People are more interested in buying prints of works but not the pieces themselves. I think mainly there are 2 reasons: lack of funds and lack of knowledge. It is not secret to anyone that there is an economic and financial crisis going on. Art is not cheap, because it’s price has very little to do with costs. The factors for determining the price of an art piece are more related to the artist background and reputation. So, art is expensive and people have no money to pay for it. So they buy prints…..

Hold on a minute! Expensive designer clothes and glasses are not cheap either. But since those things are important to have in order to (or to pretend) to have a certain social status, people buy them. Art is not the powerful symbol of status that it used to be. Why care some much about status? I think Andy Warhol is a prophet and this clearly shows why he was one. When he made the Campbell soup piece he was trying to tell everyone that they were  NOT MAKING ANY efforts to be original or extraordinary, that they were all the same. People don’t know any better  to try and educate themselves on what art is. And why should they? Let’s be like everybody else, let’s buy whatever anyone else is buying. Art takes a part of your life to understand (yes it is that complicated) so why bother? Simply because it has benefits that go beyond decoration. Aesthetic pleasure is not something academics made up to describe what one feels when looking at an art piece. It is real. As beautiful and noble a feeling as love is.

One factor that contributes to the current situation is how quickly art’s language changes and how people can get lost. But if you take the time to understand art you will figure what which movements speak to you and which don’t.

An art print is not the same as an art piece. It can only reproduce the look of the piece but not the details in the brush work or drawing. Art, true art, that can make a person cry is hidden in those details waiting for someone to see it.

People always regret Van Gogh’s art was not appreciated in it’s time. However very little is done in order to avoid this from happening. In fact, it is my perception that it has become increasingly difficult to sell art. 

There is a very small group of people interested in art. In the current economic crisis investing money in art is high risk and it is even a higher risk if the artist is not well known.

Artist struggle to get their work in the galleries or to win a contest but not all of them are lucky enough to get their big chance this way. 

The more innovative the language the more difficult it may to get noticed.

The target market for art is a small group of collectors. How do you reach them? 

Art supplies are becoming a luxury. Prices are extremely high. How do you afford them?

That is why I think the system has not changed enough in order to appreciate innovative artist’s art while they are still alive. And it is a shame that 50 years from now we will have to read about artist’s that just like Van Gogh were not appreciated but made amazing art. 

Gaudi’s architecture is not ordinary architecture. Some have gone as far as to call him God’s architect (1). His use of color complements the organic shapes of his buildings. For those of you that don’t know Gaudi  was a famous Spanish architect of the XIX century.

You are probably wondering how you can blend painting, sculpture and architecture. The answer is not an easy one. I inserted a picture of the inside of “La Sagrada Familia”, one of Gaudi’s masterpieces.What makes it extraordinary is his use of shapes and colors. His use of both elements is  not for utilitarian purposes but for expressive motives. If you are wondering if he was just an architect that used color,  in his journal they found this quote: “The colors used in architecture must be intense, logical and fertile ” (2). Meaning color was not an optional or secondary element.

As in his use for shapes almost all authors agree that they were inspired by nature (3). But his work is more than just the work of an architect that is inspired by nature. There is an expressive element regardless of the fact that he says in the previous quote that the use of color must be logical. Standing in front of his work one can not be indifferent. His use of color is just as good as any artist, his shapes are as good as any piece made by a sculpture. I think he did not rationally decide to add those elements, he was guided by his intuition to make those choices and intuition (not reason) is the mother of all artists.

To some people say Gaudi is  God’s architect but to me he was much more an artist than an architect. Why? Only an artist would translate the forms and colors of nature into stone. In doing so, (probably unintentionally) he blended painting and sculpture with architecture.

Source for image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7455207@N05/5491325900/sizes/m/in/photostream/ Attribution of image: SBA73  Under CC License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57573476/gods-architect-antoni-gaud-237-s-glorious-vision/

(2) http://www.jmhdezhdez.com/2012/07/frases-citas-quotes-antoni-gaudi.html

(3) Cuito and Montes, Gaudi toda su arquitectura  pg. 189 http://books.google.com.do/books?id=1c03N2Vwh5wC&dq=gaudi&source=gbs_navlinks_s

You think a canvas is just a figurative or abstract representation of an artist’s thoughts and feelings? It is not just a representation, it is the feelings and thoughts themselves. This is not just my opinion.

On thrusday I met two of the most accomplished female artists in the Dominican Republic: Soucy Pellerano and Rosa Tavarez. They told stories of their lives as artists but the thing that for me the most interesting was when they told stories of people crying in front of their paintings or even couples having more arguments in the room where a specific painting was in.

The Museum curator interrupted these two legendary figures in order to establish that she herself had very similar experiences with certain paintings. She recalled back when she started working as a curator she was asked to remove a painting from the library. When she asked why, she was told the librarian would cry because her desk was in front of that painting. 

I am sure that you are all thinking this is not enough evidence. But I recall Michangelo talking to one of his sculptures and asking it to speak. Art is not an ordinary thing, it was spiritual powers, whether you want to believe it or not. 

Marcel Duchamp stated art had died. Why? It was no longer necessary for the viewer to interpret forms and colors. The artist comunicates with objects that mean something. Art is in the mind he said. What if the viewer refuses to get into the artist’s mind? What then? That is what I think is happening now. So let’s fast forward to 2013. People don’t have enough money to buy art. This is not just an observation of mine. Art gallery owners I interviewed for my thesis all agreed this was a main issue. 

I did not agree. If people had real interest in art they would find ways to buy it.  You think a mail man can’t build a very good art collection? Guess again.  Dorothy and Herbert Vogel were not rich. They lived in a small flat, and yet managed to acquire an amazing collection of modern art. If people really would understand art, if they could be moved by art they would make sacrifices in order to buy it. 

But why are they not moved by art? In all schools they teach it, museums are filled with it, books that talk about it are available …so what is the excuse they have? It simply is not a trend. 

Regardless of that situation I am impressed at how many artist are still creating great pieces, but I wish they had a bigger audience. Is that possible?