Mixed Media Assemblage

JohnReid · 2 October 2009, 04:21 PM

I have heard this term used by a fine art gallery to describe dioramas that they have sold .Is this just a fancy name that someone dreamed up or is it the proper way to describe what I do? I thought that you guys might know.

Chock · 2 October 2009, 06:56 PM

It sounds like a case of circumlocution to me, or 'Estate Agent's Disease', as we used to call it back when I wrote for newspapers - i.e. someone using way too many words in the vain hope that it will make them sound intelligent. That's something that definitely goes on in the art world, although to be fair, the term 'mixed media' is certainly correct when more than one material has been used, but typically when more than one type of paint is used on a picture.

The correct description is of course diorama, which may be a word they are unfamiliar with. If that's the case, you should tell them that a diorama is 'a three-dimensional scale scene in which figures and models are arranged in a naturalistic setting in order to portray a real-life event'. They'll probably throw some more unnecessary words into that description and use that as well

Al

JohnReid · 2 October 2009, 07:44 PM

Yeah, that is what I thought.I think that mixed media pretty well describes it.Thanks Al

Tim West · 2 October 2009, 08:21 PM

Art smartz...it's all BS. Call it what ever the hell you want. It's yours!

Chock is somewhat right, galleries I have been to are here for one thing only.... to sell "stuff". Even the co-ops..in the end need to sell art or what ever you call it. So to say "I just spent 5000 dollars on a mixed media piece" sounds a lot more artsy than saying i just blew 5 grand on a scale diorama.

The last opening I attended actually had some dioramas and they also called them mixed media pieces.

And about mixed media...generally when I think of it I "dont" think of paintings. For me paint is a medium and media is a expression of content.

Lol but what do I know....Im just a ignorant bastard

JohnReid · 2 October 2009, 08:51 PM

You are right Tim in the end it is all BS

Tim West · 2 October 2009, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnReid

You are right Tim in the end it is all BS

Indeed

OH! and congrats on the gallery....

JerryBoucher · 4 October 2009, 03:02 AM

'Mixed media' as an art term usually refers to a piece of art (most usually a painting) that uses other materials as well as paint. So, this could be chalk, charcoal, etc. or cardboard, newspaper print, etc.. You can see some examples from, say, Cubism. That said, it can also apply as a term to sculpture.

It's not necessarily fair to say that the term is there just to prop up the egos of arty types and their jargon - it's one factor that curators and those moving or working with any given piece have to be aware in terms of it's construction.

Tim West · 4 October 2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryBoucher

'Mixed media' as an art term usually refers to a piece of art (most usually a painting) that uses other materials as well as paint. So, this could be chalk, charcoal, etc. or cardboard, newspaper print, etc.. You can see some examples from, say, Cubism. That said, it can also apply as a term to sculpture.

It's not necessarily fair to say that the term is there just to prop up the egos of arty types and their jargon - it's one factor that curators and those moving or working with any given piece have to be aware in terms of it's construction.

Maybe it's a generational thing as to how we see the term. With the advent of multi media....our choice of "mediums" is now more than ever.... thanks to the digital revolution...like it or not

So mixed media should carry more than just paint and express ideas through many facets creation. I guess I expect a more modern use of "media" and "mediums" for mixed works.

You're right, I was generalizing a bit but arent galleries there to prop the egos of art collectors? I dont think it's the artist as much as the curators who do what they can to move art. So it's in galleries interest to cater to the collectors ego more so than the artists vision.

JerryBoucher · 4 October 2009, 11:21 PM

Modern stuff used for art would change the classification to 'digital media'. Quite a few artists out there in the fine art world use digital stuff.

Galleries can perhaps being a source of ego massage for some collectors, but not all art on public display is from private sources. I know you guys in the US have to pay to go see stuff, buck luckily in the UK many galleries (and museums, etc.) are free.

Russell Smith · 5 October 2009, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim West

You're right, I was generalizing a bit but arent galleries there to prop the egos of art collectors? I dont think it's the artist as much as the curators who do what they can to move art. So it's in galleries interest to cater to the collectors ego more so than the artists vision.

Not necessarily. Commercial galleries provide a central place for artists to exhibit and sell their work. They are the "store front" so to speak. Someone interested in buying a painting may not have endless hours to browse the internet searching for available works, but they usually can afford a short trip down to the local gallery to see what's new and available. On the flip side, gallery representation can take the burden of marketing and se;f-promotion (and it is time consuming!) off of the artist so that he/she can be free to focus on the creative end.

I've been introduced to the work of some tremendous painters by visiting commercial galleries. No, its not all BS. Its the business of selling art and connecting the the buyer with the artist.

That being said, it is the taste of the collectors that drive the market, not the artists.