I have been attending a workshop on “The Artist as an Entrepreneur.” Its purpose is to help artists become more successful businesspersons, by teaching basics of business plans, marketing, sales, finances and networking. I appear to be the oldest person in the class, and I think I’m being viewed with some suspicion by a few of the others: while I am there to figure out how to turn a hobby into a business, the other artists are trying to make a living at it. There have been a couple of comments to the effect that “retired people” aren’t serious about or dedicated to the cause of art and so should be avoided. In other words, not real artists.
One of the speakers, while discussing markets and product niches, noted the recent death of “Bob Timberlake” and made a disparaging reference to his work: he was popular and successful, but he was not an artist, don’t we agree? In his haste to lay waste, the speaker got his schlock wrong. Bob Timberlake is still with us — it is Thomas Kinkade who is not.
Timberlake
Kinkade
Millais
Is anyone and everyone who calls himself or herself an artist an artist? What standard determines whether a person may be called an artist or whether a work is considered art? This was explored in a 2011 study by Kieran, Meskin and Moore. They asked, “Do works belong to the artistic canon because critics and museum curators have correctly discerned their merits?” Or, do works enter the canon as a result of “cultural exposure over time” with less regard for objective qualities of the work? To find out, the authors compared how viewers reacted to paintings by John Everett Millais (1829-1896) and the aforementioned Thomas Kinkade (1958-2012) after a single exposure and repeat exposures. If quality of a work outweighs exposure to a work in terms of influencing viewer preferences, then one could argue there are in fact objective quality standards for art.
The results: whereas increased exposure to Millais paintings had little effect on how well viewers liked them, “…we found that with bad paintings by Kinkade, exposure decreased, rather than increased, liking [of the work] in relation to our control groups.” I might argue with the authors about having prejudged Kinkade’s work as “bad”, but then again, when people like something less and less the more they see it, that is the kind of art that ends up in a Goodwill store.
At my workshop, I was struck by the number of attendees who shared that making art was integral to advancing their social cause. I began to wonder: if I am to be an artist, do I need not only a product but a cause? Will a cause make my art better? Will it get me through the door and on the wall?
Perhaps the workshop speaker was right and Kinkade was not a real artist. And neither will I be a real artist until the Gatekeepers of Good Artisanship evaluate my worthiness against the standards and decide that I pass. I can’t wait.
May 8 was a sad day for North Carolina. Voters were asked whether the state constitution should be amended so that marriage (and the rights accorded to such unions) should exclude two men who wish to marry and two women who wish to marry. Three of five North Carolina voters supported this amendment. I am not surprised, but I thought the margin might be closer. North Carolina is the 30th state to adopt such a ban.
The friend of one of my Facebook friends commented that North Carolina was racist and homophobic. And my friend commented that he would no longer travel to North Carolina as a result of this vote. This made me sad, because it means he will not be visiting me.
Should I, as a matter of principle, move out of the state where I reside because I am one of the 40% who believes that marriage should be between any couple willing to undertake it? If so, then where would I move? Canada maybe? Canada legalized same-sex marriages in July 2005. Or Iceland? They legalized it in June 2010.
It is not a serious question, because I am not moving. But it is sad, the division. It is sad, the look you give the shopper at the supermarket checkout line as you wonder whether he is one of the 60% you have nothing in common with except borders.