A dialogue with Rex Crockett, Arthur Whitman, and Karl Zipser; artwork by Rex Crockett.
KARL: This is the first post at our team blog’s new location, ArtAndPerception.com. What should we talk about?
ARTHUR: The topic of Art & Perception‘s future is perfect.
REX: What do you think we could accomplish? In what direction do you think we should go?
KARL: The most obvious goal for most of us is to become the best artists that we can be. Another goal is to make money doing it, or at least to survive. If Art & Perception is to be useful, rather than a distraction, it should help us with these key goals.
REX: Karl, interaction with other artists will definitely help with these goals you state. With other artists, it’s possible to explore new ideas before you take action on them. Other artists are more willing to experience edgy work. They can see through the rough edges to the inner jewel.
ARTHUR: Rex, I agree about the value of interacting with other artists. But can a blog provide the kind of interaction that would make a difference for the goals Karl states?
REX: Arthur, just to fill you on my background, I’m new to blogging. I heard about blogs, Oh, I don’t know, well, it was long after they were popular. I was not much interested because it seemed just another soapbox form. A fad. And now here’s a confession. I had never, ever, commented to a single blog before I did so recently at Art & Perception! I read the other comments and I went, “Wow. These people really have things to say!” I liked the spirit of the group. It reminded me of how intense, intelligent, socially conscious people are when they get together to talk in real life. 
Clearly, my earlier impression about blogs proved to be wrong. The good blogs are not just soapbox forums, and by good blogs, I mean blogs that really engage people and keep them coming back. I was engaged by Art & Perception. There was actual conversation.
KARL: Rex, I agree about that. There was a turning point on Art & Perception recently. The conversation in the comments began inspire me about my own art, and to influence my ideas about what art could be. This is why I asked the comment writers to start contributing posts this blog. If the comments could be so amazing, I reasoned, imagine what could happen if we started doing the whole blog together.
ARTHUR: I hate to be a killjoy, but I’m really missing Art & Perception the way it used to be, with just Karl posting.
KARL: Arthur, the essence of my solo blog writing before was dissent. I asked questions like, is art school worthless? Are dealers and curators making a mockery of art? I felt comfortable doing this when I was on my own. But when people began to join Art & Perception as contributors, I became super cautious about every word I wrote. I did not want to drive people away by seeming obnoxious or bossy. I think it worked, because the team is together here now. But it more or less killed my writing. That is one reason I’m glad to be just another contributor on Art & Perception now. The move from zipser.nl to ArtAndPerception.com was critical for that.
REX: Karl, the .com aspect of the site is important. We should not preclude profit! Too many good artists don’t make money. Too many students are chasing their tails. In general, the way to make money is to help other people make money. I have found in my own life that the way to be a better artist is to help other artists be better. So an important goal of mine is to help other artists and students. In that way, I believe art itself could be pushed forward. Call it enlightened self interest, if you want, but the above formula really works.
KARL: A big question for us to work out is, how much art business do we want to do on Art & Perception itself? Can we be an interacting artist group and also sell art at the same time? Or does selling art require some kind of fake image that is incompatible with open discussion? Would selling compromise our ability to make honest critiques of each other’s works? Could we be critical when it might hurt sales? Or would good criticism help sales? This is not obvious at all, but I want to believe the latter.
REX: Karl, I know what you mean about that image stuff, but just because some artists have fake public images doesn’t mean it works. We should be setting the bar, not going underneath it. Being straightforward about one’s work has always been, in my experience, very refreshing to collectors. Looking at this another way, the blog is the form of the new millennium. It has already changed politics forever. The news media is being usurped. A revolution is underway. It’s time for artists to take control of the art news dissemination lines as well.
ARTHUR: I like talking to utopians, although–as Karl has pointed out–I tend to be of a more skeptical bent. You express tremendous and admirable enthusiasm for the idea of blogs as a group activity.
REX: Heh. :) Didn’t you know that us Utopians start learning how to handle the accusation that we’re Utopian somewhere around the time we are four years old? We either get better at handling that, or we capitulate. No capitulation here. The whole world turns on a single atom. The only certainty is change.
ARTHUR: I don’t want to puncture your vision here, Rex, but I do want to suggest that individual-centered “soapbox” blogs can also be valuable as well. At their best, blogs such as Karl’s and my own can be powerful tools for expressing idiosyncratic and marginalized voices and ideas.
REX: Well, actually, I’m with you there, Arthur. I singled out the soapbox as an example of badness, but surely, that’s not always bad. A forum for an individual voice can be utterly wonderful. It just usually isn’t. It’s usually a tiresome example of some twit who thinks he’s got something to say.
This is your site now. Join the dialogue. Rex is ready for comments on his pictures as well.
I sure sound pretty sarcastic in that last comment of mine. Arthur? I did not mean you. The Thinking Eye is one of the interesting, provocative blogs.
You ever heard of Theodore Sturgeon, the Sci Fi writer? Someone once said to him that 90% of Science Fiction is bad. He said, “Of course. But 90% of everything is bad.”
That came to known as Sturgeon’s law.
Well, 90% of blogs are bad. So though I was sarcastic, I did mean what I said.
As subjective as “good” is when referring to art, blogs, or anything really, “bad” is also a subjective term. You might declare that 90% of blogs are bad but most of them have value to someone, whether it’s the person creating the blog or the readers who support it.
Good and bad are personal opinions and should be stated as such. As a sweeping generalization neither has much value and in fact can be detrimental, implying elitism.
Tracy,
Note that this is Rex’s individual statement within the dialogue, not mine or Arthur’s or anyone else’s. Also, remember that your interpretation of his words might not be the same as his own.
Thanks for joining in the discussion of our future direction here. Different viewpoints are exactly what we are looking for. Maybe Rex is being intentionally provocative, for the sake of discussion, I’m not sure.
Yes, Karl, I realize that and my comment was directed at Rex’s remarks. I should have made that more clear.
Tracy,
Let’s assume your point that Rex’s remarks do lead in a detrimental, elitist direction (just for the sake of discuss, ok Rex?). What do you think we should do with Art & Perception? Do you see it as a forum, as David suggested in another comment?
Here is a dictionary definition for forum (I’m not trying to be pedantic, I looked this up for my own knowledge):
1 a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business b : a public meeting place for open discussion c : a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas
2 : a judicial body or assembly : COURT
3 a : a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion b : a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities
David seems to suggest forum in the sense of definition #3.
Definition #1 is interesting: the forum is a place for a market, meeting, and public business.
I don’t want to spoil a great start with this site by making it an online market — if that would ruin it. But if it would enhance it, without harming the other aspects (social, artistic/critical) it could be wonderful. When people spend their money, they make a careful selection: they make a statement. In a sense, buying on the blog would be a valuable form of commenting, of participation — in addition to helping artists earn a living. Selling art is a way to expand the readership and keep in communication with the readers. It’s nice to hear artists opinions. I’d love to have collectors commenting here too, with words as well as money. But to have them come, we would want to have something to offer them, right?
I’d like to hear your views. As you can see, I’m quite undecided on the .com issue. It’s childish to pretend that art is above commerce. But that doesn’t mean we want to offer every single work on eBay either.
Tracy,
Obviously that is an opinion. Qualifying every opinion as an opinion is redundant and utterly silly; furthermore, it’s bad style.
The classic reference for that is The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr., but many modern scholars and teachers take exception to Strunk and teach and practice an emasculated form of writing. I prefer to assume that readers are more intelligent and discerning.
I don’t really have an opinion about the direction of Art&Perception. Are you suggesting that you plan to actually offer work for sale through this site?
Personally I have enjoyed reading through the posts on this site in its current form. While I might disagree with some opinions I like hearing them. I am a grown up and can respect a different opinion than mine. Even if the person is wrong:-)
Yes, I’m thinking of definition #3, as well as #1b and #1c.
I have nothing against commerce. I just feel that it doesn’t mix well w/ philosphical and social discussions. If there’s a desire for a store/gallery, I’d suggest setting up a separate site and linking to it. I’m not personally interested in being part of the store, but I like participating in the blog.
Karl,
I’ve been keeping quiet about the sales aspect so far. I know there are strong feelings on the topic.
On the one hand, I don’t think anyone wants to see the site get tarted up by a bunch of advertising. On purely aesthetic grounds, that would suck. Making sales involves a certain amount of push. Inevitably, it does. Getting people to actually hand over their money requires real effort. Has it ever been otherwise?
So I understand the misgivings.
I don’t think any rational person would argue that selling is inherently and necessarily bad though. If one does not sell, one does not survive, so arguing against selling is arguing for death.
So the question, it seems to me, is how to sell without making the site all ugly and without interfering with the conversations. So far, the best I’ve come up with is to move the sales off site while inviting on site inquiries. That is the theory. How to practice it graciously may take some practice, but selling is an art too.
I think this discussion about selling reveals a lack of imagination. OBVIOUSLY we don’t want to tart up the site with ads (look at what has become of Daily Kos, ugh!)
Here is the way I think of it. We as artists would not be ashamed to discuss the details of how to make paint, right? And how to arrange a still life, or frame a composition would not be a problem either.
What about collaborative art? Imagine I post a drawing, Rex takes it further, and then Arthur. That would be cool, right? Didn’t we do that — in writing — with this dialogue posted today?
It seems to me if we are willing to talk about art issues, and even potentially do art together (if we haven’t already started, in a sense), then why this inhibition about selling together also?
The answer is simple: when we look around on the internet at how people sell, it seems lame. Not like something that would inspire high-minded types like us.
This is what I mean by a lack of imagination. If we sell, we sell in a way that ENHANCES the site. Otherwise, we don’t do it.
Now, would someone please explain to me why it is okay for an artist to get his or her hands dirty painting, but that we should be so shy about a critical issue like selling pictures? I mean, it’s not like we are selling drugs or something here. If we sell pictures, it means we are providing something that people want, making the world a better place through art. Is that a bad thing?
So David, Tracy, I understand your reluctance. But I think it is misguided. That said, I do not know how to do the selling thing in an inspirational way — yet. I don’t know how we can have good critical discussions and sell at the same time — yet. So I say, skip the selling for the moment — not because it is bad, but because we are not yet clever enough to know how to make it work. But please, let’s not pretend that selling art is some kind of sin.
Rex,
There is this silly line, “the medium is the message”. Happily, that does not apply to your artwork. Your pictures transcend the media. Can you elaborate on the message? Why did you choose this apparently unrelated group of pictures for this post? I know there is a story here, and I’d like to hear it.
would someone please explain to me why it is okay for an artist to get his or her hands dirty painting, but that we should be so shy about a critical issue like selling pictures?
I don’t think artists should be shy about selling their work. I sell mine all the time. Sometimes I sell to friends, but only when they express an interest. I also invite everyone I know when I have an exhibition, and am not in any way shy about that.
When I have friends over for dinner, however, I don’t do anything that would be considered selling. Some of my paintings are on the walls of course, and if someone wants to see more I show them. But that’s different from actually trying to sell to them. If I was going to try to push a product I’d have a Tupperware-style party, or an open studio, and I’d let people know “I’m inviting you over to see my new work, which is for sale.”
All of us have links on the site to our websites, where any interested person can see and buy our work. I also think a separate gallery site, with links to it, would be great for those who want to participate.
Some things to consider on the subject of selling…
I will admit, on the face of it, that I’m not in it for the money. But I think it’s a mistake to look at selling as somehow ‘dirty’ or ‘beneath me’. Instead, I think it’s important to look at it as a positive exchange for both the buyer and seller. The buyer has money, which they want less than some print I’m selling. I have the print, which I want less than the money. Print and money exchange hands, and we both have want we wanted more than what we had. That’s a win on both ends. Selling does not have to be about used car salesmen tricks to get people to buy stuff they didn’t really want.
I’d also encourage artists to look beyond just selling finished artwork. I sell prints, but I also sell printing services to other artists, and I teach both in person and online, and I accept donations to support the stuff I put on my website. If we call those my four sources of revenue, in the past four business quarters, every quarter has had a different source of revenue. That is, in one quarter, it was print sales. In another, it was printing services, and in yet another, it was teaching. Each source by itself is a very uneven revenue stream, but diversification evens out the flow. That’s true for any small business.
I think there is an inherent problem with selling on the internet. Most people want to evaluate art in person before making a purchase, especially if the prices are in the higher ranges (or unless they are established artists and the buyers know what they are getting). It’s just really hard and requires a lot of energy and creativity and time. We all have different ways of handling our sales, personally I have handed mine over to my galleries who do have the time and energy for it, and coming up with a way to sell work through this site will be very challenging. But not impossible certainly. I think I agree with David at this point, that setting up a link to another site for sales would be a good solution, leaving this one for discussions.
I don’t think selling art is a sin at all. The connection that I feel with someone who likes my work enough to actually put down money for it is an incredible feeling and adds to my enjoyment of what I do. I actively promote my galleries and their efforts to yes, sell my work and the work of other artists. Short of a trust fund or a winning lottery ticket, selling art is the best way to continue doing what we love.
I weighed in at the beginning of this discussion on the "goals" page with comments similar to Paul’s. I’m not currently making art for the money. While I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with selling and don’t view it as "dirty", it doesn’t currently fit into my goals for my art career.
I agree with Karl that we could probably come up with a solution to the problem that will work and not be tacky but instead complementary to this site. We just need to think outside of the box.
I’m just not sure I have any personal motivation into putting effort into those thoughts as sales are not my current direction.
One of the items on my todo list for the admin of this site is to look into creating a single page for each contributor for them to outline some of their thoughts about art and to display a few images of their work. While most of us have websites I think having a consistent format for readers to glean information about each of the contributors would be a value-add to this site.
And while not necessarily about sales it is about promotion and marketing, which I suppose is the first natural step.
Tracy,
If I were in the market for paintings, buying that is, I would purchase your work over the internet in a moment. Maybe one picture to start. My guess is I’d like it better than the image on the internet. Also, I would make suggestions about what I would like to buy, via the blog, ask to see regular updates of the works in progress, etc. I think you are underestimating the value of internet selling.
The idea of a separate gallery site for A&P I find not so interesting, to be honest. How does that differ from our separate blogs, or the galleries that you link to on your blog?
I find the selling aspect interesting, and Paul, you have me thinking. But the answer of what to do here, if anything, is not obvious.
I think getting a group of collectors interested in watching how a group of artists do serious discussion together would be nice for all. Collectors are not going to look in on artists trading links. But if we are doing serious critiques (that is serious work) and striving for something great, it would be fascinating, both for artists and art lovers. Collectors, who have ideas about what art should be, would naturally want to put their 2 cents in. And once they start contributing in that way, it is only a matter of time before they buy something. Nothing cynical there. Why shouldn’t the buyers have a part in the process.
There, this is the beginning of something I think. Just the beginning of an idea, anyway . . .
Lisa,
I like the idea of a page for each member. I don’t think they should be listed in the sidebar though, but through the contributor page.
The reason I like your idea of pages is that it makes it easier for readers to get a quick sense of who is here. It is daunting to check out 15 different blogs and try to get a quick sense of what is going on. But going through 15 pages of consistent format is much easier for a reader. Paul suggested a sentence for each contributor on the contributors page, which is related but different.
I really like Lisa’s idea of a page for each member – it addresses the problem I was trying to solve by suggesting a very brief ‘who is this person’ line along with each name on the contributors page – just as Karl says, it would allow people to get a quick sense of who they are. Karl speaks my mind on the effort it takes to visit 15 web sites to get a sense of the contributors.
But a page for each member allows showing of representative work, and whatever personal info the contributor cares to share, perhaps a brief bio or something along the lines of a ahort artist’s statement. (oh, no! How I hate writing an artist’s statement!)
Thanks Karl, for the compliment. However, if you were to buy one of my pieces from the internet without seeing it in person you would be one of very few people who have done that. I think that perhaps 4 pieces in the last few years have sold in that manner, between myself and my galleries.
Clearly, I don’t have any great ideas about Art&Perception’s selling art concept. I much prefer to do my painting and will simply follow the idea as it evolves here.
Tracy,
I didn’t really mean it as a compliment, just an observation. I was thinking of the work, not your feelings, I mean.
If I buy a picture in one of your galleries, will they wrap it up for me and ship it? Do you have your work in Holland? Do I have to fly to upstate New York to see it?
If I were a rich collector, I’d say, “Oh, send me a couple of those smaller panels and I’ll see how I like them before, buying something bigger.” If this doesn’t happen often, it may not be the collectors’ fault. It may be a matter of giving them the opportunity.
Tracy, I agree with Karl. Your work is near the top of my list to buy right now. I’d buy direct from the internet also and plan on it, when the money fairies deposit enough into my art-savings account, which is unfortunately rather a slow process.
Karl – I agree – the contributor pages will be available via the contributors page – not listed in the sidebar. I’ve got ideas on how to structure this so it makes sense (we’ll need some type of submenu to navigate between the pages). Easy navigation is one of my top priorities when desiging websites.
Paul – what you outline is what I had in mind. Even the artist statement type thing. But I’ve found that writing these has gotten a lot easier now that I have my blog. Many other artists have shared the same opinion on this and after you’ve had your blog for a while longer I’d be curious if you feel the same way.
Lisa, I don’t think Paul has a writing problem.
If we have contributor pages, they need to be highly constrained in format — otherwise they won’t be easy to figure out, and people will be better off going to the personal blogs first. Of course, the goal of the contributor pages is to get the readers to the personal blogs, but in their own time.
Karl I agree – I find nothing lacking in Paul’s writing – but it’s the internal stress we feel while writing that I’m talking about and what I believe he was referring to.
Yep – the contributor pages need to have a consistent format for everyone.
I’m toying with the idea of doing a type of interview with each of the contributors to gather the information for their page. The interview, which would not be strictly formatted, could appear as a regular post and the more constrained contributor page would naturally fall out of this. It would take quite a bit of time to do all of the pages this way so I’m not sure yet if I’m ready to commit to this yet but it’s a thought I’ve had. It’ll all fall out naturally I suspect.
But I need to finish the basic site admin first and get my blog and my studio work back on track and then this will come up next.
Lisa, I love this interview idea. Interviewing is a great way to provoke critical thinking. A certain person whom I won’t name, but who has the initials AW, wanted to interview me but never got around to it. I’m still feeling disappointed.
Interviewing takes much much more time then you would expect. I suggest that we make a system where A interviews B, B interviews C,… Z interviews A. That way we can get to know another contributor better, but one person doesn’t get stuck with all the work. Believe me, you would never ever finish the job yourself — though you might have a lot of interesting conversations.
The most work in interviewing is what you don’t ever think of as a reader — the editing.
A certain person whom I won’t name, but who has the initials AW, wanted to interview me but never got around to it.
Andy Warhol?
Among all these posts and all that talk of selling, I did not see where Karl wrote, “… Your pictures transcend the media. Can you elaborate on the message? Why did you choose this apparently unrelated group of pictures for this post? I know there is a story here, and I’d like to hear it.”
Fine, but this must necessarily be a long comment.
I picked these almost at random. I wanted to show something diverse. The first piece, called “The Oracle” has my exquisitely lovely niece, Atma, as a model. She is 16 now, but she was 14 then. Her passion is theater. As a natural actress, she has no problem posing while emanating a certain beingness. “The Oracle” was inspired by a magical quality she has.
I do not think about these things. If an idea flashes into my mind, I just do it. That painting is a real show stopper and appeared in the last group show I did. It was my ‘graduation’ piece to the “one man show” status. It sold before the paint was dry for 4.5k. I tell the story of that on my website.
The water scene was just to show an example of an outdoor, on the spot drawing. I was sitting on the bank of the South Fork of the Sacramento River with Mt. Shasta to the east. If you click on the picture, the larger image shows every single brushstroke. Brush and ink on smooth paper is a most unforgiving medium. In that scene, I just wanted the cold, clear calm of that dawn in the mountains. I put it there just to show my everyday, working, anti-flashy style.
The Monet knock off I picked to show what a whore I can be when money is involved. I used to make tidy sums doing Monet copies (and this irritated me no end). The original Monet is a poignant piece. I saw it live at the De Young in San Francisco, and it knocked me out of my socks. I have no illusions about mine compared to his. In the Monet, Camille is somehow fading into the clouds, and Jean, Monet’s first son, has a stricken, “What is happening to my world?” look. Yet the original Monet looks like happy, sunny painting at first glance. Camille died only a few months after the original painting was painted. She never got to live to experience the very success she made possible with her love. I wanted to paint her in the full bloom of her beautiful youth, and I wanted Jean to get to have a normal childhood, so this is definitely an ‘kinder, gentler’ interpretation.
The Beautiful Vandal is one of my many Kurt Cobain drawings. I am infatuated with Kurt’s artistry. He was such an anti-artist, artist, and that makes him a true artist. I relate to his torments. I understand his feelings. He was beautiful and terrible (as in thunder and lightning) both at the same time. I have no choice but to work from photographs when I draw him though, so I try to bring something to the photo of my own understanding and feelings. I have tried to contact the Netherlands news agency that holds the copyright on the photo this is based on but so far, no answer. Collaborations? Well, there’s an example. The sticker on his guitar says, BTW, Vandalism: Beautiful as a Rock in a Cop’s Face.
For me drawing and painting is about feeling, or more accurately — passion. That is the motivating force. Some artists are naturally intellectual and contemplative, others are naturally empathetic. In spite of my fancy talk, I’m actually a kinesthetic type. I need to get my hands in it, and I need to feel it in my frame in order to get my mind around it.
I am not much interested in technique any more. I consider the technique only insofar as I have to in order to accomplish the message. Many other artists will always have better technique than me, but when people are walking by, which works make them stop, look, and say, “Wow?”
I am always trying to answer that question. I shall keeo looking and keep trying different answers.
My point was and still is is that selling art over the internet can be tough, not impossible of course but difficult and really time consuming. I say this as an artist and as an art buyer.
I do buy art and would not buy anything for more than a few hundred dollars if I have not seen it in person. I would never pay $1000 (average price of one of my paintings) to an artist I only know virtually for a piece of art that I have not seen in person. The exception I make and have made is if the sale goes through a reputable gallery and if it is work by an artist whose work I have already seen. In which case the gallery will ship it and accept it back if I don’t like it. Obviously the internet is great for facilitating the sale of art and my galleries do a good job of that (although my work is certainly not in the sought after category yet), but as an artist I have learned not to depend on the internet for direct sales.
My personal experience is similar to Tracy’s. I get a lot of inquiries through my web site, which is a great thing, but only a small % actually turn into sales. If I were selling prints or very inexpensive paintings it might be different, but for the price range I’m selling at people need to see the work in person.
It’s also a tremendous amount of work to follow up, close the sale, get paid, deal w/ sales tax, etc. And most people who inquire are just window shopping. I’ve gotten in the habit of passing clients on to the gallery I show w/ and letting them deal with it. I’m happy of course to correspond w/ the client, answer qustions, etc., but I let the gallery deal w/ the actual sales process.
David, Tracy,
Get with it, guys!
I used to be obsessed with
mythe blog site stats. Only a small % of visitors were active participants. Now I hardly bother to look at the numbers. Point is, a small % of participation is not necessarily bad. Just look at what has become of A&P.If we could have buyers like we have contributors, we would be rich now, or well on the way.
I see the collectors as people participating with money as well as words. That could wreck the site, or make it even better.
Karl, Lisa, David et al
I like the interview idea as a way to introduce yourselves to us. And, Lisa, the page for each contributor makes sense to me.
As another artist who works in fiber I am particularly interested in the cross-disciplinary nature of the conversation, since I think the quilt art world is somewhat insular. Painters have generally had the experience of criticism in a formal teaching studio (per Karl’s post a few days ago on criticism) but many quilt artists have come to their work from a less structured education — that’s the only reason I have been able to come up with as to why criticism of a piece of work is so often taken as personal attack, or political badmouthing or with some other strange reaction.
It has been difficult for me to find a forum where artists who work in different media find common ground for discussion and critique. I often feel that when I introduce myself to a painter or sculptor, a heavy iron door slams down between the two of us — it’s not as though I become invisible, but I still often feel as if I am seen solely through the screen of Aunt Betty’s Sunbonnet Girl quilt that was stuck in the top of their mom’s closet.
As for the sales question, as long as the selling is secondary to the conversation and discussion, why not, if it works. I, too, rarely sell my work thorugh the internet, but I do communicate with those who have bought (and might buy some more), those who have been in workshops, conferences, etc. People are looking for connection, and part of the magic of blogging is that connections can now happen though this new media of expression, even when associated with a product (and like it or not in those terms, our art, if we sell it, is a product). Global Microbranding, as Hugh Macleod so aptly expound.
“Where do we go from here?” This contributor thinks that by staying focused on “art”, and sharing one’s observations on “art”, everyone else will be able to see what this group is about, (and be able to see a particular individual’s opinion in this forum style discussion with others). By honestly sharing one’s opinions on “art matters”, others will see from the comments left on this blog how we think and feel about certain aspects of art. This way, “visitors” will be able to make up their minds whether we are “full of @#$%” or not,(or find a favorite contributor amongst the several opinions). In this thread of over 30 comments, I get the (unspoken) impression that no one here needs to sell their art to survive, that everyone is already successful at their chosen fields, and that this is something of a hobby for most. This said, Rex and Lisa have sure done much to make the new site functional and efficient (time and work),(aside from Karl’s original brainchild). Lisa’s idea of the “contributors page” sounds nice; it would introduce new folks to us (allowing them to see “where we are coming from individually”), and would help individual sales, without making the site a “sales site”. To me, one must look credible to potential collectors, it is better to have others that believe in your work, as opposed to just yourself. Having the support of “credible others” really helps to this end, (especially if those folks are successful in their fields).
I get the (unspoken) impression that no one here needs to sell their art to survive, that everyone is already successful at their chosen fields, and that this is something of a hobby for most
Interesting observation Jon. I can see why you come to that conclusion. This is to be the topic of my first post (next wednesday) so I’ll try to explain myself better there.
Tracy – to elaborate on my comment about buying your work sight unseen. First, I would definitely go through one of your galleries for the reasons Karl mentioned. But your blog is the reason I would be comfortable doing so. I’ve been watching how you work through your blog over the last 6+ months and through that source I have no doubt as to the quality of your work.
I don’t think I’d buy just any work off the internet sight unseen as it seems too risky and I would certainly never try to make a living selling art this way. But your blog assures me that there is little risk in your case. Many of the artists on my “want to buy” list have blogs that I’ve been reading. While they may not all be intended as direct marketing/sales tools I think they add a lot of credibility to the artists.
And that I think is the value of A&P as Jon mentioned above not necessarily a direct sales tool (although we might be able to pull that off) but as
a tool to lend credibility, which is very important in the marketplace.
And that I think is what is key for us to keep in mind as we move forward. I’m with Rex in thinking we want to set the bar for being honest and open and not creating some type of “image”.
Although I haven’t bought work unseen off someone’s web site, I certainly have bought work from artists based on nothing more than slides sent by the artist – it seems to me this is little different from viewing work on the website and then contacting the artist.
The key for me was having some confidence in the artist. As Lisa points out, things like A&P can do a lot to build the credibility it takes to get a potential customer to feel confident enough to commit to a purchase.
Susie,
I also appreciate the cross-disciplinary discussion. i have learned a lot about how photographers think about image-making, for example. I’m looking forward to learning more about fiber also. I have spent a lot of time with fiber in the context of paper making.
I’ve been pushing the online selling idea lately, but today I have been thinking about it more and I realize that while it is a fine idea, it is not really part of the implicit social contract of this site as it is now. We came together for discussion. Selling would be a new departure. Realizing this, I begin to take a more cautious attitude about selling. I stand by the ideas I wrote earlier. But I think that perhaps forming a group around the idea of selling would be the way to do it. Art & Perception is a group that formed around the idea of discussing art. It’s important to respect that, I realize.
I get the (unspoken) impression that no one here needs to sell their art to survive, that everyone is already successful at their chosen fields, and that this is something of a hobby for most.
There are other possible conclusions.
One is that art could be the main focus of a person’s life, and therefore not a hobby, but that they have found other ways to supplement their income. Another possibility is that the person already has gallery representation, and chooses to sell their work through that system. I fall into both categories. Perhaps one or both apply to others here as well.
(I have, fairly often, told people that a painting they were interested in buying was not yet available. Generally I don’t offer my work for sale until I’ve had the chance to exhibit it. Gallery and museum shows are an important part of the career I’ve been trying to build.)
Hey Jon, you really set something off with your “(unspoken) impression.” :)
But I do make a living from the sale of art. I have for years. In my life, it IS “sell or die.”
I also make money from my hobbies, like fixing up old houses and selling them. I don’t have to do that, but the extra money is nice while the hard work is artistically restorative.
I paint nearly full time, sometimes more, based on exhibition schedules and sometimes less, based on my children’s schedules. While our family does not depend entirely on my income it is a part of the total picture for us. If it were a hobby, I would have much more time for housework, reading, gardening and many other activities that get pushed aside so that I can paint.
Like David, I am also trying to build a career involving galleries and museum shows.