David,

You have done a huge body of great work. Let’s set that aside for now and think of the future. What is it that you want to make, and who is it that you want to buy it?

Or maybe we are judging too early. The art sponsored by the Medici and the art of the Dutch Golden Age carry on their backs centuries of deep thought and reflection that have additionally imbued them with the patina of thought that only time can give to the Twomblys, Stills and the Banksys…

Just my fledgling thoughts..

Karl, I agree, but I don’t think the solution, in this case, is higher prices (not yet, anyway). The prices of my work seem fair. It occurs to me that the problem is the high cost of making the work, and it’s not the materials or processes themselves that are causing this. The high cost is a result of what business people call “fixed costs”, which are the expenses you have whether you produce and sell one unit or a million. The largest of these, for me, is studio rent, and there are a bunch of smaller ones that add up too.

Here are a number of factors that I think contribute to this imbalance:

1.) I have a full-time job, and a full-time studio. Even though I pay for having the studio 24 hours a day, I’m only using it about three nights a week and on weekends. The rest of the time I’m paying for idle space (though it’s important that I be able to leave my work where it is at the end of each session, and not have to set it up each time I go there). If I didn’t have the job I’d be able to use the space more cost-effectively, but I wouldn’t be able to pay for it, much less eat or have a place to live.

2.) The gallery I show with would, at best, have an exhibit of my work every two years. This is because they represent a couple of dozen artists, and is pretty standard. In my case, it was four years between my shows, during which time I produced enough work for at least two, maybe three, exhibitions. The solution would be to get more galleries showing my work in other cities, but this is easier said than done. Galleries as a rule are not looking for more artists.

Since my studio residency ended, I’m taking a break for a few months before looking for a new space. Trying to figure out how to set up a better business model for my art practice.

I was comparing your view of the institutionally recognized art of the past with that of today—the so-called ArtTM. Clearly your view of the former is much rosier than that of the latter. (I do agree with family photos as art.)

The whole business of collectors buying art for primarily mercantile purposes is not new, and is by no means limited to the work of contemporary artists. The fact that this takes place doesn’t suggest that most artists today are working in bad faith. It may very well be that commercialism is too prevalent. But most living artists I know of appear to aiming for sincere communication of some kind. The burden is on you to show otherwise.

I assumed that under your definition, all that was strictly necessary was the emotional engagement of two persons. Probably some kind of intent on the part of the artist is also necessary. If this is so, than the status of arthood is an objective matter: something is art or isn’t. But now it looks as if your definition may be subjective: art for me but not for you. Which is it?

No Arthur,

I’m saying art of the past and art of the present both served the same basic needs. The only difference is that much of the art of the present (the family photo album, for instance) is not recognized as art.

To say however, that most “Art^TM” isn’t art is to say that [it?] has no emotional value for anybody (save perhaps the artist). This is simply and blatantly false.

Arthur, if Art^TM is a representation of what people find important at an emotional level, then it is art, according to the definition I am proposing here and in the next post. I guess the people to ask are the collectors. If they buy the stuff because it serves that function, then they are buying art (even if it is tainted with the Art^TM label). However, if they are buying it because they think it will make them special (like a pair of designer jeans or something) but they don’t really care about what it is (and this is the gist of how Lisa Hunter says that the art world works at the elite level) then that instance of Art^TM might not be art at all. The point is, the Art^TM label in itself is no guarantee of something being art or not, just as the lack of the Art^TM label isn’t an indication that something isn’t art.

The need for art is eternal. The things that fulfill that need are not always called ‘art’. I am interested in the need for art and the manifestations of this need. What someone puts into a gallery may or may not have anything to do with this. From my experience, it is often completely besides the point.

Of course I didn’t mean that your work is explicitly sold at a discount. I apologize if it sounded like that. What I am saying is that you should really be paid for the full cost of the work, plus some profit. Compared to that, you are almost giving the work away, or paying the collectors to store it for you. In fact, that is not an unreasonable thing to do, in some sense. It is a bit like a patron giving a collection to a museum.

Typo.Should have read “a number of things I’m exploring now, after my show, are: how to lower my expenses…”