Thanks for posting this Erin. I see this in response to our conversation on Zombie Formalism, Casualism, and all the other -isms that are growing in "fame". Noah Charney does address the aspect of how elite the art market can be, and that the "Affordable Art Fair" paradox is a big money maker for the average person that wants to buy artwork.
However, I see that the multi-billionaires are the ones that still start the trends for what is considered valuable artwork or worth having, creating a buzz, and someone at these affordable art fairs is just looking for what they love, but also what they think is valuable.
I think one way that this relates to us now is the fact that many of us might have decided to continue going to Graduate school in the hopes of creating that "buzz" or "fame" around our artwork, and to get into one of these markets. So, I personally think it is interesting to watch all of these online sites popping up to sell artwork from people who may be Zombie Formalists or just amateurs-- like Patreon and ArtOpen-- where these days people love spending money online to support artists, for prints or copies of an original. I question as to whether in the next 10 years, we might find that people want to buy more work online? Not everyone can travel to those "day in a life of an elite art collector" Art Fairs that allows them to show off their small wealth and fell the "buzz" in the moment of artists that are getting off the ground.
buzz...lol...totally. i think it is becoming more and more online opportunities. its like this secondary market...thirdly-ary? But then I look at Artspace and there are people we know on it so its like a many-layered cake...everyone wanting to be in that top whip-cream frosting layer... I think the most important think is make the work you want. always and forever. if your heart is in it, that's all that counts. online can just create more opportunities for others to see it. I guess Instagram-it-up...haha... sometimes I think about when we colonize mars and there won't be any art left because we've mined the worlds resources of pigments so everyone is making digital art...weird. possible. weird. !
I like this conversation too, and really struggle with my seemingly contradictory desire to avoid elitism while simultaneously supporting myself on my artwork. It seems that the music industry navigates these poles a bit more easily; there are things that an average consumer can purchase to support a musician at any price point, famous or not. I don't necessarily think that the visual arts work in the same way, and really have a hard time pricing my work. One way I have sort of begun to solve this is simply by creating a variety of sizes of work (there are conceptual components to that decision too, but increasing access to my work was also important to me when I consider who typically looks at and buys art). Larger paintings are obviously more expensive than smaller ones, and I also think that a small painting is something that can be kept more easily than a large painting; that is, a small painting seems more likely to be held on to without being limited by transport, and housing space. Three out of the four smaller paintings I had in my show sold, and that felt really encouraging to me, knowing that the support wasn't just coming from people who have copious amounts of money. That being said, fame changes the game. I don't feel like that system could hold if there was a surge of interest in my work. An attempt to make a famous painter's work affordable makes the opposite of sense when it comes to making money for the artist, the collector, or the gallery. Maybe one solution to this is considering public works vs. work that is privately owned/collected? I have been thinking about the floral murals that Mick just finished with Pastel, and how those function within a city or community. That mural is essentially owned by the public (though of course it technically was commissioned by the property owner/city/etc), and becomes part of a daily experience for hundreds of people which to me is what I would want for my paintings rather than to be bought simply to be sold. But is that the same as owning an object and having that intimate relationship with it? I mean...no. It isn't! You can't own a wall in the same way you can own a smaller painting - you can't hold it. But it is a way to circumnavigate the whole capitalist value system, or at least in my mind it is.
(I feel like that response is all over the place...)
Thanks for posting this Erin. I see this in response to our conversation on Zombie Formalism, Casualism, and all the other -isms that are growing in "fame". Noah Charney does address the aspect of how elite the art market can be, and that the "Affordable Art Fair" paradox is a big money maker for the average person that wants to buy artwork.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I see that the multi-billionaires are the ones that still start the trends for what is considered valuable artwork or worth having, creating a buzz, and someone at these affordable art fairs is just looking for what they love, but also what they think is valuable.
I think one way that this relates to us now is the fact that many of us might have decided to continue going to Graduate school in the hopes of creating that "buzz" or "fame" around our artwork, and to get into one of these markets. So, I personally think it is interesting to watch all of these online sites popping up to sell artwork from people who may be Zombie Formalists or just amateurs-- like Patreon and ArtOpen-- where these days people love spending money online to support artists, for prints or copies of an original. I question as to whether in the next 10 years, we might find that people want to buy more work online? Not everyone can travel to those "day in a life of an elite art collector" Art Fairs that allows them to show off their small wealth and fell the "buzz" in the moment of artists that are getting off the ground.
buzz...lol...totally. i think it is becoming more and more online opportunities. its like this secondary market...thirdly-ary? But then I look at Artspace and there are people we know on it so its like a many-layered cake...everyone wanting to be in that top whip-cream frosting layer... I think the most important think is make the work you want. always and forever. if your heart is in it, that's all that counts. online can just create more opportunities for others to see it. I guess Instagram-it-up...haha... sometimes I think about when we colonize mars and there won't be any art left because we've mined the worlds resources of pigments so everyone is making digital art...weird. possible. weird. !
DeleteI like this conversation too, and really struggle with my seemingly contradictory desire to avoid elitism while simultaneously supporting myself on my artwork. It seems that the music industry navigates these poles a bit more easily; there are things that an average consumer can purchase to support a musician at any price point, famous or not. I don't necessarily think that the visual arts work in the same way, and really have a hard time pricing my work. One way I have sort of begun to solve this is simply by creating a variety of sizes of work (there are conceptual components to that decision too, but increasing access to my work was also important to me when I consider who typically looks at and buys art). Larger paintings are obviously more expensive than smaller ones, and I also think that a small painting is something that can be kept more easily than a large painting; that is, a small painting seems more likely to be held on to without being limited by transport, and housing space. Three out of the four smaller paintings I had in my show sold, and that felt really encouraging to me, knowing that the support wasn't just coming from people who have copious amounts of money. That being said, fame changes the game. I don't feel like that system could hold if there was a surge of interest in my work. An attempt to make a famous painter's work affordable makes the opposite of sense when it comes to making money for the artist, the collector, or the gallery. Maybe one solution to this is considering public works vs. work that is privately owned/collected? I have been thinking about the floral murals that Mick just finished with Pastel, and how those function within a city or community. That mural is essentially owned by the public (though of course it technically was commissioned by the property owner/city/etc), and becomes part of a daily experience for hundreds of people which to me is what I would want for my paintings rather than to be bought simply to be sold. But is that the same as owning an object and having that intimate relationship with it? I mean...no. It isn't! You can't own a wall in the same way you can own a smaller painting - you can't hold it. But it is a way to circumnavigate the whole capitalist value system, or at least in my mind it is.
ReplyDelete(I feel like that response is all over the place...)
hahah...i followed! yeah...paradox. ownership. consumerism. getting paid. ..life draws us down interesting paths...
DeleteSomeday...I too will own a Shaelin Jornigan piece!!!
Delete