Live data from Hacker News

Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

henrikkarlsson.xyz

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

#51
I went into this article with a lot of skepticism, but the author has some excellent points. Here's one, as an example.

On dealing with people (in his case, artists): "if...someone isn't measuring up, I have no idea how to convince them to do so. So I look for people [who do]." I.e., don't waste your time on people who are "demanding or confused or slow at answering their email".

Lots of other interesting points!

Re: Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

#52
post #17
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that work at art galleries are not artists.

depends on the gallery, some make you work a shift if you want to sell your art there

Not professional artists (in the UK)? Curation is a separate skill, and you're paying through the nose for the gallery's services, usually.

Re: Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

#53
post #38

The problem here is that I don’t trust the author on being able to tell who is the “best artist”. Clearly he has opinions. But for example in point 3, he says he can predict which exhibition will be great based on how easy it is to work with the artist. He predicts that some exhibition will be crap and he is right! Which sounds impressive until you notice that he is not measuring his judgement against something objec…

I have worked a little bit with "artists". Too many of them are caught up in their vision, and apparently incapable of dealing with reality. Too many of them believe that their vision is so, so unique that everyone else should sort out any problems.

There's one guy where I live, whom I tried to help out several times. I would invest lots of effort handling the practical stuff: flyers, text, web site, etc. Little thanks, because it was his due. Then he would have a new idea, change direction, and it was all for nothing.

Re: Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

#54
post #38

The problem here is that I don’t trust the author on being able to tell who is the “best artist”. Clearly he has opinions. But for example in point 3, he says he can predict which exhibition will be great based on how easy it is to work with the artist. He predicts that some exhibition will be crap and he is right! Which sounds impressive until you notice that he is not measuring his judgement against something objec…

> The problem here is that I don’t trust the author on being able to tell who is the “best artist”. A prerequisite to be considered a great artist is that the artist master a "craft" to perfection be it painting, drawing, sculpting, or something complete different like Burial who created one of the most important electronic album using the basic audio-editing software Sound Forge.

Is art really about craft anymore?

There's certainly an element of it but it's gotten very meta and abstract these days.

What is the craft in a dirty bath tub or a robot endlessly sweeping liquid?

Better yet what's the craft in a white canvas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invisible_artworks

I'm actually not denying there's art here, sometimes I "get it" but the art of today has gotten very conceptual and meta.

I see similar issues with music - where the need to be accessible vs original are pit against each other. Da Vinci, Monet, Turner, Picasso - the art is fairly accessible. Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy, Holst ditto.

But who will be remembered as being accessible and "serious" from our generation in music? Probably John Williams - a film composer primarily. I'm not dissing composers, one of my favourites of all time is Nobuo Uematsu but I am not sure what is art anymore. I wonder if art can only emerge with hindsight. What did it feel like to be in the present when people like Chopin and Liszt were in their heyday while Delacroix and Moreau were painting. Or when Ravel and Debussy were writing impressionistic music alongside Monet and Manet painting

Re: Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

#55
post #38

The problem here is that I don’t trust the author on being able to tell who is the “best artist”. Clearly he has opinions. But for example in point 3, he says he can predict which exhibition will be great based on how easy it is to work with the artist. He predicts that some exhibition will be crap and he is right! Which sounds impressive until you notice that he is not measuring his judgement against something objec…

> But if your definition of “great art” is that it is commercially succesfull then of course what you will find that the “great artist” are all like good businesman.

While the author doesn't explicitly define what is "great", I 100% believed that what it is defined as. That "great" is being commercially successful.

The article is premised around running a non-profit art gallery in a struggling municipality. That he did a good job by "helping grow the revenues"[0]. He needed money for his new baby and couldn't afford to lose a job[1]

It is a modern day art gallery. These things are businesses first - to support their own operations and then to help artist support themselves and their work.

So yes, "great" art IS art that sells.

Now, what sells is highly highly subjective, and a very large part of that sales process is making the customer _feel good_ about their purchase. And I think this is where you disagree - that there is a higher, objective reality around good vs great art. And for so much art, there really isn't.

[0] "I started was the inflection point when the revenue, which had been shrinking or muddling for 5 years, began growing again"

[1] "since I knew I couldn’t afford to quit anytime soon with the baby and all"

Re: Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

#56

I refuse to believe that not answering every single email within an hour is a good predictor of anything other than being glued to your phone. I think extending it to a reasonable amount of time, maybe a business day max, works out pretty well. Sometimes people respond really fast because they’re taking regular breaks and other times they don’t respond all evening because they’re putting on their kid’s birthday party…

He didn't mention a timescale. Maybe it's a difference between 4 hours and 1 day? I would agree that if someone takes longer than a day to respond, then it's going to be hard to work with this person. 4 hours is fine.

Re: Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

#57

I refuse to believe that not answering every single email within an hour is a good predictor of anything other than being glued to your phone. I think extending it to a reasonable amount of time, maybe a business day max, works out pretty well. Sometimes people respond really fast because they’re taking regular breaks and other times they don’t respond all evening because they’re putting on their kid’s birthday party…

You’re trying to systematise something that is more like basic human nature. It’s like trying to explain why people like attractive people from a utilitarian perspective. In the real world I just prefer to interact with people who prioritise me over other things and most people are the same.

Yet some artists do believe that it's morally wrong that producing whatever they deem as good art isn't guaranteed to be self-supporting. They shouldn't ultimately have to answer to anyone else's opinion to earn a living. Which is highly entitled, and non-evolutionary.

Re: Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have found that folks like Jensen, Elon, Jobs, etc answer their emails in 5-10 min. You be the judge.

They have EA’s that can go through their inboxes for them and highlight what actually needs a response. Hell they probably draft responses for them too

And that is so because they made it a priority for it to be so.

Re: Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

#60
post #43

> If we want to make the world a better place, we can’t just think about the lofty stuff: we have to get our hands dirty and make sure the economic engine works. This seems a very narrow if not conformist view of art. Artists doing graffiti, participating in hobby groups, state funded projects, discovered by later generations, etc - they don’t care about making viewers feel good about funding; and yet their art can v…

It is perhaps a narrow view, but not an incorrect one.

You mention state funded projects, but the funding has to come from somewhere else. What the author is saying is this: it takes money to run a gallery (or a museum, for that matter), therefore even if it is not the primary objective, we should strive to keep the money flowing so that we can make have better galleries/museums.

Post reply on HN