jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (32 posts)

Will Artist ever live in the glory they deserve while they're living?

  1. sparksdaniel2000 profile image69
    sparksdaniel2000posted 8 years ago

    I think Warhol was the last Living Legend Art has had...

    1. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      have you heard of
      Candido Portinari, Howard Hodgkin, Francis Bacon, Michael Hussar, Michael Hutter, Fernando Botero... and many others?
      I think some of them are greater than Warhol and they are living  ,or had lived the glory they deserved.
      Looks as you don't know much about art !

      1. jiberish profile image69
        jiberishposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I admire anyone who can appreciate abstact are, but I can't get into Hodgkin, and don't like Botero, would never hang one in my house.

        1. tantrum profile image61
          tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I wouldn't either lol But he's great nevertheless. The artists I named, I did because they are/were famous , I like Michael Hussar very much though.

    2. AEvans profile image79
      AEvansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thomas Kinkade is alive and is living proof that he is basking in his Glory. His art is absolutely stunning and beautiful. smile

    3. Rod Marsden profile image74
      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Who knows? Probably not....depends on what you mean by art. Jack Kirby and Gene Colan were always able to make a nice living as artists. I believe Gene Colan is still around so he can be our living legend. Some people see Frank miller as a living legend.

  2. irenev17 profile image61
    irenev17posted 8 years ago

    Andy is an iconiclast. and for that he will be a legend.
    but to say he was the "L" word, i think is a far cry from true.

    Art is an evolution & a revolution.
    The beauty of it is that no one person can say this is their legacy, their art because in truth, it is everyones.

    The inspiration behind any artist is the vision of the people and the expression of that idealism in the particular style or genre of the art form.

    If he were the last, then art is dead.
    If art is dead, we live in a sad, sad world.

    1. spiritactor profile image58
      spiritactorposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with Irene-- lovely response (and many others were as well, in my opinion)!

      If you understand the term "glory", defined as "praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent"-- artists are anything but "common" and are not bound by popularity. Yes, Warhol was most definitely a popular artist (even more so after his death). Yet "glory" can also mean "great beauty and splendor" (according to ancient Greeks). That, if you choose this definition, is far too vast a condition to say that Warhol is "the last" or even a "legend" in.

      I choose the latter definition, "great beauty and splendor", as it reflects the full magnitude of art, artists and their effect on society and cultures. Artists strive to express their impressions of truth (and beauty) found, excavated or manifested within themselves-- irrespective of people's reactions to them and their works; therefore irrespective of "popularity." The human race is far too complex as individuals to limit the "glory" of the effect of any single artist above another-- as there IS room and need for ALL artists. Just like every other aspect of life, we're effected by popular or admired fellow artists (as we are all "fellows", as Irene pointed out)-- but, ultimately, we are only responsible for and answer to our Inner Selves. Without such individualized integrity, there could BE no Warhols or any other popular artists.

      Fascinating ideas from all-- and thanks for the forum!

  3. blue dog profile image72
    blue dogposted 8 years ago

    i guess the term "living legend" is as subjective as one's take on warhol's "art".

  4. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    Another bashing thread in the arts forum?  Sigh... 

    You know, the sophisticated (oh, sooooo sorry for that word!) response is to realize there are many voices, many outlooks...many institutions....many shams.  Especially as the art world stands today.

    --a painter who hasn't painted in a couple years.

  5. tantrum profile image61
    tantrumposted 8 years ago

    Nothing wrong with sophistication if one can afford it. Nothing wrong with  artists living the glory they  deserve. Luckily, nowadays a lot of artist can leave of their art, if they are good enough, althoug sometimes being 'good enough' has to do with institutions,  good press and the like.
    And about bashing...sigh....

  6. profile image0
    pgrundyposted 8 years ago

    I think art is a lifestyle choice in a way. I mean, if you are an artist, you have to create. It's something you are driven to do. Can you make a decent living at it? Sometimes. Will you 'get famous' in your own lifetime? That's an 'off' question in a way.

    I honestly think that question misses the point. A creative life is its own reward. It would be nice if we valued creative people more. Many people think of art-as-product and so, if an artist is pumping out a salable 'product' those same people consider that artist to be a good artist, but really when it's being done at that level it's more like craft. That's OK--I love craft. it's just not usually what society as a will value for generations or look back on as genius.

    It's often only in retrospect that we recognize someone's exceptional gift.   

    It's the nature of the beast.

    1. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      i agree with you. But lately, many good artists are lucky enough to be able to live from their art.  You have Fernando Botero, for example.You may like it or not, but his technique is awesome.

    2. Tadeusz598 profile image73
      Tadeusz598posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with all this. I'd add that the best comparasion ios with playing a sport you love. Some sportsmen become wealthy, most don't.

      The idea of using the amount of money an artist or a sportsman makes to measure their success is a stupid one, because the main motivation of the artists or sportsmen I've met has never been to become wealthy - though naturally they don't complain when they make sales.

  7. profile image0
    pgrundyposted 8 years ago

    BTW regarding Warhol--Part of the reason we remember him as an important artist was because his work by its nature criticized, parodied, and exploited the consumer/fame aspect of 'art', so it's kind of ironic you bring him up as an example.

    I always thought Warhol sounded like a bit of a dick. His stuff was closer to performance art I think. His paintings--I think he was making fun of us with those.

    I think he was making fun of all of us a lot, actually.

  8. profile image0
    ryankettposted 8 years ago

    Personally I think that a 'legend' is something you leave earth when you are no longer on it.

    Before 'legend' it is 'fame', and with 'fame' in this day and age normally comes money.

    There are hundreds of living artists that are making a lot of money and have a lot of fame.

    Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, those are a couple of so called 'artists', although their works are often pathetic (especially the latter), who are both famous and multi millionaires.

    Banksy is another who, despite being completely anonymous, has without a doubt made a lot of money - passing on works directly to dealers on occassion.

    A wealthy distant relative of mine recently bought a potrait of herself for £50k - obviously straight from the artist. That is the artists going rate, and she has a 12-18 month waiting list, she does 6-8 commissioned works per year. You do the maths wink

    I would say that there are plenty of artists with fame, but Legend (in the sense of a legacy) is something which even many famous and rich artists will not achieve.

  9. profile image0
    annvansposted 8 years ago

    Art is a crazy subject since it seems the art is worth so much more when the person dies.  The artists sometimes do not make much money and when they die, everyone wants to pay millions for their work.  Artists do not get enough credit while they are alive.  If I was an artist and knew I was dying, I would probably burn all of my paintings.

    1. thranax profile image50
      thranaxposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      But that's against the whole point! The only reason why art flourishes after death is its then original and can never be made again!

      All artists create art to be shared with the world. Making a drawing no one wants is the last thing an artist wants. They want to be seen and known, not just make money. You have to remember, writers immortalize themselves though poems and books, but artist immortalize themselves in what they create!

      In concept, buying that million dollar painting is like privately owning the artist yourself in a way.


      1. irenev17 profile image61
        irenev17posted 8 years agoin reply to this

        dieing only increases the value (both $$ and ooh-ah) not because it was an original but because, generally, society realizes its worth without having the artist there to agree or refute. thus, the stigma of social classes determining what is 'good' art remains. ridiculous, isn't it? Funny how things have not much changed since the end of the renaissance period.

        if M. Angelo were alive today and he were speaking to Aristotle what would be their take?
        Both artists, famous, extraordinary renaissance men. both now viewed as relics (even if people can't touch them and be enlightened). ironic indeed.

        1. thranax profile image50
          thranaxposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Maybe that's only people people don't think they can go talk to the artist when there around. After there gone art advances and there stuck in a different time. People who like art look back on these and only in the process of looking back do they have the ability to rate it in the first place. Maybe society should look at coming up artists more then old dead guys, the ones who have 3 or 4 public comments because in a few hundred years that same piece that you say "its nothing special" could be all anyone talks about.


    2. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        what about your heirs ? wouldn't you leave them to somebody ?? yikes

      1. jiberish profile image69
        jiberishposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I'm a self taught artis, my children love my art, I of course don't.  However If they could make $$ after I die, more power to them.  I'm just vain enough not to burn them.

  10. jiberish profile image69
    jiberishposted 8 years ago

    If you get a chance check out Csaba Markus.


    1. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        thank you Jiberish!!! this man is great. Really !! smile

  11. mirajraha profile image81
    mirajrahaposted 8 years ago

    what about Vincent Van Gogh.

    1. irenev17 profile image61
      irenev17posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      driven to schizophrenia by the society he so loved, brilliant none the less, but still i would not call him a legend.

  12. yasmintoo profile image54
    yasmintooposted 8 years ago

    To be alive is glorious, to be creative even more so.

  13. profile image0
    LEWJposted 8 years ago

    Some artists may---the Beatles for instance.   But that was largely because they met up with the moment for their style, message and artistic vision.                    Their fanbase was waiting for them.
    Probably no  artist discerned to be  "great"  by later generations would ever enjoy their full and proper glory in their own day, if only because a full appreciation of art requires the passage of  times,  both social and artistic.     
    The passing of those times provide a reliable backdrop for forming  a comprehensive assessment of artistic influence and durability per artist or artist clique.
    Passing fads and the ultimately trivial are thereby filtered from the pool of genuine art.

  14. Rebecca E. profile image80
    Rebecca E.posted 8 years ago

    I think every one has the potential to be a legend while they live, but I als think some don't want it while they live, they are content with "enough"

    It all begins wiht a few people and then goes from there.

  15. Lisa HW profile image74
    Lisa HWposted 8 years ago

    I'm not sure "glory" and art really go together.  I think "respect" goes with art, and I think artists can get tremendous respect while they're alive (even though some dont).

    To me, "glory" is more for heroes who save lives.  I don't particularly think artist deserve glory.

  16. susansisk profile image84
    susansiskposted 8 years ago

    I don't think artists are ever fully appreciated until after death.  I have an Aunt who painted all her life.  She stored most of her paintings in the closet, because she didn't think they were good enough.  After she died, everyone wanted them.

  17. monicaelayne profile image59
    monicaelayneposted 8 years ago

    You may be interested in a company called GYSTIink.

    GYST-Ink is an artist-run company providing information, technology and solutions created by artists for artists. GYST–Ink stands for empowering and educating artists instead of exploiting artists for profits. Our software and services aim to streamline the business aspects of an art career, saving artists money and freeing up more time for work in the studio. Spearheaded by Cal Arts professor and renowned artist and curator Karen Atkinson, GYST-Ink has been the leading resource for professional practice, art advice and art business services in Southern California for over ten years, and helping thousands of artists from all over America get on the road to career success.

    It has been a phenomenal resource to me, to my peers, and has brought light to the BUSINESS of art, rather than just the proces and/or hobby of it. Check it out!