Today's postings
- [Baren 37762] Hypothetical question ... (Lana Lambert)
- [Baren 37763] Re: Hypothetical question ... (Bette Wappner)
- [Baren 37764] Exchange 40 is open! ("Maria Arango")
- [Baren 37765] Re: Hypothetical question ... (Dave Bull)
- [Baren 37766] RE: Hypothetical question ... ("Maria Arango")
- [Baren 37767] Re: Hypothetical question ... (carol Montgomery)
- [Baren 37768] Re: Hypothetical question ... (Sharri LaPierre)
- [Baren 37769] Re: Hypothetical question ... (Graham Scholes)
- [Baren 37770] Re: Hypothetical question ... ("Maria Arango")
- [Baren 37771] Re: Hypothetical question ... (ArtSpotiB # aol.com)
Message 1
From: Lana Lambert
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:35:17 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37762] Hypothetical question ...
Send Message: To this poster
I have to give credit where credit is due. I didn't know about Etsy until Dave mentioned it on Baren Forum. Since then, I still have to have a day job but it is part time and I have been able to acquire a public studio in the local art center in my town. I would not be able to do this were it not for my Etsy sales. The current scene here in town is very conservative (not much market for squids and kirins!) and has tightened up as three main galleries in our area have closed due to lack of sales. I have scouted out galleries near my area to approach about selling work (Richmond or Washington D.C.) but most are either cooperatives with monthly fees and commitments that my artist's budget can't handle or high end galleries featuring a list of artists who have already made it into the art history tomes. Point is this: these online opportunities have been the only way I feel like I have a chance of being noticed and not lost in the shuffle.
It's hard enough being a woodblock printmaker much less an emerging artist these days. If someone is thinking of making a roster of floating images for purchase, put me on the list first!
-Lana Lambert
P.S. Stunning New Years Print, Dave! Do the Japanese trade money envelopes like the Chinese do? If so, I hope that there are many envelopes in your future and not just filled with jos papers!
It's hard enough being a woodblock printmaker much less an emerging artist these days. If someone is thinking of making a roster of floating images for purchase, put me on the list first!
-Lana Lambert
P.S. Stunning New Years Print, Dave! Do the Japanese trade money envelopes like the Chinese do? If so, I hope that there are many envelopes in your future and not just filled with jos papers!
Message 2
From: Bette Wappner
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:50:49 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37763] Re: Hypothetical question ...
Send Message: To this poster
Dave,
You said, " I think the idea is to have images used in electronic
'photo frames', where they would be shown in never-ending slideshow
fashion, with a way for the viewers to order the images they want. "
I think your idea is a great one.
Is your idea similar to what I've seen on the blogs of other artists
where embedded widgets continually show slide-show photos of the
artist's works? If you click on that widget it takes you to their
website art gallery or Etsy store or Flickr photo album, etc.
Bette.
You said, " I think the idea is to have images used in electronic
'photo frames', where they would be shown in never-ending slideshow
fashion, with a way for the viewers to order the images they want. "
I think your idea is a great one.
Is your idea similar to what I've seen on the blogs of other artists
where embedded widgets continually show slide-show photos of the
artist's works? If you click on that widget it takes you to their
website art gallery or Etsy store or Flickr photo album, etc.
Bette.
Message 3
From: "Maria Arango"
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:58:33 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37764] Exchange 40 is open!
Send Message: To this poster
The free no restrictions exchange everyone has been waiting for!
http://barenforum.org/exchange/exchange_sign-up.html
Maria
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Maria Arango
http://1000woodcuts.com
http://artfestivalguide.info
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
http://barenforum.org/exchange/exchange_sign-up.html
Maria
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Maria Arango
http://1000woodcuts.com
http://artfestivalguide.info
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Message 4
From: Dave Bull
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:03:19 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37765] Re: Hypothetical question ...
Send Message: To this poster
Bette wrote:
> I think your idea is a great one.
I should perhaps emphasize that this is not 'my idea', nor is there
anything specific planned at the moment (but think along the lines of
the electronic photo frames you see these days). The reason I put the
question to the forum members was to try and get a cross-section of
views on the concept. I was wondering which of these (exaggerated)
views might be most representative of our membership:
Pro) "Sure! I'd put my images out there for people to browse and enjoy
with no hesitation. If it turned out that some sales resulted, and I
had to pay a commission, no problem."
Con) "No way! You think I'm going to let people use my stuff for
_nothing_? Just for the _potential_ of making sales? What kind of
sucker do you take me for?"
I myself lean to the 'pro' side of this one, but as I have learned,
there are any number of things with which many [Baren] members and I
have quite diametrically opposed views! :-)
Dave
> I think your idea is a great one.
I should perhaps emphasize that this is not 'my idea', nor is there
anything specific planned at the moment (but think along the lines of
the electronic photo frames you see these days). The reason I put the
question to the forum members was to try and get a cross-section of
views on the concept. I was wondering which of these (exaggerated)
views might be most representative of our membership:
Pro) "Sure! I'd put my images out there for people to browse and enjoy
with no hesitation. If it turned out that some sales resulted, and I
had to pay a commission, no problem."
Con) "No way! You think I'm going to let people use my stuff for
_nothing_? Just for the _potential_ of making sales? What kind of
sucker do you take me for?"
I myself lean to the 'pro' side of this one, but as I have learned,
there are any number of things with which many [Baren] members and I
have quite diametrically opposed views! :-)
Dave
Message 5
From: "Maria Arango"
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:58:19 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37766] RE: Hypothetical question ...
Send Message: To this poster
I would venture this would be pretty much akin to showing work in
restaurants, physician's offices, hotels, visitor's centers of various
venues, etcetera. My personal and professional experience and that of others
that I have talked to about this is twofold: one, very very few actual sales
result from the "exposure", and two, such venues just love the concept of
getting free décor for their places and their intentions are often NOT to
sell art, but to give artists "exposure".
I recall specifically a "call for entries" from a newly built multi-million
dollar physical therapy facility who got work for free from several artists;
they never sold a thing, as this is not their focus, and when they went
bankrupt the works were considered part of the settlement. The artists were
out a bunch of original work and nothing to show for it. I like to say that
most artists can die of "overexposure".
Unless the principal and sole focus of such venture is to show and sell art,
such as an online gallery, free exposure rarely results in anything except
stolen images. The way of the new generation is to share share share! I know
several youngsters who have thousands of songs and don’t own a single CD or
have ever paid for a single note.
This is an interesting modern development. As the "net" has grown and is now
available on a variety of pocket devices, the logical conclusion is that
there would be a huge market out there for selling through the wide reaches
of internet exposure. However, the "net-generation" has grown up accustomed
to getting things "off the net" for free, without ever giving a thought to
copyright, intellectual property, creative licensing, and such foreign and
antiquated concepts. The music industry is struggling to continually teach
the concept of intellectual property and making good headway to the benefit
of the rest of us "creators".
Venture into the world of MySpace, for example, and you will see songs,
videos, TV clips, movie clips, sports highlights, sports branding, famous
faces, photos of anyone and everyone, and artistic images being shared and
shown without any mention of ownership or credit.
Even more potentially disturbing to the artist-creator, these net-clips are
being modified and the new modern net-socialite posts them on their blogs
and web-spaces as their very own. I have seen an entire set of Clapton songs
re-mastered (for the worse) and posted on an unknown dude's blog. He even
put his own face on Clapton's body and was showing an entire concert with
himself as Clapton.
This "free-sharing" concept has naturally extended into the personal
physical lives of our modern generation, unfortunately. The result for the
modern marketer is that if you give something away for free...well, they
will take it as long as it is free. The idea that once they see how
beautiful something is they will want to purchase it for their very own is
no longer (was it ever?) viable.
If they can see it, they own it, as far as they are concerned. A picture on
a computer is theirs once in the computer and there is not a reason in the
world to want to put that on the wall when they can carry it on their phones
and put it up on their blogs. To the modern young art viewer, an image in a
photo-frame is the art piece itself, no need to get a stupid piece of paper
needing a stupid wooden frame to hang on the wall. Every photo is a
stock-photo, every artistic image is a stock-image.
If an artist wants to sell physical things, you have to show physical things
directly to the buying public when they are in the mood to buy, such as in a
gallery, festival, store or online version of any of those. The only way to
"get them" from a place that is selling, is to buy them, so unless a place
is specifically selling, the buying will not take place. And online
galleries are a dime a dozen, virtually thousands of them on the web.
I think the best online venues for artists are the ones that specialize in
selling a certain "thing", like hand-made, or hand-pulled print? I think if
an online gallery specializing in hand-pulled prints would market widely and
make itself known as "the place" to buy hand-pulled prints to people that
know what that is, then good sales would result from it if it were marketed
very aggressively as "the place to buy hand-pulled prints". If photographs,
digital images, giclees or reproductions of any sort are allowed in the mix,
we're dead in the water because those things don’t' have to actually be
"made" until they are sold and the sheer volume of digitally printed images
obliterate categories in Amazon, eBay, even Etsy is plagued with so-called
"art prints".
The digital image is now an art form, like it or not, and it is a final art
form. There is a cable channel on my television that I encounter while
casually zapping that does just what is proposed, gives a slide show of
stock images. The images are astounding and of endless variety. I love art
and it has never occurred to me to figure out how I could "own" one of
those. In a sense, I already do, and thousands more that I will see next
time I find that channel (relaxing music included).
I guess what I'm saying is that modern buyers would see the slide show as
the final product, not as a catalog to buy. That's just my take on things.
Maria
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Maria Arango
http://1000woodcuts.com
http://artfestivalguide.info
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
restaurants, physician's offices, hotels, visitor's centers of various
venues, etcetera. My personal and professional experience and that of others
that I have talked to about this is twofold: one, very very few actual sales
result from the "exposure", and two, such venues just love the concept of
getting free décor for their places and their intentions are often NOT to
sell art, but to give artists "exposure".
I recall specifically a "call for entries" from a newly built multi-million
dollar physical therapy facility who got work for free from several artists;
they never sold a thing, as this is not their focus, and when they went
bankrupt the works were considered part of the settlement. The artists were
out a bunch of original work and nothing to show for it. I like to say that
most artists can die of "overexposure".
Unless the principal and sole focus of such venture is to show and sell art,
such as an online gallery, free exposure rarely results in anything except
stolen images. The way of the new generation is to share share share! I know
several youngsters who have thousands of songs and don’t own a single CD or
have ever paid for a single note.
This is an interesting modern development. As the "net" has grown and is now
available on a variety of pocket devices, the logical conclusion is that
there would be a huge market out there for selling through the wide reaches
of internet exposure. However, the "net-generation" has grown up accustomed
to getting things "off the net" for free, without ever giving a thought to
copyright, intellectual property, creative licensing, and such foreign and
antiquated concepts. The music industry is struggling to continually teach
the concept of intellectual property and making good headway to the benefit
of the rest of us "creators".
Venture into the world of MySpace, for example, and you will see songs,
videos, TV clips, movie clips, sports highlights, sports branding, famous
faces, photos of anyone and everyone, and artistic images being shared and
shown without any mention of ownership or credit.
Even more potentially disturbing to the artist-creator, these net-clips are
being modified and the new modern net-socialite posts them on their blogs
and web-spaces as their very own. I have seen an entire set of Clapton songs
re-mastered (for the worse) and posted on an unknown dude's blog. He even
put his own face on Clapton's body and was showing an entire concert with
himself as Clapton.
This "free-sharing" concept has naturally extended into the personal
physical lives of our modern generation, unfortunately. The result for the
modern marketer is that if you give something away for free...well, they
will take it as long as it is free. The idea that once they see how
beautiful something is they will want to purchase it for their very own is
no longer (was it ever?) viable.
If they can see it, they own it, as far as they are concerned. A picture on
a computer is theirs once in the computer and there is not a reason in the
world to want to put that on the wall when they can carry it on their phones
and put it up on their blogs. To the modern young art viewer, an image in a
photo-frame is the art piece itself, no need to get a stupid piece of paper
needing a stupid wooden frame to hang on the wall. Every photo is a
stock-photo, every artistic image is a stock-image.
If an artist wants to sell physical things, you have to show physical things
directly to the buying public when they are in the mood to buy, such as in a
gallery, festival, store or online version of any of those. The only way to
"get them" from a place that is selling, is to buy them, so unless a place
is specifically selling, the buying will not take place. And online
galleries are a dime a dozen, virtually thousands of them on the web.
I think the best online venues for artists are the ones that specialize in
selling a certain "thing", like hand-made, or hand-pulled print? I think if
an online gallery specializing in hand-pulled prints would market widely and
make itself known as "the place" to buy hand-pulled prints to people that
know what that is, then good sales would result from it if it were marketed
very aggressively as "the place to buy hand-pulled prints". If photographs,
digital images, giclees or reproductions of any sort are allowed in the mix,
we're dead in the water because those things don’t' have to actually be
"made" until they are sold and the sheer volume of digitally printed images
obliterate categories in Amazon, eBay, even Etsy is plagued with so-called
"art prints".
The digital image is now an art form, like it or not, and it is a final art
form. There is a cable channel on my television that I encounter while
casually zapping that does just what is proposed, gives a slide show of
stock images. The images are astounding and of endless variety. I love art
and it has never occurred to me to figure out how I could "own" one of
those. In a sense, I already do, and thousands more that I will see next
time I find that channel (relaxing music included).
I guess what I'm saying is that modern buyers would see the slide show as
the final product, not as a catalog to buy. That's just my take on things.
Maria
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Maria Arango
http://1000woodcuts.com
http://artfestivalguide.info
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Message 6
From: carol Montgomery
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:17:23 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37767] Re: Hypothetical question ...
Send Message: To this poster
Dear Maria - Your post was very interesting to read. I agree with most of what you have said. One thing that I have noticed about online art is that it does not convey the real texture and colors of the original. Especially with hand-pulled, artist made prints, I think net access is short changing the reality of art. "The new generation" is not educated to see either the craftmanship or the ultimate excellence of the media that is reproduced for online viewing whether oil, or intaglio, or whatever. It is that old problem of secondhand or thirdhand reproduction that minimizes the total impact of an art form. Sincerely, Carol Montgomery, Helena, MT
Message 7
From: Sharri LaPierre
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:27:18 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37768] Re: Hypothetical question ...
Send Message: To this poster
Other than a possible conflict with gallery contracts, it might
work. I think most of us are just trying to get our work out there
where people will see it, and are willing to do almost anything that
works! I still think web sales are an iffy thing unless folks know
your reputation or have seen your work in-person someplace else. But,
as the old saw goes, nothing ventured - nothing gained, and new
markets and marketing are showing up every day.
Cheers ~
Sharri
work. I think most of us are just trying to get our work out there
where people will see it, and are willing to do almost anything that
works! I still think web sales are an iffy thing unless folks know
your reputation or have seen your work in-person someplace else. But,
as the old saw goes, nothing ventured - nothing gained, and new
markets and marketing are showing up every day.
Cheers ~
Sharri
Message 8
From: Graham Scholes
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:47:23 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37769] Re: Hypothetical question ...
Send Message: To this poster
Right on Marie....
You have covered many aspects of the site and potential pitfall so
elegantly....
My observations about the site is too much cheap reproduction stuff.
It is not Art but Imagery
It is certain that one of the happenings when you get involved with
this type of imagery is.... you become that type of imagery. Once you
become categorized it can take a long time to break out of the
catagory..... if ever.
Another thought I have .... there is 14,330 sites (pages) containing
300,930 items. What chance would I have of someone finding my stuff.
Imagery is becoming a dime a dozen... I am sure that most of you have
received Power Point files sent to you by friends.... lots and lots of
interesting images, some poignant and some are nice soft and fuss and
art imagery as subject matter.
The TV’s that are LCD or Plasma are so thin they can be mounted on the
wall... You can have a DVD with many images that can be displayed on
the monitor.... anywhere from 19” up to 50”.... and an new image
every ˝ hour or what ever suits your needs and you choose to program.
You got to wonder when the framed art for the masses will go the way
of the dodo bird. I think I will hang in there and maintain my
present status of trying to doing original collectable stuff...
This site has one possible advantage.... Gallery curators could
check the see if the Artist they are considering has appropriated some
imagery off of this site. Some call it referencing ideas... As the
saying goes, “copying is the greatest form of flatter”. I can’t
imagine how boring it is to copy art... but then it is a learning form
and in time them‘s that do will move on from the Craft of, to the
Creative Plateau of...... which is the fun part of the fun.... ( I would venture this would be pretty much akin to showing work in
> restaurants, physician's offices, hotels, visitor's centers of various
> venues, etcetera. My personal and professional experience and that
> of others
> that I have talked to about this is twofold: one, very very few
> actual sales
> result from the "exposure", and two, such venues just love the
> concept of
> getting free décor for their places and their intentions are often
> NOT to
> sell art, but to give artists "exposure".
> I recall specifically a "call for entries" from a newly built multi-
> million
> dollar physical therapy facility who got work for free from several
> artists;
> they never sold a thing, as this is not their focus, and when they
> went
> bankrupt the works were considered part of the settlement. The
> artists were
> out a bunch of original work and nothing to show for it. I like to
> say that
> most artists can die of "overexposure".
>
> Unless the principal and sole focus of such venture is to show and
> sell art,
> such as an online gallery, free exposure rarely results in anything
> except
> stolen images. The way of the new generation is to share share
> share! I know
> several youngsters who have thousands of songs and don’t own a
> single CD or
> have ever paid for a single note.
>
> This is an interesting modern development. As the "net" has grown
> and is now
> available on a variety of pocket devices, the logical conclusion is
> that
> there would be a huge market out there for selling through the wide
> reaches
> of internet exposure. However, the "net-generation" has grown up
> accustomed
> to getting things "off the net" for free, without ever giving a
> thought to
> copyright, intellectual property, creative licensing, and such
> foreign and
> antiquated concepts. The music industry is struggling to continually
> teach
> the concept of intellectual property and making good headway to the
> benefit
> of the rest of us "creators".
>
> Venture into the world of MySpace, for example, and you will see
> songs,
> videos, TV clips, movie clips, sports highlights, sports branding,
> famous
> faces, photos of anyone and everyone, and artistic images being
> shared and
> shown without any mention of ownership or credit.
> Even more potentially disturbing to the artist-creator, these net-
> clips are
> being modified and the new modern net-socialite posts them on their
> blogs
> and web-spaces as their very own. I have seen an entire set of
> Clapton songs
> re-mastered (for the worse) and posted on an unknown dude's blog. He
> even
> put his own face on Clapton's body and was showing an entire concert
> with
> himself as Clapton.
>
> This "free-sharing" concept has naturally extended into the personal
> physical lives of our modern generation, unfortunately. The result
> for the
> modern marketer is that if you give something away for free...well,
> they
> will take it as long as it is free. The idea that once they see how
> beautiful something is they will want to purchase it for their very
> own is
> no longer (was it ever?) viable.
> If they can see it, they own it, as far as they are concerned. A
> picture on
> a computer is theirs once in the computer and there is not a reason
> in the
> world to want to put that on the wall when they can carry it on
> their phones
> and put it up on their blogs. To the modern young art viewer, an
> image in a
> photo-frame is the art piece itself, no need to get a stupid piece
> of paper
> needing a stupid wooden frame to hang on the wall. Every photo is a
> stock-photo, every artistic image is a stock-image.
>
> If an artist wants to sell physical things, you have to show
> physical things
> directly to the buying public when they are in the mood to buy, such
> as in a
> gallery, festival, store or online version of any of those. The only
> way to
> "get them" from a place that is selling, is to buy them, so unless a
> place
> is specifically selling, the buying will not take place. And online
> galleries are a dime a dozen, virtually thousands of them on the web.
>
> I think the best online venues for artists are the ones that
> specialize in
> selling a certain "thing", like hand-made, or hand-pulled print? I
> think if
> an online gallery specializing in hand-pulled prints would market
> widely and
> make itself known as "the place" to buy hand-pulled prints to people
> that
> know what that is, then good sales would result from it if it were
> marketed
> very aggressively as "the place to buy hand-pulled prints". If
> photographs,
> digital images, giclees or reproductions of any sort are allowed in
> the mix,
> we're dead in the water because those things don’t' have to actually
> be
> "made" until they are sold and the sheer volume of digitally printed
> images
> obliterate categories in Amazon, eBay, even Etsy is plagued with so-
> called
> "art prints".
>
> The digital image is now an art form, like it or not, and it is a
> final art
> form. There is a cable channel on my television that I encounter while
> casually zapping that does just what is proposed, gives a slide show
> of
> stock images. The images are astounding and of endless variety. I
> love art
> and it has never occurred to me to figure out how I could "own" one of
> those. In a sense, I already do, and thousands more that I will see
> next
> time I find that channel (relaxing music included).
>
> I guess what I'm saying is that modern buyers would see the slide
> show as
> the final product, not as a catalog to buy. That's just my take on
> things.
> Maria
>
> O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
> Maria Arango
> http://1000woodcuts.com
> http://artfestivalguide.info
> O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
>
>
You have covered many aspects of the site and potential pitfall so
elegantly....
My observations about the site is too much cheap reproduction stuff.
It is not Art but Imagery
It is certain that one of the happenings when you get involved with
this type of imagery is.... you become that type of imagery. Once you
become categorized it can take a long time to break out of the
catagory..... if ever.
Another thought I have .... there is 14,330 sites (pages) containing
300,930 items. What chance would I have of someone finding my stuff.
Imagery is becoming a dime a dozen... I am sure that most of you have
received Power Point files sent to you by friends.... lots and lots of
interesting images, some poignant and some are nice soft and fuss and
art imagery as subject matter.
The TV’s that are LCD or Plasma are so thin they can be mounted on the
wall... You can have a DVD with many images that can be displayed on
the monitor.... anywhere from 19” up to 50”.... and an new image
every ˝ hour or what ever suits your needs and you choose to program.
You got to wonder when the framed art for the masses will go the way
of the dodo bird. I think I will hang in there and maintain my
present status of trying to doing original collectable stuff...
This site has one possible advantage.... Gallery curators could
check the see if the Artist they are considering has appropriated some
imagery off of this site. Some call it referencing ideas... As the
saying goes, “copying is the greatest form of flatter”. I can’t
imagine how boring it is to copy art... but then it is a learning form
and in time them‘s that do will move on from the Craft of, to the
Creative Plateau of...... which is the fun part of the fun.... ( I would venture this would be pretty much akin to showing work in
> restaurants, physician's offices, hotels, visitor's centers of various
> venues, etcetera. My personal and professional experience and that
> of others
> that I have talked to about this is twofold: one, very very few
> actual sales
> result from the "exposure", and two, such venues just love the
> concept of
> getting free décor for their places and their intentions are often
> NOT to
> sell art, but to give artists "exposure".
> I recall specifically a "call for entries" from a newly built multi-
> million
> dollar physical therapy facility who got work for free from several
> artists;
> they never sold a thing, as this is not their focus, and when they
> went
> bankrupt the works were considered part of the settlement. The
> artists were
> out a bunch of original work and nothing to show for it. I like to
> say that
> most artists can die of "overexposure".
>
> Unless the principal and sole focus of such venture is to show and
> sell art,
> such as an online gallery, free exposure rarely results in anything
> except
> stolen images. The way of the new generation is to share share
> share! I know
> several youngsters who have thousands of songs and don’t own a
> single CD or
> have ever paid for a single note.
>
> This is an interesting modern development. As the "net" has grown
> and is now
> available on a variety of pocket devices, the logical conclusion is
> that
> there would be a huge market out there for selling through the wide
> reaches
> of internet exposure. However, the "net-generation" has grown up
> accustomed
> to getting things "off the net" for free, without ever giving a
> thought to
> copyright, intellectual property, creative licensing, and such
> foreign and
> antiquated concepts. The music industry is struggling to continually
> teach
> the concept of intellectual property and making good headway to the
> benefit
> of the rest of us "creators".
>
> Venture into the world of MySpace, for example, and you will see
> songs,
> videos, TV clips, movie clips, sports highlights, sports branding,
> famous
> faces, photos of anyone and everyone, and artistic images being
> shared and
> shown without any mention of ownership or credit.
> Even more potentially disturbing to the artist-creator, these net-
> clips are
> being modified and the new modern net-socialite posts them on their
> blogs
> and web-spaces as their very own. I have seen an entire set of
> Clapton songs
> re-mastered (for the worse) and posted on an unknown dude's blog. He
> even
> put his own face on Clapton's body and was showing an entire concert
> with
> himself as Clapton.
>
> This "free-sharing" concept has naturally extended into the personal
> physical lives of our modern generation, unfortunately. The result
> for the
> modern marketer is that if you give something away for free...well,
> they
> will take it as long as it is free. The idea that once they see how
> beautiful something is they will want to purchase it for their very
> own is
> no longer (was it ever?) viable.
> If they can see it, they own it, as far as they are concerned. A
> picture on
> a computer is theirs once in the computer and there is not a reason
> in the
> world to want to put that on the wall when they can carry it on
> their phones
> and put it up on their blogs. To the modern young art viewer, an
> image in a
> photo-frame is the art piece itself, no need to get a stupid piece
> of paper
> needing a stupid wooden frame to hang on the wall. Every photo is a
> stock-photo, every artistic image is a stock-image.
>
> If an artist wants to sell physical things, you have to show
> physical things
> directly to the buying public when they are in the mood to buy, such
> as in a
> gallery, festival, store or online version of any of those. The only
> way to
> "get them" from a place that is selling, is to buy them, so unless a
> place
> is specifically selling, the buying will not take place. And online
> galleries are a dime a dozen, virtually thousands of them on the web.
>
> I think the best online venues for artists are the ones that
> specialize in
> selling a certain "thing", like hand-made, or hand-pulled print? I
> think if
> an online gallery specializing in hand-pulled prints would market
> widely and
> make itself known as "the place" to buy hand-pulled prints to people
> that
> know what that is, then good sales would result from it if it were
> marketed
> very aggressively as "the place to buy hand-pulled prints". If
> photographs,
> digital images, giclees or reproductions of any sort are allowed in
> the mix,
> we're dead in the water because those things don’t' have to actually
> be
> "made" until they are sold and the sheer volume of digitally printed
> images
> obliterate categories in Amazon, eBay, even Etsy is plagued with so-
> called
> "art prints".
>
> The digital image is now an art form, like it or not, and it is a
> final art
> form. There is a cable channel on my television that I encounter while
> casually zapping that does just what is proposed, gives a slide show
> of
> stock images. The images are astounding and of endless variety. I
> love art
> and it has never occurred to me to figure out how I could "own" one of
> those. In a sense, I already do, and thousands more that I will see
> next
> time I find that channel (relaxing music included).
>
> I guess what I'm saying is that modern buyers would see the slide
> show as
> the final product, not as a catalog to buy. That's just my take on
> things.
> Maria
>
> O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
> Maria Arango
> http://1000woodcuts.com
> http://artfestivalguide.info
> O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
>
>
Message 9
From: "Maria Arango"
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:05:31 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37770] Re: Hypothetical question ...
Send Message: To this poster
> > "Do you think there are many printmakers/artists out there who would
> be
> > interested in having their work exposed in an environment where many
> > people would see it, with the proviso that if viewers wanted to
> > purchase the work, a commission would be payable to the venue where
> the
> > work was being shown?"
Just another point to add to the discussion regarding that "if" above
(...proviso that _if_ viewers wanted to purchase...).
Again, in my experience, "selling art" is very much an active endeavor. Many
artists are under the impression that if they get enough exposure to enough
people that their art will "sell itself".
In 9 years of actively selling, I can count on one hand the number of people
that walked into my booth and said: "I want that", although it has happened.
Even when we place our art in an obvious selling format (art festival,
gallery, etc.), tagged and shiny and ready for a new home, AND we surround
ourselves with plenty of buyers with ready wallets, closing the sale is
another art that requires willful activity on the part of the seller.
Selling art rarely just "happens" as a result of exposure. Some gentle yet
stubborn pushing is almost always required.
Maria
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Maria Arango
http://1000woodcuts.com
http://artfestivalguide.info
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
> be
> > interested in having their work exposed in an environment where many
> > people would see it, with the proviso that if viewers wanted to
> > purchase the work, a commission would be payable to the venue where
> the
> > work was being shown?"
Just another point to add to the discussion regarding that "if" above
(...proviso that _if_ viewers wanted to purchase...).
Again, in my experience, "selling art" is very much an active endeavor. Many
artists are under the impression that if they get enough exposure to enough
people that their art will "sell itself".
In 9 years of actively selling, I can count on one hand the number of people
that walked into my booth and said: "I want that", although it has happened.
Even when we place our art in an obvious selling format (art festival,
gallery, etc.), tagged and shiny and ready for a new home, AND we surround
ourselves with plenty of buyers with ready wallets, closing the sale is
another art that requires willful activity on the part of the seller.
Selling art rarely just "happens" as a result of exposure. Some gentle yet
stubborn pushing is almost always required.
Maria
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Maria Arango
http://1000woodcuts.com
http://artfestivalguide.info
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Message 10
From: ArtSpotiB # aol.com
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:06:27 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37771] Re: Hypothetical question ...
Send Message: To this poster
Hello Friends.
Just a remark here on paperwork business dealings with venues. If you are
taking work/s to a venue for display, bring multiple copies of the below
paperwork. It can be attached to the agreement/contract even if "not used". I do
this in all circumstances but for works in a juried group show. Even in that
case I write the wholesale price on the paperwork.
Also: Be prepared! A wholesale list is a great item for estate valuation,
protecting you from IRS assumptions. Too bad Andy Warhol didn't have one. They
took even napkins and doodles as full works of art to tax.
ON THAT LIST when you go to show your work to a venue/drop it off/install a
show...
day, date
FULL contact info of both parties
signature lines with name/role below. Include a date on each line of
signature (makes it legal).
WHOLESALE Price (have a logical method, this protects not only you but your
patron's insurance claims)
List of all works being considered (you can cross out those that they
declined)
measurements, date of each work, medium, year
your contract should be sure to include:
payment schedule (how many days past when they receive the $ that you get
yours)
geographical limitation (keep it small)
time limitation of representation (with renewal by both parties in future)
as well as the agreement on who pays what for receptions, publicity, general
mailings, etc.
MOST of the art consultants and dealers out there are wonderful people with
great business sense and professionalism. So many are lovers of art... in a
very tough field. Every once in a while an art business gets caught without money
and can, in desperation, behave poorly towards artists in the effort to stay
afloat. A very, very rare one is an opportunist. If you paperwork is tight,
you're not an easy target....whatever the circumstance.
I've been in situation with various venues who were reputed to have financial
difficulties. And with ones who closed suddenly with my work in hand (and me
out of state, far away). With venues who had a silent partner who "owned" the
works after visible partner died. And with ones who I heard "didn't pay" when
the money came in, instead paying the artist either very late or never. With
ones who gave discounts out of the artist price only. With... well, you get the
picture. I've NEVER had a single difficulty, not even asked for those things.
I've had a wonderful time!
If you have your paperwork in order, there's not much wiggle room and you
appear professionally prepared.
Hope that this is helpful. The current dialog is fascinating! Let's hear more
on the wall mounted, changing art screen, eh?
ArtSpot Out
Benny Alba in studio
"It is neither wealth nor splendor, but tranquility and
occupation, which give happiness."
--Thomas Jefferson
Just a remark here on paperwork business dealings with venues. If you are
taking work/s to a venue for display, bring multiple copies of the below
paperwork. It can be attached to the agreement/contract even if "not used". I do
this in all circumstances but for works in a juried group show. Even in that
case I write the wholesale price on the paperwork.
Also: Be prepared! A wholesale list is a great item for estate valuation,
protecting you from IRS assumptions. Too bad Andy Warhol didn't have one. They
took even napkins and doodles as full works of art to tax.
ON THAT LIST when you go to show your work to a venue/drop it off/install a
show...
day, date
FULL contact info of both parties
signature lines with name/role below. Include a date on each line of
signature (makes it legal).
WHOLESALE Price (have a logical method, this protects not only you but your
patron's insurance claims)
List of all works being considered (you can cross out those that they
declined)
measurements, date of each work, medium, year
your contract should be sure to include:
payment schedule (how many days past when they receive the $ that you get
yours)
geographical limitation (keep it small)
time limitation of representation (with renewal by both parties in future)
as well as the agreement on who pays what for receptions, publicity, general
mailings, etc.
MOST of the art consultants and dealers out there are wonderful people with
great business sense and professionalism. So many are lovers of art... in a
very tough field. Every once in a while an art business gets caught without money
and can, in desperation, behave poorly towards artists in the effort to stay
afloat. A very, very rare one is an opportunist. If you paperwork is tight,
you're not an easy target....whatever the circumstance.
I've been in situation with various venues who were reputed to have financial
difficulties. And with ones who closed suddenly with my work in hand (and me
out of state, far away). With venues who had a silent partner who "owned" the
works after visible partner died. And with ones who I heard "didn't pay" when
the money came in, instead paying the artist either very late or never. With
ones who gave discounts out of the artist price only. With... well, you get the
picture. I've NEVER had a single difficulty, not even asked for those things.
I've had a wonderful time!
If you have your paperwork in order, there's not much wiggle room and you
appear professionally prepared.
Hope that this is helpful. The current dialog is fascinating! Let's hear more
on the wall mounted, changing art screen, eh?
ArtSpot Out
Benny Alba in studio
"It is neither wealth nor splendor, but tranquility and
occupation, which give happiness."
--Thomas Jefferson