Museum versus commercial art

This video takes a rather obtuse angle on the questions Nykytyne2 raised about modern art in his video, "Which Modern Art?" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGPjA-Mo6rc

I just compare two different artists, first a "museum" artist, Roberto Matta, and secondly a "commercial" artist, Richard Powers. I do this because there seems to be an odd dichotomy between commercial and museum art. Why is it an artist can succeed fantastically in one arena (like Richard Powers in commercial art), but show poorly in the other domain? What is it that divides the tastes of these two different art worlds?

Roberto Matta was in with the abstract expressionist and surrealist art movements. Some would say he was a seminal figure in them. He knew artists like René Magritte, Salvador Dalí, Pablo Picasso, Marcel Duchamp and André Breton, and some other leading members of the Paris Surrealist movement. He produced illustrations and articles for Surrealist journals such as Minotaure. His work sold in the same galleries and was later displayed in the same museums.

Richard Powers illustrated paperback science fiction novels. Powers' book covers were influenced by artists like Matta (though probably more by Max Ernst and Paul Klee) and he attempted to show the same subconscious fantasies and dream-states of the surrealist art movement, done with an expressionistic technique similar to Matta's, to the science fiction audience. His illustrations sold books, not the paintings themselves. While he did have gallery shows (at the Rehn Gallery in New York) it was the book covers that paid his bills.

I like both artists. They have a similar effect on me. But in the end I find Power's art more powerful than Matta's. In fact, I find commercial art generally more appealing than museum art most of the time, yet few commercial artists are ever shown in museums or command the huge prices that "movement"/"museum" artists do. So, Matta becomes a major figure in an art movement, and Powers merely an example of a paperback book cover fad.

I think it does, perhaps, point to an inherent unfairness in the valuation of art where gallery art from certain New York and Paris galleries is privileged over commercial art.

More Matta here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zLoP3zDrBI

More Powers here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y2AQrlgcR8

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Nykytyne2
• Roberto Matta
• Matta
• Richard Powers
• art
• surrealist
• expressionist
• expressionistic
• Modern Art
• science fiction
• paperback
• museum art
• dream-states

[PNHassett]

I think modern art celebrates mental illness. A great deal of artists such as Rothko, Munch and Turner suffered from bipolar disorder, schizoeffective disorder and/or alcoholism. I believe the art culture responds to extremes of psychological boundaries. It has nothing to do with aesthetics or craftsmanship but being conceptual and controversial. Basically you have a few elitists, who are probably disturbed themselves, telling the masses this is art

[SkepticsUniverse2]

Art really is a matter of taste, plain and simple. I for one and not a big fan of modern art, though I do enjoy it from time to time. My tastes lean towards realistic looking pieces, and Renaissance era. Abstract can be really cool at times, when there is a hidden message within the piece.

[ZombieToaster]

Concept vs execution. I think both of these were in a healthy middleground.

[banda5k1]

Also, I don't believe the former is what the various commenters which inspired this video were referring to. The example which (I believe) Tooltime9901 showed of a unicycle upside down bolted to a wooden stool is more along the lines of the absurd art which he, and others, are referring to, and in that respect I do agree with them as I would never go out of my way to see such 'art'.

[banda5k1]

I have to say, I like both forms of art but both for different reasons. The first kind, although not all of them do this for me, brings me both a kind of aesthetic pleasure as well as stretches my imagination for as to the limits of art. The second kind, although also aesthetically pleasing, maybe not to the same degree, is presenting a much clearer picture (no pun intended) and thus leaves less to the imagination and interpretation of the viewer, which is half the joy of the former (for me).