Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 ...26 ...27 28 29 31

04/01/09

  04:52:17 pm, by   , 270 words  
Categories: Art, Collage, Painting

Art and money

Once you have chosen collage as your main means of expression, you have made some sort of vow of poverty. Because, with a little exaggeration, collage is made of crap, won't last for centuries, is an expression for children or decoration...
I believe that many collage artists are wannabe painters: they want to be considered as full artists (cf. the complaints in the collage blogs). They do not assume their outsider status. So collage won't make us rich in $ but in creative possibilities. Because collage is more interesting than still life, nudes or other academic disciplines.
On my site and in various exhibitions, I offered my collages (A4) for approx. 80$ piece and had not much success with it. I conclude from that that price is not the real reason to buy a piece of art but very profound motivations . Surely one of them is status. So, what could collage offer to the potential buyer? Anti-status: underground art, anti-art attitude, but we can see that most collectors want neo-pop like Koons or others. This art is fashionable, not anti-art but yes-art.
So the future of collage itself is brilliant as a technique, but not as an objet de luxe. Better make a crystal skull with diamonds (Damien Hirst) than a vulgar sheet of paper with torn paper fragments. Or paint some nurse (Richard Prince) in a fashionable style. Or sign chinese.
So, for me, collage is outsider art and I want this to be seen in my pictures. So long so good for art. And the money? Well, I have made it till now without wealth, guess it won't change now.

 Permalink

There is one comment on this post but you must be logged in to see the comments. Log in now!


Form is loading...

03/01/09

  07:21:00 pm, by   , 97 words  
Categories: Non catégorisé, Art, Collage

Humor

It happens quite often that when achieving a collage, I must laugh or at least smile because the picture looks witty. Why? Surely because of the strange assemblage of heteroclite objects (see the famous definition of Lautréamont). Is it allowed in painting? Generally, one usually finds irony or derision today. Funny pictures come mostly from designers, I think. Is it because artists think themselves so important? In my collages, I like to go from one extreme to the other. Being a humorist would change me into an amuser. In my eyes, art can be more than that.

You must be logged in to see the comments. Log in now!


Form is loading...

  10:17:34, par   , 152 mots  
Catégories: Non catégorisé, Art, Collage, Painting

Collage vs. painting

I want to reflect here on collage and my way of making them. Enjoy.

Citation of Cesar Domela," a photo shows an object, whereas the photomontage presents an idea."

It seems to me that this definition hits the point.

Collage is a language for everybody, clear, strong, easily comprehensible
. It may be used for propaganda as under communism, but it can also be subversive, by the new meaning created with existing images.
In my conception of collage, this is the main point. Painting seems to me too much rooted in tradition, failing to free itself from it. Even the works of Picasso, displayed in Paris (Picasso and the masters) show this effort. Picasso creates very powerful works, but they are fundamentally linked to tradition.
When I am making a collage, I feel much freer than in a painting, where I have to struggle a lot like in one of my last paintings

Il y a un commentaire sur ce post mais vous devez être connecté pour visualiser les commentaires. Se connecter maintenant!


Formulaire en cours de chargement...

1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 ...26 ...27 28 29 31

October 2019
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
 << <   > >>
Blog on art, centered on collage. It is meant as a sort of logbook of my creative work.

Search

  XML Feeds

powered by b2evolution