WarmGlass.com

And then, don't forget that there's also that air of "mystique" around artists... Those who don't think of themselves as artistically inclined find those who do successfully create quite fascinating. Like the other end of the spectrum...

Catharine

"I find that really thought-provoking. You have a situation where art patron 'demands' (I don't mean that in a negative sense) personal interaction and some sort of transactional acceptance/gratitude in the artistic experiece. I'm trying to visualize parallel situations. I've heard of situations the other way around, where for instance an artist won't sell you his work unless you're cool, or not a member of the royal family or something."


"Perceived value", "Enhanced personal social status", "True interest in another human being?? What is at the root of why anyone makes an art purchase?

Finding one definitive answer to this question may be impossible! We all have different motivators.

It seems to me that a collector is well justified in buying a piece of the artist along with the object. Objects have a history associated with them. Every scrap of information is retained by museums for their ancient objects. During a tour, the curator of the Smithsonian Renwick museum informed us that they are now also collecting such information and history from contemporary artists. I'm not at the point of selling my work, but would be absolutely flattered that a potential buyer wanted to know something behind the work. I have been priviledged to visit three different collector's houses in the D.C area this past year. All three have impressive glass collections worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, by famous artists whose works I've only read about. One house was like a museum. During the house tours, what struck me most was the knowledge the owners had about the object and artist. They invariably knew exactly from whom, when and where the piece was acquired, and felt a personal attachment to the pieces. Often they could place the objects in the context of the growth and development of the artist. It was a very interesting perspective. During a private tour this year, the curator of the glass collection at the Renwick also spoke to us about how personal in nature their acquisitions are. At these levels you are "collected" along with your art.
The tours were very enlightening.
Nikki

Interesting article:

http://www.painterskeys.com/letters.asp?let=031007

I especially like this quote:

“It appears likely that low levels of latent inhibition and exceptional flexibility in thought might predispose to mental illness under some conditions and to creative accomplishment under others.â€

I don't really view it as a demand or a requirement for personal interaction in order to buy the work. I've bought many pieces when I didn't know or meet the artist. It's a matter of simple courtesy to me. Someone gives you a compliment, you say thank you. To not do so, IMHO, exhibits rudeness or snobbery. There's enough bad behaviour in this world and I prefer not to reward it when confronted with it. This extends to any product or service or personal interaction, not just art. What happened to plain good manners? That doesn't mean I expected, or want, to get a 'piece' of the artist's soul in the interaction or transaction.

Ultimately, when I do buy a piece of art with my hard earned money that I depend on other people buying my work to get, it's because I like the piece, not because of whatever message the artist has. Not being independantly wealthy or having a spouse with a separate income, I am grateful when someone likes my work enough to buy it and have no problem saying 'thank you'. I don't see why I shouldn't receive one when I am the buyer and I work hard for my money. Maybe that makes me shallow, but if the artist doesn't appreciate my patronage (in the instances when I do interact with them) it makes me rethink my desire for the work.

e

Nikki O'Neill wrote:It seems to me that a collector is well justified in buying a piece of the artist along with the object. Objects have a history associated with them.
Nikki

Nikki's posting beautifully captured the concept that art is not created, and does not exist in a vacuum. An understanding of the contextual environment surrounding a piece adds another layer of richness.

This also ties back into a point made earlier in this thread about an artist's statement: Many artists work with a personal iconography that is easily translated by the viewer. Others do not. Whether or not each and every translation is "dead on accurate" or not does not diminish the piece. It is akin to the piece being able to speak in several languages or dialects at once. Having an insight into how and why an artist employs what seem like universal symbols or icons again adds a layer of richness. Whether or not this added richness is desirable depends upon the individual viewer.

Wonderful thread! Thank you for starting it Catharine. And thank you for all the thoughful responses!

Kris