On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:18:42 -0500, "roxan"
wrote:


Since there was so much controversy about the value of beads and how much
one can get for them because of their reputation, I thought this brings up
an interesting topic. Pablo Picasso once said that since most people don't
really know the difference between great art and mediocre art work, it
didn't matter to him to do great work towards the end of his life, all he
had to do was put his name on a piece of paper and it would sell for
millions. This angered him since he wanted his art to be recognized because
he was a great artist not because of his name.

I think the same would apply to jewelry makers and bead artists. If you can
get a exorbitant about of money just because you have a good reputation for
doing good beads or jewelry, what would inspire you to take the time to
continue to do great work if mediocre work would sell at the same price as
great work would.

You raise an interesting topic. I submit that even a reputable artist
would eventually suffer from that mediocrity because the collectors
would stop buying after a time. Yes, I believe they would. The
general buying populace might not but they tend to be a fickle
mistress at the best of times.


My feeling on this is that each art work should be looked
at for it's own artist creation not because someone famous make it. If you
didn't know the name of the person who made it would you pay the same price
because it was great work or would you pass it up for an unknown artist that
made equally good work but who doesn't have a well know reputation yet? I
know which one I would chose, it would be great art no matter who did it. I
know art is in the eye of the beholder which is very subjective, so for me
it comes down to what I really love and would appreciate owning no matter
who made it.
Roxan

I agree with you to a point. I don't see it as "either/or" but "all
the above".

--
Margie
http://www.handcraftedjewelry.com/st...asp?userid=261