Artist Character Vs Artist Quality

People see the work, they don't see the artist. I think most people assume the artist is probably a crazy looney pants weirdo, or some reclusive person that lives in a shell under a pier. I mean look at Dali, that guy was nuts. Or at least that was his thing, maybe that's what made him famous.

You could have the greatest temperament but totally suck as an artist. So I think the work should stand out above everything else. But if you want to sell well, it does help to have a good attitude.

Everyone's work can always be improved. There is always ways to make it better.

I feel the rest of this question is covering some kind of term paper you are writing.


----Mike Savad

3 questions

a) "but their character is subpar?" compared to who's? yours? mine? Picasso?

b) "but their work can be improved?" compared to who's? yours? mine? Picasso?

c) Who are we to set the standard for the next generation?

Discussing somebody's character behind sombody's back would be just wrong (even if that person is deceased) and whether somebody's art can be improved or not is subjective.

Sometimes you need to meet the artist to totally understand the scope and depth of his art.
Most people will just fall in love with a piece as a decorative thing for their walls, real art collectors will want to understand an artist before appreciating his work and investing in it.

"What is the popular conception of the artist? Gather a thousand descriptions, and the resulting composite is the portrait of a moron."
- Mark Rothko

Art is what it is.

The artist can be the biggest sleazeball in the world or the next candidate for Sainthood. It matters not.

A person that creates artwork of any significance, must be, by necessity, "NUTS".

Obsessed with an EYE, MIND & HAND, different from what is considered normal.

Great Art can never be ordinary.

Rudy is dead on accurate.

I also totally agree with Roger. I have seen thousands of photos of ducks, but the truly great duck pictures must be different, and unique to stand out among the crowd. We as artists must be the same way. I haven't made much $$$ yet, but I am still building my base, and finding my place. Does that make me a bad artist? No. Once I learned to embrace my quirky mental issues, and allow that to be shown in my art including in the way I promote said art my follower count grew by over 410% in just 6 months. Even though I am plateauing with my follower count that is still an undeniably impressive growth.

If you find what sets you apart as an artist and embrace it to the point it shows in your art then I don't think you will have much trouble if you stick with it. But if you compare yourself to other people, be it your skills as an artist, or your character, your equipment, or anything else then you are in the wrong field because art is 100% subjective.

The future will find their way the same way we all do. Learn from other artists, but don't compare yourself to them. The only thing we can teach the future is that there really is no such thing as an aspiring artist, because you are either an artist or you are not. The only difference is the artist wants to continue to grow, learn, and hone their craft to the best of their ability regardless of how long they have been performing their craft, while those that are not artists don't. To me it really is that simple.

This is a great question and I believe that the way I shall answer it is to look at the arts and expand it to music and theatre and visual arts of every source. Once a person loves the art, they want to meet the painter, photographer, actor, musician, filmmaker, fashion designer, etc.

I don't even believe for one second that you are selling art, you are selling yourself, and not just a part of you, you are selling an entire brand.

But what do I know, I haven't actually achieved anything so don't take my word or work for it. A small slice of what I've achieved has been my personality and character, not my art. My art is secondary to me.

Royce,

Apples and oranges! The "Art" is separate from the "Artist". Some of the most famous and valuable art was created by less-than-ideal people. When you try and connect the person to the art, there is some subtraction done, and the person or the art suffers. If the Artist isn't that great a fellow, but his art is World Class, his foibles are reduced, in face of his art. The opposite seldom occurs.... Great person, mediocre art.....

Rich

Royce, thank you for starting this idea about qualifying the realm that engages so many, for so many different reasons, and with so many different attitudes... all wrapped around a three-letter 'word'.... a word that is merely a 'marker' for something far from linguistics that only really makes sense to the individual that intuits something for themself once they have experienced the object of question....

Like Rudy, I can not imagine the baselines of one 'character' or another. And like Roger find these things to be far beyond 'ordinary'; and I only recognize the stuff you speak of by some ambiguous intuition that seems to strike my consciousness when art (or artist) come within my personal range - those are special happenings and they always lift my spirits!

The artist can be the biggest POS of a human being there is, but of their work speaks to people it will still sell.

I think the only time the persons character comes into play is when they become extremely famous, and in the public eye. Look at Kanye West. He's gone completely off the rails and is losing endorsements left and right, as well as streaming services dropping his music, because of the kind of person he's proving himself to be.

For the rest of us, or even famous artists who aren't in the public eye for anything other than their art, it doesn't matter at all.

How do you classify someone as an exceptional artist? If they create exceptional art.

Why drag in all the What Ifs? Who cares.

I Agree with Donna.

I agree with Rudy.

And this is a POD site. People buy the art, I seriously doubt anyone cares who the artist even is, beyond liking the art and maybe wanting to find it again.

Tbh, I've read this several times and still trying to figure it out what is all about. In my understanding a true artist does not care about public opinion but creates art for the sake of art and because the creation pleases himself or herself.

Most artists are not celebrities, so their personal lives and beliefs are not conspicuous, unless they choose to make them so. Sometimes it's communicated through their work, and those who embrace their message will think it's great, others will be put off. I think that's fairly obvious. Any kind of celebrity is judged in the court of public opinion, especially in the era of social media. Say or do something controversial, and your career might be over. I don't think the public is that interested in visual artists, so we're lucky that way.

The American artist Thomas Eakins was a terrible person. Reading his biographies is not enjoyable. But learning these details of his life did not color how I felt about his work, I still admire it. It did leave me pondering how someone can be so messed-up, and still produce such sensitive, clear-eyed work. That is interesting.

I hate to bring up hitler, he was a terrible person, but as an artist he was actually pretty good. So there is that.

Wish he stuck with it.


----Mike Savad

I agree with most here. Lisa made a comment about music and that made me think....

Do I love to listen to Keith Richards play the guitar? ...Yep!
Do I marvel at the man and how he has chosen to live his life? .... Most certainly!
Do I respect the man and how he has lived his life? ..... Definitely not!
Do I respect the musician and how his music has survived the decades? ..... Most certainly!

What does all that mean? .... It means I like what I perceive to be good music and I find Morons who think highly of themselves and waste too much time and money on sex and substance to be train wrecks I cannot turn away from.

One has nothing to do with the other. I suppose it only speaks of me being both a music lover and a nosey prude. So be it.

I am the one buying the music and when I listen to it I don't hear an old man who should be dead by all rights. I hear some pretty awesome tunes so rock on old man!

Everyone has such strong and interesting points of view and I can completely understand with everything said in the description why the responses were given. We as artists recognize the individual first through their art, eventually their character will expose itself in some way. Criticism of art and an artists craft and skill behind their art can't be denied, I personally feel that any time peer to peer engagement is available it should be used not only as a resource for possible future collaborations but as an in-depth personal connectivity method. As humans we all have flaws, as people we all strive to be positive and productive. As artists I feel we should acknowledge all art, I feel that we should highlight beautiful art and if there is a chance that the artist is a truly good person that should be something we praise as well. I stand firm on the belief that art is for the people and art is forever.

I simply prefer to pay attention to those who have a whole package that compliments itself , and to my liking and sensitivities if possible. Some have a grind that they are being motivated by. Some worthwhile. Other times their apparent love of a particular subject/subjects is enough to get the point across. Their privacy and avoidance of public attention to their personal lives is a plus. I think visual art makes it easier to be less conspicuous.

Yes, it is possible to like an artists work without liking them. But investing personally into it is harder when they turn you off. Film is a prime example of this. Acting is part of the arts. But it's tough to sit through a film by an actor or actress that you disdain. Music fits that category pretty well too.

There are lots of bright and shiny objects that are glass rather than diamonds.

What, if You don't know anything about an artist? Then You can not value the art as good or not ?

What Tibor said.

There are people who like Picasso's art.
There are people who don't like Picasso's art.
There are people who don't like Picasso but love his art.
There may also be people who don't like Picasso and thus don't like his art because of that.

What I mean is it's all an individualistic thing.

The trouble comes when you really like their art, their comedy, their performance etc.

Then they do something wrong, illegal, mean etc.... And now you don't like their work, because its not mainstream to like their work. Like bill cosby, he's a funny guy, he probably still is. He did drug those people, but it doesn't make him not funny. That said some jokes didn't age well related to that stuff.

People ignored will smith all for a slap.

Its the same with art, people suddenly stop liking it because of whatever the artist did. So its probably best to just ignore the artist and not learn about them. Or it could taint how you feel about their art. I would rather not know that the artist kills rando's and eats them, and uses their blood to make his art. I would rather just not know what medium they use but be amazed with how talented they are.



On the other hand, some work does show that they are nuts. We went to a museum, where they had this weird art installation. It looked like if tent caterpillars used yarn to make its nest. Huge balls of twisted string that formed irregular shaped nests all about 6ft tall. The first thing I said out loud was - it looked like crazy people made it. My mother said, such things shouldn't be said, art can look like anything, blah blah blah.

And we read the little sign and it said, these things were all made by crazy people. And that inside of each one is a stolen object. And you couldn't get at it because their wrapped it up so tightly with found stuff.

In any case, I was right.


----Mike Savad

I sell very little online. I like to think it's because people don't like me much and not because my work sucks ;-). I'd rather be infamous than famous

I was thinking it might be a good idea to be anonymous so that my art can be judged without regard for my personal character.

I don't like threads like this. They do more harm than good

We think we know somebody we never met his/her's character, but we don't. It's all prejudice

and some people might start doubting themselves thinking about these things, which doesn't help either

@ Lisa … I'll expand … some of us are selling our souls. Well, a lot of us.

There's a saying "Never meet your heroes." (Allen Carr) … which in this context I'd say means, love the art, ignore the artist.

Rudy is dead on accurate. Threads like this open the door to toxic discussion, which leads to doubt, and inevitably individuals second guessing their own talent, and ability. Wanting to discuss topics like the original post should be done privately. At least in my honest opinion.

@abbie, you could try selling under a fake name. I think the author of alice in wonderland did that... Or that fact might have been fake from a show I watched. In any case, a pen name could be used.


----Mike Savad

"I don't like threads like this. They do more harm than good"

Don't participate. It is a simple choice.

Art that becomes significant carries provenance. Part of that provenance is its entanglement with the character who created it. The historical significance of the artist. The artist's history.

There are good characters, bad characters, and characters with varying shades of grey.
Exploring those shades of grey keeps the public and academic conversation going and the conversation enhances relevance.

While the skill demonstrated by the artist , content, and idea communicated IMHO are more significant, the social effect of a work of art is governed by the social significance of its existence.

Google I don't think reads the forum any more (which is too bad because it helps with ranking and newness), while buyers come in I don't think they really read too many of these. .. The only thing that gets you in trouble down the line are facebook and twitter posts that don't age well. That seemed correct and topical now is toxic 10 years from now. I don't see this thread as toxic, it still looks like a term paper question to me. And there aren't enough examples in the opening to make a determination in exactly what he wants to hear.

I've seen toxic discussion in the past, I don't see this as one.


----Mike Savad

@Mike I agree with you about a fake name for online usage. I also don't see this post as toxic, but if it was posted on like facebook or twitter I think it very quickly would become that way.

@Abby I totally see where you are coming from, and that is why my wife and I don't post, or rather, rarely post our photos anywhere but our personal facebook pages. Kaos, who is one of my split personalities gave me permission to let him be my marketing strategy, and his quirky mental ailments makes the entire process a lot more fun than it was when I was trying to spread my brand. Your "infamous more than famous" statement is how I think all artists should think about their business. Art should be for and about the artist, especially since you sell a piece of yourself with every image. As I have told others, making money would be a wonderful thing, but I set out to spread my artistic view with the world, and at least on twitter I have quite literally done that. If someone likes what I do enough to want to have it on their walls then that is all the better. Anyway, I would recommend an moniker for your art so you can sell or market your art without having it associate with whatever people don't like. From what I have seen your work is incredible.

THANK YOU!

I think that the art stands for itself, however people like to know about the personality of the creator. As far as sales are concerned that might only be important during the lifetime of the artist although being infamous could possibly help sales after you die. If you are a nice "normal" person no one cares. If you are a despicable human people are at least interested. My problem is I am rather boring in my personal life...sigh.

How many of you have good sales of your artwork without any marketing? Not many artists, I think. And how many of those buyers are interested in details about you?

It is well-known that most people are followers and not leaders. Therefore, most people interested in artists are interested due to marketing efforts done by this artist or somebody else. That marketing could be done during the artist's lifetime or much later.

The value of art reflects the value society places on the art it promotes.

Now, "Modern Art Philosophy" has diluted the meaning of art with its foundational dogma whereas anything is art and anyone is an artist as long some one makes and argument stating as such. It does not matter if the argument is fallacious or not; there just needs to exist and argument.

Ultimately, you have too ask yourself the question: would you create art and would it be the same IF it wouldn't be for sale nor for remuneration? Because in creating art, the motivation has probably the greatest influence on the artist's character.

Abbie! How could anyone not like you!

Mike.....just think if Hitler's art teacher would have been more encouraging. Might have saved the world such tragedy.

I think true artists create from the heart without regards to who it sells to or why it sells. So many factors but it all comes down to the overall marketing of the art more than the personality unless the personality is the marketing gimmick.

Just my three cents worth.

Doug

I have re-evaluated my answer. I think for the most part, a least selling on a POD site, not many care about the artist unless you do something negative.

I guess HItler is a good example of that. I have no idea what his art looks like but could not have it in my home.

Abbie's response to this thread was epic. LOL

When an artist becomes well known, there is not a lot known about that person, but people relate with the artist's work. If years go by and the public or fans find out that the artist was a bad evil person, that usually only makes the art more valuable.

For me, however, it's what Tibor said: " In my understanding a true artist does not care about public opinion but creates art for the sake of art and because the creation pleases himself or herself."

And therein lies the hobby artist.

I don't want to be well-known, but I wonder if serving others and what they want is the key to great art? Isn't that what Hollwood artist's strive for? I do think some artists, I know of one that was featured on "Hoarders" that serve themselves and create masterful works. Thus, take nothing I say personally!!!

I like my TV time and painting projects without the added stuff. That is why I don't want to do the work to be famous, and I'm unsure what that would BE like to be an ARTIST that did WORK that MADE the artist FAMOUS.