Commenting on well known Pro's work

I don't know; if a professional puts their product in a public forum where it's usual for contributors to offer critique then surely they expect some kind of comment. I'm going to blow my own trumpet - I play guitar for a living and I have some of my music in social media sites where people can comment on it. People say nice things about it; nobody openly rubbishes it. People don't abuse the free downloads either. The nice thing about putting your professional product out in a public forum is that the comments will be simpler, more honest and easier to understand. Regular critics are a bit full of themselves and use lots of purple prose to say what could be squeezed into "That's nice".

I'm not sure I entirely follow what Derek is saying, but pros and amateurs both show here, and if either feel that they don't want comments they're at liberty to say so - although I don't know why they'd bother to post anything if they don't anticipate and want comments. There are also a good few posters who wander between these two categories, which are much less hard and fast than one might imagine.

I don't have any issues with professional artists posting work in the gallery as I see it as promoting some sort of dialogue between both 'sides'. In any event it contributes to a variety of techniques on display which makes the gallery all the more interesting. I also agree with Robert that it is not always a fixed demarcation between professional and amateur and the use of the gallery by all should be welcomed.

I think whoever posts on the gallery leave themselves open to criticism . Fine, I only comment if I feel really strongly about something be it good or bad. If I feel it really would hurt someone I usually don't offer any comment at all. There are certain posters who's work I find offensive and will say so. I try not to say"Its nice" because its a pointless comment. If the colour, composition or some magic element really grabs my attention then I also say so. Its great to see all of the gallery posters be they Professionals or amateurs. Sadly I haven't had time to look recently Festivities and Grandchildren have "used me up" .

Grey areas exist, Syd. I sell, but not enough to make an overall profit, but more than many other artists. I get infrequent commissions. I have no gallery representation (must sort that out ... when I figure out how). I have no other stream of income apart from my husband. I also rent a studio (which afects the "overall profit" bit). Am I a pro? I think I reside in some sort of business-inept limbo.

You should try the Isle of Wight..... there are very few galleries, and the ones that exist tend to specialize, particularly in yachting scenes which, unless exceptionally well done, bore me to stupefaction. Chasing after galleries, if you can find them, can be very frustrating - to establish a good relationship with one, however - in which the gallery owner doesn't try to guzzle all the profit for himself - can be the difference between selling occasionally, and regularly. You will find though that if you do form a relationship with a gallery, one of the first things they'll do is put your prices up - not for any malevolent purpose, there really isn't much choice if it's to be worth while for the gallery and for the artist: you're now helping to support the gallery, its staffing, heating and display costs (or you're not, of course, in which case they won't show your work for long). So, if you want a reputation and name, the gallery's the way to go. But of course, you might not want that at all - you might not want to price your work out of reach of most people; you might not want or need the business and administrative complications (although a gallery should take much of that off your shoulders: it's part of the price). You also might not want the pressure to keep feeding the demand. In which case, I've known artists to slip away into the world of illustration; or, having established a name by the regular route, to use their own websites to sell their work - fine if you have a name and people know where to look but that's the point: the gallery exposure will have helped you acquire it. In this sense, whether you're an amateur or professional depends on your success at marketing and willingness or need to engage in it. The reason why I don't much like the divide this creates is that it means absolutely nothing artistically - and I don't think that divide is relevant to POL at all. It has nothing to do with proficiency - take away the professionals from this site and it will be much poorer, in every sense.

Oh dear Robert you've got me a bit confused and it's not like you. You say the divide means absolutely nothing artistically and has nothing to do with proficiency - yes I'm with you all the way and this makes the divide impossible to determine. You then you say: 'take away the professionals from this site and it will be much poorer' and again I agree but it's a bit of an odd concept as I wonder how you can determine l who's who? If it it is possible to differentiate the converse is also true of course. Okay I'm being a tad pedantic as there are those at the extremes of the divide and they are easy to categorise but the vast majority fall into the middle ground which is where most of the enjoyment of this site falls (well for me at least).

You can't determine which is which, unless you happen to know whether an artist is a professional or not, which is rather my point - well, up to a point.... The site would be poorer if we reduced the number by slicing out the professionals in that it would reduce the variety. Were the site to advertise itself as a place for amateurs alone, then - possibly this is a counterintuitive point to my first one - we should miss out on highly proficient work; because those many of us who straddle the divide (I certainly don't live entirely on painting, I should have starved long ago if I did) might feel an attempt were being made to exclude us. Why? Because of the way people define themselves: a number of amateurs, by no means all, call themselves that because they aren't very good yet and they know it - to limit the site to learners, which is the word I always prefer, would inevitably reduce its quality. It's a question of the assumptions you set up, really - we've both (all) been to local art society shows and seen a preponderance of pretty ghastly work against which any professional would be reluctant to show. You know why: we may do our best to encourage everyone to have a go, but the "anyone can paint" mantra doesn't happen to be true - there are those who can't; some who can't yet, but will one day be able to, that being the stage through which we've all gone; and some who are very keen but are never going to be any good, for all sorts of reasons (usually, because they keep churning stuff out but don't study drawing or colour for whatever reason: I doubt that there's an art tutor who hasn't had a few such in his or her classes - those who are not using the word "amateur" in its real sense, but as an excuse for the fact that their work doesn't improve; and as they can't see what's wrong with it, it never will). You see the dangers into which one can plunge when addressing this subject.... Anyway: this is why I want to outlaw the terms "amateur" and "professional": the one has a pejorative connection in the minds of many, while the other implies a value that might be entirely lacking. I certainly know of painters who sell very well, whose work causes me to fall back in loathing and horror (a couple who describe themselves as "Scottish colourists" lurch into the mind). They are "professional": Thomas Kinkade was a professional - he was also an utterly lousy painter - not something I would say of many, but he really was. I shouldn't mind at all if professionals of that variety kept away from this site - Kinkade has no option, being dead - but if others who were professional artists, who live by their work or their teaching plus their work more usually, felt that they weren't welcome (which might cover rather a lot of us) then plainly the site would suffer and we should be left with ladies of extravagant and uncomfortable proportions plus other pictures which had potential but lacked work alongside them, which might help their creators to improve, as most of us wish to do (those who think they know everything usually know nothing). I hope you haven't got me into trouble by encouraging me to go on at greater length..... To be quite clear, I'm not decrying amateur painters; quite the reverse in fact: what I'm against is prescriptive ideas about what should be here and what shouldn't.