Top 10 reasons why I can no longer submit 'slides' of my work
jwr...@warwick.net
Catch 22 - To Art Gallery and Art Competition directors :
Top 10 reasons why I can no longer submit analog 'slides' of my work:
10. Many of my paintings are 'commercially' viable. Therefore, the image
itself is the product. Submitting slides is equivalent to submitting
original paintings.
9. I have put considerable effort into developing my website to showcase
my work in a way that is easily accessible and user friendly. It's an
elegant, fast, and efficient tool for both of us.
8. Few galleries or collectors have no internet presence or access these
days, or computer to view portfolios on floppies.
7. If a gallery likes what they see at my website I'm then happy to
proceed with sending small digital prints and other sales materials to
them. This is much more productive for both of us.
6. As a partially 'digital' painter, many of my images only exist in
digital form until I print or paint them.
5. It's a digital world- not an analog world. To do a digital print for
the purpose of photographing it is going backwards in quality from the
original digital file.
4. I can't afford a $10,000 film recorder to accomodate a tradition fast
becoming superfluous.
3. I want to maintain control of my high resolution original files. The
lorez images on my website provide some security for me yet offer very
good looking images for viewing on screen. Lorez images look equally
good presented from small floppy disk portfolios that are also
available.
2. I want to prevent 'lost', 'misplaced', and 'unreturned' slides of my
paintings.
1. My cat sez, "No way, Jack."
I appreciate your understanding in this matter of
importance to both of us,
Respectfuly yours,
James Paul Wright (article copyright 1997 JPWright)
PS - I cordially invite you to visit my website:
--
wrightstudio <" http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/8516">
Award winning traditional and digital paintings
Original and limited editions available
Figurative, portraiture and conceptual fine art
Regiment's Hobby Shop
Well now, I visited your site and I don't understand why you would think
that the website shows your artwork better than a slide. I have an older
computer (486/66mghz) with a 256 color monitor and I don't think the
resolution of paintings etc. at all compares with a good slide. Besides
the reproduction issues, quite a few galleries don't have websites or web
access, so aren't you limiting your market?
I have never sold any art over the web, even though I consider myself to
be internet literate and many of my customers have access. Do you have
much success selling from a website? I haven't found anyone who has, but
I'm more than willing to learn from others experiances.
Curious,
AT
Charles Eicher
> Catch 22 - To Art Gallery and Art Competition directors :
>
> Top 10 reasons why I can no longer submit analog 'slides' of my work:
>
> 10. Many of my paintings are 'commercially' viable. Therefore, the image
> itself is the product. Submitting slides is equivalent to submitting
> original paintings.
And as such, are protected by copyrights. Let em publish, then sue em!
You'll get MORE that way! You DO know that the new Photoshop has 'digital
watermarking' which cannot be eradicated even by altering and republishing
the original? The Watermark survives attempts to alter it, and can even be
decoded from the image after low res xerox copies are made.
> 9. I have put considerable effort into developing my website to showcase
> my work in a way that is easily accessible and user friendly. It's an
> elegant, fast, and efficient tool for both of us.
Websites are absolutely inferior to seeing slides, or for that matter,
originals.
> 8. Few galleries or collectors have no internet presence or access these
> days, or computer to view portfolios on floppies.
Hmm.. I don't know of a single gallery in my area that has ANY internet
presence. Galleries that sell paintings want to view something they're used
to; slides, or original paintings. Galleries are in direct COMPETITION with
other visual experiences like those via the mass media. People looking for
art will tend to look for it at art galleries. Art galleries looking for
buyers aren't looking for them on the Internet.
> 7. If a gallery likes what they see at my website I'm then happy to
> proceed with sending small digital prints and other sales materials to
> them. This is much more productive for both of us.
Is this art, or commercial design? Are your paintings fine-art, or just a
big sales pitch for yourself? Is art about productivity, or about
expressing something?
> 6. As a partially 'digital' painter, many of my images only exist in
> digital form until I print or paint them.
>
> 5. It's a digital world- not an analog world. To do a digital print for
> the purpose of photographing it is going backwards in quality from the
> original digital file.
Absolute hogwash. I know many high-end computer-based graphic designers
that insist on submitting 4x5 or 8x10 transparencies of their work, even if
the work is eventually to be published, which means that the file must be
rescanned into digital form. They'd rather have a professionally trained
Scitex drum scanner operator take care of the RGB to CMYK color separation,
than have some rookie service bureau operator botch it up with Photoshop.
Also, a good hi-rez film output can look BETTER after its been output to a
transparency and rescanned. If your resolution is high enough, the pixels
are as small as the film grain, and the grain tends to make it all look
more 'photographic'..
> 4. I can't afford a $10,000 film recorder to accomodate a tradition fast
> becoming superfluous.
But you can afford the $5 per slide output at a service bureau. Multiple
copies can be even cheaper.
> 3. I want to maintain control of my high resolution original files. The
> lorez images on my website provide some security for me yet offer very
> good looking images for viewing on screen. Lorez images look equally
> good presented from small floppy disk portfolios that are also
> available.
And many people are suspicious of being forced to view paintings in a
predetermined way, i.e. your web page. Low res images conceal many
qualities (both good and bad) of a work. What are you hiding?
> 2. I want to prevent 'lost', 'misplaced', and 'unreturned' slides of my
> paintings.
That's the cost of doing business. Maybe you're forcing slides onto people
who don't really WANT to look at your paintings, and they end up in the
trash. Maybe people take one look at your work and say it IS trash..
> 1. My cat sez, "No way, Jack."
My cat says, "you don't know Jack"..
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
ge...@hotmail.com
First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Wright's top ten reasons for
not submitting slides.
For Curious AT, who says
> Besides the reproduction issues, quite a few galleries don't have
websites or >web access, so aren't you limiting your market?
I say this.
The web is the first inexpensive opportunity visual artists have ever had
to expose their work widely in a form that can't be ripped off easily.
It's to galleries' advantage to get wired, get surfing and be accessible by
e-mail so they're not three steps behind the market. What is the point of
trying to put your art work in a gallery that uses obsolete marketing
methods?
AARD1VARK
Somehow, I missd the <Top 10> list RE: submit slides
However, as a gallery owner, I AM wired, I do surf, etc... BUT, the image
quality of Jpegs, GIFS, etc does NOT translate very well for fine art.
Yes, I can get a ROUGH idea of an artists style/subject matter from
website, but that is about it (unless your art is line art or simple
graphics)
I represent about 2-dozen artists, and I consider artist/gallery
relationship to be like a love affair... the more you (EACH side) put INTO
the relationship, the more you get out of it
I would not even CONSIDER representing an artist (REGARDLESS of
style/technique/etc) that took the attitude some in this group have... stp
DOWN off the high horse and realize that it takes a lot of work by artist
AND gallery to sell art... contrary to what some artists think, people are
NOT just knocking down galleries' doors to by art these days. nor are they
storming the internet to buy.... LOOK, maybe... BUY??? very little
Erik Johnson
On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:55:13 -0600, cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher)
wrote:
>In article <3301E4...@warwick.net>, jwr...@warwick.net wrote:
>
>> Catch 22 - To Art Gallery and Art Competition directors :
>>
>> Top 10 reasons why I can no longer submit analog 'slides' of my work:
>>
>> 10. Many of my paintings are 'commercially' viable. Therefore, the image
>> itself is the product. Submitting slides is equivalent to submitting
>> original paintings.
>
>And as such, are protected by copyrights. Let em publish, then sue em!
>You'll get MORE that way! You DO know that the new Photoshop has 'digital
>watermarking' which cannot be eradicated even by altering and republishing
>the original? The Watermark survives attempts to alter it, and can even be
>decoded from the image after low res xerox copies are made.
Sounds like you can read promotional literature as well as the next
guy. Have you actually played with Digimarc? It is incredibly easy
to destroy the watermark, while only imperceptably modifying the
image. The whole Digimarc thing is a bad joke anyway. Who wants
to pay some relatively unknown company upwards of $150/year to
imbed a serial number in your picture that can be looked up in a
database on *their* website. And if you don't pay your dues, they
reserve the right to reassign that serial number. The long term flaws
with such a scheme are pretty obvious.
But this is relatively irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as the
original poster is happy with the inherent protection offered via
low resolution web versions.
I imagine that eventually webbased images may provide an alternative
to the traditional slide approach. But probably will never replace
it. Slides are pretty cheap anyway.
ge...@hotmail.com
In article <19970213170...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
aard...@aol.com (AARD1VARK) wrote:
> Somehow, I missd the <Top 10> list RE: submit slides
>
> However, as a gallery owner, I AM wired, I do surf, etc... BUT, the image
> quality of Jpegs, GIFS, etc does NOT translate very well for fine art.
> Yes, I can get a ROUGH idea of an artists style/subject matter from
> website, but that is about it (unless your art is line art or simple
> graphics)
I think that's the point - all anyone needs in a preliminary screening of a
previously unknown artist IS that general idea. Then, if you think it's
worth a closer look, you order the portfolio and samples.
If you (the gallery) don't think it's worth a closer look, or worth an
initial look for that matter, then the artist hasn't lost as much as we
used to when we'd invested in slides or color printing and sent them on
spec. No other business in the world invests as much money in preliminary
sales costs as artists do - all this money for photography and printing at
the lowest level/highest per-unit cost to sell one art work. It doesn't
make sense when the cost of the web, which accomplishes the same objective,
is so much lower.
A good reason that people aren't banging on doors to buy original art work
is that they think it's too expensive.
To make it feasible, I price my work according to time, materials,
difficulty and OVERHEAD which includes my ad/promo costs and commissions
paid. I have to recoup my costs and make a profit. Since I'm relying on the
web, my costs of production are lower with the same end result I had
before, so I've been able to lower my prices even though my materials and
"hourly rate" have gone up in the last year. My work moves, so the 20%
decrease in my prices may not be an important issue to current customers.
The slightly smaller commission isn't an issue with the galleries because
we're all thinking (hoping) we'll make it up in increased sales volume.
> I would not even CONSIDER representing an artist (REGARDLESS of
> style/technique/etc) that took the attitude some in this group have
Yes, but honestly - you wouldn't consider representing people with
attitudes you don't like even if they sent slides and brochures. Meanwhile,
the fact that you are wired and willing to look on the web makes you very
attractive to all the artists who are saving money in this way and you can
take your pick from a much broader field of opportunity.
jwr...@warwick.net
> For Curious AT, who says
> > Besides the reproduction issues, quite a few galleries don't have
> websites or >web access, so aren't you limiting your market?
Sorry, I can't find your full posting, but if you're referring to needs
of galleries and competitions to produce brochures, etc. with these
slides, I say no problem. After you've developed a relationship with a
gallery or won a competition, it's much safer at that time to provide a
hi-res. digital file on a zip or whatever that they may use for
publishing purposes.
JPW
jwr...@warwick.net
Mr. Gevo,
Somehow I seem to have missed the postings I see you referring to in
this thread but I thank you for your courageous and articulate
statements.
I think it's about time to open a forum between gallery owners and
painters. From the perspective of the painter, I personally have
often been treated with less than respect by gallery personnel.
The gallery certainly holds the upper hand in this transaction and few
artists dare voice their objections.
> > I would not even CONSIDER representing an artist (REGARDLESS of
> > style/technique/etc) that took the attitude some in this group have....
I rest my case- intimidation - speak up for your rights and you're
out of contention !
May we hear other 'gallery 'owners and 'artists' experiences and
thoughts ?
JPW
AARD1VARK
ok, let me step back and say that I am first an artist and secondly a
gallery owner... I did not like the way the game was played either, so I
opened my own gallery where I can do things my way.
Yes, you are right, I would not consider representing an artist that took
an attitde... I don't have to... there are tons of very talented artists
out there who are willing to work WITH a gallery to promote their art.
Mind you, I only take 25% commission on sales (compared to a MINIMUM of
30% and up to 50% in other galleries that represent me) and we charge NO
fees even though we do extensive advertising, public relations and direct
mail.
I also do several <open calls each year to give opportunties to other
artists. If the artist prefers, I will even schdeule an appointment to
look at the actual piece rather than slides.
Yes, in some cases, I can get a general idea of an artists work by a low
res file. And there have been (rare) occasions where I have e-mailed them
and invited them to send slides.
But, do u realistically expect most galleries to go to that much trouble?
Believe me, there is rarely a week that I am not solicited by both known
and emering artists (especially after an article appears on us or we are
on radio or TV) who are VERY anxious for representation.
I feel my artwork (and that of most artists) is very unique because we
each come to it from a very personal perspective... but I have yet to find
the ONE and ONLY artist out there that will make or break my gallery. Even
with accomplished artists it usually takes about 6 months of marketing the
artist to our clients before a single piece will sell... often it takes a
full year. How many retail businesses do u know that can afford to take
that risk?
All I am trying to say is that artists need to try to understand the
person on the other side of the desk if they want to be successful. I
assure you if you ask ANY of the 2-dozen artists I represent whether they
feel they have a great deal, they will tell u that we offer the best deal
of any gallery they know. In 3 yrs, I have yet to have a single artist
terminate our relationship. Unfortunately, I have had to terminate the
relationship with many who fail to understand that ANY relationship is a
2-way street... it has to be mutually beneficial and BOTH parties must
give AND take
LARSPAINTR
Wots it all about Alfie?
Different strokes for different folks.
If you paint (or whatever) and no one sees your art, is it still art?
Answering the question 'WHY do I paint'....
If U MUST sell to survive you are inherently within the commercial realm,
be it
sales by a gallery, art fair, whatever. You most likely will be
influenced by
what sells, i.e. if it sells it must be 'good' and I will do more like
that.
SO U have prostituted yourself.
WHY do U paint?
U cannot change the system. If U wanna sell U must work within the
system.
And slides are part of the process like it or not.
And often the bottom line on juried shows is its a crap shoot.
Was it Picasso that said, when asked by an aspiring artist what does it
take to
become great and He answered- Paint painter paint.
And here we are whining and typing instead of painting.
Good Luck.
Paint Painter Paint.
(signed)
LarsP...@aol.com
(The name says it all)
Oil pastel landscapes en plein air
and large acrylic wall paintings
Stanley Beck
AARD1VARK wrote:
>
> Somehow, I missd the <Top 10> list RE: submit slides
>
> However, as a gallery owner, I AM wired, I do surf, etc... BUT, the image
> quality of Jpegs, GIFS, etc does NOT translate very well for fine art.
> Yes, I can get a ROUGH idea of an artists style/subject matter from
> website, but that is about it (unless your art is line art or simple
> graphics)
>
> relationship to be like a love affair...
>
> style/technique/etc) that took the attitude some in this group have...
Although my reply is to this post, I am responding to several.
Regarding the issue of submitting slides, I would like to offer the following
comments:
1. For a digital image to provide anything but a general idea of the work, it
would have to be a big file -- 2MB or greater. On the internet, even with
28.8 modems, this is not practical.
2. The digital images should get the attention of potential buyers/agents
(and it does, quite well); however they would be wise to review slides of
works, and later, even original works. Digital images of internet quality
still don't come close to that of conventional photography.
3. Gallery owners have no obligation to artists in general. It is their
business, and as such, can sell anything that they want. Their obligation is
to the agreements between themselves and the artists that they represent, no
more.
4. The artist has the responsibility to find an agent that he can work with,
who likes his work, and will represent him well. The artist is, after all,
his own salesman.
I have had the experience of being with two galleries in the past. One
gallery sold a couple of my paintings during the two months that I was with
them, then closed their doors. The other started selling just paintings,
then began to expand into picture frames and art supplies, and later into
antiques and then crafts. We were asked to contribute to a hanging fee, and
asked to rotate our work frequently. I decided that that this business had no
direction, so I left.
I hold no ill will to either. It is their business. My decision is only
whether we can work together.
--
Stanley Beck
Online Gallery --> http://members.aol.com/sbeckart/index.htm
Info --> mailto:sbec...@aol.com, mailto:sbec...@earthlink.net
David Gary
>Somehow, I missd the <Top 10> list RE: submit slides
>However, as a gallery owner, I AM wired, I do surf, etc... BUT, the image
>quality of Jpegs, GIFS, etc does NOT translate very well for fine art.
>Yes, I can get a ROUGH idea of an artists style/subject matter from
>website, but that is about it (unless your art is line art or simple
>graphics)
Slides and promotional costs to artist are not cheap by any means.
The internet is a prime platform to show your work as an artist and if
the client/individual/gallery can get a "rough" idea of your style, then
it is a good time AND a good investment to send your quality slides
to them for a better examination.
>I represent about 2-dozen artists, and I consider artist/gallery
>relationship to be like a love affair... the more you (EACH side) put INTO
>the relationship, the more you get out of it
Well I dont know about "love affair". My relationship with the few
galleries where
my work has been displayed has been purely business to put the food on
the table.
I dont live in "la-la land", I live in reality and a gallery is only a
marketplace
to display and sell my work. The gallery owner pays the rent and
represents the artist's work and should
take no other credit than that. He gets his cut of the selling price for
basically showcasing
the artist's work. He should not have to be a "salesman" and push to
sell the artwork to a customer.
The artwork should sell it self.
>I would not even CONSIDER representing an artist (REGARDLESS of
>style/technique/etc) that took the attitude some in this group have... stp
>DOWN off the high horse and realize that it takes a lot of work by artist
>AND gallery to sell art... contrary to what some artists think, people are
>NOT just knocking down galleries' doors to by art these days. nor are they
>storming the internet to buy.... LOOK, maybe... BUY??? very little
It is an embarrassment and an insult to the Art field when Gallery
owners make bias comments like the
one above. It only hurts the future of business relationships between
artist and representatives/galleries
when personal hypocritisim is evident. The art buying public has
increased over the years. Its not that
people arent buying artwork anymore. Their actually buying more. The
problem is more and more people
are producing original artwork. Most of it being works done buy
individuals who have no idea or education
of technique/style/render/quality/media,etc. and it is pushed over on
the general public as quality artwork
by some of these galleries.
The bottom line is that artist do not work for galleries, galleries work
for the artist and
therefore, when the art is sold, make their money from the the artist's
design and skill.
If anyone should "step off from their high horse" it is you sir!
-David Gary-