Goddamn the Gallery! (rant)
SKETCHDUDE
Goddamn the dealer.
You exploitive sons of bitches and bastards. Goddamn the collective lot of
you and your love of money. Goddamn your greed and goddamn you!
You have lost your position of respect in the hearts and minds of the best
artists of your time.
Parasites!
You take and recieve but you offer nothing in return.
What have you ever done to nurture talent in your communities?
Screw you and your exploitations of serial murderers, not caring how your
actions affect people you don't know. You're so hungry for cheap novelty and
controversy you'd sell off your own brothers freedom if you could fit it in
a frame.
You aren't, nor for your stupidity, ignorance and greed, could you possibly
be excited, nor the least bit enthusiastic about the creative efforts of
talented people all around you. You missed the boat!
Ignorant blind assholes!
Again, what have you ever done FOR artists and not TO artists?
What do your stables of creative cattle recieve in exchange for the
privilege of having their prices driven up 30 to 50 percent?
What's so honerable about your walls that creative people should have to
spend their hard earned dollars to provide the decorations? Why should
creative people have to expend thier efforts to feed your children?
What the hell do you do?
Why have your half-assed minimalistic efforts to promote artists flown over
the heads of the general public?
Why can't the average person afford a decent original painting?
Why can't the average person name one famous painter or sculpter living in
our own time?
It certainly isn't for lack of talent! Look around you!
You have too long ignored the mass media and along with it all the
opprotunities it affords. You have homogenised the creative spirits in the
visual arts and pawned them off in exchange for mediocrity. Thats what art
galleries are today: bastions of mediocrity. Exclusive clubs for the rich,
the bored and the terminally boring.
Hypocrites!
You preach the creative ideal while patronising the almighty buck at the
expense of those you claim to represent.
I would rather stand out beside the highway and sell my works for pennies
than associate with the likes of you.
I'd rather hang my pictures in restaurants where at least they'd have a
chance of being seen and appreciated.
I'd rather display my talents on a thousand cheap moniters than cow-tow to
you and your 56K economic connections.
I hate your boring pretentious "art" exhibitions. Nobody even looks at the
artwork. The food sucks and the wine has soured. And opprotunity for artists
has long since dried up and disapeared.
And I hold the Goddamn Parasitic Exploitive Gallery System responsible for
that.
God Damn You!
--
SKETCHDUDE
http://home.earthlink.net/~o0sketchdude0o/
Carl Harvey
But we artists have to realize that art, like everything else, is business.
If the artistic endeavor is meaningful, metaphorically, it is NO MORE
meaningful to the artist than parts to a milling machine operator.
"Life feeds on life" TOOL
When I was younger and was asked 'would you prostitute your art?' I said
'no.' Now, a 55 year old fart, I would say 'sure why the fuck not.' First,
get your art out there at all costs; then take revenge as your art matures.
Syprian
www.AshevilleArt.net
"SKETCHDUDE" <o0sketc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bNn57.2334$Ef6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
SKETCHDUDE
It's just that when I see the opprotunities available to artists in other
disciplines besides the visual arts it pisses me the fuck off! And you
should be pissed too!
Successful actors and directors are treated like royalty, and they deserve
it because the public spends massive amounts of money on the movies.
But guess what? The public also spends massive amounts of money on all sorts
of pictures, knick knacks and home decorations, and visual artists are
treated like shit!
Successful musicians are offered hundreds of thousands of dollars for
recording contracts and conduct glamorous tours to promote their songs.
Nobody questions that because everybody likes a good song: It brightens your
day. People respond to musical talent and whats wrong with that?
Well go to an outdoor art festival and watch people respond to the talent,
even if they cant afford an original, the average Joe enjoys a nice painting
as much as they enjoy music, even if they don't have the same good taste I
have. But then again, the successful visual artist is a nobody.
Successful authors do the talk shows when they write a new book. The
publishing industry sends them out on book signing tours. Successful authors
enjoy wealth and the respect of their peers. Successful visual artists can
count their peers on both hands.
Am I crazy, or is there something dreadfully wrong with this picture? What
does an aspiring artist have to dream about besides making the next months
utility bill? Wow man, I wanna nail up a whole wall full of pictures in an
empty room downtown just so I can tell everyone how "represented" I am.
Yeah, I'd tell you all about it but I gotta go down to burger king and flip
burgers so I can afford frames, and my pimply faced little boss is a real
bitch.
Either the art industry does not understand promotion, or they just don't
care to promote, or both. If they did, you would see fine art awards akin to
the grammy awards, on television. You would see paintings reproduced in
popular magazines and newspapers. you would see artists touring the country
to promote their works, you would see painters and sculpters on Leno,
Letterman and Oprah. And when you bought a poster, you'd know the name of
the person who created it.
The art industry as a whole exploits and does nothing to encourage
creativity and imagination, the very things they love to preach about. The
industry sucks and will continue to suck for as long as artists keep feeding
it without asking why.
--
SKETCHDUDE
http://home.earthlink.net/~o0sketchdude0o/
"Carl Harvey" <syp...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9j5gmu$fqv$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
Barry Stevens
SKETCHDUDE - good job!
> Successful actors and directors are treated like royalty, and they deserve
> it because the public spends massive amounts of money on the movies.
They also spend massive amounts of money on buying houses. Money's not why
they're treated like royalty. They bring magic to the public in a way that
the public recognizes and understands. The money they spend on movies is an
effect, not a cause. Once it's spent, however, it then becomes "big
business", and it appears that the money, not the magic, was the ultimate
cause.
Can money be used to promote a movie, for example, that is nothing but pure
crap? Sure. But ultimately, the audience votes with its money.
> Successful musicians are offered hundreds of thousands of dollars for
> recording contracts and conduct glamorous tours to promote their songs.
> Nobody questions that because everybody likes a good song: It brightens
your
> day. People respond to musical talent and whats wrong with that?
You got it right.
> Successful authors do the talk shows when they write a new book. The
> publishing industry sends them out on book signing tours. Successful
authors
> enjoy wealth and the respect of their peers.
As well as the respect, even admiration of the public.
> Successful visual artists can count their peers on both hands.
That's right.
> Well go to an outdoor art festival and watch people respond to the talent,
> even if they cant afford an original, the average Joe enjoys a nice
painting
> as much as they enjoy music, even if they don't have the same good taste I
> have.
Yujp.
> Am I crazy, or is there something dreadfully wrong with this picture?
Sounds like you're more sane than most. You're sure as hell right on.
> But then again, the successful visual artist is a nobody.
As it says in a well-known book, "It will be done unto you as you believe",
or something like that.
If we stay with that belief, if we accept it, and all agree that it's true,
then it is by definition true.
> Either the art industry does not understand promotion, or they just don't
> care to promote, or both.
You nailed two primary issues in the same sentence.
**Artists don't necessarily understand promotion.** In the business model
I've developed and have been working on, there are five main areas of
activity for any business, all of which need to be covered if **any**
business is to thrive: management, R&D, Marketing, Operations, and Finance.
Further, there are 52 specific activities within those five areas that must
be done.
(This has been tested in over 300 businesses, from Fortune-500's to
startups, in all industries. They are, in spite of any protests, all the
same in basic structure. And, in spite of any protests, the activities apply
to small, home-based businesses, like art.)
In any business the "operations" part is always the core, the heart, of the
business, and amounts to 13 or so of the activities. In this case, it's the
artist doing what s/he loves to do - the art itself. That's why it's so
difficult to "do it all" - there's those other 39 activities. It's hard
enough to be creative and turn out great art pieces. Those other areas, and
other activities just overwhelm. That's why it seems to work better if some
of the activities are farmed out to business managers, agents, bookeepers,
etc. etc.
That's why it seems like such a struggle. That's why people often throw up
their hands and flip burgers to make the money they need to live, while they
keep doing what they love.
The real question is: "How does everything get done that must be done to
thrive, while leaving the artist alone to create what s/he wants to create?"
**artists don't want to promote** - some feel that they simply want to
create their art. The rest of it? Keep it. I'm happy when I create.
> What does an aspiring artist have to dream about besides making the next
months
> utility bill?
Is there a future for art - and artists? Really wise question.
And if we all agree that there is a future for art and artists, then it is
by definition true.
Now it becomes "merely" a question of implementation.
Just HOW is this to become true?
Because it sure as hell doesn't seem to be true now!
Nor does it even seem to be possible.
> If they did, you would see fine art awards akin to
> the grammy awards, on television. You would see paintings reproduced in
> popular magazines and newspapers. you would see artists touring the
country
> to promote their works, you would see painters and sculpters on Leno,
> Letterman and Oprah. And when you bought a poster, you'd know the name of
> the person who created it.
Damn, you're good! And I'm not being sarcastic.
You have the formula. You know exactly how it works.
But the question comes back to implementation.
**How** is there to be a fine art award - say, "The Vincent", for example?
What would prompt the media to run stories on art work?
Who would pay for artists to tour the country - with "Print Signings" at art
galleries?
Just how, exactly, would an artist get on Oprah?
As you can probably tell, I'm not an artist. But I'm married to one, and
we're friends with many others. I'm an implementer, and I've been creating
things in my own way for some time. I've been working on a few things that
have to do with art.
The media will run stories when they are given stories that are, in some
way, newsworthy. Of course, magazines, newspapers, and TV run different
kinds of stories, but basically, the assignment editor needs to be shown
that a story will appeal to his/her audience.
I've been working on a few art-related stories. I'll throw some ideas out
here, at random. If someone else can take them and run with them, so much
the better. Do so with my blessing, and with my help if you want it.
The basic premise for a story could be: "Light and color are health-giving,
and healing. We have had proof for years, and the medical community has been
ignoring it. They ignore it because they can't put a toll booth between the
sun and their patients. Yet we have the tools to use this powerful
health-giving agent. Art is one such tool."
The Center For Health Care Design has pulled together significant research
papers on the effect of light and color on the human body. They show that
the way an environment is decorated, painted, and lighted, has an effect on
the human being. You can find them on the internet. They have made their
research available on a CD.
There are, it seems, over 140 diseases that respond to color therapy. The
ultraviolet light that we work so hard to screen from our bodies, creates
hormones critical to our health as it enters our eyes. Light and color are
used to treat depression. Red energizes, stimulates. Blue calms, relaxes.
Is it any wonder that really good art causes an emotional reaction?
An artist friend of mine - the guy who creates what I call the "double
exposures" - has pictures of his customers hugging his pieces and openly
crying. Local holistic health practitioners are buying various of his pieces
to hang in their offices. He's watched people reach out to touch the pieces,
and jump back away from the image.
The first prominent researcher to notice the effects of light and color was
Dinshah Ghadiali in 1934.
Find the book "Health and Light", John N, Ott, Pocket Books, 1973
"Perscription for Nutritional Healing", James F Balch, M.D., Avery
Publishing Group, Light Therapy, Pages 558-559, and Color Therapy, Page
544.
Find the compendium "Light Years Ahead", chock full of articles by MDs,
PhD,s EdD, OD, and a whole lot of other abbreviatory titles.
Finally, "Light, Medicine of The Future", by Jacob Liberman, PhD, O.D.
That'll get someone interested started on the topic.
Color heals. Art contains color. Art can help in the healing process. That's
news.
> The art industry as a whole exploits and does nothing to encourage
> creativity and imagination, the very things they love to preach about. The
> industry sucks and will continue to suck for
>>>>>>>> as long as artists keep feeding it without asking why.
Damn, you're good.
To try to pull this rambling response together:
1. The art industry will continue to do what it does - until it has a good
reason to do something else.
2. The media will continue to ignore art - until it has a good reason not to
ignore it.
3. There will be no "fine art award" until someone forms a non-profit, gets
some grant money and/or corporate sponsorship, creates the award, puts
together a judging committee, solicits entries, gives the award, and makes a
media event out of it.
4. Give the media a good story - even write it for them - and they'll run
it. That means someone needs to create newsworthy stories and events. (it's
called "public relations"),
Things will continue to be the same
until they're not.
Barry Stevens
Married to an artist
Here tohelp.
Joseph Bennett
East a nice bowl of Corn Flakes with a sliced banana and lots of sugar,
plenty of milk, and you will feel much better!
Regards....
reg
SKETCHDUDE wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if I catch your drift. It isn't revenge that I'm after.
> It's just that when I see the opprotunities available to artists in other
> disciplines besides the visual arts it pisses me the fuck off! And you
> should be pissed too!
> -snip-
whaoh,..
i personally know a lot of the creative types you mention, waiting
tables,.success goes to the most ruthless and ambitious most of the
time,. and any time you do something purely for the money then your a
prostitute,..a good many of the grousers i run into want some
philanthropist to walk up to them with a briefcase full of money and
hand it over,.... i haven't seen the world work like that,...as an
artist (successful in my own mind as i love my work and where its going)
for 45+ years i still don't have a ton of money,..
--
Reg* ~~~~Anyone who complains that Windows is a unworkable OS
never owned a hawg(HD),.....~~~~~
SKETCHDUDE
You sir, are what's known as a "dip-weed".
--
SKETCHDUDE
http://home.earthlink.net/~o0sketchdude0o/
"Joseph Bennett" <Joseph...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B57100F...@mediaone.net...
SKETCHDUDE
comparing the different art industries and how the various industries
promote talent and reward success.
Today the visual artist comes up on the short end up the stick.
I don't see how the success of one creative person takes away from me. I see
lots of different types around me struggling to make it, but I don't really
know anyone I would call ruthless.
My sister is a struggling author. She waits tables by day and writes at
night. She meets with a group of writers. I don't think they plot against
each other, they just want to write and be read.
Maybe if you could give me example of what the ruthless ambitious creative
person does to attain success at the expense of another creative person, I'd
understand what you're getting at.
Whats at issue with prostitution is love. Prostitutes make love when they
don't feel it in their hearts. Thats why nobody respects them.You can
prostitute your body or you can prostitute your art.
Dreaming of success, and working for it is in no way comparible to
prostitution.
--
SKETCHDUDE
http://home.earthlink.net/~o0sketchdude0o/
"reg" <r...@cheshire.net> wrote in message
news:3B572BBE...@cheshire.net...
SKETCHDUDE
"Barry Stevens" <barrys...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DoD57.1687$P04....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Is there a future for art - and artists? Really wise question.
>
question is what kind of environment are we going to create for them?
>
> **How** is there to be a fine art award - say, "The Vincent", for example?
>
Webbys? I don't know. People in those industries who have an interest in the
advancement of those arts.
I imagine a whole series of Creative Achievement Awards for the visual arts
that would be funded through a conglomerate of Museums and Art Schools. If
it was done in a fair and imaginative way it would earn these institutions
millions of dollars in advertising revenue. It would also sky rocket the
careers of the award recipients. It would be interesting to the media
because people are people, awards aren't always fair, and people would get
pissed off and honk their horns about it. It would be interesting to the
public for the simple reason that the public loves art.
>
> What would prompt the media to run stories on art work?
>
Indianapolis does. They recently ran a story about how a man conquered his
drug addiction to be an artist. He got off the drugs and got a job as a
sanitation worker so he could afford to persue his dream of being an artist.
The local news here is always doing stories about art. Why? Because the
television industry knows what their viewers will watch, and people love
art.
The question is: when will someone in the art industry get off their
lethargic ass and help with the promotion? The public interest is there. The
talent is there.
>
> Who would pay for artists to tour the country - with "Print Signings" at
art
> galleries?
>
computer. Maybe someone you know would be willing to invest in some kind of
tour. You would just about have to hire some kind of manager or consultant.
I don't know if galleries provide the right infrustructure because they have
almost zero walk in customers, and there again the prices are driven up to
discourage enough sales to make it worth the time. You would have to sell
lots of prints or posters and sell them cheap, and you would have to show up
wherever the sales take place. That would require alot of organization
skills, but the very idea of a visual artist on a promotional tour is so
novel that it might in itself attract some media attention. Anyone brave
enough to try?
>
> Just how, exactly, would an artist get on Oprah?
>
of the Oprah Winfrey show and asks her why she ignores the visual arts when
for so long the local media has shown such a fascination with it. Send
samples of your works and tell them a growing number of artists are looking
for alternative ways to get their works out to an audience because the
Gallerey system is rotten to the core and in it's death throes. I'll bet
you she would love to do a show about visual art. I'm sending my email
tonight.
reg
SKETCHDUDE wrote:
>
> I'm not complaining about the fact that you have to struggle to succeed.
struggle is relative to each individual,.. some of it is required to
make it all seem worthwhile,.. but successes has nothing to do with
struggling,..
>I'm comparing the different art industries and how the various industries
> promote talent and reward success.
they get heavily compensated for this promotion,.....
> Today the visual artist comes up on the short end up the stick.
not so, the market is there,.. but many artists are sadly educated in
the marketing of their work, or won't do the work required to get the
funding available,..
its because we differentiate between graphic artists, and fine artists
one a trade (read, paid work) the other a quest,.. (of course i'm
generalizing ), graphic artists supply work to the demand of a
customer,. the fine artist usually does as his muse commands (and the
muses are notoriously cash short as a rule)
> I don't see how the success of one creative person takes away from me. I see
> lots of different types around me struggling to make it, but I don't really
> know anyone I would call ruthless.
> My sister is a struggling author. She waits tables by day and writes at
> night. She meets with a group of writers. I don't think they plot against
> each other, they just want to write and be read.
> Maybe if you could give me example of what the ruthless ambitious creative
> person does to attain success at the expense of another creative person, I'd
> understand what you're getting at.
its not the throat cutting kind of ruthlessness, it's more along the
lines of compromising (doing what you know you should to further your
marketability (as defined by the market)) , maneuvering (cultivating
contacts, etc.) and playing the "business game" in general, (akin to
painting landscapes cause they sell, when your real love is nudes), most
of the artists I know, making money have subscribed to these tools, the
ruthlessness is in doing this in the name of success
> Whats at issue with prostitution is love. Prostitutes make love when they
> don't feel it in their hearts. Thats why nobody respects them.You can
> prostitute your body or you can prostitute your art.
> Dreaming of success, and working for it is in no way comparible to
> prostitution.
I'm afraid i have to differ with you here, as I've personally known
prostitutes who were more respectable than some artists I've known,
they do not sell love, they sell sex, which some some may equate as the
same thing, but after a hard look they're not,..( the gal that comes to
mind made more in five years than a lot of struggling artists ever see,
(enabling her to buy a business (clothing store) and set her and her kid
up for a real chance at life)...
what I'm talking about in general is commodities, if you have a product
in demand, (be it sex, entertainment, or art,.. anything,.. you will
attract money and recognition,.. there is the easy way, creating the
thing in demand , or the hard way and hoping what your doing will become
in demand, it's pretty obvious which is quicker,...
to the point here, a gallery offers the sales end that most artists need
to generate recognition, and like any service, can be good or bad, but
it's a service, which means your asking someone to do part of your
work,.. and you pay the price,....
SKETCHDUDE
Barry Stevens
> > Is there a future for art - and artists? Really wise question.
> >
> Oh there will always be artists. whether the world wants them or not.The
> question is what kind of environment are we going to create for them?
Or - what kind of environment are they going to create for **themselves?**
Are they helpless little quivering masses of ectoplasm, or can "they" do
some of this on their own?
> >
> > **How** is there to be a fine art award - say, "The Vincent", for
example?
> >
> Who funds the academy awards for film? Who funds the Grammys? Who funds
the
> Webbys? I don't know. People in those industries who have an interest in
the
> advancement of those arts.
Exactly. That's why I'm trying to earmark some of the money I'm creating as
part of another unrelated venture to use in conjunction with art.
Something's gotta change here.
> I imagine a whole series of Creative Achievement Awards for the visual
arts
> that would be funded through a conglomerate of Museums and Art Schools. If
> it was done in a fair and imaginative way it would earn these institutions
> millions of dollars in advertising revenue. It would also sky rocket the
> careers of the award recipients. It would be interesting to the media
> because people are people, awards aren't always fair, and people would get
> pissed off and honk their horns about it. It would be interesting to the
> public for the simple reason that the public loves art.
Sounds like you should be involved with these awards...
> >
> > What would prompt the media to run stories on art work?
> >
> They already run stories on artists and artwork. At least the local news
in
> Indianapolis does. They recently ran a story about how a man conquered his
> drug addiction to be an artist. He got off the drugs and got a job as a
> sanitation worker so he could afford to persue his dream of being an
artist.
> The local news here is always doing stories about art. Why? Because the
> television industry knows what their viewers will watch, and people love
> art.
Yeah, they always run human interest stories. One every weekend, saturday or
Sunday, especially when it's a slow news day and they're breaking in a new
reporter.
I'm interested in seeing stories on ART. Bring art to the level of awareness
that the public has for, at least, Broadway shows. I bet more people have
some kind of art in their homes than have ever gone to a Broadway show.
That's why I suggested an article on health, linking art directly to
healing... everybody should know that there's a little green light that,
when it's shined directly on the back of the knee, eliminates the symptoms
of jet lag. That colors and images can have a healing effect. Buy 'em, put
'em in your house, and they'll make you feel better.
Art needs to touch on everybody's life.
> The question is: when will someone in the art industry get off their
> lethargic ass and help with the promotion? The public interest is there.
The
> talent is there.
From your keyboard to God's monitor...
> >
> > Who would pay for artists to tour the country - with "Print Signings" at
> art
> > galleries?
> >
You already know.
> > Just how, exactly, would an artist get on Oprah?
> >
You already know.
> I hope every artist that reads this thread sends an email to the
producers
> of the Oprah Winfrey show and asks her why she ignores the visual arts
when
> for so long the local media has shown such a fascination with it. Send
> samples of your works and tell them a growing number of artists are
looking
> for alternative ways to get their works out to an audience because the
> Gallerey system is rotten to the core and in it's death throes. I'll bet
> you she would love to do a show about visual art. I'm sending my email
> tonight.
>
The victim won't die until everybody signs the death certificate,. AND a
replacement is provided.
Barry
RBrac53660
>person does to attain success at the expense of another creative person, I'd
>understand what you're getting at.
True story:
One time I showed my book to a photo editor at a international magazine. He
came out personally to talk with me about my images and give me words of
encouragement. Four months later I looked at this magazine and low and behold
is there not a image that looks excatly like one I had in my book. He took my
image to his buddy and had his buddy copy it. I influenced his editorial
choice but I would rather have the fuckin' money.
Dale Ford
about it now. We as artists jack each other too. It isn't just about the
galleries. Unfortunately we live in a time when artistic creativity is grossly
undervalued. Artistic integrity is unimportant compared to cash flow. Media and
consumer attention is usually focused on dead artists. You have an auction record
you sell. You don't......... well bend over baby. Or take solace in knowing when
you are dead people will say what a great artists he/she died penniless you know.
That titbit of info is often used as a marketing tool ;-)
Enjoy
Dale
Expatriate
chocolate chip cookies. At bedtime.
Regards....
SKETCHDUDE
our Music and Film Industries have enjoyed for the simple reason that those
industries have reached out to the American middle class and promoted their
artists as the creative individuals that they are.
Compare that please, with the way the art industry has turned back-asswards
from the American middle class and promoted artists in the same faceless,
nameless, boring way to the same boring audience for well over a hundred
years. It matters not one iota what genre you practice. Abstract and
Traditionalists alike are subjected to the same never ending process of
printing boring brochures and nailing pictures on a wall.
Why do you think they call a Gallery Exhibition a "hanging", anyway? It's
because thats where artists are herded to have all their ambitions and
dreams crucified, literally nailed to a fucking wall.
Would you like some examples of how creative artists are promoted as
individuals?
Consider Bob Dylan and his album Highway 61 Revisited. It says: BOB DYLAN on
it because he is an indidual and has a name. They put his picture on the
cover. On the back, they printed a short essay he wrote. When you listen to
the album and read the stuff he wrote, you begin to get an image of who the
guy actually is.
But what if an art gallery had done the packaging for that classic record?
Do art gallerys give a rats ass if he loves poetry? Hell no because they
already *know* what their clients want. You would see on the cover of Bob
Dylan Highway 61, a RESUME. A crummy list of Bob Dylans most *important*
engagements.
Slurp that down because without even leaving the genre of 70's rock I have
another thousand examples of how artists have been promoted as the very
thing Art Gallerys love to preach about.
And consider the fact that promotion and packaging is why you have stars in
the music and film industries, but not the visual arts.
--
SKETCHDUDE
http://home.earthlink.net/~o0sketchdude0o/
"Expatriate" <joseph...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B588C76...@mediaone.net...
RBrac53660
>consumer attention is usually focused on dead artists.
You don't have to pay them.
RBrac53660
Did you know that the creator fo the Happy Face has no copypyright on that
work. Everytime it is reproduced he gets nothing nada zip zilch.
Michael Ellis
"SKETCHDUDE" says...
>
>You aren't, nor for your stupidity, ignorance and greed, could you possibly
>be excited, nor the least bit enthusiastic about the creative efforts of
>talented people all around you. You missed the boat!
>Ignorant blind assholes!
After viewing your web page, I can see why you make this sort of statements. I
mean, if galleries aren't showering you with money, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that
you just don't have any talent and your drawings suck.
Dale Ford
Dale
Dale Ford
for their work.........
One Secret for sketch dude. Be more than one artist :-) Make money if
one name and art with the other.
My own belief is that we need to recreate artist societies and have our
own shows. Commercial galleries are about money. Nothing wrong with
that. They aren't running a social service but they are about marketing
and not about creative genius. We need to build our own organizations to
protect and promote ourselves..............any takers??????
Dale
RBrac53660
ankles!
Did you know? That ankles are below your knees?
Dale Ford
whatever.......Don't worry I can see my ankles in real life :-)
Barry Stevens
..
> >Media and
> >consumer attention is usually focused on dead artists.
>
> You don't have to pay them.
The media seldom pays anybody... they just write their stories about what
they perceive to be topics of interest. If the public doesn't shape their
perception, the advertisers do. so in the end , money does talk. Little of
it, however, is money flowing toward the artist.
Unless, of course, it is flowing to the artist.
Without attention to public relations, and how the media really works, it
takes so long for most artists to come to the attention of the media - and
the public - that there's a good chance the artist is dead.
B
RBrac53660
>protect and promote ourselves..............any takers??????
Count me in!
Sharon Barcone
count. Look at how often Broadway plays, movies and even fiction authors pop
up on the tube. And when an artist shows up on the television he is bashing
by other artists who consider themselves as more legit as being unimportant
commercialists, yes Kincade comes to mind. These attitudes are part to the
problem to be overcome.
There are other venues available to the artist such as local art
organizations, art fairs and sponsored events that are open to a wider range
of styles and abilities. Again these are considered by many as
unprofessional and not worth the trouble of the serious artist. Many artists
seem to be more opinionated regarding their marketing efforts. Again
contributing to the problem.
But I would also point out that there are bad guys on both sides. Artists
who have gallery representation that then turn around a sell their paintings
outside the gallery for less often by at least the equivalent of the gallery
commission or more or one reason galleries try to protect themselves from
the unscrupulous artist.
There are a great deal of problems to overcome here.
sharon
SKETCHDUDE wrote in message ...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
reg
Dale Ford wrote:
> .......any takers??????
>
Dale;
I have a world of gripes about that,... been there done that,. have been
intimately involved in creating three collectives,.. that had studios,
galleys, workshop programs, grants, etc.,.. the takers took those who
did all the work found the workload eating into their creative energy,
the premadonnas who took credit and did little set a precedence, i see
too much of "what you gonna give me" my last and current gallery is an
extension of my studio (originally meant to house the last collective,
but i don't mind the space for my own endeavors), the gallery is small
(15x20 in a commercial space) has hanging rails, the proper lighting,
and a near downtown location, so far in the six years of its existence,
it has seen 4 shows( currently my work are in the space, which is
considered too risqué for the commercial galleries around here, (erotic,
and bizarre) plus i give a rats ass for public recognition, the deal was
(and is) this anyone who comes to me with a show ready to hang can use
the gallery free, the conditions are pretty open, nothing illegal (i.e.
kiddie porn), the staffing and curation of the show, and negotiation of
sales, is the responsibility of the artist, the show must hang for one
month, I help with the opening, hanging, and advertisement, and any
place i feel so motivated,.. and still i get the "what do you men you
won't do all the work for me" attitude,... i get really sick of those
who want the world to clamor after them throwing money when they mostly
wont even work at making their work competent,.... uhh yeah rant,....
Barry Stevens
hard time is simple.
Look at the business model for a thriving business translated (partly) into
art terminology at
http://www.newspiritpub.com/artmod
This model shows the 52 activities needed for ANY business to thrive. (This
was developed after spending 25 years with nearly 300 businesses ranging in
size from Fortune-500 to one-person startups, in all industries, including
creatives, such as art, authors, video production, and so on.)
The artist, doing what the artist wants to do, is mainly in the "Operations"
portion of this model, with a few scattered activities in other parts,
utually totalling about 20-22 of the activities. By putting more artists
together, now there's more artists doing those same 20-22 activities. All 52
still need to be done if the artist(s) is(are) to thrive.
--
Barry Stevens
"reg" <r...@cheshire.net> wrote in message
news:3B5B739B...@cheshire.net...
RBrac53660
>The reason that collectives and artist-run-for-the-artists efforts have a
>hard time is simple.
>
>Look at the business model for a thriving business translated (partly) into
>art terminology at
>http://www.newspiritpub.com/artmod
>
>This model shows the 52 activities needed for ANY business to thrive. (This
>was developed after spending 25 years with nearly 300 businesses ranging in
>size from Fortune-500 to one-person startups, in all industries, including
>creatives, such as art, authors, video production, and so on.)
>
>The artist, doing what the artist wants to do, is mainly in the "Operations"
>portion of this model, with a few scattered activities in other parts,
>utually totalling about 20-22 of the activities. By putting more artists
>together, now there's more artists doing those same 20-22 activities. All 52
>still need to be done if the artist(s) is(are) to thrive.
Man your really begining to sound like a used car salesman or a broken record.
Barry Stevens
Never sold cars, though.
I've found that if I keep repeating this stuff, two things happen:
-- I learn how to present it better; and
-- Every so often. someone connects with the material and gives me some
great feedback, usually by email.
Thanks for listening.
--
Barry Stevens
"To a small boy with a hammer, the entire world is a nail"
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010723010521...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
SKETCHDUDE
> I plead guilty to the broken record.
> Never sold cars, though.
But that response illustrated your point about why artists cooperatives so
often fail :
Put ten creative people together as a unit and you have ten arms and no head
because artists would rather not deal with administrative tasks. Not even
for the second it takes to think about it.
While I think its helpful to look at a model of large established businesses
that thrive, I think it would be that much more helpful to do the same thing
with small upstarts and which ones grow up to become big established
businesses, and which ones fail.
That's what the artist is up against now: it's either feed the existing
industry, or strike out on your own.
--
SKETCHDUDE
http://home.earthlink.net/~o0sketchdude0o/
RBrac53660
same old thing. Or should I ssay the mundane chores of business as we know it.
>> I plead guilty to the broken record.
>> Never sold cars, though.
>
>But that response illustrated your point about why artists cooperatives so
>often fail :
>
>Put ten creative people together as a unit and you have ten arms and no head
>because artists would rather not deal with administrative tasks. Not even
>for the second it takes to think about it.
Barry Stevens
news:rrQ67.6926$Px1.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> But that response illustrated your point about why artists cooperatives so
> often fail :
>
> Put ten creative people together as a unit and you have ten arms and no
head
> because artists would rather not deal with administrative tasks. Not even
> for the second it takes to think about it.
The image of ten one-armed artists is, well, mind-boggling. :-)
>
> While I think its helpful to look at a model of large established
businesses
> that thrive, I think it would be that much more helpful to do the same
thing
> with small upstarts and which ones grow up to become big established
> businesses, and which ones fail.
You're right, of course. The businesses I've worked with do include many
startups, including one-person operations, some of which became large, a few
of which went public. I'm working the case studies I have into seminar
materials, and discussing getting them out with sources that are willing.
They need to be really enlightened, since I'm asking business schools, for
example, to put on a seminar criticizing the way they teach business. Making
changes isn't easy.
>
> That's what the artist is up against now: it's either feed the existing
> industry, or strike out on your own.
Or perhaps as a third alternative... find a number of people who think alike
and create an innovative organization that really does work. I know that
Nanci, for example, would like nothing more than to have the time and
freedom to do the creative work she enjoys, with someone else doing those
"other 30 annoying activities."
>
> --
> SKETCHDUDE
> http://home.earthlink.net/~o0sketchdude0o/
>
>
>
>
>
>
Barry Stevens
> Another point is that artist (I think I'm speaking for myself) get tired
of the
> same old thing. Or should I ssay the mundane chores of business as we know
it.
Every creative person I've ever met has been that way. The process of
creativity is at odds with the process of the mundane. Yet I can't even
imagine a world where we don't have both. Creativity provides a fresh new
look at life. The mundane gets it done.
That's primary reason I've been developing the Business Model. I envision an
entity, a set of tools, I don't know what form it will take yet, that gets
the mundane done. By reducing the mechanical drudge work and the analytical
problem-solving of business to a minimum, my theory goes, the energy of
those at the core of a business is freed to be creative.
There's nothing like real-life implementation to test a theory. I'm working
with a partner right now to build a franchise chain based in part on these
theories. Another primary basis: everybody wins - we make sure that everyone
involved benefits from being involved. It's coming together quickly, and we
have substantial funding committed from an investment banking firm. There
are 10 units in the chain now, and there are 20 more waiting to join when we
complete this first round of funding. Should be interesting - our report
card will be in the newspapers.
When this one is finished, I have two gallery owners ready to get involved
with another franchise chain, again to create an innovative approach.
They'll be the prototype locations of what could become a larger
organization of galleries. In the Business Model, there's a concept called
the Advisory Board. I'm in the early stages of assembling that group, of
individuals from art, business, law, accounting, marketing, retail
operations, that can help guide the formation of this next chain.
Barry Stevens
married to an artist
here to help
RBrac53660
peer of mine in college made a short film about this. The film was more about
the displacement of time then the coffee. Kind of like a watched pot.
>Every creative person I've ever met has been that way. The process of
>creativity is at odds with the process of the mundane. Yet I can't even
>imagine a world where we don't have both. Creativity provides a fresh new
>look at life. The mundane gets it done.
There are mundane things to be done in the creation of art work. Such as me
putting film in the camera but these are things I enjoy. It is these chores
that have the potential to an result. Itys the business end that screws
everything up, goddamn the system ;)
Dale Ford
artists want to do first true. I was thinking more along a artistic
union/association.
Dale
DNA409
to promote, or both. If they did, you would see fine art awards akin to the
grammy awards, on television. You would see paintings reproduced in popular
magazines and newspapers. you would see artists touring the country to promote
their works, you would see painters and sculpters on Leno, Letterman and Oprah.
And when you bought a poster, you'd know the name of the person who created
it.<
Well, like any celebrity, to get on a talk show one either has to be
talented, beautiful, or interesting. And one can't get through the door
initially without a lot of self promotion.
There are less "art stars" than rock stars or movie stars because the
public is constantly listening to the radio, watching TV or movies. If there
was a gallery in every mall in America (besides Thomas Kincade) that featured
new art that was affordable to the masses, and was supported by the masses, you
could have more art stars.
Neil ... your petit chou-chou
"Pink is the navy blue of India"- Diana Vreeland
"Wear your green cornflakes with pride"-Dolly Parton
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/dna409/
RBrac53660
>talented, beautiful, or interesting. And one can't get through the door
>initially without a lot of self promotion.
I find a lot of those people vacious, self serving, and distanced from reality.
spooky
motivation is to sell than you need not glorify your self in public. No
gallery with integrity would show you.
It is not the gallery you should rant against but the dotcummers that
forced rents rents up, did not buy art, then lost their and our freedom
on the avenue of greed.
I suggest, if you are so passionate and daring, that you try to open a
gallery of your own. Then you will soon find that to keep the doors
open will drive you madder then you are at present.
Also the site you are linked to reeks of the con.
spooky
2, naive
3, history
The demise of most artists are those closest to them
Art is not entertainment
Most nonprofits are now yuppie endowments
spooky
contempt and emulation.