Friday, December 01, 2006

Hype versus Talent: Which is more Important for Success in the Art World?

In the last two decades we have observed a lot of controversy in the 'art world'. There seems to be a general view that some of the biggest names in the 'art world' will choose work that 'forces an opinion' over work that is done in a more traditional manner (That is not to say that traditional art can't be shocking.). Thus, I ask this question: Do you think hype over a work of art is more important than the talent that went into creating it? Do artists need to ride the 'shock train' in order to find success in the 'art world'?

The question is a difficult one to answer if you take art history into account. I know that many of the artists I enjoy were considered 'shocking' in the past. However, the fact remains that many collectors, dealers, and artists have openly complained that 'real' art is being overlooked for work that is considered 'shocking' today. Do you think works like 'Piss Christ' will be seen for their artistic merit in the future? Will a fresh generation view these works in a different light? Tell me what you think... feel free to post links to art that you feel is 'shocking'.


Anonymous said...

shocking just isn't shocking anymore. what is shocking is people who care enough to spennd the time and consideration, not to mention skill, on making a visually pleasing work of art. by no means is aesthetic the only aspect of art, but people seem to have forgotten that these are pictures, or things, to look at, and they serve no other function. Therefore the looking must be good. Hype is important, but without real skill it's an empty bubble, ready to burst with the whim of the market and the change of fashion.

Lacey said...

I agree with what anonymous above said - shocking isn't shocking anymore. Also, this post mentions that many artists throughout history were considered shocking in their day, that ignores a huge difference between those artists of the past and today's: "Artists" now are shocking for shocking's sake, and their art is the shock, whereas old dead guys created art and people were shocked.

The worst part about all of this is that the general public has been turned off to art in general because of the way so many artists seek to alienate them, and then become elitist and rude when someone calls them on it. The point is not whether the art portrays a pretty picture or has something dire to say, but it is my belief that you need to retain the viewers interest if you want to be able to communicate a message to them. I think if modern art hadn't put such a wedge between artists and the masses, fine art would be as much a part of our daily lives as music and literature are.