Comments on: Folk Art http://jeffmatherphotography.com/dispatches/2007/07/folk_art/ The 9 to 5 Life of an International Playboy Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:48:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Jeff Mather http://jeffmatherphotography.com/dispatches/2007/07/folk_art/#comment-127 Jeff Mather Wed, 01 Aug 2007 04:32:43 +0000 http://jeffmatherphotography.com/dispatches/2007/07/folk_art/#comment-127 I agree that much of the professional v. amateur v. folk art distinctions can pivot upon how much effort the artist puts into self-promotion. (As well as the quality of the work and the ability to please buyers/collectors/dealers. But that's a different matter entirely.) That, after all is what defines "professional." My intent in the post was to call out this difference but then dig deeper into the "fine art" v. amateur artist distinction. There are a great many serious amateurs who don't get taken quite as seriously as perhaps they want to be. I see this all the time in my camera club: people making technically correct, well-composed, unique images that aren't really capable of getting gallery space (though some try for it). Why is this? In my opinion, it has a lot to do with the way that artists use their images (or sculptures, paintings, music, etc.) to communicate with other artists, artworks, and larger social trends. This certainly makes the art more self-conscious -- if not necessarily "better" -- and puts it directly into an art historical context. You can fit any kind of artist into such a context, of course; everyone has her moment and inspiration. But I don't think most amateurs make their works with these contexts in mind. So how does folk art fit in? I guess I'm being hopeful that someday someone will look at a cross-section of my work and say, "Even though he was an amateur artist, his photographs had something interesting to say, were stylistically consistent, and reacted to what was going on in the larger art world." Finally, I think that education and professionalism impact the ability to communicate in fine art circles, both directly and through art objects. You always hope that artworks are interesting enough to stand on their own, but the whole context issue really can't exist in a vacuum. When communication with other works is important, art school types have a distinct advantage over the self-taught (like me). And professional artists, whose jobs bring them into regular contact with art school types and artworks. I'm quite happy with my non-art profession. For one thing, it gives me the stability I need to pursue my amateur avocation. Being famous or embraced by the art community isn't my goal. So do I think that what I do is art? Yes, it's art because I say that it is. Do I think that it's good art? That's not my call, but I hope so. I agree that much of the professional v. amateur v. folk art distinctions can pivot upon how much effort the artist puts into self-promotion. (As well as the quality of the work and the ability to please buyers/collectors/dealers. But that’s a different matter entirely.) That, after all is what defines “professional.”

My intent in the post was to call out this difference but then dig deeper into the “fine art” v. amateur artist distinction. There are a great many serious amateurs who don’t get taken quite as seriously as perhaps they want to be. I see this all the time in my camera club: people making technically correct, well-composed, unique images that aren’t really capable of getting gallery space (though some try for it). Why is this?

In my opinion, it has a lot to do with the way that artists use their images (or sculptures, paintings, music, etc.) to communicate with other artists, artworks, and larger social trends. This certainly makes the art more self-conscious — if not necessarily “better” — and puts it directly into an art historical context. You can fit any kind of artist into such a context, of course; everyone has her moment and inspiration. But I don’t think most amateurs make their works with these contexts in mind.

So how does folk art fit in? I guess I’m being hopeful that someday someone will look at a cross-section of my work and say, “Even though he was an amateur artist, his photographs had something interesting to say, were stylistically consistent, and reacted to what was going on in the larger art world.”

Finally, I think that education and professionalism impact the ability to communicate in fine art circles, both directly and through art objects. You always hope that artworks are interesting enough to stand on their own, but the whole context issue really can’t exist in a vacuum. When communication with other works is important, art school types have a distinct advantage over the self-taught (like me). And professional artists, whose jobs bring them into regular contact with art school types and artworks.

I’m quite happy with my non-art profession. For one thing, it gives me the stability I need to pursue my amateur avocation. Being famous or embraced by the art community isn’t my goal. So do I think that what I do is art? Yes, it’s art because I say that it is. Do I think that it’s good art? That’s not my call, but I hope so.

]]> By: EmperorFrost http://jeffmatherphotography.com/dispatches/2007/07/folk_art/#comment-126 EmperorFrost Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:33:58 +0000 http://jeffmatherphotography.com/dispatches/2007/07/folk_art/#comment-126 Interesting point about the distinction between folk artists and their "professional" counterparts. You seem to be saying that what sets professional artists apart from folk artists is their intent and ability to speak to a larger audience that includes many of their peers while folk artists work on a very personal form and appreciation comes forth from audiences that speak or experience the same emotions. This sort of distinction exists in many fields for eg. music (mainstream vs. the underground). What I suspect is that the appetite for the 'folksy' flavors depends on how much effort the artist invests in promoting his art. I would think there are more than enough takers out there who speak the same language thus making him mainstream. I am using mainstream interchangeably with professional (my underlying assumption is that you don't have to be professionally educated to be considered professional - sort of a it helps if you are but its not an absolute must). So, it boils down to the artist's intent - promote and integrate oneself with the mainstream sense of appreciation of art as opposed to the folk artist who creates art just for himself. So, I differ from your point that the professional's art speaks to a community while a folk artist's work does not. I see it as a difference in intent - my claim being that the folk artist will find his own community if he invests effort in finding one. Art, like beauty, lies in the eyes (and heart) of the beholder. Interesting point about the distinction between folk artists and their “professional” counterparts. You seem to be saying that what sets professional artists apart from folk artists is their intent and ability to speak to a larger audience that includes many of their peers while folk artists work on a very personal form and appreciation comes forth from audiences that speak or experience the same emotions. This sort of distinction exists in many fields for eg. music (mainstream vs. the underground). What I suspect is that the appetite for the ‘folksy’ flavors depends on how much effort the artist invests in promoting his art. I would think there are more than enough takers out there who speak the same language thus making him mainstream. I am using mainstream interchangeably with professional (my underlying assumption is that you don’t have to be professionally educated to be considered professional - sort of a it helps if you are but its not an absolute must). So, it boils down to the artist’s intent - promote and integrate oneself with the mainstream sense of appreciation of art as opposed to the folk artist who creates art just for himself. So, I differ from your point that the professional’s art speaks to a community while a folk artist’s work does not. I see it as a difference in intent - my claim being that the folk artist will find his own community if he invests effort in finding one.

Art, like beauty, lies in the eyes (and heart) of the beholder.

]]>