I was down to an Art Gallery Yesterday and while waiting for the owner to get off the phone was looking at some Art, there was some antlers mounted on a stand, and it had just a little bit of carving done, about 2 sq. inches just some lines really, and it also had a little soap stone Whale about 4" long, mounted between the antlers... It really did'nt look like much was done, those soap stone carvings were selling by themselves for about $250... but because they were on some antlers, the price was 5 GRAND! There were several piece like this, all hovering around the same price. Makes me wonder at some of the signwork thats done on here and the time it takes to get them done.. especially the carved work. Imagine getting paid that kind of money for your work and especially the time. She wanted me to give a price on redoing her old plywood sign, about 5ft x 4ft, she wanted me to remove the old Vinyl lettering and refinish it... she did'nt want to spend the 300 bux, oh and she wanted me to install it for about 50 bux.. I just laughed to myself and said Have a nice day.
[ January 19, 2012, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Neil D. Butler ]
Posted by Si Allen (Member # 420) on :
Art Dealers must be related to Real Estate people!
Posted by Checkers (Member # 63) on :
Perception is everything Neil. And, yes, sign makers are or can be artists too. But, they just can't get those prices around here
Havin' fun,
Checkers
Posted by Dale Feicke (Member # 767) on :
You're right about perception, Brian; because there is a huge difference between those in our profession who craft the work they do with pride, and those who slap vinyl letters on a board.
Both are signs; only one could be considered art.
Posted by Preston McCall (Member # 351) on :
As many of you may recall, I owned an art gallery in Santa Fe, ten years ago. Very expensive business to be in with monthly expenses running about 30k. Made money, but the business is really a wild and tuff one...kinda like selling used cars with no titles and all the the inventory is consigned. I heard constant stories by the artists who had been ripped off by other galleries. Being a painter myself, I paid my consignment artists quickly and attracted a large following of other artists as a result, for being straight and fair.
Pricing was always a major problem. Some artist comes in and wants $5000 for some interesting painting and the gallery markes it up to 10 grand, but before that can happen, the rest of the work that has sold or is on display has to look in line. Frequently, the gallery just laughs at the artist as the work is competitively priced at half or less than that by the others on display. As a gallery, you have to price things according to what the market will bear. Sometimes it just does not make any sense, but outrageous pricing never sells art.
There is no certification or licensing test a gallery owner has to pass. There are alot of selfish crooks in the business, for sure and have always have been, but by and large any gallery who sells good work and has good relations with their artists, generally does business the fair and honest way. It is a brutal business with expenses so high.
Now with all of that said, pricing some odd piece on antlers at 5k does sound a bit strange unless the work is by some major collected artist. There is absolutely no reasoning for stupid high prices sometimes. A friend of mine bought a Milton Avery painting several years back from a very big name gallery. I guessed it was worth 30 grand. He paid 500 grand and one similar sold earlier this year for 1.8 mil. It makes no sense. A woman in NY bought an 'Italian Master' little painting at a major auction house for $175. It turned out to be a Raphael and brought 12 million the next year. Go fig.
Signs are priced based on the talent and skill the maker feels is fair to charge for them. There are alot more sign makers that successful painters. I have been doing both for most of my adult life. We all get to charge whatever we feel is fair for a sign. Painters have to suffer some crooked gallery director telling us we are not good enough or want too much or can't possibly be successful. Think painting signs is hard; try paintings! I have produced around 900 paintings to date and have sold 553, and yet I had a friend find one I did 40 years ago for sale at a garage sale for ten cents! Guess it musta been one of my early pieces when I was not any good!
Now when I croak, my brother or sister will probably sell off the 300 or so of them I still have. Picasso's work tripled upon his death in 1973. Mine? Who knows. I just hope I get to do some more of them as I really do enjoy making them and especially the people I have met as a result of both the paintings and the signs. You know it ain't about the money. It is all about the fun!
Posted by Tim Barrow (Member # 576) on :
I've always called myself a "sign artist" ,...When kids at school ask what I did before I went back to college I tell them I "was" a digital printer,...before the days of digital printing if someone wanted a picture of something larger than a poster they had to call someone like me to illustrate it for them,...back before digital printers I can remember being held in very high regard the weeks before daytona as a partner and I were one of the first to do what you folks call "wraps" on a tractor and trailer for the racing teams in nascar,..it all had to be done by hand and the artists who did them were very well paid,...nowadays the artist who do it, make very little and work in a back office out of sight,..knowing they can be replaced by any kid fresh out of design school so I am going to have to agree with those above who said it is all about perception and how the public views the artist,...technology has diminished the public's perception of our skills and value to society.What used to take years of skill and discipline now can be accomplished by the push of a button in their perception.
Posted by Dan Beach (Member # 9850) on :
I wouldn't consider most artists to be artists . . .
I think pinstriping and designing effective signs takes more talent than a lot of the sloppy crap I see from "artists."
Posted by Neil D. Butler (Member # 661) on :
I agree, It's all about perception, But I believe that a Good Sign Painter/Artist is a lot more rare these days than general Fine Artists, there's tons of them out there and yes there's some who produce Crap, but there's quite a few who do really fine work, probably more than the expensive well know ones...
Posted by Don Coplen (Member # 127) on :
I would say sign people are what they used to call "commercial artists". The ones in the galleries are "fine artists". Now, there ARE fine commercial artists, and not so fine fine artists, and vice versa.
A lot of it comes down to who the customers are. You can be a damn fine sign artist, but if you're in a helvetica black and white vinyl on coro market, you may seldom do anything that fits in your portfolio...if you've become fond of eating and having a roof over your head.
Posted by Dale Feicke (Member # 767) on :
Perception.............
You see a rusty garbage can lid, laying in an alley. It's got some old peelings, some wadded-up cellophane, a half-eaten apple (brown), and some clumpy looking goo( could be dog-doo or...) Just a sickening looking mess. Your reaction is: yuckee!Nasty!! blleeeaaa! Sickening!!!!
You see exactly the same thing in an art gallery, on a display stand. Your reaction is: How poignant! What expression!! You can just sense the feelings of disdain in the artist!! Wow, that guy is really talented!!
Posted by Joe Cieslowski (Member # 2429) on :
To my strange way of thinking, to be an artist, you must have to first master your "craft". Until you have mastered your medium, I don't feel you can call yourself an artist.
So, that's what I try to do.....be a master of my craft.....after that, I'll let others decide if my work can be called art.
I guess I'm just rambling here.....
Joe,
Makin Chip$ and Havin Fun!
Posted by Dale Manor (Member # 4858) on :
I think good art is good art and it has nothing to do with whether there are words in it or not. A lot of first class paintings have words in them - stuff by Stuart Davis, Picasso, Fouquet, Holbein, Altdorfer. Then there are signs and logos that I think are great art -- the Lucky Strike Flat Fifties box, the Yankees logo, the Stork Club matchbooks, some of the signage on the Irish and English drinking establishments . . . As for the prices, they're based on three things -- quality, scarcity, and celebrity, with the last two being the main things in the really high prices. Good example -- a whole lot of the Andy Warhols are really junk. Then there's his brother, who isnt an artist at all but gets good prices just because of having the same last name. Or Red Skelton's lousy clown paintings.
[ January 19, 2012, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Dennis Kiernan ]
Posted by Dan Sawatzky (Member # 88) on :
Back when I was in my early twenties I attended art school for a brief time. I was taking a single course, testing the water to determine whether I would attend full time. Everyone there (both students and teachers) considered themselves serious artists. In a very short while I was labeled the 'commercial guy'. While I took myself seriously as an artist I was the one guy who was trying to figure out how I could make a good living AND still be an artist. I only attended a few days in the printmaking course. I did my prints and then left to go sell them (which I did). I didn't fit into the art crowd.
Later my work was displayed and sold in more than 40 commercial galleries. I made a good living as a fine artist for about ten years. But I was never happy with the games and politics I had to play in order to live in that world. So I came back to the 'commercial art' realm. In my mind I do art - the art I love to make. I do it on my terms, not particularly caring what anyone may think. Ultimately the fact that it sells is the validation I need.
I feel fortunate to be able to do what I love instead of working for a living. While it is art in my mind not everyone consider it so. No matter.
Many call themselves artist or letterheads or whatever. What do these terms mean anyways without a qualifying criteria? An art degree does not mean we are better - only that we have attended school. I am qualified for nothing, have no degrees - probably never will. I just do what I love to do.
-grampa dan
Posted by Joseph Diaz (Member # 5913) on :
Mark Yearwood does some fantastic fine art. I hope to someday have one of his pieces on my wall at home.
If the portrait work that Bill Riedel does isn't art, I don't know what is.
Michael Clark has some nice artwork that was on display here in town too.
I'm sure I could go on.
But even if we aren't including traditional fine art, sometimes I'm more inspired by sign layouts and other work that commercial artists or designers make than when I walk through an art gallery.
Posted by Dennis Kiernan (Member # 12202) on :
Dan, Picasso never went to art school.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
ART IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. NOW, that covers the gambet of anything that is a product of someone taking objects, letters, numbers, people, places or almost anything you can imagine...........and making it look appealing in any medium, on any material, to some other persons eye. i will say most of the hit print crowd.....ARE AS FAR REMOVED from ARTIST as you can get. back in the day PRINTERS did printing.........not signs or personal art.
Posted by Sonny Franks (Member # 588) on :
After reading Dale's links, I now have a better understanding and I'm also more confused than ever (story of my life)
And Dan's line: "I am qualified for nothing"
Timi - you're unclassifiable.
Anybody who says the print crowd ain't got what it takes - let me introduce you to Stella.
When we attempt to categorize art, whether it's paint, design, music, dance, theater, whatever - we chip away at its essence and a lot of good stuff gets lost in distorted perceptions......
Posted by Donna in BC (Member # 130) on :
My art teacher's strategy for pricing art was: "Try and get as much as you can for your work without laughing."
Guess you'd just better be pretty good to get the high dollar!
Posted by Dusty Campbell (Member # 4601) on :
quote:Design may indeed arrest the attention and engage the emotions of a viewer, but at some point, as Beatrice Warde said, the goblet of design must become transparent, allowing viewers to gather the intended information, rather than to be absorbed by the designer's layout.
But if you don't care about the intended information and never allow yourself to be bothered with it, then I think design is art.
I guess it depends on if receiver thinks it's art or not. I've seen art that I didn't think was art. I've seen signs that to me were art. I've seen signs that had the elements of art, but I didn't consider them art.
Art's what you make of it.
We're all right.
Posted by Dale Manor (Member # 4858) on :
I have also wondered about the difference between a "fine artist" and an Illustrator?
Some of my favorite paintings were done by "Illustrators" according to the art world. I paid a visit to the Norman Rockwell museum and had more of an intense reaction than from most any contemporary "fine art" that I saw in MOMA? If art is supposed to cause more of an intense reaction, I must be wired differently?
Here is a bit about the subject...one opinion I guess.
I think most art is 100% crap. When I hear of someone saying a peice went for several thousand I just dont get it. hoeever if your the guy that painted it congrats.
andy warhol, I never did understand all that LSD injected work he did. I was not impressed. The only art that has ever grabbed me was oil paintings of real life objects, where it looked like a photograph
Posted by Neil D. Butler (Member # 661) on :
Jean Claude Roy is an Artist from France, he visits Newfoundland every Year to paint, His Paintings sell for 10's of thousands of dollars, My sister has one hanging in her home, about 5ft x5ft....He really does interesting work, colorful and distorted.... Here's a link....
One other thing, I really don't consider myself as an Artist, others may, but I don't. Yes I can copy, I need a reference for just about everything I paint, and I struggle with that everyday. I'm self taught, I did do Commercial Art back in the 70's for one year, but I had no formal fine Art instruction, I would love to learn more.... I learned to Sign Paint, stripe, and Airbrush on my own from books, There was no internet then, no shows on TV About it at all... just the school of hard Knocks, doing SuperMarket weekly specials on Cardstock was my main instruction..lol
Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
Couple of gallery shows featuring signs....you might recognize most of the names there.
[ January 20, 2012, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Patrick Whatley ]
Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on :
A lot of artists use references Neil. Most artists even those who do fantasy work will use models and reference material to complete work.
That said, an artist like Gustave Dore in the 19th century was said to have photographic memory and did not need any references.
Graphic novel (comics) artists amaze me with what they can draw from the mind.
Back to the original topic, some sign people are definitely artists and ours is a branch of commercial art.
Posted by Terry Colley (Member # 1245) on :
I have a tee shirt from Sign Business magazine from a few years ago, on the back is a quote from Frank Zappa; " ART is making something out of nothing and selling it "
nuff said
Posted by Steve Purcell (Member # 1140) on :
Next time, wearing a beret, tell her (with an accent) that the sign is your interpretation of man's inhumanity to man.
You'll get five grand, easy.
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
I have decided that art is whatever moves me personally. I don't feel obligated to respect someone's art just because it is popular, or collectible, or considered valuable. If I don't like it, I can ignore it guilt-free.
I've seen a few Norman Rockwell exhibits, and his work is amazing. He knew how to paint, and he was a master with color. Some people have prejudices against realistic work, especially work that has been commissioned to tell a story - illustrations. I couldn't care less what they say. Norman Rockwell was an amazing artist.
On the other hand, there are plenty of abstract works of art that I have been blown away by. It all depends on what it is, and how I react to it. It is silly to believe that all the aesthetic talent is concentrated in a single genre.
Posted by Ken Henry (Member # 598) on :
As lettering artists, we collectively have a long and honourable history of being the ones who use the painted medium to promote communication. From the earliest scribes, who painstakingly transcribed documents and recorded things like the Bible by hand, up until the present day use of digital media, lettering people are the ones who provided the visual forms of communication so that messages could be relayed to the viewers. Some have done that task with elegance and grace, whilst others were content with doing the absolute minimum to achieve the requirement.
Those who strove to add that little bit extra tended to rise above the ones who were merely content to provide the minimum. The Book of Kells is a fine example of the best efforts of ancient monks who lent their artistic flair to a mundane task. The result was a book of letterforms that endures to this day, as a classic example of hand-crafted penmanship.
There are those whose works we all admire, and often for a whole variety of reasons. The one common denominator seems to be a recognition that words can be something more than just a collection of letterforms strung together to communicate a sentence, idea, or thought. Those whose works seemingly excell, have that recognition that it isn't necessarily what you say, but how well you say it that enhances their level of communication. They communicate with Pizzaz and flair. That is essentially what separates the artists from the mechanics. It's what establishes wordforms that become legitimate and outstanding "brands".
In the world of "fine art" there are those individuals who can do photo-realistic works and their technique is flawless. However, their sense of composition leaves much to be desired and is sometimes non-existant. Unfortunately, that relegates their work to basiclly competing with a camera, which can accomplish the same thing. Other individuals may paint with far less accomplished technique, but their works are highly expressive, and readily convey an immediate response in the viewer. That begs the question as to who is the better artist ?
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
I'm with Joe Chips.
An artist is a master of his or her craft, regardless of what that craft or medium is.
The only thing that technology has changed is the shorter time from concept to production, and the ease of reproduction. The equipment still costs a fortune and the software still relies upon a proficient operator. If anyone thinks "Oh it's so easy you just click a few buttons" I invite them take a seat in my chair at a workstation running AutoCAD, Inventor, ProEngineer, Illustrator and Photoshop. Let's see just how far they can get in a few minutes without any previous experience with this software.
Suddenly, the last 20 years of my life spent mastering design software and operating production equipment has a little more value to them.
Picasso, Monet, Manet, etc. you can keep that stuff, it's not my bag. I'll take a Coop "Trick or Treat" tee any day!
Posted by Bill Davidson (Member # 531) on :
I've worked with some sign "artists". I have never claimed to be one.
Posted by Rusty Bradley (Member # 6938) on :
All you people that make signs and consider yourselves to be artist need to be educated as to what real art is...consider this painting by the famous French painter Henri Matisse
I'm told the reason I cant see the artistic importance in this work is because I'm too little educated and not cultured enough...I'm not going to argue that...it's probably true to a point...but try using this on your next restaurant sign and see if you get an approval...or take the Matisse name off and try selling it at a craft fair somewhere...maybe you could give it away...maybe not...maybe someone would take it for the frame...I really think someone has to resort to alot of pseudo artist bs crap to defend this piece as a work of art regardless of the painter's name...I know art is in the eye of the beholder...I'll give you that...but don't alot of people accept the opinions of snooty arrogant art critics to tell us what good art is...and if we don't agree we are made to feel like the problem lies within us...however I must remind myself that such works as pictured above can only be understood and appreciated by those with superior learning and cultural experience...luckily that leaves me out.
[ January 23, 2012, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Rusty Bradley ]
Posted by chris depuy (Member # 11823) on :
Funny how all that "superior learning" and "cultural experience" is closely related to how much money you have. (not the money of the artist but the art apriciator) The only reason it's good is because someone with ALOT of $ said it was.......
Posted by Neil D. Butler (Member # 661) on :
Donald Trump was visiting with an Artist friend of his in NYC... They were talking about Money and stuff, (Never would have guessed) But anyway the artist asked done if he wanted to see him make 50 grand or so before dinner? Trump said "Yes".. the Artist slapped some paint on a Canvas and then said. "I just made 50 grand, lets go have some lunch!". Not sure how much money was involved but something like that.
Posted by Rusty Bradley (Member # 6938) on :
Another masterpiece by Matisse...obviously emoted from deep within the artist soul...this piece could possibly express the pathos of the human experience...life...death...pain...suffering...and a whole bunch more stuff that is way too deep for me to understand...but I'm sure it's really really deep whatever it is...I can only look on in awe and wonder how one man could have had such insight.
[ January 23, 2012, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Rusty Bradley ]
Posted by Michael Clanton (Member # 2419) on :
I was knee-deep in the whole "FIne Arts" -vs- "Commercial Arts" debate when I was in school, both camps hated the other and spent more time debating the merits and shortcomings than actually producing either kind of art. At some point, I came to the conclusion that for me, it all boils down to creating- whether or not someone else likes, appreciates or even understands it can be an issue in where someone places a "value" on your creation.
My mentor, who is an incredible illustrator and painter, encouraged me to try as many areas of "Art" as I could- photography would help me design better, drawing would help me paint better, painting would help me be a better illustrator, sketching would help me be a better sculpter, sculpting would help me design better, understanding design and composition would help me be a better draftsman, learning about color would help me paint better, and so on and so on... the big emphasis was learning as much as you could about your craft, having as many skills in your toolbox as you could learn, then mixing them all together to "create" something...
So, YES- I'm an artist! whether I am designing a billboard, laying out a yellowpage ad, photographing a portrait, editing a video clip, painting a canvas, whitling a piece of wood, crafting a logomark, or a million other things that I put my creative touch to...
Posted by Pierre Tardif (Member # 3229) on :
You don't need talent to be an "Artist", or it doesn't have to look good to be considered "Art". That's the problem. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder or maybe it's in the sale speech. Still looking for the answer. But I guess Neil did good not doing the sign for so little. Way to go! Thanks for the laugh Rusty BTW!!
Life is still good!
Posted by Neil D. Butler (Member # 661) on :
Very Interesting responses for sure, Pierre, I even suggested to her that I could Hand letter her sign to reflect the "Art" Gallery... never heard back... I guess I'm not an "Artist"
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
Rusty, take a look at "The Painted Word" by Tom Wolfe. It's a quick read and it's entertaining. It pokes fun at modern art while giving a good explanation of why it is the way it is.
Posted by Rusty Bradley (Member # 6938) on :
Thanks Russ.
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
I read that many years ago Russ and kind of funny that I just read the wiki column you posted an hour ago to refresh my memory. No better skewer of intellectual hypocrysy and flim flam than Tom Wolfe.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Rolling On The Floor]](graemlins/rolf.gif)
