What makes artwork gallery worthy? Is it quality or subject matter, or both or neither? I have a big problem with celebrities who feel the need to express themselves beyond their comfort zones by presenting themselves as artists (painters, ceramicists, etc). Now, some are quite good and some even went to school for art but chose another career path. Others, however, seem as though they have this "I'm (celebrity name) and I draw perty pictures. LOOK AT THEM and tell me I'm good" kind of feel to them (to me, at least). They are not very good, though but still get attention and even gallery exhibits because of who they are. Bob Dylan recently unveiled an exhibit of his artwork (where I don't remember) and got international attention for it. I saw only 2 of his pieces, and they were good. I like them. But are they gallery worthy? How is his art different from artwork hanging at Enchante Gallery in West Branch, other than the name attached? The work doesn't stand out to me like you'd expect of an internationally published exhibit. BUT, I could be wrong, and I'm sure I am, but why aren't the artists displayed in Enchante Gallery getting such attention?
What work is gallery-worthy?
What piece is better? This one
Or this one?
What about this one
Compared to this one?
Are any of these gallery art? Why or why not? PLEASE give me your opinion!!
No comments:
Post a Comment