Art marketing

Roberto

unread,

Sep 5, 2001, 10:14:24 PM9/5/01

to

Finally, found a book about art marketing
that works! Don't buy it at amazon.com. It
Costs me 17 bucks. Last I looked the complete
book can be downloaded free at
www.innisart.com

Roberto

L. Diane Johnson NAPA, PSA, NAPPAP

unread,

Sep 11, 2001, 8:51:33 AM9/11/01

to

Roberto is absolutely correct. Every art professional needs to read this
book. I read it years ago and it does circles around most marketing books on
the market today.

> Subject: Art marketing

L. Diane Johnson NAPA, PSA, NAPPAP
http://www.LDianeJohnson.com
2001-2003 Plein Air Workshops
http://www.LDianeJohnson.com/workshops

SirReal

unread,

Sep 27, 2001, 1:44:20 AM9/27/01

to

My god I'm glad I read this post!!
So far as I can tell this free .PDF download is incredible - I've already
read 12 pages and I think this will finish off my evening.
So much for the painting I was working on!

A MILLION THANKS!!!!

Derek Skousen

unread,

Sep 27, 2001, 5:45:59 PM9/27/01

to

Thanks for the link Roberto,

Read the book. Still thinking about it. I really appreciated the
personal perspective. There are a lot of ideas that I WON'T try
after reading the book.

One part that I'm still mulling over is his opinion on the
markatability of different media. In summary:

There are only three that really count:
- Watercolor
- Acrylic
- Oil

And of these, watercolor will never command the same price range
as the other two.

Do you believe it? Why?

Derek

Pat Riot

unread,

Sep 28, 2001, 10:22:07 AM9/28/01

to

In article <10016271...@cswreg.cos.agilent.com>,
dsko...@soco.agilent.com says...

>There are only three that really count:
>- Watercolor
>- Acrylic
>- Oil
>
>And of these, watercolor will never command the same price range
>as the other two.
>
>Do you believe it? Why?

The heirarchy of your list is inverted.

Oil $$$
Acrylic $$
Watercolor $

And to answer your final question - it's
a matter of fact. If you're comparing the
three mediums in a "real-time" gallery setting,
prices for paintings, in general, have always
followed this trend. As to why, it's a public
brain-washing thing, I suppose. Artists themselves
know that watercolor can be the most difficult
medium to master. I'm guessing that it's because
watercolors are typically considered "child's play,"
and the medium children first learn to handle,
has a lot to do with the public's mind-set.

TheArtMarketer

unread,

Sep 28, 2001, 10:10:07 PM9/28/01

to

I would like to add that oils are most durable,
which is a key reason why they commands superior prices.

I am a watercolorist myself (see url below if you are interested).
online and in galleries around the town/around the world,
the pricing structure mentioned here is true as a general principle.

there are other factors:
watercolor paintings or even drawings (also very fragile) by
someone famous will command higher prices than the oils of a novice.

We have the whole range online.

Astrid
http://www.eArtfair.com

pat...@noemailever.com (Pat Riot) wrote in message news:<3bb47...@oracle.zianet.com>...

Pat Riot

unread,

Sep 29, 2001, 11:37:18 AM9/29/01

to

In article <f31454c7.01092...@posting.google.com>,
astridv...@hotmail.com says...

>watercolor paintings or even drawings (also very fragile) by
>someone famous will command higher prices than the oils of a novice.

That's what I was trying to allude to when
I wrote:

>If you're comparing the
>three mediums in a "real-time" gallery setting,
>prices for paintings, in general, have always
>followed this trend.

Note: real-time = contemporary

It's a given that a watercolor by, say, Chas Burchfield
is going to bring a higher price than a brand
new painting by just about any contemporary
artist, except maybe those living artists
considered in the "top ten."