Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Are Artists The Best Judges?
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
Most of us have our favourite artists whose work we admire and which inspires us. Among watercolourists I guess the work of Ted Wesson is probably among one of the most venerated. Certainly his work influences many and is being constantly copied. Don't misunderstand me, I love his work and only wish I could get halfway to his standard but I wonder if his name is much known outside artistic circles and whether he is appreciated by the public at large. I see very few, if any, works of his or in his style for sale in galleries and whilst I have seen many emulating his style in exhibitions over the years, they have never, in my experience, proved to be popular sellers. Sorry to pick on Ted as this could apply to many others, however, with tongue in cheek, this all begs the questions:
Are only artists in a position to judge skill and ability?
Does quality really matter in the current age?
Or is it all a case of the emporers new clothes?
Posted
I echoed your thoughts yesterday while going round the RA Summer Exhibition. Much of the art on display did nothing for me and Emperor's New Clothes came to mind many times, that however may be as much a commentary on me as much as a comment on the RA's selection committee. Notably there were three paintings by Ken Howard (typical interiors, two with nude staring out of window) hung in different places but recognisable as Howard's work without looking at the listing, they appeared strangely out of place in an exhibition that features very little 'traditional' art. I recognise the aim of the RA to provide a showpiece for contemporary art and I spent some time trying to understand some of the more obtuse (to me) works but came away none the wiser, or better informed, reminding myself that Turner was ridiculed for some of his later paintings when first hung and that 'it was all contemporary once' or as someone (not Turner) said 'I was the future once'!
Perhaps as artists we tend to identify with the genre of art we produce and have as much difficulty with other genres as anyone else.
Posted
Yes...no. yes , to answer your last three questions Mike.You and I and other artists know by looking at a painting can tell a sruggling amateur from an accomplished painter. many people cant do this and some think the nearest to a photograph a painting is, even though the painting is full of faults,the better the artist. You have only to invigilate at art rxhibitions and listen to comments , to realise that some members of Joe Public are clueless but ." know what they like".
Re Edward Wesson, i have never been a great fan of his work.Idont like his minimamlist distant trees( his close ones are great) and his strange black strokes in foregrounds which look like nothing at all .He makes many unexplained marks which do not help the picture to read well.I would put lots of todays artists,many of whom have published books, before Wesson and i neednt list them here asthey are well respected artists and do some wonderful work,which many aspire to but never reach, .....Big sigh...Syd
Posted
<div>I have on subscription a couple of art mags and one of them (no names) pick three new artists every month and showcase their work. 80% of the time I say "what on earth's that?" whilst turning it different ways to try to identify something in the painting. Well of course we all like what we like, but sometimes I think that ability comes second to what is "in vogue". Certainly I find it frustrating at times.</div>
Posted
Well I've got to tumble into this one, or lose my reputation as an intellectual....
Always assuming I had one.
Wesson has been dead for a good many years now, and in that you have the answer you seek. His work is mostly in private collections, you won't find it in galleries, he's not able to promote himself any more and there's no great need for galleries to do so either. What they promote is the new, those who hope they're going to be up-and-coming, cutting-edge, sound investments - Ted Wesson's work reached its optimum value long ago and has stayed there; it doesn't need to be inflated further, even if that were possible.
This has very, very little to do with art, or the quality of Wesson's work: it's the market - that's the way it works. Paintings in the Wesson style will probably not feature much in galleries either, because the market for them is saturated - they may be brilliant, and those who paint them may make a quiet, unobtrusive living from them and from teaching the Wesson technique, but it's been done. The art market always looks for new things to push - quality isn't the criterion, it's whether a demand can be created for a given artist's work, and how that market can be increased, how the value of their works may be maximized.
If you can make money from tat, many of us will cheerfully sell tat - hidden in the tat might be something good, if you're lucky. The truly successful investor is the person who can pick the jewels out of the compost, but in the meantime compost too has a commercial value; it's what keeps art galleries running, and art critics in employment.
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk