Bullets from Chapter 3

• "absolutely no dogs allowed"
  
  -found this odd that dogs are allowed in crits but not the galleries. i know the chapter on crits took place in a different location, yet i cant escape the image of rich women carrying around those genetically produced tea cup dogs. dont rich ladies walk around with little yappy dogs in their purses? ok maybe not but just odd that dogs are allowed in one aspect of art yet not allowed in all... at least i found that interesting.
• "There is something about standing before the object you want and the person you're going to buy it from"
  - this has got to be an odd situation. i have grown up going to flea markets with my parents and my mom is great at bargaining, and i feel thats what this situation boils down to. my mom will walk through a flea market and spot things she wants and get them at half the cost, or pay full price but get like a buy-one-get-one type deal. yet this could be over some seemingly stupid piece of furniture or another wine rack to add to the kitchen. yet with this situation talked about it the book. i can only imagine how odd it is, i feel awkward when my mom haggles for that wine rack. yet this is someones art work, how can you haggle the price of that.
  
• "(collectors can't be expected to carry small change for such trifles)"
  -come on these people are throwing around millions of dollars and they dont have money to spend for coffee and ice cream. so they come with just plastic? even i as a not yet official degreed individual know you need to carry cash around with you. how do these people get the money, positions, and stature without having more common sense. unless its not about common sense but like a trait these rich ppl think makes them appear richer, or better then a common folk. i dont know maybe its me that finds this weird, but i dont understand how you can have few million benjamins but no washingtons, lincolns, or jacksons...?
• "artists tend to view art fairs with a mixture of horror, alienation, and amusement."
  -i guess the horror comes to play in the fact of your work not selling and your work basically bombs. but i wonder how horrific this is when 1. if your in an art fair doesnt that mean you have had success and made money on your way to getting there? or 2 is it even horrific after all the years of crits and the bumpy road it took to get there. i feel the more crits you go through the tougher you become so is i guess im more curious whats horrific? than i would imagine the alienation comes in to what i wrote about before on an artist trying to be haggled to sell their work at a different price. or maybe it comes in when in the end the gallery dealer has say in what something sells for. and amusement i wonder if it comes from watching the rich ppl and how they meet stereotypes or cliches of typical rich people. im not saying all rich ppl play into these cliches or stereotypes but they are there for a reason so im sure some ppl fall into them.
• "if artists are seen to be creating art simply to cater to the market, it compromises their integrity and the market loses confidence in their work"
  -i wonder how often this comes to play in school work and projects. if a student creates work that carters to the professors likes do they get a better grade? and how is this not a possible thing for artists that work for galleries? why would an artist want to not cater to a gallery who in the end displays and sells their work. i understand the theory behind the statement but i question its validity. i dont see how a gallery you keep an artist on commison if their work didnt some how cater to the same ideas of previous work. wouldnt a change in the style of artwork change the likes and dislikes of the galleries? its like a question or idea i feel is almost inevitable. but maybe the art lies in an artists ability to overcome conformity, to stay true to ones self?