Well, we were sitting in SFO drinking our coffee prior to our flight to Seattle when I noticed this very handsome painting (oil?, watercolor?) by James Torlakson—one of my favorite photorealist artists. Luckily the fellow sitting in the booth directly in front of the piece left so I could take this snap.
As it turns out, this work has been mentioned in the New York Times:
THE San Francisco airport's heralded art includes both a permanent collection and a series of premier temporary exhibits. Art hangs on corridor walls and in waiting areas, dangles over escalators and moving sidewalks, and lodges in cases along the walls of the tunnels that link the three terminals. . . . Pieces range from such San Francisco scenes as Glorias Cozzo Adams's "Cityscape No. 33," which hangs near Gate 81, to James Torlakson's "Behind Ted McMann's Garage," a stark work mounted in a lounge near Gate 69 that shows an unhitched trailer sitting on rich, dark soil.
***
In the literature of photography I have seen it said that part of the quality of a work of art derives from the amount of physical effort that has gone into it. Therefore, under this somewhat mystical concept, a platinum print—all other things being equal—would have more value than an inkjet print.
I’m trying to get at the essential difference between Torlakson’s trailer and my trailer (shown underneath). Could there be an inherent difference due to his spending much more time creating his work? I mean, he had to (probably) take the photo, re-compose, draw and paint the work.
His description of his working method is as follows:
When I paint an image, I break it down in my mind and put it back together in the second dimension as if it were a puzzle. The pieces of the puzzle are the compositional elements of shape, texture, light, value, hue, line, etc. If the elements are assembled harmoniously, the painting will function well as both an abstract composition and a realistic image.
So it takes him a lot longer. Still, I doubt that you can give it any extra esoteric value due only to the time factor. (And to be honest, getting the right look from a digital file sometimes takes quite a bit of work in Photoshop, anyway.) His is photo-based. Mine is photo-based . . . is a photo, actually. His is pretty big—I wouldn’t be able to enlarge the file that much. (I probably could if I took multiple exposures and used photomerge.)
No. As a Cal State L.A. alumni with an Economics degree (!), I’d guess that the extra time needed to produce these labor-intensive works serves in the main to restrict the output, thereby increasing the rarity value. Supply and demand. An analogy would be to the fine wine market where boutique wineries command premium prices in large part due to their small supply.
Note also that a major difference lies in the market for which both works were created. The painter’s market is a sophisticated one in which a large painting of a trailer can be appreciated and even find buyers. Large scale photos of trailers might sell at a Farmer’s Market, but probably not. (I like to show some things that are somewhat off-beat, but mainly the things that sell are the landscapes.)
So it’s both: the labor intensive limited edition product, and the market. (And of course, other things too. More discussion later, I'm sure.) The difference in audience is between those who attend art gallery openings and those who attend Farmers Markets . I’m hoping that one day I’ll get lucky and have someone at my booth who attends both.
Photos: Trailer (Torlakson), SFO—San Francisco, 2009; Horse Trailer—Marin County, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment