the effevt of art magazines on your work

I am curious how the general scope of art magazines effect the work of those who read them. Do you read art magazines or ignore them? Is you read them how does it effect your work?

In Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe's article, Art Writing and Art School he primarily discusses how he thinks art magazines are taken more seriously everywhere else except in 'those places where art is made, exhibited and sold.'

Read the rest of my thought at http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi? acct=mb1007575&MyNum... 672&P=No&TL=959960672

Read Rolfe's article at http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/rolfe/rolfe97- 3-4.asp

I'd like to hear from you.

_Au contrair, M. lake, I'd like to take you up on this one. You forgot one thing

_ Modern Painters is the only rag I know of that shows genuine concern for modern art. And best of all they've got Jed Perl and Lance Esplund writing for them. Perl is one of those NY critics who doesn't back down or give into the whims of fashion, he's one of the only critics I have any semblance of respect for. He's not right all of the time, he's given great reviews to quite a few less than great artists but he's also put some of the 'winners of the modern art lottery' in their place (his piece from a few years ago about Frank Stella was downright down and right). Esplund's reviews also can be dead on, his criticism is subtle though, if he doesn't like it he merely describes it. Aside from these two Matthew Collings showed recently that he's not afraid of the greats either (he knocked Balthus around a bit last winter). And the latest issue featured 3 articles (count 'em, three) on Chardin. Now that takes a bit of balls, a magazine calling itself Modern Painters has enough guts to feature a painter who's been dead for 300 years.

_On top of that they've got some great graphic designers with some taste for a change. And the best part about this magazine is the fact that they reserve themselves to 4 issues a year, that's proof enough of dedication to quality writing, and sometimes even quality art.

_So, yeah, in my book there is one rag that's worth the time, money and energy it takes to keep up on modern art. Give it a try when you get around to it, I'd say it's worth the bucks.

-cm

Ok I'll comment on this topic:

Very early in the 20th century some german expressionists started a magazine to describe the developments in their cutting edge art. They decided that they would publish only when they had something to say otherwise they would not publish. There were only a few issues and no one knew when the next issue would come out.

Can you imagine a modern day publisher doing that?

have fun: keith.

ps. The implication is so obvious I won't waste words on it.

Well, maybe the German expressionists didn't have much to say, but at least they admitted to it. Most good ideas are actually good for a while, but get overused thereafter.

The philosophical question that arises from this: does good art have to be original? Is Tintoretto the main man, because he strove for 'the form of Raphael and the color of Tizian?' The art market tells us that Raphael and Tizian are far more expensive than Tintoretto, but Beuys is far more expensive than all of them and he had neither the form of Raphael nor the color of Tizian. Perhaps he had the better motto than Tintoretto?

The next philosophical question is: how do we distinguish good art from bad art? Is originality the decisive factor? Or is it just a prerequisite?

When I read Mani DeLi's ramblings^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hessays I always ask myself how he rates originality. Sometimes I have the impression that he emphasizes technique, knowledge and skill too much, which would mean that Konrad Kujau must be one of the greatest artists of all time, because he can copy everyone from Cranach to Monet to Hitler.

Ok Ulrich:

It is not that the German Expressionists had little to say - an interesting interpretation with a touch of the sword's point - they felt that if you had nothing to say then don't publish to a schedule, which can result in saying much about nothing. The implication of their action being that even in their day the art magazines were doing just that - I didn't think I had to put that implication into words, but such is life.

I agree with them, a touch of gold now and then is better than a pile of manure on your kitchen table, (in my opinion).

That was my comment on the effect of art magazines on my work.

have fun: tinman

I read Art Mags mostly to make myself angry. This might seem like an odd habit, but I find that it keeps my drive at full blast.

I read ArtNews, Modern Painters, Contemporary Visual Art, ArtPapers and ArtForum. I choose the first three most often - ArtNews for the articles, and the other two for the endless supply of terrible art. Modern Painters and CVA are both Shitish mags, so they fully support the useless anomaly of the Cool Britannia.

I read them, add names to my 'naughty' list, and feel the fury boil onto my surfaces...

Call it crazy, call it an interesting stress management technique.

I also like to keep myself aware of newcomers to the scene, to make sure no one I know personally is famous yet...I'd hate that.

As far as direct stylistic influence...hmm...probably none. Favorites in the art press these days...Hmm...Odd Nerdrum is the only one I'd bother to admire...the only living one, that is.

Plus, you know, you can write off art mags as business expenses...Modern Painters is up to 9 bucks a pop in the US. Sweet.

I have no idea why any magazine should dumb down its rhetoric to attract a dumber readership. But there are all sorts of 'art' magazines for all sorts of people. Some are heavy on rhetoric that attracts the collectors, others address themselves to art issues, and yet others are written for people interested in the 'how to' of creativity. In fact I wonder if there aren't more magazines written about arts and crafts than any other subject, attesting to the popularity of the subject.

Gentlemen, Ladies...all of this is interesting, these views on the variety and relative worth of art magazines including the O'Connor-Mayring tete a tete on the German Expressionist literature, but we seem to be addressing only half of the basic question raised by Mark in his original post. He asked A) do we read these pubs, and what effect might they have had upon our work.

A) has been answered: we read them. Now, let's tackle : Do they have an effect upon our work, and if so, what effect?

Could be interesting.

My guess would be that indulging in art rags would give one clues to what's hot and what's not, seeing that the art publishing industry is certainly a key factor in setting trends, promoting ideas and fads, and defining 'important' art etc. So a vast readership queries these rags with the question in mind 'what should my art look like to get in the door of Castelli's. So that's one way the rags can affect studio practice. Another way is completely negative. An artist may choose to produce art that is exactly the opposite of what's displayed in the rags for the sake of originality or general rebelliousness. In either case, the rags are somehow determining what is produced.

Then there's the middle path. Just don't read art rags, and follow your lucky stars. Take it from me, ignorance is bliss.

Erik Mattila

Well hot damn cm, I sure will check out 'Modern Painters'. I've got an open mind, it's just that I got so thoroughly sick of the art mags during the 70's ans 80's, I've more or less ignored them all since then. I would LOVE to read a good pan of Frank Stella!

_Perhaps that's got something to do with the fact that art mags in the 70's and 80's refused to review paintings (for the most part), so we painters few have ????? to really sink our teeth into. It was all part of the fashion trends in art in the 70's and 80's, now, fortunately, painting has come a bit back in fashion (a lot actually, even since 1989 or so). And fortunately for us also is the availability of Modern Painters and Art in America (mostly for the reviews of shows in the back).

_Also to answer the original poster of the message, (sorry to ignore you), art rags affect my work in about the same way as the daily paper, or Newsweek. In other words, not a bit, other than the fact that I'm a painter in this or that society and so obviously I would respond to this or that aspect of society. I've really got no clue if this kind of stuff comes to play in my work, I don't see it but if you want to read into things maybe it does. I'm not the final author in that regard, I just make the stuff.

-cm