Thursday, October 21, 2010
Week 8- The Value of Art:
Week 8 - The Value of Art:
1. Has Money Ruined Art? Jerry Saltz, New York magazine, 2007
2. Museums Solicit Dealers’Largesse, New York Times, 2007
3. Frivolity and Unction, Dave Hickey,Air Guitar: Essays on Art and Democracy, 1997.
4. Brother, Can You Spare a Painting, Plagens, 2009
Optional additional readings on the topic:
1. What is Art Worth?, Paul Mattick, Art in America, 2006
2. Worshipping at the Church of Art, James Gardner, National Review, 1994.
3. In Search of Some Interesting Reading, Peter Plagens, 1996.
Hello All,
This Friday we will continue our critique of the first Drawing assignment and hear Artists Statements from group one.
10/22, Week 8 – Group 1:
1. Jacqueline Maloney
2. Kelly McGovern
3. Jamie Moore
4. Natalie Negron
5. Angeline Nesbit
6. Laurel Patterson
Please be sure to post all working statements to the blog.
Remember to e-mail alternate versions as you wish for review.
ALL STUDENTS:
In addition to a reading response, please post your Bio to the blog by midnight, Wed., 10/27.
Students will present the statements during assigned weeks and may change and re-write at any time. Students are encouraged to up-date current images for their statement presentations. I will organize the blog so that a slide show of each student's work will appear w/ the statements and bio. Peers will respond and discuss under each weeks presentations.
Please e-mail me with any questions.
Regards,
Terri
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Laurel Patterson
ReplyDeleteArtist Biography
Laurel Patterson is a South Philadelphia inhabitant who attends Moore College of Art & Design focusing in 3-dimensional fine art. She moved to the city in 2007 after returning from a semester in Missoula, Montana where she began studying art. Originally trained as a painter, Laurel found her love for sculpture in her first year at Moore. She spent a year assisting renowned glass artist Lucartha Kohler and then decided to shift to mediums that had more structural stability. After being introduced to welding and casting techniques her work now consists of steel, wood, and wax. “I like working with steel; the look, the rawness, the fluidness it creates despite being such a solid entity. My goal is to bring out the beauty of industrial materials.” The themes in her work consist of dark humor and abstract formalism. She likes to poke fun at things that may not always be socially appropriate.
Although still working towards her BFA, Laurel has received awards such as The Philadelphia Sculptors Membership award for emerging artists in 2009, and an International Travel Award for the International Sculpture Conference in London during 2010. She was also a founding member of Piranha Betty’s Art Market and Co-op in Philadelphia, which started in 2009. Laurel also makes jewelry that sells in various shops across Philadelphia. Making jewelry allows her to keep her hands busy when the facilities for sculpture are not available.
Laurel enjoys petting dogs, flea market shopping, and dark clothing. A few things that upset her are getting egged, bright sunlight, and crowded buses. She is a builder and a thinker; she is addicted to art and has dedicated her life to the field. She has vowed for no mass production in her work, everything she makes must be one by one, original and individual.
Sophie Strachan
ReplyDeleteI feel like these are issues that nothing can really be done about. The people buying art are going to follow these trends until someone that they see as important says otherwise. Honestly I don’t care about this. Maybe I should? But I don’t care about the money stuff this much. I don’t care to understand how the art world is being screwed by money. Its just another market and I feel like people think it is some sort of sacrosanct humble livelihood, which it will never be, completely anyway. Its just another business, another trade like food or movies. I see the money aspect and the art as separate. Of course they do intersect and sometimes people confuse the intersection. Some people make art for the market exclusively, to make money. I don’t see art as exclusively for the market; art is for art. The market is a tool for art to use not the other way around.
“At the end of the day galleries are about selling work, not about stewardship,” he said. “Even if they do ‘museum-quality’ shows, their real job is to move that work as merchandise.” As an artist I don’t want to be involved with the whole merchandise aspect. I don’t see art in numerical values especially because money is completely worthless. I guess also I’m not understanding why they see it as a bad thing when these galleries finance things or when anyone does, not including huge corporations. I feel like it’s just the art community helping out the art community. The money is for the galleries, museums and collectors to deal with, though I’m not saying the artist is obsolete when it comes to money.
The problem of money in the art world has always been an issue that really bothers me. The first two articles both pointed out significant issues that are happening in the art world now, and I think they are components that have always existed in the history of art in the mainstream. In some ways, I think it is both easier, and a cop out, to make art that will sell. It's obvious what people are willing to buy, and it's not hard to mimic that, steal those ideas, or replicate it again in your own way, and say something profound about it. I think the harder thing to do is to make art without consideration for a buyer. Recently people have been asking me about my career and what kind of job I am going to get, and I say honestly that I don't know, but I will always keep making things because it's what I need to do. I am aware of the fact that probably no one will pay me to make stuff in the woods out of sticks and rocks, but I'm not worried about it. I'm not worried about being financially successful, because that's not the important part about making art for me, and I wish that was a more prevalent reality in the art world.
ReplyDeleteI kind of like Dave Hickey’s idea that if art were less of a “good” thing, then we’d have a more honest approach to it. I hate the presumption of art being of a high moral, or an exceptional, unattainable trade. When I tell people I make art, who are not artists themselves, I usually get a “Wow, I’m not creative at all. That’s a very difficult thing to do.” But making stuff is what I can do, and other people can solve crazy math problems or fix cars or write philosophy – or whatever – it’s all the same. We all have individual skill sets, and artists should be treated equally as dishwashers.
I really hate the idea of selling art in galleries, let alone making art with the agenda of selling in galleries. It’ll never satisfy me.
Bio:
ReplyDeleteI am an artist currently attending Moore College of Art and Design in Philadelphia, PA, working in my senior year towards a BFA in three-dimensional fine arts. I have exhibited in Maryland Federation of Art Circle Gallery's "Eye of the Beholder: Art of the Found Object", done an installation at Teaneck Creek Conservancy in New Jersey in 2010, and participated in student shows in both the Levi Gallery and Goldie Paley Gallery at Moore College in 2009, and have been awarded memberships to Philadelphia Sculptors from 2009-2010 and the International Sculpture Center in 2010. I use a wide variety of materials and processes, primarily working with found objects, natural materials, and mixed media. I have been striving to achieve ways to create affordable, accessible art to all people, and to make natural materials and installation the foundational parts of my work. The origin of these interests stem from my intrigue in and analysis of social issues, and our human connection to the earth and all forms of life stemming from it. I hope to use my art as an outlet for giving voice to concepts often overlooked, and to inspire individuals to reconsider their perspectives, and be more considerate of our natural world and each other.
I see two very distinct subworlds in the art world. One has been building since the art factory was realized in the Renaissance...this is the world that Sotheby's, Hirst, and the White Cube own today--it is what Peter Plagens is hoping is humbled by the recession (made more honest), what, according to Jori Finkel, galleries are taking over when museum endowments and government funding is lacking, what Dave Hickey rails against. It is like any other pecuniary organism in our society...it allows for some of us to get by--to function and survive as we pursue our pleasure in a capitalist society, and for others to become celebrity--to take much much more than they need when they charm the customer into a kind of idol worship. That is the world of art for sale, art with a nameable value, art made with the purpose of putting dinner on someone's plate.
ReplyDeleteThe other has its roots in the social agency of Happenings, Dada, even, the places where feminism and civil rights collide with art, and it includes participatory art, guerilla art, low budget art or art that isn't for sale, the school of relational aesthetics. The people who make what Dave Hickey might see as "good" art (moments and functions) are marginalized in the art world...often relegated to the "young and idealistic" category (is it just as ageist to suggest that the fat cats of the art world are "old and pessimistic, over the hill and pragmatic and boring"?). These are the artists that need a side gig to survive while pursuing what is important to them in a capitalist society. I think there is less shame in my generation in working at Starbucks if you are making something good and uncompromised on the side.
While I'm more proud of the second sub world--I see a lot of this among my peer group, I know that both are a reality so long as the infrastructure of our economy remains in place. My work is in the art shop right now--I'm selling a series that was very meaningful to me as a series, and wealthy people are taking it home one by one, placing it in some room, completely out of context, aesthetically sound, perhaps, but meaning lost. For the record, I do not see the Art Shop as a stepping stone into a gallery, then into a museum. My art is in there, commodified, because I purchased a flight to Spain to do an artist's residency (which I intend to revolve around the idea of socially responsible art) and I need to cover the cost of that ticket.
I think Saltz may be on to something (the youthful idealistic person on my left shoulder is screaming STOP into my ear as I admit this)--the ugly art world and the honest one where my heart is, feed each other--necessitate each other. If there wasn't art-as-commodity, the following would occur:
Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons wouldn't have any more space in which to trade piles of crap for money
the little honest idealistic corner of the art world probably wouldn't feel so damn urgent or special
a lot more artists would be surviving via other ugly means...Starbucks, American Apparel, Dick Blick...not much prettier.
Artist Bio:
ReplyDeleteJamiee Cruz is a 2D Fine Arts major. Her first two and a half years of college she attended Bucks County Community College and later transfered to Moore College of Art and Design. She uses different types of materials every year to broaden her abilities and to try out new ways and ideas to help improve her skills. Although she is a fine art major, she enjoys photography and has taken several class throughout high school and college and hopes to be able to go into a career with it and also making other types of works. Her plan after graduation is to work with other photographers and build up her portfolio even more so she can be able to have her own photography business while selling other works of art on the side as well.
Mallory Lawson
ReplyDeleteResponse to Saltz:
(1/2)
Saltz painted a picture of an art world that I knew existed. But, I usually prefer to think about the financial aspects of the art world with my blinders on. How I can make art and simultaneously think of what it’s monetary value is? Initially, when reading this article, I felt incredibly discouraged and defeated. Thinking about art with in the context of money is mind numbing: $14.5 million for a Warhol, $1 million for a Richard Prince, $3 million for a Marlene Dumas. These are amounts of money that I cannot begin to comprehend. Brash statements like “The best art is the most expensive, because the market is so smart,” really makes me think about how smart my nearly $100,000 fine art education is. But then again, that statement is coming from an art dealer, and of course he would want you to think that.
The point Saltz made about the art market and how if “one artist’s work is selling well, [the market] buys more by that artist, driving up prices. Thus, the rush to buy third-rate product from second-rate artists,” really displays how the price of an art object becomes a factor in deciding if it is good or not. I think that in the long run, works of art that are deemed good solely based on their monetary value, won’t stand the test of time. A trend is a trend and as Saltz called them “seasonal blips”, those works will be forgotten before they even leave your mouth. Saltz said, “Money is something that can be measured; art is not. It’s all subjective… Taste is a blood sport.”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMallory Lawson
ReplyDeleteResponse to Saltz:
(2/2)
Fortunately, the second half of the article wasn’t as disenchanting. I felt like he noted on some really positive things that are happening right now (even though the article is three years old, I still feel like a lot of these things still apply.)
“[Artists are] adept at culling, sorting, reshaping, and plotting information—many are reacting to the scene, innately comfortable with the idea that while there may not be anything entirely new, there is an infinite variety of ways to create unique thought-structures and complex specificities… They’re attempting to merge seriousness, process, irony, intuition, language, materials, belief, and thought with lived reality, not just with pop culture.”
For me, this perfectly describes the “chaos” of the artist in the contemporary art world. It really reminded me of an Elizabeth Murray quote, “Everything has been done a million times. Sometimes you use it and it’s yours; another time you do it and it’s still theirs." And in my opinion, that is what bad art is, when you use something and it isn’t yours. That doesn’t mean that it can never be yours, it just means that you haven’t gotten it right yet.
For an article that started out so negatively, posing questions like “Is New York dead?” and “Can the general public look at contemporary art without thinking about money?” I am really happy to see it end on such a positive and encouraging note: “Those who say everything in the art world is about greed and bad values, who think art has gone to hell, and that New York is creatively dead, need to understand that change that appears to be for the worse stimulates people to change for the better.”
Brianna Barton
ReplyDeleteOctober 27, 2010
Critical Discourse
Jerry Saltz’s “Has Money Ruined Art” was a great thing for me to read at this moment. I have begun to realize that there are people in the art world who are not interested in the same ideals, as I am, not motivated by the same compulsions. For many, art is a way to make money, be he artist, dealer or collector. At first I was reading it with fascinated dismay, as in yes, this world has turned into a monster. But being Saltz, he ended his article with hope, that this capitalism that has taken over the art world indeed sickens people, and good change can come from it. The recession too, can be seen as a blessing in disguise. I have heard many artists discussing this and it seems to make a lot of sense. While the art market was indeed crushed be the recent economic changes, I think that his opens artists to a world of possibilities, namely that they have the freedom to make work without the pressures of whether or not it will sell because right now, unless you’re Damien Hirst, nothing is selling. This means work can be made for reasons other than profit, and any reason next to that is welcomed.
The second article delved further into the economic ethics of galleries and museums. The main question was: can a gallery, where the sole purpose is to sell art, largely finance a museum exhibition showing the work of an artist the gallery represents? I think it’s trite and frustrating. These artists and their dealers are already millionaires. With such blatant financial support, it seems as if the museum will show whoever’s gallery will write the check. Still, museums are proud of their artistic integrity, insisting that their sponsors have no say in any curatorial decisions.
The third article felt, ironically enough, completely frivolous. All it seemed was a man fretting endlessly about the validity of his chosen field—something I struggled with for a little while, but for completely different reasons. Here it sounds like he’s saying, “why don’t they like us? Why don’t they understand?” My second-guessing sounded more like, “is his valid? Who is his helping besides myself?”
Peter Plagens’ article, “Brother Can You Spare a Painting?” had me yelling Hallelujah. Just minutes before reading it I was talking to someone comparing what money has done to the art world to what money has been doing to the music industry for a long time (it is called an industry, after all). It’s just as a mentioned before, if I’m an artist who known that my stuff isn’t going to sell, no matter how kitsch I make it, I’m not going to care about making something appealing to the art market. I’m going to make something that I want to make—something that has meaning for me.
ARTIST BIO
ReplyDeleteBrianna Barton is a moment of transition. Her current work looks to ideas and places that remind us of our true, small size. She uses a variety of printmaking, drawing and painting techniques to create landscapes and moments that are half homage to the world around us, and half distortion of reality. While refining her studio work, she is also pulled towards a more intangible art practice, one that exists in neither studio nor gallery.
Brianna Barton is finishing her senior year at Moore College of Art and Design as a double major in 2D Fine Arts and Curatorial Studies. Both majors have fed her work, which is in the process of becoming more participatory, more collaborative, more transversal. She is the recipient of numerous fellowships and scholarships including the Harriet Sartain Travel Fellowship, the Fred and Naomi Haskell Painting Scholarship and the Visionary Women’s Scholarship.
Courtney Coolbaugh
ReplyDeleteArtist Biography
My interest in art began in high school when my art teacher said to me, “Courtney, I really don’t like your artwork, but you can tell it’s yours because you’ve got a certain style and a certain talent. Are you planning on going to art school?”
I graduated from Central Dauphin High School in June 2002 and went on to Harrisburg Area Community College, taking an abundance of courses in art and psychology, and graduated in June 2006 with an Associate degree in Visual Arts.
I transferred to Moore College of Art and Design in August 2008 and will graduate in May 2011 with a Bachelor’s degree in Fine Arts. I had previously always defined myself as a 2D artist – mix the paint, clean the paint – but as I became more exposed to new artists and new media in Philadelphia, I became more aware of the possibilities inherent in my own artwork.
My favorite things right now include: glass, reflections, broken fragments, birds, feathers, saw blades, bodies, and a full spectrum of colors – especially in the blue family.
Growing up, I was always trained to think that the more money you make in whatever career you're in the more successful you are.. When I told my peers in high school that i would attend Art School, they looked at me with disappointment: one person even said to me "you are way too intelligent to just be an artist, why not go into marketing, accounting, or even become a doctor?" I felt the disappointment of many because they felt being an artist is a waste of money and we end up broke...
ReplyDeleteAs an artist, I personally don't like that mind set, even though I know where it comes from and why people think that way. But I think that success comes with hard work. The pressures of adding art and money is tough because how do you put a value on work that took so long to make or are attached to for whatever reason..
I feel that as artists we will be forced at some point to sell art to survive, but does the outside world admire your work or do they fall into the trend of buying art as a social status? I feel that is the biggest problem with art these days. The generations are slowly losing real interest in the arts.
Even though money is important for us socially and economically, I feel the value of money changes and someday when we're 80 we'll kick ourselves for selling something that was more valuable as an emotional attachment than an exchange to pay the rent... I don't know this is just my opinion
Artist Bio:
ReplyDeletePam Reimers
Born in Haiti in 1985, Pam Reimers knew at age six she would become an artist. She is currently a BFA candidate of Moore College of Art & Design. In 1991, her mother, brother and she traveled to the United States, where they settled in Philadelphia, PA with family. After high school, she went on to pursue a diploma in Fashion Merchandising. As 3-D Fine Arts major at Moore College of Art & Design, she focuses on Small Metals, and pursuing her dreams of becoming a Jewelry Designer, but doesn’t limit herself there; she also create sculptures and fabric works: she wants to be known as an artist, not just a designer. Pam creates hand-made one-of-a-kind jewelry pieces and sculptures.
At the moment, Pam is exploring with mixed materials in creating art. Pam is inspired by many things, and loves to do research. Her Haitian background gave her a passion for things that are exotic, colorful, and what some might call different. She seeks to find out as much as she can about other cultures and their arts. Pam expects to receive her BFA in May 2011, and is excited about entering the work field.
Dani Finger
ReplyDeleteWeek 8: The Value of Art
Has Money Ruined Art?: Saltz says” High prices become part of its (the artwork) content, often disrupting and distorting arts nonlinear alchemical strangeness,” and it has “allowed many artists to lose what should be the No. 1 lifelong fear of all artists: making a bad piece of art.” This article made me think about what my job, as an artist will be when I graduate. I feel pressured to make it my job and duty in trying to sell my work and I don’t want this to be a motivational factor in making my work but I think it’s inescapable. Looking at my work and thinking about whether its good enough for someone to buy, kind of makes the work less meaningful for me, but I’m not immune to looking at other artists work and seeing their outrageous price tags and thinking this artist must be more talented or special than I am, even though I can’t always find an explanation as to why I think that is- I guess some work just seems more appealing because of the price tag and I feel bad for feeling that way but it seems to be how a lot of other people think as well.
Museums Solicit Dealers’ Largess: Finkel says,“ Galleries are about selling work, not about stewardship…their real job is to move that work as merchandise.” Accepting donations from galleries to cover exhibition costs may make things much easier for museums but the fact that it makes things easier for them is the problem. Galleries can’t just be an easy ticket for getting the money to cover an exhibition. It’s hard to believe that this wouldn’t affect what work would be exhibited if a museum couldn’t come up with enough funding and had to rely on galleries. I think they really do just have to be resourceful and it should just be make or break if they can’t come up with the money.
Frivolity and Unction: Dave Hickey says “The good works of art that reside in the museum reside there not because they are good but because we love them.” I also like when he says, “I would like to see some bad acting and wrong thinking. I would like to see some art that is courageously silly and frivolous.” I think that starting off with the presumption that making art is bad or frivolous, or a combination of those things takes the pressure off of making work that will satisfy everyone and takes pressure off the artist to make a “good” piece of art. Also, the motivation for making work shouldn’t have to be disguised as being anything other than self interested because so often it is and there isn’t any shame in that.
As I read through these weeks, I like to share my own experiences on the subject matter because it’s more meaningful to me. I think about what the articles say and respond with my own personal views.
ReplyDeleteMoney changes everything. So of course it will affect art making/buying/selling, too
In a way, I do believe money changes art. Artist have to make commercial pieces to sell, and do work of their own. I think I got trapped in a way of thinking I had to make pieces on canvases for people to buy.
My first hurdle in school was freeing myself from the constructs of “school art” and introducing my outside or home work to my studio practices, this was successful for me.
This year I have broken down a new barrier and started experimenting more. I can categorize my art into two areas, sellable and installation/experimental. In a way I am more drawn to my free form collages and installations as opposed to paintings on canvas because its not confined in anyway, but I do want to make money also.
In my experience I have followed what people buy from me and try to go in that direction more as a business move. Hopefully in the future my two ways of art making will collide and I wont have to have such a different out look.
Actually even for our upcoming show, I am torn between doing an installation /experimental project or doing a work on canvas that could potentially be bought, I am not sure which way I will go yet. I am leaning more towards experimental because if someone likes what I have done then they can always refer back to my others works or ask for a specific commission. I need to show what I can do and how I have a unique style.
Bio
ReplyDeleteNatalie Flor Negron was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the winter of 1989. She was raised in Germantown, Philadelphia and currently resides there with her family. She began her art education and practices at the Charter High School for Architecture & Design in Philadelphia and has been immersed within the Philadelphia arts community her entire life. Her father, Domingo Negron is a graphic designer and artist working out of North Philadelphia, he is the source of much inspiration. His Puerto Rican and Taino roots have paved a path for her new age interpretation and perception on familial identity, and her Puerto Rican- Irish American roots. Alongside mixed media painting, she also makes large, colorful abstract drawings with collage and painting. She is currently moving more towards becoming an installation artist. Natalie is a senior studying two-dimensional fine arts at Moore college of Art & design.
Bio
ReplyDeleteShannon Toale’s growing body of work focuses primarily on mortality, human relationships, and technology. She creates work in both small and large scale that makes use of a variety of mixed mediums including oil and acrylic paint, drawing tools, digital projections, mylar, resin, and various types of printing. Shannon attempts to push the physicality of the mediums as much as possible by using drips, smears, and loose strokes in combination with sharp, realistic rendering and flat graphic space to create deep complex spaces that draw the viewer in. The result is a striking and vibrant piece that radiates a strong energy with a unique color palette.
Shannon Toale is currently working toward her BFA in 2D Fine Arts at Moore College of Art and Design with the intent to graduate this spring. She is the recipient of numerous scholarships including the Presidential Scholarship and the Emerging Leaders in the Arts Scholarship. Shannon has participated in many of the institutions exhibitions including the annual Fine Art's Exhibition and the 2010 Fellowship Exhibition. She is currently residing and working in Philadelphia. Shannon is represented by JAG Fine Art Gallery.
Shawnda Beattie attends Moore College of Art and Design where she is currently a Junior studying towards a Bachelors in Fine Art with an emphasis of Art Education . Shawnda was granted one of the Philadelphia Sculptures award in 2009. She is involved with the Art Education Program student art shows. At Moore College she manages the special populations and public school student art showcases. Shawnda has work exhibited in the Philadelphia Technology Center 2008, The gallery of Progressive Art Studio 2007,The Gallery at Moore student exhibition 2008.
ReplyDeleteShawnda has been working with children for 8 years, she has also worked with mentally challenged children (Autistic, A.D.H.D, M.R and Physical Disabilities) for two years in Delaware county, In the near future she would like to further her education with a masters in Art therapy.
Laurel Patterson
ReplyDeleteReading Response 10-29
So, should non-profit art museums accept money from commercial galleries with a clear financial stake in the artist’s career?
My answer may be a bit bias but I think that if there is a talented artist that is fortunate enough to have a commercial gallery throwing up money for them to show outside of that certain gallery’s space…I say great. I don’t think it is necessarily ruining art, I just think that it is pushing it more. Art is not so much about the money, there’s no escaping that. If you are fortunate enough to fall into the money…I say do it. There’s no shame in getting paid for protest. In all reality, as much as we want to deny it, money and the wealthy are a huge part as to why a lot of art is still around.
Now the other issue at stake…can the willingness of galleries to throw down money on certain artists influence what the gallery then decides to exhibit?
OF COARSE! But, because that happens to only a select few, I think that it’s only the high profile artists that really have to worry about such issues. I could be wrong though. People and curators claim that this decision making process in galleries is not true, or even possible in the art world today; I think that is all a farce.
I guess that at the end of the day the artist’s work turns into merchandise that needs to be moved out of Macy’s. Really in some cases the rich and donating class are the only way to keep things going, along with the galleries who step in with the museum circuit.
In response to Dave Hickey, art is not silly, if so, there wouldn’t be professional dealers. Although they are self-motivated and self supported, “everyone waters their own flower”. “The art world is divided into selfish commercial people and selfless art people”. They say it’s wrong to show an unknown artist just to give them “exposure”, possibly a gamble for art dealers and galleries. The thing is though, if they didn’t do that gamble for a lot of famous artists they wouldn’t even of had a chance to get “famous”.
In conclusion, the art world is tricky and stuffy. People are always looking for the next new, big thing, yet they are afraid to take risks. It doesn’t make too much sense to me. I guess after all it does all come down to money and money in art. Some protest it, but without it there just might not be as much art as we see (regardless of how silly or frivolous the topic). Money makes the world go round.
Juli LeCates was born on November 18, 1988 in Chester, Pennsylvania. She currently attends Moore College of Art and Design of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and will be receiving her Bachelors degree in Fine Art in 2011. Her medium of choice is ceramic clay, and she works in many different clay bodies. She has a diverse portfolio of ceramic work, but mostly focuses on hand building organic and figural sculptural and functional pieces. She has received the Moore College Admissions scholarship, Moore Opportunity Grant, and the Avery Arts scholarship. Her work has been exhibited in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the Widener Memorial Foundation Gallery, the Wilson Gallery and the Diamond Display at Moore College of Art and Design.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJerry Saltz’s “Has Money Ruined Art” was interesting article to read. Money is the source of many problems and I think that it not only ruined art but it also ruined religion and politics…but that’s another issue. Anyway my point is that I do believe that in some cases money has ruined art and the way people view it. Prices are so high that it becomes unattainable for ordinary people to collect art and feel apart of an art “community.” I think a great example of art collectors who weren’t wealthy were Herbert and Dorothy Vogel, who collected a TON of art. Herbert worked as a postal clerk, and Dorothy as a librarian and despite having low incomes they set their collecting priorities above those of personal comfort and acquired and immense collection of contemporary art throughout their lifetime. (And have donated over 4,500 pieces of art!!!!!) Everyone should be able to collect and enjoy art so I think that it’s the artists and the galleries obligation to make this possible.
ReplyDeleteBiography
ReplyDeleteDani Finger is an artist at Moore College of Art and Design working towards her BFA in 2D Fine Arts. Dani is the recipient of the Fred and Naomi Hazell Award for Excellence in Oil Painting. She considers herself to be a painter but incorporates sculpture and installation into her work as well. This inspiration for her work has often come in the form of personal narratives she has constructed to define and better understand her life experiences. When not autobiographical, her work is still very personal and intimate, seeking to capture the rawness of human experience and interaction. After graduation Dani is unsure of whether she wants to attempt to pursue a career as an artist and is unsure whether or not she will be making artwork at all.