.

Do we want art to be pure, ethereal, beyond the mundane of the real world? Above the concerns of money, professionalism, . . . rent? This world is both grotesque and beautiful. It is sublime and art is a part of this world. I sometimes worry that what I am drawn to is not the artwork itself but the way it is seen by others.

Is this what happened with Van Gogh?

I don’t have a good answer for that so I tend to sidestep it and focus on the profession of the individual in question. Van Gogh painted pictures for a living. He didn’t make much money at it but it was his profession so I call him an artist.

If Van Gogh had been a mason and did paintings on the side which he never sold then I would say that he was a mason and a hobbyist painter. Even if all the paintings in both possible worlds were identical.

(Wow, that is a fun question: Possible world A: VG as we know him. Possible world B: VG as a mason who paints all the same paintings but never sells them.)

Offensive?

Heck no; I am just being passionate, as per usual.

I hope I did not offend?!?

~RA

🙂