How to value digital art !
Stanley Beck
P.O.Juusola wrote:
>
> I`m trying once more!
> Do anyone know where I can find information about how we can value
> (price) conseptual art.
> (The reason for this question is my research project related to the use
> of computers in the art education.)
> The main issue is the following question:
> - Can we use this knowledge to value digital art as well?
> - or how can we value digital art ?
>
> If there is anybody out there with any opinion please help me!
>
>
> Greetings from Per Ola Juusola - http://www.tmlh.no/~956671/
There are many factors in determining value. One has been quantity of
copies in existance. How many copies of a digital work exist?
--
Stanley Beck
Empty Buckets make the most noise !
mailto:sbec...@aol.com, mailto:sbec...@earthlink.net
Online Gallery --> http://members.aol.com/sbeckart/index.htm
P.O.Juusola
P.O.Juusola
Stanley Beck wrote:
>
> There are many factors in determining value. One has been quantity of
> copies in existance. How many copies of a digital work exist?
Yeah! That is one of the problems !
Some digital works I have printed out, numbered and signed, and deleted
or altered the digital file when I have printed the last number.
With Virtual sculptures (vrml-objects and ...) or pictures made for the
screen this cant be done!
You can make a copy of my work that looks exactly the same as the
original.
The artwork is the idea of how the sculpture is formed.
Do I sell the experience of the art, or the artwork in itself ?
With conseptual art as installations (some of them) You can install the
"idea" in different places, and get payed for it.
What do we do with digital art? Can I sell a license (or a numbered
edition) as selling software?
Greetings from Per Ola Juusola (Norway)
Barbara Rosenfeld
A new gallery will be opening this Spring. It will be
fully promoted in the media and on the web.
If you are interested, Soho, Chelsea or Greenwich Village,
are high traffic artsy neighborhoods. Prime vendor space
will be assured.
A concession gallery makes no commission from your work, it is an
artist operated space in which to exhibit your work. Rental fees
are contingent on the number of exhibitors who will be participating
in the gallery. Given the current New York market rates, it would be
considerably less expensive than opening your own gallery, while
gaining exposure for your respective craft line or artwork.
If you can make a commitment for a minimum of 6 months in New York,
this is the perfect venue for qualified artisans.
Please send a photo of your work with any bio or descriptive
literature.
Regards,
Barbara Rosenfeld
P.O. Box 1288
Old Chelsea Station
New York, NY 10011
Charles Eicher
> I`m trying once more!
> Do anyone know where I can find information about how we can value
> (price) conseptual art.
> (The reason for this question is my research project related to the use
> of computers in the art education.)
> The main issue is the following question:
> - Can we use this knowledge to value digital art as well?
> - or how can we value digital art ?
This is an old issue, I remember well the early days of Video Art in the
early 1970s, when this issue first appeared.
The issue of price is basically related to scarcity. Scarce objects have a
high value, common objects have a lower value. Since digital art can be
copied freely, with no difference between the original and the duplicate,
it is essentially worthless. Some people may object that a limited edition
(i.e. a print) of a digital artwork may be made, and the data destroyed, to
retain the scarcity and value of an artwork. Of course, these are not
digital artworks, they are physical artworks.
Consider the TV model. Is the first time you watched a TV show any
different from the time you watched a re-run? Probably only in one way: the
newness, the novelty of it. Advertisers paid more money for slots on the
first time it ran, the second time it ran, it probably had lower ratings
(everyone had already seen it, and was watching something else). TV is just
a mechanism for renting your eyeballs to advertisers.
So, does this have any implications for the art world? I hope not. The
digital realm is a black hole, from which no artist can ever return. It
forces the image-makers into a world where their works are valued by their
novelty, their freshness, and become stale and dated the instant they have
been seen; they must be replaced by newer images the moment they are
created and viewed. Artworks can no longer stand up over time, and age
well, becoming richer with the interpretation of later generations. They
become a commodity.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
jo...@earthlink.net
In article <ceicher-ya0230800...@news.inav.net>,
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
> This is an old issue, I remember well the early days of Video Art in the
> early 1970s, when this issue first appeared.
> The issue of price is basically related to scarcity. Scarce objects have a
> high value, common objects have a lower value. Since digital art can be
> copied freely, with no difference between the original and the duplicate,
> it is essentially worthless. Some people may object that a limited edition
> (i.e. a print) of a digital artwork may be made, and the data destroyed, to
> retain the scarcity and value of an artwork. Of course, these are not
> digital artworks, they are physical artworks.
This seems rather nit-picky. Perhaps when we post about digital art, we
need to say whether we're speaking of art that exists ONLY in digital
format, or art that is *created* on a computer and then printed and then
the computer file deleted. I have seen "digital art" used to refer to
both.
As an artist, I am still in awe of what modern paint programs such as
Painter can do. I'd like to think that if I spend $300 and more to have
*one* Iris print made, it has some value even though I did not paint upon
the paper with a brush, scribble with pen, or mark with chalk (ugh, chalk
is so messy!).
Jo
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Clbar
digital art can come in many forms, and the price depends upon
the artist, the size, the quality of the image and media its on, and
the number produced.
some artists are certifying that they erase their computer files so
an item is rare (ie higher price) and cannot be duplicated
purely abtracted digital art (made by fractal deisgn programs) and not
scanned-in images I would say are priced mainly according to the image
itself and the artist's reputation like any other abstract work, but
traditional figuratives
are drawing the higher prices at our Marino Galleries in Millburn, NJ
Charles Eicher
In article <19970125223...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, cl...@aol.com
(Clbar) wrote:
Now isn't that special? A gallery that assures its customers that their
'digital art' is scarce, and rightfully should cost more, because the
original files have been erased, and no more 'originals' can be produced.
Oh, oops, don't forget about that backup tape from last month. Nevermind
that they can't produce a 'cancellation print' to prove the original print
is destroyed.
Caveat emptor: When purchasing any kind of art, consider the motivations of
those who are putting prices on the art. Does a gallery have a commercial
self-interest in declaring their digital prints should be valued similarly
to fine-art prints such as lithography or serigraphy? Follow the money...
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Denise Carey
> This is an old issue, I remember well the early days of Video Art in the
> early 1970s, when this issue first appeared.
>
>. The
> digital realm is a black hole, from which no artist can ever return. It
> forces the image-makers into a world where their works are valued by their
> novelty, their freshness, and become stale and dated the instant they have
> been seen;
>
>
> | Charles Eicher |
> | -=- |
> | cei...@inav.net |
The computer is a tool and nothing but. It facilitates the realization of
the convergence of forms in a most miraculous way. I suspect those Artists
whose physical work is uninteresting would produce digital work that was
just as uninteresting.What is exciting to me about using the computer is
that it keeps up with my creative thought process.What I can envision now I
can do. The possibilities are infinite. As someone said from this
newsgroup...The computer is in its infant stages as far as Art is
concerned.
D Carey
Larry Boswell
Denise Carey (dini...@mail2.quiknet.com) writes:
> The computer is a tool and nothing but. It facilitates the realization of
> the convergence of forms in a most miraculous way. I suspect those Artists
> whose physical work is uninteresting would produce digital work that was
> just as uninteresting.What is exciting to me about using the computer is
> that it keeps up with my creative thought process.What I can envision now I
> can do. The possibilities are infinite. As someone said from this
> newsgroup...The computer is in its infant stages as far as Art is
> concerned.
>
> D Carey
>
> dini...@mail2.quiknet.com
do you see computers as the future of art? I dunno. things
like the Web are about to drift from 'computer' to television,
with webtv there'll be countless users who don't think of web
surfing as having anything to do with computers, clicking from
website to website with a tv remote in hand
computerized cars, everything under the control of a chip, you
just steer and hit the gas/brakes. the future is computerization
of things we use on a day to day basis, computers becoming less
visible, so why not think in terms of 'smart' tools specifically
adapted for artmaking? like what? hmmm... well, now you can
see the outlines of what may be possible in the realm of
computer-directed reproduction of images, for a start...
I don't like the confines of a monitor's image, something
unappealing about it (for me). If the web becomes more
defined as 'television', where's that leave the art that
now is seen as computer art (once it's redefined as television,
which is where the web is going?). It may actually work
in favour of computer art, television is a background medium,
images displayed there may be freed from the 'computer' label.
there is some interesting work being done using cannibalized
guts of old computers, making 'em do things they were never
intended to do, but that's something else entirely (though
it may be where 'smart' art tools are born...)
Larry Boswell