The artist in the art market - the criteria for participation

[манна]

Originally Posted by IV

I'm afraid to go back to Lozhkin , but Cyril (and other friends ), when you refused to call it a " market participant ", you , as I understand now, saw it primarily as a seller? Why, then, one of the criteria for you to become characteristic of his work ? <! - ~ 3 ~ ->

Originally Posted by manna

I -V. read carefully

Modern art - it is also a system is rather rigid rules of etiquette , it is unclear from the side. For example : the artist does not have to sell their own work; to his show should be written in the text of a famous critic , and even better philosopher or politician , should work in an intellectual , but in any case not in an emotional way , . ...

Let this , a particular text is written with a certain degree of irony , much of the above can be written without it .....

[artcol]

Originally Posted by manna

Let this, given the text is written with a certain degree of irony, much of the above can be written without .....

This text - and even test > If he wrote Tar ...
Well - well >

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Originally Posted by Cyril Syzran ; 1952211"

hudozhetvennye also sell cards , buy them a market , they collect and sell at auction

I remember makes it possible for this " artistic souvenir ," as was fashionable in the 70- 80s " decorate " the home and chased giplovymi masks painted brown.
Tepe people grew up aesthetically and for the same money hangs in the house , as it were painted with oil even "pictures" - someone " birch - pine " and who knew Van Gogh , Dali, Klimt and some modernist delights.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Now the mail came a letter: free master class on how to get from the Internet and build a real business.
 
>

[fabosch]

Originally Posted by I-V

... I still do not understand : is there some kind of objective argument as to why this or that artist can or can not be called a party of the art market . Or evidence of participation ( not participating ) only subjective , and each , in its discretion , is free to " decide for itself "?

In my view, the objective does not exist.
If only because it is impossible to objectively determine which argument is the objective

Originally Posted by IV

And how did discuss particular of the situation on the art market has not yet resolved this dilemma ?

What prevents you , for example, discuss the notorious Lozhkina, I can not understand ? You so scared that the COP is not considered a party to the art market that you are numb and can not discuss ?

[I-V]

Originally Posted by fabosch; 1952241"

What 's stopping you , for example, discuss the notorious Lozhkina, I can not understand ?

It is not a Lozhkin, and that to me any author fairly regularly sells his works is a member of the art market . It was so in my opinion was (and is ) Lozhkin . His rejection of "art market" Lozhkina , KS me stumped , I admit it . Now that's not rest until I find out what arguments may be considered acceptable for this kind of verdict .

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Originally Posted by IV

Now that's not rest until I find out what arguments may be considered acceptable for this kind of verdict.

No.

Everyone has their arguments to the "pros" and "against."

[K-Maler]

Originally Posted by Maskit; 1951921"

You are absolutely pravy.V discussion on this topic can be drowned in verbiage, better to cover specific situations.

My friend works in the store section, rented for the sale of paintings. Its expected that she will invite artists. She is now in a quandary - the artists do not go. What's the matter? Tenant makes 200%mark-up, the price of the big picture decorative nature, for which the drop in this section is too high. And if we start from the "appropriate" price, the artist is too low.
Meanwhile, the situation with the sale of art is that in the near future "market participants" will need to consider everyone who paints "sold." Too few special exhibition grounds and new ones will be formed almost spontaneously. With respect to those who so sells his paintings, there is a preconceived opinion that such a point gets pretty bad painting. Some time ago it was. But now there are good artists and works. Many visitors buy city views, not street, but large, well-made, of course flowers and landscapes. But many absurdities in the organization of such sales.

[iside]

Originally Posted by IV; 1951531"

is every artist who sells his art work can be considered a party of the art market?

If not, what are the criteria by which an artist can still be considered a party of the art market? And whether they do?

IV, so you ask a question, and then write your answer:

Originally Posted by IV; 1952271"

for me, any writer quite regularly sells his works is a member of the art market

ie You have everything for yourself and decide what you want is someone to persuade you? Sorry, but this is very ungrateful, and somehow I'm even afraid to take it >
How to talk about it implies some theoretical knowledge of what the art market, what are the objectives which the participants, how it operates and is based on this will be clear who can be, and who does not and why.

Originally Posted by fabosch; 1952241"

In my view, the objective does not exist.
If only because it is impossible to objectively determine which argument is the objective

There is absolutely precise criteria about who - yes, and who - no, they intuitively know all the participants, if I wrote them, would you fabosch agreed with me, as well as others.

[Pavel]

I'm sorry. Lozhkin that your cousin ? Why such a PR? Sale - let sold. COP considers that must be sold only to those whom he deems worthy, I believe that those whom I consider worthy. And here the market? This market should determine who is who. No normal trade here and get it.
I have seen many "unique" patterns and in the flats and in the trash. It does not add to the prestige , but there are questions and all . If it is still expensive , it's stupidity . Vypendrivanie is usually a lack of education.