Last week The Huffington Post ran an article that asked, “Where do important artists come from?” (My simple answer would be the following wise words from the masterwork that is Ratatouille: “Not everyone can become a great artist. But a great artist can come from anywhere.” Slow clap.) Here’s an excerpt:
For in a world celebrated for rapid shifts in technique and style, and for the iconoclasm of its young geniuses, the geography of artistic innovation is profoundly conservative.Simply put, important new artists are most likely to emerge in the same cities where important artists have emerged in the recent past. And even more narrowly, in recent decades important new artists have been most likely to emerge from the same academic institutions that have produced important artists in the past.
But why those cities in particular? Is it the cities themselves or the academic institutions within those cities—or a combination of the two—that produce artists? Above all, forget the chicken and egg conundrum; do those cities cultivate artists, or do artists, regardless of their origins, gravitate towards those cities? (Speaking for myself and those I know, I would say the latter. And if it is the latter, what if great artists actually, you know, stayed in their hometowns rather than making the inevitable migration to places like New York?)
The piece also touches upon the subject of young / once-young (e.g. Hirst—speaking of whom, the overrated artists discussion is still going!) artists, artists steeped in self-awareness and reacting to their historical contexts, taking a rather calculated approach in steering their careers, so the rest is worth a read.
Can't wait to comment on this, but must have coffee first!
ReplyDeleteHaha yes, the elixir of life. Can't wait to see what you have to say, Sioban!
ReplyDeleteHaving observed struggling artists who for various reasons cannot move from their hometowns, I believe I can answer this question. In the arts world, who your mentors and patrons are is more important than how good you are. An artist is very unlikely to be recognized as "great" until they cultivate a relationship with those whose reputation will make people sit up and take notice. Those mentoring relationships are best developed locally; for any great well-known artist from New York, there are artists who are better or at least as good, but who do not have the right connections to become well-known because they do not live in the right city. That's what keeps certain places "hotbeds" of emerging "great" artists.
ReplyDeleteDina hit the nail on the head. Not talent but who you know or who talks about you. Same old story, no magic place involved.
ReplyDeleteTruth. Just like anything else, it's all about who you know. (And that's one of the main reasons why this blog exists, exposing artists who really are talented to as wide an audience as possible; the digitization of art allows for the democratization of art, and it doesn't matter who or where you are--anyone can view art, share art, buy art, etc. and you can do it in your pajamas, for all anyone knows.)
ReplyDeleteWhat about your educational opportunities? If those exist in certain cities, that would explain why good artists emerge from there.
ReplyDeleteRight, educational institutions definitely play a role. One of the things I'd like to hear (see? read?) others discuss is whether, say, a city like New York is an artist mecca because of the city itself and the opportunities (not related to education) it provides, or because of the art school alumni who stay in that city post-graduation. (And this is minus other factors already mentioned, such as the presence of a collector base.)
ReplyDeleteI am self-taught and don't fit in... been told that when I lived in LA and now Austin. Well Austin is just not an Art City. So I want to try Houston and Dallas. I really would like some recognition before I die! I feel if I could just find one person who is known in the art world I could get a start. Any advice is helpful if you look at the art first.
ReplyDeleteActually, I think both chicken and egg are coming from wrong assumptions. I think we categorize as "important" artists that come from those cities precisely because those who deem things "important" tend to be located in those cities. And when it comes to New York, those people rarely look outside its borders. What Dina Q said rings sad but true as well.
ReplyDeleteNew York isnt everything, especially at the moment with the recession, I have shown at 40 with Lucian Freud and Soutine in European museums and am struggling to find dealers and even to show my work after 4 years of living in New York. Originally from Antwerp, and having lived everywhere, I notice that artists coming from Antwerp but sticking to the right city and right people (Tuymans, Borremants, etc...) for 15, 20 years are doing better although not being that exceptional as artists.
ReplyDeleteSylviAnn: I'll take a look at your website.
ReplyDeleteLynn: Yeah, for example, I heard that Flash Art flat-out refuses to run Chicago art reviews. Particular places monopolize not only the market but also "taste" (e.g. what others think you should like and therefore tell you that you should like those things).
Anon: What cities are the Antwerp artists sticking to? (Unless you mean they're staying in Antwerp.)
Artists tend to gravitate toward cities where they know they can grow their art. Sometimes staying in your hometown can mean growth too, but from a perspective of who you were growing up as a young rising artist. I think it is important for every artist to challenge their growth as an artist in New York at some point. It seems easier to cultivate business relationships in cities such as New York because of the vibe and work ethic. Like Dina and tallulah29 agree, I also agree that your mentors and patrons play an important role for success as an artist. And, one more thing--I don't think every artist is doing their art because they want to be well-known necessarily. You do your art because you have to...the expression of the art is paramount...everything else follows.
ReplyDelete