Ok, I’ve been kind of discouraged lately. I came across a posting on an artist’s blog that said the CIA backed the Abstract Expressionists. Now, I’m not big on conspiracy theories, even though apparently there has been at least one book on the subject (let me tell you, this is all really big news to me–never heard of this before) and I figured that this was just a realist painter who didn’t like abstract art, which btw I happen to love.

BUT, then I came across an article in the New Yorker Magazine on the same subject. Now, I figure the New Yorker isn’t going to write about some fly by night conspiracy theory unless there is something to it. And the story in the New Yorker talks about Abstract Expression and the CIA. (You’re just going to have to Google it, if you want to find out more about all of this.) The article says that the evidence is “circumstantial.” But, the way I read it it’s pretty convincing circumstantial evidence and it’s in the New Yorker, not some Joe-Blow tabloid in the middle of nowhere.

If it’s true, the whole rational behind the CIA financially backing the Abstract Expressionist during the Cold War was supposed to show the Communist that America appreciated freedom of expression and it was an attempt to get the art center away from Europe to the United State–which did happen.

So what does this say about the state of the art world and the prospects of your average artist whose either trying to make a living or break into the New York gallery scene, or even your average gallery?

If it’s true it means that major movers and shakers way beyond anyone’s control are deciding who succeeds in the art world and who doesn’t.

Now let me just be truly paranoid here. Before 911 the “Academic” realists couldn’t get their foot in the door in New York City. After 911 Academic painters became really big stuff and now they’re everywhere. Not that I don’t think some of the Academic painters like Jacob Collins aren’t brilliant, I do.

But maybe the powers that be wanted culture to reflect an earlier, safer time. Certainly a lot of the realist art out there reflects that. Sometimes I feel culturally like I’m back in the 1850’s.

So I find all of this CIA stuff very discouraging, and I’m still trying to figure out what to really make of it.

A lot of people price art by the square inch. I have a hard time with this concept. The rational behind this is that large paintings take longer than small paintings and are therefore more valuable (I have no argument there.)

However, by pricing by the square inch a body of art work could range in price from $200 to $18,000. It is certainly possible that the $200 price is way too low for a work of art and the $18,000 price is way too high.

It may take a very long time for an artist to do a small painting, and a $200 price could be inappropriate. By the same token, the artist may have never sold a painting over $4,000 and to price an art work at $18,000 could make an artwork more difficult to sell.

My own feeling is that if people are going to price a painting by the square inch, it might be a good idea to settle on a price for a medium size work of art work, have the square inch of the smaller paintings be a little more and the square inch of the larger paintings be a little less.

This creates a more uniform and realistic pricing range for the art buyer.

Mary Baker

Some dear soul found my website with the search inquire “How do you know that you are an artist?”–A poignant question. My guess is that if someone is already asking themselves that question, they are an artist.

The question I used to ask myself was “How do you know if you are a good artist? Is it just technical expertise, or is it something else?”

Almost 20 years ago I was able to answer that question.

I was given an opportunity to sit down and ruminate at length with a friend of mine about what I thought was a random group of paintings. What I discovered, after much thought and discussion, was that these were not a “random” group of paintings at all, but were actually an unconscious outer expression of a direction my life had taken. It was as if a light bulb had gone on, all of a sudden I realized that what I was painting was authentic and true. And ever since that time I’ve had a strong belief, despite a variety of circumstances, that yes indeed, I am a good artist.

Mary Baker

People think that being an artist is simple you just show up and paint, sculpt, write, act, dance, etc. Not so. To be successful, an artist needs to know the business side of art. Artists need to think of themselves as entrepreneurs and except the fact that the business side of art takes up a lot of time.

When I talk to young artists or even older artists, I am amazed that the business part of art is not something they think about. So, for starters I wrote an article on Art, Artists and Money that addresses a few of the basic business issues that artists need to think about.

Mary Baker

I have known a number of political activists and many of them are artists–painters, writers, filmmakers, actors, sculptors, graphic designers. This had me thinking about why artists make such good political activists.

One of the reasons I think is that artists make such good political activists is because they understand how to make something out of “just an idea.”

It takes a certain amount of audacity to be an artist, to actually take time and resources to make your idea concrete. This is also true of political activists.

Artists are persistent; it takes a willingness not to give up, against all odds, a trait absolutely necessary for people who want political things to happen.

Artists also can be non-conformists. Political activist go against the grain and this often is part of an artist’s personality.

Being a political activist has been my “hobby” for the last 6 years. I’ve started a local political blog. I’m interested to see if blogging is as successful for talking about local political issues as it is for talking about art.