Comments on: IAM Encounter: Art as business

By: pNielsen

pNielsen — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:31:46 +0000

Very astute observations, particularly with respect to our own culture’s ignorance on what art is for. Attests to the idea of art as a gift which I’ve glanced off of in recent posts.

By: Sarah Hempel Irani

Sarah Hempel Irani — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:22:58 +0000

Historically, art served a very specific purpose- an altarpiece in a church was necessary in celebrating the mass, a portrait of the king’s daughter was necessary to send to her betrothed, paintings as propeganda, sculptures for the cycles in churches, etc. These Renaissance workshops were run like businesses, in a way, but they weren’t marketing a product already made. Just about everything was made on commission, so the artist didn’t have to fork over the cash and then try to market the work. The patron would pay along the way.

Right now, we don’t know what art is FOR, which is why Thomas Kinkade is making a killing. We think art is for decoration only. The sort of art that I want decorating my home, is very different than the sort of art that is really important. For example, I did a sculpture called “A Voice in Ramah” that is very emotional and evocative. I have it in my livingroom right now, because I don’t know where else to put it. It is a good sculpture and has a lot to say, but it is totally inappropriate in the livingroom! My husband said that it is hard to have small talk around it because it is so serious and grave. Who wants a statue of a woman, who is weeping because her children have been slaughtered, in their livingroom?

We as a culture need to figure out what art is FOR. I don’t know who to market that statue to.

BTW my business-minded hubby wants to help with my books. Yay for me.

By: pNielsen

pNielsen — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:19:23 +0000

An example I failed to mention is that you have a friend or spouse that takes up the business end of art for you as an artist. From what I’m told, this is the relationship Jan Kaneko has with his wife. It’s also the kind of relationship depicted in Pollock IIRC.

So instead of marrying rich, artists could also marry marketing types!

By: techne

techne — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:27:19 +0000

amen! it’s interesting that we look down upon the business side of things yet for most of art history the business component (patronage, marketing, dealers) was crucial. of course, most of the time art wasn’t about self-expression (or at least not the main point of art)…thinking strategically and critically about your work, its reception and its dissemination is important. increasingly, faculties across north america are recognizing the necessity of addressing these issues, which is a very good thing.

i’ve lead or been involved with a number of professional development workshops/ programs and, invariably, they are helpful for participants. somehow, most artists seem to think that either everyone will love their work, or else that they will one day get ‘discovered’. sadly, that doesn’t happen. and really, how could it?