Art & Inspiration Blog

This is the first part of a two part blog

The first ever ArtHamptons fair took place in Bridgehampton from July 11 to 13, 2008, bringing a slew of girlhood memories home to me.

It I grew up in New York City during the school year and in Southampton during summers, where except for my own drawing and then painting and visits to shows at the Parrish Art museum, there no art experience. Of course, I knew about the famous artists of the Hamptons, but I saw their work in the City, not in the Hamptons.

ArtHamptons began with a gala preview and a tribute presentation of the first Hampton’s Lifetime Achievement Award in the Arts to Will Barnet.

Usually I take a walk through any entire fair I attend, not really stopping anywhere, just to get a feel for the booths and what is being shown, but as I entered the main building I was immediately drawn into the Hisrchl and Adler Modern booth that had a good display of Fairfield Porter’s work that I thoroughly enjoyed.

By the time I was studying art at the Art Student’s League Fairfield Porter, who lived and painted in Southampton was well known. Larry Rivers was in Southampton too, and my dream was to also work as an artist and live in Southampton – a dream I am now fulfilling.

I have known the original Hirschl and Adler Gallery on the Upper East Side of Manhattan since I was in seventh grade since the year when I began to attend Hunter College High School at 68^th Sreet and Lexington Ave. My Dad escorted me for the first two days from our home in the 90’s on the West Side. Then I was judged competent to make the trip on my own and given a bus pass that was good for unlimited rides weekdays. Pure freedom.

I continued by quick walk through journey through ArtHamptons but before I got very far, I was in front of the booth of the Wally Findlay Galleries International, Inc. One of the two galleries that was important to me and my art training beginning with that original bus pass.

It took less than a week for me to discover that the bus pass allowed me to go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. My admission was free since I was a student. I could wander the Met freely until it was time to head home due to my 5:30 pm curfew.

This was before the avenues became one way, so on Fifth Avenue, Madison, Lexington and Third Avenues the buses ran both north and south. I began to experiment with different routes as the amazing bus pass worked on all buses. As I rode along Madison, heading to the Met, I noticed the art galleries. By the beginning of the second week I began my plan of visiting a few galleries on the way to the Met every day. I had little understanding about galleries, which I thought of as mini-museums. If I saw art in the window I went inside to check it out.

That is how I discovered the Wally Findlay Gallery. I remember it as if it just happened; only now I see the memory through the understandings of an adult. It was a warm fall afternoon. I had already been to two galleries new to me one was really just a frame shop and the other did not have work that interested me, but I would go back to check it out again.

I was a gawky, young for my just turned twelve years, wearing a ridiculous pair of light blue cat’s eyes eyeglasses with dumb little rhinestones that my mother insisted on, but I was tall if only I would stand up straight. However, as I entered the gallery I was hunched over partially in perpetual embarrassment over by newly enlarging breasts, plus I was loaded down with heavy text books, a large loose leaf binder, other supplies and a large purse.

A man with a stern but cultured air was speaking with a well dressed lady. He looked up as I walked in, and I looked at him the same way I would a tour guide. I no prior experience with galleries, which I figured to be some kind of mini museums if they were not frame shops. This gallery had Impressionist paintings, which I liked, including some by artists I recognized. The man began to speak about a painting to the lady, mush like a tour guide, so I came up behind them to listen.

The man turned around, glaring at me, but politely asked, “What do you want?”

“To hear what you’re saying about the art,” I said, still thinking he was a kid of tour guide like those who dealt with groups of students on school visits.

“Well, we’re having a private conversation.”

I apologized and shuffled over to the other side of the gallery, which was a basically one large front room, with private rooms in the rear. They continued to speak, moving into a private room and I continued to look at the art. I had worked my way halfway through the gallery when the woman departed.

The man spoke to me again, “Can I help you?” It was obvious he was not thrilled with my presence. However, I knew gruff guards at the Met who were not sure about me roaming around without someone to watch me that I did not touch or treat the art inappropriately. I was easily winning them over with my smile and very good and reverent behavior.

So I smiled and said, “No thank you, I’m fine. How are you?”

I a not sure if he answered, but I knew he was not pleased with my presence. However, having no idea that such a gallery was not a museum I continued to be polite and returned to my business of looking at the art.

The next time I entered the gallery, a couple of weeks later, I was glad that the man was busy with other people, who were always well dressed adults. It seemed strange to me that the art had changed and there were new paintings hung now as that did not happen in the Met’s basic rooms, and these were the days before Thomas Hoving began the blockbuster shows.

Jean Dufy

Venise vers la Place St. Marc, 1945

I continued to frequent the Wally Findlay Gallery on a bi-weekly basis. Sometime in November I came into the gallery on a cold and rainy day, when no one but the man was there, probably since the weather was so dreadful. By now, he knew that I was a respectful girl with a genuine interest in art. Even though I was unable to get any of my friends to join me on my rounds to the galleries and visits to the Met, it never dawned on me that my avid interest was unusual. Possibly, as I was too busy looking at the art or because it seemed so important to me.

This day the man came and stood beside me and kindly spoke to me asking me my opinion of the painting we were looking at. Of course, I liked it, but showed him another in the gallery I liked better, I think it was a Cezanne.

As I recall it now I understand that he was playfully teasing me, but his question and reply surprised me as much as mine did him. “Would you like to own it?” he asked.

When he told me the price I was startled, and relied,”You mean it’s for sale?! People can buy it?”

I never made it to the Met that day. Mr. Findley explained to me what a gallery was we began what was my first education about art that was not self taught. When he was no busy with people he would discuss the recent art he had acquired.

Until that day I had absolutely no one in my life, not even teachers to speak to about art and ask questions, although my Dad would go to the museums with me and enjoyed seeing art.

Wally Findley truly loved the paintings and was full of information about the artists. When no collectors were in the gallery, he would invite me into his office and give me cookies and he would show me the art in his office, which was often the best he had. Sometimes, if he was with collectors he would ask me to wait. Once they left he would proudly show me a new work and ask for my opinion. He never let me off the hook about my opinion as we would discuss a painting’s merits, its colors and perspective, the scene, etc. He knew I was regularly visiting the Met, too.

I especially recall waiting for people to leave and having him usher me into his office where he proudly introduced me to Jean Dufy. I have always been fascinated with brush strokes and Dufy’s strokes were a revelation to me, free like van Gogh’s but playful. It took me a while to warm up to the idea that Dufy did not fill his canvas with strokes. To a degree his influence can be seen in my own initial Essence portraits, but as I move into that series and others the freedom I learned from Wally Findlay via the Dufy’s will become more apparent.

Although Mr. Findlay knew I liked to draw, at that time my schools so far did not have art classes of any kind and the only classes I had outside of school were more about making crafts. He asked to see a drawing so I brought him one and he looked pleased. However, what Mr. Findlay was teaching me was how to look at art, and some of the history of Modern Art. He was my dear adopted art uncle.

It never dawned on me to tell anyone about this perfectly innocent relationship, which was really one of teacher and student so as a schoolgirl it seemed fitting to me. The relationship was casual, I dropped in when I dropped in, which became slightly less when I switched to the more distant High School of Music and Art. Even then, our teachers focused on museums, never discussing galleries, so again it never came up. During all of this time I had no idea that the Wally Findlay Gallery was an important gallery, or even that one gallery could be more significant than another in the art world.

I moved on in life, marrying and moving to Los Angeles, raising children and having careers other than as an artist, as I did not feel that I had anything new to add or say as an artist until a few years ago. That is when I began to recall the six school years from seventh through twelfth grade when I spent so much time during afternoons and weekends in the great museums and galleries of New York. I saw an advertisement in the New York Times for the Wally Findlay Galleries International, Inc., which is on 57^th Street now, recognized the name and my relationship with Mr. Findlay came flooding back to me. A brief bit of Internet research showed that the gallery had indeed been located on Madison Avenue where I remembered it. Last winter I stopped in reminisced and enjoyed the art.

ArtHamptons brought to the Hamptons what had always seemed almost unimaginable to me when I was a teenager enjoying summers in the Hamptons. Although I was busy riding my bike, swimming and painting and drawing on my own but missing the museums and galleries and art classes I enjoyed back in the city. Although the Hamptons now has good Modern and Contemporary galleries and the museums, especially the Parrish and Guild Hall, bringing Hirschl and Adler, Will Barnet and the Wally Findlay Gallery under one roof was a bit like bringing my artistic girlhood to the Hamptons.

So, as I rounded the corner at ArtHamptons and discovered the Wally Findlay Galleries International, Inc., including Impressionist paintings and Dufy, I knew that for me personally this ArtHampton is an especially wonderful event. I had no idea how very special.

Part Two on ArtHamptons coming soon.

Thanks to Stephanie Borynack, V.P.. International Director and Patricia Attoe, Assistant to the Director of the Wally Findlay Galleries International, Inc., for the use of the Jean Dufy image. Thanks to William Meek of the Harmon-Meek Gallery for the use of the Will Barnet image

Researcher Iegor Reznikoff, a specialist in ancient music at the University of Paris X in Nanterre has discovered a connection between ancient cave paintings and acoustics. In the caves with ancient art the most acoustically resonant places — where sounds linger or reverberate the most — were often the places where the pictures were densest.

The study included various caves in at least ten locations. Wherever there were drawings of horses, bison, and mammoths, the acoustics in the cave best served to amplify and even transform the sounds of human voices and musical instruments such as bone flutes, have been found in decorated caves.

For me, as an artist founding the Post Conceptual UnGraven Image theory of art that can be considered simultaneously both secular and religious, Reznikoff’s discovery of the acoustical significance of the specific caves where the prominent art is located is riveting information. This discovery opens many possibilities, even probabilities about the art found in the caves of Europe, especially France and including Lascaux. Are the paintings symbolic representations of ancient mythologies? Are the strange geometric symbols a kind of notation and writing? Were the shaman-artists the leaders of the tribes?

Like many discoveries, this one was somewhat accidental. Reznikoff first noticed the strategic placement of cave art while visiting Le Portel, a Paleolithic cave in France, in 1983. As an expert in the acoustics of 11th- and 12th-century European churches, Reznikoff often hums to himself when entering a room for the first time so he can “feel its sounds.” His humming quickly pointed to the exceptional acoustical properties of the cave. Research has followed and Reznikoff will present his latest findings this week at the annual meeting of the Acoustics Society of America in Paris.

An article in the National Geographic News cites Paul Pettitt, who is a Paleolithic rock art expert at the University of Sheffield in the U.K. According to Pettitt, who was not involved in the study, “In a number of decorated caves the images cluster in certain areas,” Pettitt said. “They are not randomly distributed but seem deliberately placed, with areas of perfectly ‘paintable’ walls ignored, and in a number of cases the paintings cluster in areas of resonance.”

When the most-resonant spot in a cave was located in a very narrow passageway too difficult for painting, red marks are often found, as if the resonance maximum had to be signified in some way. This correlation of paintings and music, Reznikoff says, provides “the best evidence for the ritualistic meanings of the paintings and of the use of the adorned caves.”

I agree with Reznikoff that some kind of ritualistic event(s) seems to have been taking place in the caves. Clearly the better acoustics and instruments found nearby point to music. For all of humankind, from primitive or aboriginal tribes to the most sophisticated churches, temples and Mosques, spiritual ritual that involves music almost always involves chanting or singing.

Ritual music also involves organizing a group. While there may be spontaneous moments, there is much to be organized and learned.

The ability of a group, or groups (as there are many caves) of people in locating the best acoustical places within caves indicates a sophistication that would also allow for a passing down of important data from generation to generation. Ritual singing indicates the ability to learn and memorize information and symbols as notes are aural symbols. If a person can learn and use a sophisticated sound symbol, such as a tune or chant, then they can use equally sophisticated visual symbol.

Unlike the work of a lone artists or shaman-artists who found their way into various caves and painted their visions, much the way an artist like Fra Angelico painted in the cells of his monastery. No, these cave paintings were the concerted effort of a group of people possibly an entire tribe, who worked together to locate the best acoustical caves within a complex. This was more like the work Italian Renaissance masters creating commissioned works for the great churches. They had assistants and they were paid (supported) as they worked.

Reznikoff’s findings point to an ongoing use of the caves, rather than a spontaneous artistic painting or musical concert. Just as it does today, a cooperative group effort occurs when that group shares a purpose along with goals that support it. It seems likely, at least to me, that those cave painters were illustrating their spiritual theologies. This would explain why there are paintings of animals that we think were not hunted or rarely seen. Plus, it would explain some of the strange, but common deliberate abstraction and proportional mistakes. What if the animals depicted were symbolic representations of the gods of the Upper Paleolithic peoples?

The mythology of other ancient and primitive peoples often uses animals, or invented beings with combinations of animal characteristics to represent their gods. Using a visual image to represent something is one step away from writing. The earliest writing, such as cuneiform and hieroglyphics used specific symbols to stand for concepts and their combinations became specific words. Chinese and Japanese use a form of this today as the symbols create a kind of pictogram equaling specific words.

In the Origin of Humankind, noted fossil hunter Richard Leakey notes that in addition to depiction of the animals, the cave paintings also include dots, grids, chevrons, curves, zig zags, nestled curves, and rectangles. Are these symbols? Is this a very primitive and elementary form of writing concepts or numbers? Whatever it is, it seems to have meaning that a group of people understood, beyond the visionary work of an artist shaman.

It would have been possible just to find good acoustical spots, even outdoors, to make music and tell stories. The need to find the best acoustical caves in which to create the paintings points to the importance of the paintings to an entire group of people. They do not just “happen” to be there. Given the cold and wet weather outside of the caves at the time, painting in the caves indicates that the works were meant to be preserved. It is possible that these people painted outside the caves, at least at some point. How else would they know of the importance of preserving their works away from the elements?

A group effort that supported the work of an artist, an possibly artist assistants makes more sense to me than the notion of the lone artists working in dark caves. Having others help create torch light, find the materials and mix the paints and sticks or brushes makes the endeavors more feasible, especially considering the paint and supplies and torches and perhaps provisions, including water all hade to be carries into each painted cave.

As a group effort the painted caves point to a level of communal wealth for the tribe as there had to be ample food to supply the artists and possibly the musicians. Perhaps the chief artist was also the tribe’s shaman. The new discovery indicates appreciation and support for artistic talent. Another study also reported in Science Daily, indicates that most people can carry a tune. We know that most people cannot paint or draw at the level of the cave painters. Were these ancient painters in ritual leadership roles, or even leading the community?

“Why would the Paleolithic tribes choose preferably resonant locations for painting,” Reznikoff is reported as saying in the article, “if it were not for making sounds and singing in some kind of ritual celebrations related with the pictures?”

Suggested further reading on Reznikoff’s findings can be found at these links: Science Digest and Live Science and National Geographic News

Collecting art, especially the work of emerging artists can be a savvy investment – or like any investment it can be a somewhat costly mistake.

Somewhat, because if the collector enjoys the art and it enhances their home or place of business, even if the price for the artist’s works decreases, at least one has the art! If a stock, bond or other type of investment looses value all one has are the statements.

Jim Kramer hosts an entertaining and popular program and has written various books about how to invest in the stock market. Kramer stresses that an investor must do her homework on a weekly basis. The days when one bought a stock, especially a blue chip one and just held onto it are over. Investors buy and sell and trade, often daily.

Although collectors also do homework that involves learning about art and artists, the majority of art investments are held for years, possibly decades. This is especially true when collecting the work of an emerging artist as the artist’s career takes time to build. Of course the trick is to find an emerging artist whose work will become more valuable over time.

The Art Market, especially for Contemporary art currently outperforms the stocks, bonds and real estate markets, according to Michael Moses of the Mei Moses family of fine art indices at Beautiful Asset Advisors..

A few weeks ago Lyn Bishop posted a good basic article for new collectors on the blog called “Sharing Secrets”. I previously left a previous comment on Bishop’s blog post with condensed tips for new collectors. Instead of reiterating the information, I include this link: tips to beginning your art collection

We can look back over the history of modern art through living contemporary artists whose work is granted shows in top museums and galleries while the price for their works continues to rise at auction to find commonalities that seem to hold true for today.

Talent and determination are key shared factors. Successful artists, once they decide to be artists just do not give up. For his time, Vincent van Gogh became an artist later in his life, after several failed careers. However, once he began to paint, the fact that his work was not selling never deterred him. It wasn’t that failure was not an option – quitting was not an option. The same can be said for certainly every great artists, such as Rembrandt and Vermeer, but also others whose works continue to appreciate in value.

Passion indicates determination, not necessity. Many people appear to have passion but the true test of passion is the person’s determination to continue no matter what.

Although galleries and dealers that sell works by emerging artists tout degrees from good art schools, especially new MFAs, as it lends credibility to an artist whose resume is scant for achievements. The fact is that many people finish school in one discipline, but eventually have a career in another. I know people who used to be lawyers and doctors who switched careers to work in entertainment, open restaurants or other businesses, etc. Most people with MFAs in fine art are not full time artists, although many may be associated with art as teachers, designers, gallery owners, etc. A mountain of educational debt does not insure an artist, or anyone will continue down the career path they were trained for.

True, a truly determined artist will find a way to obtain artistic education, however this may not be an MFA.

The determined artists seem to have a driving need to communicate. Visually they have something that they are bent on communicating, it is their preferred “idea” to communicate, and frankly, if they were not creative artists we would think of them as obsessive. So without meaning it as a clinical diagnosis let’s look at the “obsessions” of some artists: van Gogh – Showing emotion through painting; Monet – showing the ever changing aspects of light through painting; Warhol- the de humanizing mechanical nature of our popular culture; Cindy Sherman – identity through roles; and the list could go on and on. It’s not about exploring or expressing one’ self, these determined artists have something that again and in many ways they are determined to communicate.

If you are familiar with the work of any of the great artists, especially Modern and Contemporary artists who could choose their subjects and paths, there is a demarcation point somewhere in their career when suddenly the artist becomes inspired with what becomes their “idea” and their style somewhat changes and then there is just no stopping them. Sometimes this artistic Aha! change involves a change on locale, as it did for Georgia O’Keeffe and Gauguin. Sometimes an artist develops a theoretical idea as Picasso and Braque did with cubism and Seurat with Pointillism.

The almost obsessive determination to communicate an idea seems to result in a unique style. Monet and Renoir, both Impressionists would often paint en plein air together yet their canvases are easily distinguished. Their messages, although enjoying the Impressionist understandings are different. Their styles are unique due to their unique visions.

The new collector who has been researching by attending the top notch galleries and fairs and museums, reading the art magazines and newspapers will be acquainted with the work of the contemporary and living artists whose works are in the biennials and special museum shows. In other words, the work of these artists is established.

Look for the up and coming artist whose work can be understood as a next step from the newest but established art. What is the next step to Pop, Minimalism, Conceptualism, or Neo-Expressionism? What is the next step from Chuck Close, Damian Hirst, Jasper Johns, Jeff Koons or Lawrence Weiner? When you see the work of an emerging artist ask yourself, how is this a next step?

There is a delightful book, a kind of journal really by Michael Corbin entitled The Art Of Everyday Joe: A Collector’s Journal. It is a rather large paperback that is perfect summer reading with chapters that are short, lively and personal, a bit like reading someone’s diary. Corbin interweaves good information for the new collector with champagne taste but a beer budget into his entries.

Michael Corbin exclusively collects emerging artists, at least by my definition. I define an emerging artist as one who is not yet in the collections of major museums, or been in the Whitney Biennial, or whose prices for even a large piece, 6 foot by at least 4 feet are well under $100, 000. Personally, after reaching any of those milestones, one has emerged!

Corbin is much more of a collector than investor as he buys what he appreciates, without looking at the purchase as an investment and collects eclectically the works of many artists in many styles. There is one chapter where he is describing his problem of finding space, even storage space for the newest works that have just been delivered. As an artist, with an ever growing “collection” of completed paintings and prints, plus blank canvases and other materials, I laughed with appreciation.

To Recap:

• 1. Do your homework and research (see Lyn Bishop’s blog)
• 2.. Find passionate and determined artists with unique vision whose work takes the next step in the progression of art.
• 3. Do not buy anything unless you personally like or appreciate it.
• 4. With a nod to Michael K. Corbin, enjoy the adventure of collecting.

Do fine art and visual images help promote religious tolerance?

Many faiths are flourishing in America, but a new study indicates that religious tolerance is flourishing as well. Yesterday, the NY Times ran an article about a study that was conducted by the US Religious Landscape Survey that indicates that “although a majority of Americans say religion is very important to them, nearly three-quarters of them say they believe that many faiths besides their own can lead to salvation.”

The survey (Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life) did not search for the causes of this tolerance, which goes beyond the principles of the Constitution where Americans are granted religious freedom. There is a huge difference between tolerating another’s right to worship as one pleases and accepting that there are many paths that can lead to “eternal life”.

This shift, especially for American Christians and Muslims is recent. Although Americans have always been legally able to practice whatever religion they choose, more Americans have investigated other beliefs and practices and even switched religions or denominations than ever before. The survey as well as what seems to be called the Oprah phenomena shows that strict adherence to the theology or dogma of one’s religion is no longer the norm. Religious Americans, those who attend services and practice their beliefs have also incorporated other practices and beliefs into their lives.

What caused this shift?

The rise of personal religious tolerance and freedom seems to parallel the spread of the use of Internet and Cable TV. We have more access to alternative programming and ideas. We also know how to easily pick and choose, taking what we like and leaving the rest.

An example of this is how we manage to tune out advertising messages that accompany our selected shows and sites. Back in the early days of TV, if people liked the show, and then they would buy the advertised product by association. Statistics show that concept is less relevant today. We have learned to pick and choose what part of the message we appreciate and accept and what we ignore.

PSALM 133 (Oprah Winfrey) Essence Portrait series by Judy Rey Wasserman 2008 Strokes: Original letters of Psalm 133 Pen & ink

Oprah Winfrey has introduced her TV audience to many different and new paths, some spiritual, others religious. Oprah explores whatever she finds that seems to offer improvement and hope for the lives of her audience, yet sometimes appears skeptical of what her “expert” guests advise. Yet, Oprah is tolerant and quite generous to others who are less tolerant. A quick look at the discussion boards on the oprah.com website reveals posts by those who vehemently disagree and even dislike both Oprah and her show while proclaiming their own religious theology as the only to (using the survey’s words) “eternal life”. As long as these posters follow the normal web comment and discussion post guidelines, they are permitted to air their views on Oprah’s website. In addition to Oprah, apparently most Americans are applying their skills to pick and choose messages that are relevant for their own lives to their own religious beliefs and practices. Oprah Winfey’s communications empire has expanded with our technology. Oprah knows how to use visual imagery, her own and others, to create an impact. She uses film clips and images more than any popular talk show host or show.

Our technology not only connects us, is visually connects us. If you access the Internet on a daily basis, have a mobile visual device and TV, you probably see more images created by people (including those with cameras) on a daily basis, than have been seen before by anyone in any previous time before the Internet, cable TV and mobile devices.

Thanks to the Internet, we have instant access to the visual image of many of the world’s great art treasures. As I create blogs and the ebook I am working on that refers to various famous artworks and artists, a quick Google search provides plenty of links to information and images. Try it for yourself. Google the word “Guernica” for Picasso’s famous painting and pages and pages of links come up. Then go to Google Images, and use the keyword, “Guernica”. We can easily find images of people, places and things on the Internet, and for images, language is never a barrier to communication.

We not only see more images, we see them more rapidly as our brains have learned to decode the meaning of the rapidly changing light rays into images quickly. Commercials, films, videos that are made today, especially those with FX, would have been difficult for people to actually see seventy five years ago as many of the images flash by too rapidly. We learned how to see rapidly changing, even flashing images.

Although most of the films with exciting visual images and F/X are aimed at that teenage male audience, they are also the films that are generally the real box office hits. People, including me and I am a boomer gal, do go to see these films when storyline combines with great F/X on the big screen. Our love of the visual is helping sell those big and wide screen TVs, too. Visually, films have taken us into to strange and exotic places, including ancient temples, pyramids, mosques, churches, synagogues, and other real or imagined holy sites

The art market continues to boom, despite economic problems in other sectors. Museum attendance, gallery show attendance and the public’s interest in art, including for Contemporary Art, also continues to grow. We flock to see images even when they are not on a screen

Artists tend to create works, even commissioned religious works, that show their own religious or spiritual understandings. Rembrandt, van Gogh, Da Vinci, Chagall, Kandinsky, and Rothko had different personal understandings and theologies. A major art museum is dedicated to showing great art, and easily tolerates all theologies if the art is great.

As a society, we revere our art museums. Cities and communities that have art museums tout their exhibits and if possible, collections. When people travel (and possibly coincidentally, but as the use of the Internet has grown travel has also increased) these museums) to New York, London, Paris, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, Rome, Madrid, etc., they often include visiting the famous art museums. Great art museums are modern castles in the kingdoms that stand for religious tolerance.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art houses art that ranges from almost prehistoric to Contemporary. The collection’s pieces include art that is religious or spiritual from every current major world religion, many minor religions and religions that are no longer practiced, plus items that archeologists and art historians believe may have had some religious importance for an ancient people. And, these artworks are important to us, to the visitors and the community.

The Met and all the great art museums of the world have large and active websites. We want to show our collected communal treasures to the world.

Have visual images, especially art helped promote religious tolerance? Have the new technologies that allow us to easily and quickly share our images with one another, across former boundaries of nationality, age, gender, race, language and religion promoted more tolerance amongst Americans?

As an artist and founder of Post Conceptual UnGraven Image Art theory, the first theory of art to actually reference most of the world’s great religions (plus science), I think art can impact how we see our world. What do you think?

Recent understandings in medical and neuroscience about how we see has tremendous importance for visual artists, and also anyone involved in the art world.

Vision is the primary perceptual sense for anyone who is not seriously vision impaired. Visual perception is so basic that it is the one sense we must shut off when we go to sleep.

The fact that we stand tall, gives us an advantage over most animals on the planet, which is how we developed our reliance and fairly well developed vision. Carnivorous flying birds also enjoy especially excellent eyesight, in some ways usually better than our own, especially birds who hunt at night such as owls or soar the highest, eagles and hawks.

All that our eyes actually perceive are light rays. Those eagle, hawk and owl eyes may perceive more light rays, but we still have better vision. Human beings can see more than any living creature on earth. Why?

Our human brains.

We have binoculars, telescopes, microscopes, infrared lenses and other inventions that allow us to see far beyond the capacity of our eyes, or those of the birds.

Each normally sighted individual had better functional vision based on his or her brain. One half of the back part of the human brain is devoted to the business of seeing. There are over one hundred billion nerve cells in the cortex, the area of the brain that most deals with sight.

As an artist this gives me a kind of job security. Visual art is never going to go out of fashion when half of a person’s brain is devoted to seeing!

Neuroscience has also recently discovered that a person’s brain can continue to grow and expand, make more connections, grow more cells throughout life. In relation to sight they have learned that when a person’s brain is injured, from a stroke, injury or operation that often over time the person can make new connections and that one area of the brain often takes over the former duties of the damaged or missing part.

Therapies, such as Vision Restoration Therapy, based on breakthroughs in neuroplacticity, help people learn how to see when parts of their brains that are necessary for full vision are compromised. Visual exercise for the brain can help create stronger brains and sight.

Medical advances have repaired eyes that were blind in adults who have been blind from birth or early childhood. After the first few operations, after the doctor removes the bandages, examined the patient and declared the operation to be a medical success, the family and friends of the patient gathered around so the patient could see them. Much to their dismay, the newly sighted patient still could not see them!

Although the formerly blind now had eyes, they had no information in their brains to compare the impressions of light that their eyes were receiving to, so they could decode those impressions into meaningful vision. The newly sighted only recognized who was in the room by their voices, being still functionally blind.

If you can read this text you have well trained and sophisticated eyesight, far more sophisticated than that of the majority of people who have lived on earth, just by the fact that you can recognize the different letters one fro another, and then their combinations into words, which you also differentiate.

There is a story, that I have heard in various ways, that seems to be true. Essentially a century or so ago, a missionary, or perhaps it was a doctor or doctor or anthropologist took the chief of a very primitive tribe on a special trip to a city to introduce “civilization”. They went to a museum or special traveling exhibit of famous realistic artists (probably Impressionism was too new to be included back then). The chief looked at the paintings, following his friend who marveled at the works. As they discussed the paintings it became apparent that the chief only saw bright colored stuff (paint). He had no idea that the paint created images, as that is a learned idea and experience. Only after the idea was shown to the chief did he begin to see the images and appreciate the art.

Now science tells us that the more art the chief saw the more experiences data his brain would collect, which would increase his ability to appreciate art. The connections in his brain would increase from his new visual experiences.

People who live in industrialized society where a steady stream of images from PCs, TVs, magazines, billboards, neon signs, images on cell phones, etc., are normal are developing visual vocabularies that allow them to understand visually transmitted information faster with greater depth of understanding than all previous generations.

Perhaps the art market remains booming not only because it is now fully international, but because people of wealth and/or education have a more developed visual sense than ever before, making visual art all the more relevant.

Since so much of the human brain is devoted to sight as it is the dominant sensory perception, and a healthy human brain can continue to make connections, create cells and hence “grow” during a person’s whole lifetime then a visual artist has opportunities, challenges and perhaps self-selected responsibilities beyond other kinds of artists. That humans vision is sighted humanity’s primary perceptual sense gives visual artists a better chance of inspiring and communicating with others, assuming the artist has talent, training and a vision (world view, spirituality, wisdom, etc.) to share and can make it accessible to others.

Great visual art was changing individual lives, including mine as a young girl growing up in NYC, prior to recent scientific discoveries about the way we see and how the brain works. Artists and art lovers knew that art could be meaningful and important; we just didn’t know that humans are especially wired to make visual experiences more relevant than any other kind.

Aside from the warm weather, various events signal Hamptonites that the summer season has begun. This year’s annual show of artists who live in the Hamptons held by Edsel William’s Springs Fireplace Project gallery signals that a wonderful summer is unfolding for us.

The show is curated by Klaus Kertess, who is also an art writer, former art gallery owner and past curator of the Whitney Biennial. Amazon has three pages of books and catalogs on some of the best artists around that are written by or contributed to by Klaus Kertess. As a gallerist he introduced and showed artists who are now renowned. Already impressed by the show, in preparation for this article I Googled “Klaus Kertess” and discovered all this. Now I am even more impressed.

Not quite two years ago I set out to discover the current contemporary art world of galleries and people beyond artists. As a then preparing-to-emerge artist who stumbled into what has became a new theory of art, I was finally returning to my first training and love: painting. I continue to stumble up into discovering galleries, artists, and the many good and talented people who inhabit the art world in various roles.

I only write about shows or what I see at fairs that I especially appreciate, which is what I did as a journalist covering independent film. There is more that I want to write about than I have time for considering the weekly blog deals with topics other than shows and my basic work is painting. I have a kind of ongoing list of artists I am waiting for the opportunity to cover, when their shows collide with my time and blog space. On that list was the artist Billy Sullivan, whom I have mentioned twice before.

Last summer I discovered Billy’s workat Scope Hamptons and gave him a brief good mention. Next, when he was the artist who created last year’s Hamptons International Film Festival’s annual poster. Billy was at a signing at the same gallery that simultaneously had a reception for my friend, photographer Pat Field, whose work covering the film festival was featured in Autumn 2007 edition of the local magazine Vox. Billy had left by the time I arrived, but I gave both him and Pat brief good mentions, in the side column that existed on my former blog software.

One of my other discoveries last summer was Edsel Williams and his gallery, so when I saw that Billy Sullivan was going to be in this show, I headed to the opening as I was hoping to write about Billy’s portraiture. The catch was that I needed to be able to especially recommend this show, beyond Billy Sullivan, and I had no idea what to expect. Plan B was to wait the time when Billy Sullivan had a solo show the Nicole Klagsbrun Gallery.

Today, Googling along, I discovered that Billy and Klaus share a home in East Hampton during summers. This came from a NY Times article about the 1995 Whitney Biennial.

Covering this show became a sure thing the moment I entered the gallery when the first work I saw was one I had hoped to find from a year ago March, when I wrote the first version of “The Manifesto of Post Conceptual UnGraven Image Art – a Painting’s Meaning is Inherent in its Stroke.” Only James Nare’s work is far better than what I envisioned as possible.

The manifesto, from the initial scribbled draft to the new revised version has always begun: “The only essential material element of any painting or drawing is a stroke . The stroke is made to show the intention(s) of its creator. An artist can only physically make one stroke or part of a stroke at a time.”

James Nare creates one long sensuous, undulating, seductive and joyous stroke across his canvas. When I was a preteen and teen, somewhat hiding out and growing up at the Met, I would rush through the galleries comparing a stoke stared at and memorized by Rembrandt to one by Velazquez and then Monet, or others. I spent a lot of time comparing the strokes of painters.

Well, James Nare’s work has me at “Hello” as I entered the gallery. I have waited all my life for such a glorious stroke! For me, James Nare’s work is a visual gift. Thanks!

JAMES NARES

Delete All Gaps, 2008

Oil on Linen

60 x 60 inches

There is much more wonderful work to discover in this show.

Divided Light a work by Cynthia Knott does not easily reveal its strokes (neither does Vermeer) but the atmospheric effect is lovely.

Mary Heilmann has two pieces in the show, and her work intrigues me and is worth another article one day. My list of artists’ work to write about continues to grow

Last autumn after spying a portrait of Queen Elizabeth in a group show being hung at Luhring Augustine, I was inspired to return and write the article, “Questioning What is a Portrait — in Chelsea.” Although I do frequent Billy Sullivan’s’ gallery, I was hoping at that time that I would find work from him there to include in my article, but that is how I discovered Elaine Reickek’s work.

Billy Sullivan’s portraits are for me a continuation of the portraiture work by Andy Warhol. This is a high complement when as my own first portrait I my Essence series was Psalm 19 (Andy Warhol) in tribute to his work. Like Andy, Billy has an exceptional ability to simultaneously show a person’s mask, plus the vulnerability that lies beneath it. While Warhol dealt more with a media representation type of mask, Billy Sullivan paints the mask we project to the world while peeking beneath it.

Billy Sullivan’s painting is an elegant, sophisticated presentation of a woman who presents herself, in make-up, dress and demeanor as elegant and sophisticated. The painting is at once sumptuous and lush but hard edged and slightly abstracted and in places almost raw and unfinished. Thus the painting itself not only depicts but becomes as vulnerable and not-quite-complete-and-perfect as its subject. These people are engaged in living and socializing, and we sense that if the artist’s focus panned to the left or right other people would be revealed. In Jane 5.20.08t the subject appears to be riding in a vehicle, unaware that the back of her hair, blowing uncontrolled in the wind has turned into colorful waving ribbons, her demeanor remains smartly poised, with a tight bright red lipsticked smile that matches her stylish dress. It seems that many of Billy Sullivan’s subjects are his friends, and he reveals both what they want us to see and admire as well as their vulnerability and humanity that really makes them likable.

BILLY SULLIVAN

Jane 5.20.08,2008

Oil on Linen

30 x 20 inches

Speaking of friends, it was good to see Edsel Williams again. I look forward to the shows he is curating, too. Aside from finally meeting Billy Sullivan, and then Klaus Kertess and James Nares, it was a pleasure meeting the lovely Lisa Phillips, who I recognized from her pictures at Art Forum online.

Time and space prevent me from doing more than mentioning the other artists in this well curated show,who all deserve a good mention. They are: Robert Harms, Judy Hudson, Tony Just, Jake Patterson, Michael Theterow, Darius Yektai, and Joe Zucker.

Many people claim to have a problem – even problems with money in general. Almost no one has a problem with art in general. And yet, money is almost always also art.

The currencies issued by most of the governments in the world contain art, both coins and paper tender. Stamps, which are a kind of currency in that they have a face value, are art. Some small countries earn part of their revenues from issuing beautiful limited edition stamps, mainly to collectors from other countries. Most everything that is issued with a face value and has no other purpose but to represent that value (as opposed to the items intrinsic worth and use or tickets to events), is imprinted with images and design. Bonds, stocks, discount coupons, often even gift certificates issued by small local businesses usually include art.

Granted, a great deal of this art is chosen for its PR value. The images and design visually promote the issuing source. For instance, the gift certificates available at a local restaurant have the logo or an image of the restaurant. Governments issue money with images of their leaders.

Money, stamps and fine art are all also collectibles. When a coin, bill or stamp is rare, for instance there was an error and the printing run was shortened, that makes them more valuable. There is always a limited amount of original work produced by any artist that can be collected, whether or not the value of the artist’s work increases over time..

The value of any art and any money is created by the decisions and actions of its creator/issuer and those who aspire to own it. It is the ultimate supply and demand paradigm, since other than the worth we assign to it, both art and money, especially paper money is basically worthless.

Artistic merit and worth are decisions. Like art created on and with materials that do not have much intrinsic value, the paper even a dollar bill is printed upon is worth less than the assigned value of $1.00. It is just a little rectangular piece of paper.

Oil paints applied to a canvas have no special value, and the artistic assignments of middle school students usually end up in the trash when they go off to college to study other disciplines. When an artist, such as Andy Warhol, uses paint on a canvas, over time the worth of that painted canvas increases as more people decide it is valuable. A Warhol canvas is far more valuable that the costs, which have increased since Warhol’s time for the canvas, framing materials and paints. No collector buys the materials, but rather what the artist created with them.

Although most recognized art collectors are also worth a great deal of money, they actually physically have and experience more fine art than money. The art is in their homes and offices and collections, which they see, maybe every day. Their money is indicated –but not actually shown – on ledgers, bank statements and reports prepared by accountants and financial executives. How many millionaires have actually seen a million one dollar bills at the same time – if ever?

There seems to be a connection between appreciating and collecting fine art on a regular basis and accruing greater wealth. This applies to individuals and societies. Although collecting art takes funds beyond what is required to obtain life’s necessities, those individuals, companies, communities and countries that revere and collect visual art prosper beyond any increase in the value of the art. In fact, emerging companies, professionals and business people will often collect newer artists, as they are affordable and offer a new vision.

Artists need patrons and collectors to survive, and obviously patrons must have the wealth to be able to afford art, but only to a degree. Historically, whenever a society began to emphasize and revere visual art (art that exists only to communicate and/or inspire) that society blossomed and became wealthy and influential. If and when the society’s artistic community became artistically regulated, when artists either were not encouraged or lacked the freedom to experiment then the societies or regime began to lose power and wealth.

Currently, although the stock market, real estate and other economic indicators are signifying problems in the USA, the art market continues to prosper and grow beyond expectations. Emerging collectors and museums have created an international market for art that for the first time ever, allows the work of living artists to span the globe.

Money is art. Money follows art. Anyone who is experiencing a lack of money – or wealth, is most likely also experiencing a lack of authentic, inspiring and visually challenging art.

Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art – Andy Warhol

The public came to see the King Tut exhibit in 1976 at The Metropolitan Museum of Art because they were curious, but also to be inspired by the splendor of it all. That original show drew more than 8 million people. It was the original museum blockbuster hit that inspired a trend that has become a part of almost every art museum’s agenda.

Considering the number of international art museums that exhibit special shows to entice their community members and tourists to travel through their doors, only a few are actual box office hits in any given year. Just as Hollywood measures its box office hits based on variables, such as budget size and comparisons to other similar product, so do museums and the art world. The ticket box office for a huge hit in a small city might could seem tiny compared to a huge hit at the Met, but the size of the venues, the budgets and the local community are all taken into account when determining a hit – or miss.

Museums promote their shows by touting that their special shows are a one time, or limited event. The King Tut show revealed the recently discovered tomb contents to the American public for the first time. It was a rare and limited event. Every two years the Whitney holds its biennial, always a hit, although some years more so than other.

When Christo and Jeanne Claude’s exhibit the Gates was on view people flooded into Central park to see and walk under and between the billowing saffron colored gates. Yes, it was spiritual with the metaphor of gates and the billowing saffron material but it was also slam dunk rivetingly different for Central Park and it was well known that the installation was temporary. The installation did not have to be temporary based on the materials used. The structures were constructed to withstand any stresses that the public, including rowdy teenage boys could inflict. The billowing material could have been replaced whenever needed. However, an ongoing exhibit quickly becomes commonplace and a temporary one is an even. That The Gates would never be resurrected in Central Park made them a must see destination.

How limited an event is any specific show really?

When a curator and team has diligently worked to assemble from collectors and museums all over the globe many of the finest works from a great, but long gone artist, that is a limited show.

When a show is assembled from works in another museum, for example the Van Gogh Museum that show is certainly not as limited, even if it is the first time ever shown in the USA. Why? Because although traveling to NYC is possibly less expensive and more convenient for many Americans, especially those on the East Coast, people can also go to Amsterdam to see the works at the van Gogh Museum, once they return.

Yet, people flocked to the recent van Gogh shows. Vincent van Gogh is a box office star. Why?

Researching all of the museum shows that are acknowledged blockbuster hits, almost every one had a spiritual or religious component. We do not think of Vincent van Gogh as a religious painter, but he did and his religious passion communicates in his strokes and works, even when his imagery is secular. Monet passionately painted the light, which as a somewhat devout Catholic he knew resonated with spiritual meaning. Warhol. Who we now know was religious throughout his life, threw our media and values back at us, giving them meaning while questioning the meanings we had previously assigned to the post war society first exploding with images thanks to new and emerging technologies.

Every blockbuster hit seems to have had a spiritual component that reaches and inspires people.

Obviously, but not usually commented upon, there was a religious or spiritual component to the King Tut exhibit. The beliefs of King Tut and his society are not those of almost everyone who attended the shows in the USA, but how that society looked at death fascinated people. Death is the entry to the beyond and usually involves a person’s spiritual beliefs and understandings.

When a person has a product that is valued, word of mouth recommendations follow. There is a huge difference between learning to appreciate or recognizing the value of a product and having it impact you so you are inspired. The King Tut exhibit inspired those who saw it and they told other, who told others… Momentum builds and one has a hit. It happens for products, movies, music groups and museum shows. It happens for products that work best to do the job they are supposed to do.

Art that inspires us and changes how we see our world is the key ingredient for a big box office show.

Art museum blockbuster hits are now as common as they are for other venues that sell tickets, such as film concerts and theatre. Only Ticket sales define the blockbuster’s success, not reviews or the current price of the artists work at auction.

Blockbuster museum shows are a recent development, considering the length of the history of art. It all began in 1976 when the King Tut exhibit drew more than 8 million people to The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Thomas Hoving, the Met’s museum director at the time, is credited for this innovation. Hoving publicly says that “It’s not true “I stole the idea from the Europeans. But I’ll say it was my idea.”

Thomas Hoving has a special knack for recognizing a good thing, especially when it comes to art. He continued launching blockbuster style shows and changed art museums forever.

Art museums considering what shows to include during a year can be compared to a hungry person. The best and biggest, in NYC that would be the Met and MoMA can afford to eat in any four star restaurant. The may even be comped, or at least served a free drink or desert. The perks and prestige decline along with the stars of the restaurant until one reaches a small local museum, or university museum. The small museum – not necessarily small on space but small in membership and budget, is hungry to drive in new members, patrons and viewers, but lacks the wherewithal to mount or even lure a major show. Galleries even have the noshies, now snacking by mounting their won museum type shows, which can even travel to co-sponsoring galleries in other cities. There are now museums in non-major cities that have no permanent collection, but instead basically exist as a space for traveling or specially curated shows of borrowed works.

For museums, blockbuster box office hits bring in money, obviously in ticket sales but also visitors who become members and donors, plus auxiliary sales at the museum’s restaurants and shops. A hit show encourages galleries and artists to think highly of the museum, thus perhaps upping the museum’s place on a waiting list for an artist’s work, and this is especially important for a slightly smaller museum. The money that blockbusters earn can allow a museum or curator to mount a show for a less popular but significant and influential artist.

For the art world, the influence of blockbuster shows reaches beyond museums.

Who else in the art world is impacted by blockbuster museum shows?

Galleries — Many top tier galleries today became such by recognizing and promoting the work of their artists who then became well recognized and acclaimed. Some of the out-of-towners who come to see an art show also visit galleries and openings locally. Galleries have found ways, including creating shows with an artist and artist they represent that references a recent museum show. This can be a natural spin-off as artists have always been influenced by other great artists, living or long deceased. .

Curators – Curators create shows and group shows. Some have full time jobs at museums but most are independent. Any curator who mounts a blockbuster hit reaps career recognition and rewards.

Collectors – The answer is relevant for collectors who by patronage can encourage museums and galleries to help create box office hits for the artists in their collection. Plus, knowledge being power, for all but the very top collectors – the ones who create their own museums or endow museums with their collections – it is far easier collect an artist’s work when there is no waiting list or that list is small.

Art Critics – A brilliant review can make a critic’s career or keep it on top. Campaigning an editor for the assignment to write a piece on an upcoming show, especially when a magazine, newspaper, website, etc., has several reviewers can land one a plum spot and recognition, especially if that show becomes a blockbuster. Discovering an artist or group of artists and championing them has helped make careers but also given a place in art history to critics such as Clement Greenberg.

The Public – A well curated museum show – and one of the elements of a blockbuster is that it is well curated and presented – is informative and allows people to intensely experience the work of an artist or group of artists whose works are related. Works are often brought together from many of the world’s art collections, both private and public that can for possibly the first but certainly for a limited time been seen together. Plus, since works are lent by private and corporate collections, they are not usually available to be seen by the public.

Contemporary Artists – Most artists are influenced by other artists’ works, including that of other artists who are living but also those long deceased. Major shows or retrospectives can have a great impact. On a contemporary artists work, and since most of the best art schools in the USA are located within easy travel distance of major museums, a blockbuster show influences the next generation, too. This

Local Businesses – The tourists who come to see a blockbuster museum show impact the local economy. Tourism is lucrative for many businesses, including those that normally appear outside of the travel and hospitality industries. More tourists means more people customers for hairdressers, barbers, dry cleaners, and all kinds of shops, especially those near the museum, which all benefit.

Cities such as Florence and Paris are deservedly proud of their artists and the art in their churches and public collections, which they have successfully used for hundreds of years to draw tourists. The phenomena of a city drawing tourists to see art in a collection that has little if any connection to the city itself other than for the brief time it is on display in a show, basically began in the Twentieth century, and came into fashion after the original King Tut show. For a smaller museum a blockbuster show ca be on a smaller scale, but if the artist or work catches the public attention, and the show is well curated it can impact a entire community, even the art world at large, plus if the show is for a living artist’s work, it can amazingly skyrocket a career.

What sells art?

What makes one living contemporary artist’s work move into the rarefied stratosphere of big ticket auction sales at Sotheby’s or Christies while other artists languish in the hot summer sun in tents at art fairs hoping to sell their paintings?

What sells art, and also creative endeavors including music, dance, literature, theatre and film is:

Tickets.

For visual art this means museum box office tickets.

Whenever a living visual artists has a museum show that takes off with blockbuster sales of tickets the auction sales prices for that artist’s works catapult into the highest ranges, far beyond all previous estimates and prices.

The financial reality is that art museums today mount special shows with an eye towards ticket sales. Despite endowments, hefty donations from members, merchandise sales, etc., museums need strong ticket sales to stay afloat and even to mount other important shows that may not engage the public’s interest and only result in marginal ticket sales.

Ironically when an artist’s work engages public interest and results in strong box office sales, museums line up to collect the work of that contemporary artist. The artist’s work is perceived to be possibly important historically, plus of course a potential draw for visitors.

It is well known that the Louvre in Paris sells many tickets to tourists who pay to see one painting, the Mona Lisa. On a daily basis there is a crowd and line to see the Mona Lisa while other important works by major painters are passed by. In New York, the Museum of Modern Art knows that people are coming to see van Gogh’s Starry Night. There is a guard specifically stationed near this painting to keep people from touching it plus handle the daily folw of the crows that comes to see it.

Art sells other kinds of tickets, too. When Christo’s and Jeanne-Claude’s work, The Gates was displayed in Central Park people came from all over the world to walk through the billowing saffron colored display. Include the sale of plane, train and bus tickets. Of course, at night, when the museum is closed tourists also buy tickets to shows and concerts, plus eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, etc. A major art show that helps generate additional revenues for tourism ends up creating more local donations and grants for museums that mount successful ones.

Top collectors know that when the public clamors to see the work of an artist the work increases in value and ticket sales demonstrate the public’s interest. Original work by any artist is available in a limited supply. There are public relations and tax advantages for a collector, especially corporate collectors, who lend art works to museum shows. The more the public wants to see the work of an artist, the more likelihood that important and/or traveling museum shows will be mounted.

Price is determined by supply and demand. An artist’s representatives, who work to create a successful career, will seek to first place work in the hands of museums and the noted collectors who will endow museums or, as the trend is recently, begin museums with their collections. The galleries of blue chip contemporary artists carefully select what collectors are allowed to purchase a work. This is especially true for the work of artists that is good box office.

The collectors, secondary market dealers, curators and museum directors who the artist and her representatives normally sell art to are not the primary purchasers of museum show tickets. The majority of people who buy the tickets to blockbuster museum shows are not art collectors, even of emerging artists. The public comes to a major show to be inspired, educated, entertained or because they are curious as to what the media hubbub is about. Some come just to be able to say to others that they saw it. Who goes to Paris without coming home and saying the saw the Eiffel Tower, the Moulin Rouge and the Mona Lisa?

In the other arts ticket sales are directly to the people who are consumers of the product itself, concert goers also but the album, speakers become best selling authors, and ticket sales for movies and theatre sell the rental of the viewing seats, plus the CD and video. Salaries, fees, percentages of the profits go to the various artists involved. Artists who have blockbuster museum sales generally only reap financial benefits through the sales of their newest work to collectors by their gallery representatives. Museums do not sell original art to the public. Their gifts shops sell licensed merchandise, posters, cards, books with images, umbrellas, mugs, etc., which can bring some funds to an artist.

The box office for fine art museum tickets is fully international, including museums located on every continent. Superstar fine artists are joining superstars in music and film as generally visual art has no language barriers.

Galleries and many contemporary artists recognize that good buzz helps build an artist’s career. Great reviews, an important place in the history of art, having work placed (for far less money) in noted museums and collections, being included in catalogues and reference books will not launch an artist’s works into the financial stratosphere the way that just one museum show with blockbuster sales will. Of course, some of the aforementioned are usual steps on the way towards museums selecting to mount shows for the work of an artist. Galleries now email notices of their artists’ reviews and articles in major art magazines and newspapers to those who have opted into their lists. Press coverage helps build public recognition, which leads to demand. Artists are appearing on panels, giving interviews and hiring PR representatives to promote themselves and their work to the public. Artists and galleries are promoting art to the public, to people who will never buy the work, but will buy tickets.

Successful contemporary galleries, collectors and those who profit from including and promoting an artist’s work in some way such as curators, not-for-profit space directors, and journalists all know that when viewing the work of an emerging or contemporary artist in addition to esthetic and historical concerns a new question must also be posed. Will it sell tickets?