Last week Niall showed us a small video that proved as an insight into Jack Vettriano and his work. He is the biggest selling artist in the UK and has made millions from his famed paintings that have proven popular with generations of people - but not as successful with the art establishment.
Vettriano and his work have never been directly recognised by the 'powers that be' and have gone without ever being featured in any major art gallery in Britain.
But why is that?
I don't know too much about the establishment and who decides what when it comes to rising stars in the art world, but then again who does know these things, really?
How I understand it at this moment in my life, is this - there are two main paths someone can take when pursuing their career as an artist :
1. You can be picked up by an art dealer and commissioned to create so many pieces in such a way so they can be exhibited and perhaps sold at some point down the road. Continue to create your work, within certain parameters that allow a creative flexibility to a certain extent, but all the while completing your work under the requirements of who you are working for.
2. You may well become known lower down on the scale in the art world, exhibiting your work in local galleries, selling a couple of pieces as you go. Then suddenly you hit the big time and someone sees the potential within your work and picks you up for mass re-production, marketing, advertising and perpetual selling of the work that has made you who you are, all the while being given freedom in what the of work you are creating.
Taking these two outcomes into consideration, it becomes clear to me that isn't always this simple. There are not just 2 possibilities for aspiring artists, what I mean is not everyone gets somewhere with their work. Some might create on the side and paint for a hobby but also possess incredible talent, these people undoubtedly exist all over the world but what I believe it comes down to is the opportunities that are available to these people. Someone in a particular part of the world may not have the resources to create, or lack the financial stability to pursue their creative ambitions. But someone of the same artistic potential and same intentions may live in a more economically stable part of the word where pursuing their dream
is actually possible. As I said this all depends on the persons circumstances.
If an artist makes it to the point where either option 1 or 2 are actual possibilities, I think they would have to decide what kind of career they want. Either way they will most likely make a fortune, and to be honest, either way, they are
bound to create a reputation and in turn, make a name for themselves.
Companies and businesses ultimately seek out these artists because of one thing - money. They can see their paintings re-produced and printed on t-shirts, tea towels, mugs, wallpaper, in a frame, pencil cases, coasters etc. They can see that there is money to made if they pursue the artist in question. This is fine, this is an honourable way to make a living. After all it's your own work that's on sale. The only difference between this and option 1 is that your work is cloned and sold millions and millions of times over, as opposed to your original piece selling for millions and millions of pounds.
With the little amount of knowledge I have on how the art industry works and who the people are that decide what artists make it big or not - I think I understand the basic concept of it. As long as you are true to yourself and what path you want to take, no wrong can be done. But if you take a chosen path for all the wrong reasons then problems are bound to arise. After all who is to say that you are wrong? That you are living your life the wrong way? If you want to be pushed around and ordered to paint a certain type of painting a certain size with a certain brush for a certain person for a certain time then get paid millions for it - that's fine. And if you want to be told all your work is going to be printed on every inanimate object you can imagine all around the world and put on sale - that's fine. It's fine if you want it that way. What's not fine is if you feel that creative spark inside of you is dying, being burnt out by people who ultimately want to make as much money out of you as possible. If you need flexibility and creative space then that's what you want. Some get it and some don't. But who's it all up to? Who decides it all?
It appears this post has created more questions rather than answering any so I'll leave it there.
Once I arrived back in Scotland I visited the National Gallery in Edinburgh with my mum and sister. We were waiting on my brother who had been visiting friends, so we thought we'd pop into the Gallery for a wee nose! We weren't in there very long, but I moved from room to room taking in as much as I could. I didn't have my notebook with me to take down details of the artists and their work so I had to rely on memory alone. The one artist that stuck out for me was Christine Borland. 'L'Homme Double' is made up of 6 clay portrait busts. Borland contacted 6 sculptors and instructed them to create these busts based on the Nazi war criminal Josef Mengel. They were all given the same information - 2 grainy photographs of the man and a selection of quotes and statements made by survivors of the Auschwitz death camp. The quotes were mostly attempts at describing Mengels physical appearance. 
