A good artist - a successful artist?

[Vladimir]

Сообщение от DSF

To be on one wall with the "Lady of" Bouguereau and the "Slave Market" Toto Giraud? I do not want. Each goes his own way and has a small circle of the public, and officials here have nothing to do ... I pay them taxes. What do they care about my pictures? But no! They need to intervene in all ... Art for them - a chess board, and we, the artists - figure. They put forward a pawn, then another, etc. But I'm not a pawn, and I do not want to get me promoted ».

The words of Degas's more like a growl. By the way, is not the horses he painted in industrial quantities on the order dealers?

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Vladimir, Degas-horses?

[Vladimir]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzransky

Vladimir, Degas-horses?

And the horses and jockeys, and horse racing - no one is a ballerina

[LCR]

Сообщение от Vladimir

And the horses and jockeys, and horse racing - no one is a ballerina

However, drew, and drew wonderful. And jumps in Epsom at all in my masterpiece.

But the general argument is a bit empty. Of course, a true artist and can not write, and wrote for themselves. Of course, it pleases primarily endorsement unrivaled.

But I remember, was one such poet, you know, he said: "Not for Sale inspiration, but you can sell a manuscript - because the artist also had to eat

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Horse Racing, yes, I remember, yes, horses with jockeys, yes.

[Евгений]

Сообщение от DSF

There will be an opportunity to earn - well, no - nothing too terrible.

This is misleading, almost all the artists think about how to earn, how to feed the family (I'm working with them for 20 years), and now so bolee.Slova Renoir, Degas is just beautiful words, far from the truth.
Poverty is not mandatory for the success of the artist, rather the contrary.

Сообщение от dedulya37

"to lie under the State", but the collection will continue. Example - a collection of Rostropovich and Vishnevskaya.

Sasha did not understand your idea, Rostropovich and Vishnevskaya under the State did not lay down, just decided to sell the collection through the auction and all. (The fact that Usmanov bought the whole, and gave the State, Rast.i Vesh.zdes do with it).
Vishnevskaya do not care who buys it, the state, one person, sto.Ee interested only in price, price Usmanov it arranged.

Сообщение от dedulya37

And it is for the entire collection of the State to follow, unlike the disparate works.

Do not tell Sasha, "keep track" of 1925-1970, Russia echelons sold abroad paintings, collections of leading museums strany.I mind you, these collections are not state owned, 90%of all has been stolen from private collectors, their rodstvennikov.Tak that the state (especially Soviet), better be quiet.

[dedulya37]

Сообщение от Eugene

and transferred to the State

Zhenya, "lie down under the State" does not mean "present" does not matter as a collection acquired the status of "state". Someone meeting redeem, someone's not. (Shilov)
And private collections in the museum Zilberstein? What they also bought back?

Сообщение от Eugene

from 1925-1970, Russia echelons sold abroad painting

Well, how not to sell, when the main slogan was "steal back the stolen"?
We should make sure that such Zyuganov more power did not come.

[DSF]

Сообщение от Eugene

Poverty is not mandatory for the success of the artist, rather the opposite.

Quite agree with you, but I do not asserted. I just wanted to say that the commercial success or failure should be treated calmly and not do the tragedy of what you paid 10 000 USD, not $ 10 000

Сообщение от Eugene

Word of Renoir, Degas is just beautiful words, far from the truth.

And I, after all, are more inclined to trust the people who own life and works have proved that something can.

Сообщение от LCR

But I remember, was one such poet, you know, he said: "Not for Sale inspiration, but you can sell a manuscript - because the artist also had to eat

The same poet also said: "In other lands, writers write, or to the crowd, or for small numbers. (These are, with love studying new creation, pronounced him to court, and thus the creation, not subject to the court audience, gets in her opinion the price and place he owned). We can not last, should write for himself ."))

[Meister]

but interestingly, if we imagine that the artist is provided from infancy that he would not have to think what to eat tomorrow, and for how much and to whom to sell their work, he can concentrate fully on their work and find out whether we are about it? Why should he sell something that, if he has everything?
In my opinion, has always been three kinds of artists:
1. were focused only on his art, and eked out a miserable existence;
2.dlya whose main draw was commercially profitable thing, whatever it was interesting to them or not;
3. kind of hybrid of 1 and 2 species, drawing suitable for sale things to be able to draw for themselves. "

[Glasha]

Сообщение от Meister

if we imagine that the artist is provided from infancy that he would not have to think what to eat tomorrow, and for how much and to whom to sell their work, he can concentrate fully on their work and find out whether we are about it? Why should he sell something that, if he already has everything?

There are examples of this - Toulouse Lautrec, sorry, just that it occurred, is confident they can be a lot more to add.