|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Art | Collectors | Investors Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | What makes a Master? | Views: 883 | | Aug 29, 2008 1:50 am | | What makes a Master? | # | 
Amit Chopra | | Hi all,
There are so many new artists springing up each day with a common or different vocabulary and ideas.A few will one day be accepted as Masters by the Art World.Most will fade away.
So my question is ...what defines a Master?Is it his age or profile or his work or his PR skills?What must one see in a work to know that the Artist has the making of a Master?
Private Reply to Amit Chopra | | Aug 29, 2008 2:58 am | | re: What makes a Master? | # | 
Ashok Nayak | | Good question, hehe i hope you will find your answer soon. Private Reply to Ashok Nayak | | Aug 29, 2008 5:46 am | | re: re: What makes a Master? | # | 
Sonali Engineer | | Hi Amit,
there are two things to understanding a master and figuring out who will get there.
one is to truly understand what art is - its not a grostesque presentation of a concept, colorful stuff or a wierd thought (though these can be components to an art form!)i very often say understand the artist before you understand his art - by which i mean that see the thought process, the science, the journey of the thought process. only when you understand these concepts will you be able to understand what art is. post that the depth of the work and the quality will be understood with ease.
the second is to see how the artist evolves over a period of time - thats what makes a master. a one time wonder or a style does not a master make.
dont trust market trends of artists fetching prices in crores, a dealer tom toming an artists or some wealthy collectors telling you the artist is the next big thing.. art is as much a personal venture, as it is a gamble or an obsession. only the ones who truly walk this path will know who is going to be around 50 years on.
Thank you
sonali Private Reply to Sonali Engineer | | Aug 29, 2008 7:11 am | | re: What makes a Master? | # | 
Mehul Patel | | Amit,
A Good friend in London told me abt the 3 I rule once.
The 3 "I" rule:
is it Imitation?
Is it Idiot?
is it Inventive?
If the latter, and you like it and buy it you might be on your way to collecting few Masters.
If the first two, very little chances!
Further I agree with Sonali on how Artist does over the years, This is very Important.
Amount of energy, social engagement and reinventing him / herself with mediums, subjects and everything else I believe are absolute quality of a Master in the making!
Regards,
Mehul Patel
http://www.KIPL.Net - New Media Solutions
http://IndyChai.com - India's first Web 2.0 Hyper Aggregated Private Reply to Mehul Patel | | Aug 29, 2008 7:19 am | | re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
sachin kaluskar | | Nice reply Sonali.
Collectors who indefied works of Hussain, Raza, Souza, Subodh Gupta and other masters and bought their works. Have they gone through the process of Understanding Artist, his thoughts, the science behind their works etc?? Or was it a luck that played role?
What is the trick of identifying FUTURE MASTER at a very early stage?? Private Reply to sachin kaluskar | | Aug 29, 2008 7:23 am | | re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
sachin kaluskar | | Thanks Mehul,
I got the answer. Private Reply to sachin kaluskar | | Aug 29, 2008 7:33 am | | re: re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # | 
Nalini Malaviya | | I wonder if anyone at all can predict a Master! What one can do is identify elements such as quality, tech skill, concept, composition and rate them. An artist needs the basic ingredients required to sustain himself, but then a lot depends on galleries/media/luck/etc.
@Amit, one should buy works that one connects to, dealers etc will promote who they have/need to.
And, yes, I feel media plays a huge role in making celebrities out of nobodies & that in turn plays a role in creating the brand.
Incidentally, the term 'Master' implies an expert in his field (In IT, the senior most or max exp techie is designated a Master).
If this was science, we'd all be millionaires :-)
Cheers
Nalini
http://indianartscene.blogspot.com/
Private Reply to Nalini Malaviya | | Aug 29, 2008 7:50 am | | re: re: re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
Sonali Engineer | | sachin thanks but since when did Subodh become a master?
there is a definite science to collecting good work. keep aside every bit of press you read unless it educates you about art and artist. trends can be miss leading if not handled carefully - infact disect the trend as much as you can - let me tell you a little something that happened to me on a currently popular art news forum - when i wrote something on the flip side about a currently popular (read: crorepati!) artist, the post was quietly removed! i stopped posting there and now stick to reading news. BE CAREFUL with everything you do with art. I know art is personal - an aesthetic and all those things but dont you read up before investing in shares and property? dont you read up before you start a business? then why do we all make noise when an investment in art goes sour becoz of misinformation or becoz someone told you to invest. educate yourself about art and artists NOT PUBLICITY!
why dont we make a list of the future masters - what we can do is list the names and when we have reached a sizeable amount lets put it up for voting based on our knowledge and not trends!
what say Mehul?!
sonali Private Reply to Sonali Engineer | | Aug 29, 2008 9:27 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
sachin kaluskar | | Hi Sonali,
Mentioning Subodh's name was a deliberate attempt!! I was looking for reactions when I mentioned Subodh - a Master. But this is what happens. Collectors tend to be lured by media reports and take decisions base on it. Even galleries call an upcoming artists as future master and strongly suggest to buy their works.
Taste changes with time. For example, Akshay Kumar's movie has more chances of being hit than any Old Super Star (If re-released). Because today's generation like Akshay more than other older stars. For today's youth, Akshay is a Master!!!
I definitely do Quantitative and Qualitative analysis before investing in Stocks or other established investment class. But what are the parameters of studying "Art" and "Artists"??
Private Reply to sachin kaluskar | | Aug 29, 2008 9:38 am | | re: What makes a Master? | # |
sachin kaluskar | | COPAL’S TOP 23 PICKS
(FOR JULY ’08 TO DEC. ’08)
Source: http://www.copalart.com/copal-bets/
Subodh Gupta
Anish Kapoor
Atul Dodiya
Rameshwar Broota
T. V. Santosh
N. S. Harsha
Baiju Prathan
Jitesh Kallat
Justin Ponmany
Shibu Natesan
Bharti Kher
Sudarshan Shetty
Surendran Nair
Natraj Sharma
Riyaz Komu
Badri Narayan
Mithu Sen
Rabindranath Tagore
Gagnendranath Tagore
Abnindranath Tagore
Jamini Roy
Nandlal Bose
Old Tanjore Works
I will be happy to have members' views on above mentioned list...
Regards,
Sachin.
Private Reply to sachin kaluskar | | Aug 29, 2008 10:42 am | | re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
Sonali Engineer | | lets start at the beginning Sachin - how many of these artists does Copal have in its art fund? at what price and what is the resale estimates, time lines and gaurantees?
lets have personal opinions based on research here and not anything else please.Private Reply to Sonali Engineer | | Aug 29, 2008 6:17 pm | | re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
Amit Chopra | | If the term "Master" implies an expert in his field then most of the artists I know are already Masters in their own right..There has to be something more than that.
Unfortunately,the field of art is the least codified of all subjects.....and we all have to "feel"our way through.
What seperates a Master from the rest of the crowd?
I wonder whether the question has an answer.
Private Reply to Amit Chopra | | Sep 01, 2008 11:53 am | | re: re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # | 
Cheenu Pillai | | Identifying a master before he becomes a master? Fat chance.
An ordinary artist becomes a Good Artist out of his hardwork and passion. But a good artist becomes a Master only through external forces - promoters, critics, media, vested interests...
Private Reply to Cheenu Pillai | | Sep 01, 2008 11:59 am | | re: re: re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
Sonali Engineer | | recognition of the talent - yes but a master is a master whether he is recognised or not. Private Reply to Sonali Engineer | | Sep 03, 2008 2:04 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
Amit Chopra | | I think Sonali is right...A master is a Master whether he is recognized or not.....most were recognized after they passed away.Also there are a no.of artists no longer much sought out eg Gobardhan aich...who are not in much demand...but there is no question as to where they have reached.
Do external forces make the Master or declare him as one?Who decides when the journey is completed?He himself or the world around him?
Interesting thoughts.
Sonali,Cheenu,Preety....thanks a ton.
Private Reply to Amit Chopra | | Sep 03, 2008 5:27 am | | re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
sachin kaluskar | | Hi Amit,
Discussion is taking an interesting shape. You have reised very important questions.
1. Do external forces make the Master or he himself declares as one???
- - In most cases, external forces have identified hidden talent and those talents have emerged as Masters (in some cases, wested interest has also played a role). If someone declares himself as Master, public will take him as Egoist and pull him down.
2. Who decides when the journey is completed, he himself or world around??
- - Very difficult question to answer. At least, I can't. I will be glad if someone of us can answer this.
In most cases, Masters are identified as Masters after their death because their life journey is over. Those living popular artists (active) are not called as Masters as we always expect THE BEST is yet to come.... Can we call them Future Masters???
According to me, Masters are -
- Having great vision,
- Ability to think ahead of thier time,
- 100% dedicated to their work,
- Never get carried away with external forces (negativities).
Cheers!!!Private Reply to sachin kaluskar | | Sep 03, 2008 7:27 am | | re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
Sonali Engineer | | all these are components
- a masters journey never really ends - he just pops off.
- its not someone declaring him a master... at the end of the day its a joint effort which is realised only over a period of time - and i think thats what we started out discussing - how do you discover the master in the journey?
and no masters are not always discoverd after their death.
also a very important point to note is that a master does not always create a masterpiece - there will be trash along the way but the masterpieces will come to fore.
sonali Private Reply to Sonali Engineer | | Sep 03, 2008 7:43 am | | What makes a Master? | # | 
Ajay Rajgarhia | | Sorry to play devils advocate, but:
Why are labels so important. Does one become better (or does ones work become more valuable) if one is called a 'master'.
Isn't creating art a journey more than a destination.
The appreciation of art is subjective - what is great for one is ordinary for the other. In this case, who decides who is a master and who isn't. How do we remove biases.
Is it a democratic process, or do we take an experts word.
Also, the basis for all judgments is relative, so if an existing artist produces great work, do the older masters become lessor masters.
Or does the list keep getting longer without any deletions. If so, does this not diminish the 'master' tag somewhat.
Sorry, i know there are more questions than answers here.
Ajay
Private Reply to Ajay Rajgarhia | | Sep 03, 2008 9:29 am | | re: What makes a Master? | # |
Sonali Engineer | | Dilp De once told me - 'bachcha ghoda achchaa pakadaa'!
thats why we need/want/desire to own a master's works! thats what art is - discovery!Private Reply to Sonali Engineer | | Sep 04, 2008 11:40 am | | re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
Cheenu Pillai | | "master is a master whether he is recognised or not."
This is a feel good statement. But not a practical one. By this logic, everyone can claim to be a master. When everyone is a master, No one will be a master.
In this very forum Sonali had objected to Subodh Gupta being called a Master. Going by the above logic, what is wrong in calling Subodh a Master ? He is a master whether the world accepts it or Not. right?
This is where I feel a Master is created by external forces. Art may be subjective but there is something called collective recognition, which cuts across not sections of society but across TIME.
A master may create a masterprice which may be lying around in an attic. Whether it gets recognized as a masterpiece or is lost to ravages of time, depends on lot of external forces. The paradox here is we somehow make the simplistic assumption that all masterpieces make it to the podium and the ones that we dont know about were not worth it.
But for Johanna Bonger, we may have never heard of Van Gogh.There may be hundreds of Van Goghs out there who we may never hear about unless a Gertrude Stein, Clement Greenberg, Rosenberg or may be sonalis and Mehuls spread the message.Private Reply to Cheenu Pillai | | Sep 05, 2008 5:51 am | | re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # | 
KISHORE M SALI Fine Arts n Photography | | A very good subject, very good discussion. I am totally with what Cheenu Pillai has said. I may call myself a master, or someone may say that I am a master. For that person I am a master . Only for that person! But a true master is the one who's work stands out in many, is recognized by many... is profficient, different & memorable.
Sometimes a given artist may not be a master but he/she may create a work which may be LIKE A 'masterpiece'. But one work doesn't make a master. Like one century cannot make a Sachin Tendulkar. So 'consistency' over a period of time is one more attribute of a master.
KISHORE M SALIPrivate Reply to KISHORE M SALI Fine Arts n Photography | | Sep 05, 2008 6:06 pm | | re: re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
Preety Kaur | | Recognition is also by people like me and you, recognition starts with one, then second person comes and joins the first, and more follow, so it becomes public recognition. When many show interest in someone (for different reasons), some others do not find any risk in showing confidence, hence the theory of recognition is applied. There are many so called masters with public recognition whom work is nothing but piece of junk. And believe it or not, there are may be masters without public knowledge. Also, quality matters, not quantity. How many works of Leonardo we have, only 25-30 total, but there is not a single question of doubt about his genius. Also, Fetching high prices in auction does not necessarily make one a master. There are many good and bad factors behind all this. All comments are welcome, there is no fight, it is a good discussion and I see many good logics coming out it. Have a nice weekend !! Private Reply to Preety Kaur | | Sep 06, 2008 3:07 am | | re: re: re: re: re: What makes a Master? | # |
Amit Chopra | | From the above discussion ,three things come out which are needed...
1)The Master must have something in him
2) That something must be such that it pulls at the heart strings of the multitude so they are able to recognize him/her as such.
3)There may be someone who showcases that something in him to the multitude.
.....If we could only define that something.....????Private Reply to Amit Chopra | | Sep 06, 2008 4:14 am | | What makes a Master? | # |
Ashok Nayak | | Friends, i think now it need to intervine by a trained expert like me to this valuable discussion
Summery by Amit and my opinion
1)The Master must have something in him
Ashok: Friends, we are here at a global platform and if any artist even make an entry to such consideration, there must be something on him/her, unless he/she will remain un noticed.
2) That something must be such that it pulls at the heart strings of the multitude so they are able to recognize him/her as such.
Ashok: Yes that something is only to pull heart strings towards artist, but it'll never make him/her an master. Master is a complete package , anything master will pick, it'll surprise everybody with its result.And it will only be happen after a period of regular recognition.
3)There may be someone who showcases that something in him to the multitude.
Ashok:Yes initially it needed, but after he/she proves, autometically it goes to multitude.Remember, Art Collectors has a traditional habit to search these new masters.
And finally, there always money and power makes difference in society, so art can not stay out of it, one has to be very very selective and narrative to join others , unless remeber it's an intelectual group, can manupulate anything with a proper logic.
Will come back
ASHOK NAYAK
http://www.ashokartgallery.comPrivate Reply to Ashok Nayak | | Sep 06, 2008 4:14 pm | | re: What makes a Master? | # | 
Priya Pall | | Perhaps at a superficial level a Master must have that X factor that makes him a Master. However, according to me:
1) A master has an understanding of components in contemporary society / culture/ history etc, and is able to communicate the related underlying subtle nuances in a simplified manner to its audience - be his style, abstract, figurative, or narrative. (Subodh Gupta - contemporary Indian village culture)
2) His basics in drawing, applying colour, composition in space, etc. are good. He could be self-taught in these or he could have received training in it. Not only are his basics good but they are so strong that once he has developed his style, he is able to simplify it and create his own distinct, visual vocabulary. (Tyeb Mehta - flat colours, diagonals)
3) If the artist has these two in place - which could take him years of rigorous practice - he then has to constantly be able to move with the times in order to remain an all time classic. (A 1960s Raza is very different from a 2000 Raza. But a viewer can relate to both and immediately recognize his style - in terms of his palette, the brush strokes, etc.)
I would love to get your comments on this. Please take this as a starting point. The more we add to this, the more we will be able to educate ourselves in discerning a serious artist from a gimmick
Love
PriyaPrivate Reply to Priya Pall | | Sep 08, 2008 2:27 am | | re: Interesting and long discussion... | # |
Amit Chopra | | I think this question does not really have an easy answer....most or all artists do the same things a Master does...They paint well,try to gain proficiency in a tecnique(s) and use it to express themselves.
One difference I noticed....a master has a sort of cognition....realization ...originality...about the way things should be...and dedicate their lives to this.
They do not care whether they have arrived or not,,,true...others just know when they arrive....and try to copy them.Maybe I am wrong...pls comment.
Private Reply to Amit Chopra | | Sep 08, 2008 10:15 am | | re: re: Interesting and long discussion... | # |
Sonali Engineer | | Hi Cheenu,
An external force helps bring the talent to fore (or for that matter bring to fore the work) does that necessarily mean that the work is that of a master?
A master artist is the one who does not only have recognition but also the talent. a Van Gogh was always a van gogh and so were our bengal masters - the talk is not only about recognizing a master but whether the popular work is a master piece. yes external forces (especially today) play a huge role in popularizing an artist but does that necessarily mean that he is a master? only time can tell. Yes Subodh has some excellent ideas and he is a good artist but whether he is a master...
i think when we have a voice we should be bloody damn honest and not shy away from facts - you can experiment by simply asking some 'established'(read: wise) collectors who they would call/define as a master.
Hoffman said at the summit - it does not matter whether people are buying Husain or not - we are going to go on buying them!
art is not what is popular - art is art and a master cannot be made - he is born and his work is a treasure - not popular culture.
i rest my case!
sonali Private Reply to Sonali Engineer | | Sep 08, 2008 10:48 am | | re: re: Masters don't grow on trees... | # | 
Filomina Pawar | | What makes a real Master in art is the unique way he/she is able to express himself and creates work that could be visionary or shows society the way society is.
To recognize a work of art value, few things are required from the viewer himself. First of all that he has some knowledge of art history and techniques and materials used to create art. Secondly, he has a flexible mind so he is not blinded by conservatism, especially when it goes about Contemporary and Conceptual art. For a person with these kind of abilities it is very easy to recognize a real Masterpiece or Master. The work itself speaks to you. Try it. If you stand in front of a painting or a sculptor or installation etc. and it hits you like a tornado that you stand perplexed with your mouth open, be sure you met a Master. You can try this out with the old Masters and see what happens. See a Rembrant, a Picasso, Rubens, Duchamp, Margritt, Miro, Appel, Pollock etc, you will see what happens if you let the work speak to you. (By the way this is also a nice trick to figure out if you are able to absorb the emotion a piece of art can implicate) So, in principle, it is very simple.
Of course, to find a new Master will not be so easy, they do not grow on trees. The real Masters are not only Masters but Geniuses too, (which means different that others) because they are born with some eccentricities and other abilities which common people do not possess, what also makes it that it looks they do not fit in society and consequently are not immediately recognized by society.
Private Reply to Filomina Pawar | | |
| |
| |
