Art Business

One memory that came back to me recently was a headhunter I had lunch with who said, "You want to sell the most intangible thing you possibly can. If you sell something you can put in a box, it's a step down. Only the very best can sell things that can't be seen. And those are the ones who really make money." She was right. And I'm intrigued with selling, or making conceptual art profitable, because it is absoltely the most intangible product I could ever imagine.

But I think it can and should be done. Like Ed Kienholz, out of necessity would first get someone to commission the artwork he wanted to make based on the instruction of what he wanted to make. They were full scale environments, expensive and time-consuming to make. (this is from the same book, can you tell I've been reading tonight?) Anyway, they would buy the concept, with a title plaque, the commission the commission a drawing of the work, then a third, larger payment to have the work made.

It can be done.

But what's important in this is in the age of ideas, the only thing of value is ideas. So why not sell the concept, the idea, the patent, the trademark, the idea.

So the last few days I've been thiking about building an Internet-based Chicago media company. With all this new technology, it would be so much easier than in the past. I was reading about the reality show "ArtStar" coming in March and it's supposed to be on the zoom dish network, which I also heard went belly up. So it's a month now before the show and I have no way to get this show. We don't have satellite, so it's really tough. I could get on local forums and look for people who have it, but what an un-doable hassle! Go to someone's apartmenet once a week to watch the show? I mean, who does have that channel? Half the artists I know don't even have a color TV.

And the guy is a big guy on distribution and the Internet, but here he is beholden to a limited distribution channel. I understand marketing and promotion is the trick, but it seems just crazy that I won't be able to just download the show from the internet. The first phase was time shifting your shows, and the next phase is on-demand, and you can decide you want to see a show long after its aired.

To do a Chicago Media Channel on the Internet would be a snap. Give organizations you want to cover some exposure by shooting some quick footage, roughly edited, and post them at 10-minute documentaries or mini-promotional films. The old ones would be a great historical archive.

The other thing I want to put on the network is an art reality show in Chicago where the goal is to have one Chicago collector buy one installation from a Chicago artist in Chicago.

There would be two contest. There would ba a huge room filled with installations. And everyone would rank the installations. Averages would be taken and there would be a rank established after all the votes were tallied and the 40 pieces would be ranked, from most popular to least popular. The higest vote rate would be the winning artist.

THEN the person who voted and chose most closely to the final rank (took the best guesses at how the final tally would turn out after all the votes were in) would win on the collector side. He would win the "best eye" prize.

So then the artist would get the prize money, and the collector would get the top-voted installation for free.

The gorilla in the living room I would be working with is that no one sells installations in Chicago, and this would de-construct how its done.

K

So in all the talk about what’s wrong, I want to recommend my ideas to make it right. I understand that this is not the solution for everyone, just one slice of the art community.

There are a few premises:

1. The idea is for artists who make “un-sellable art” (make a link) to make money showing work, without actually selling the work.
2. The money comes from the audience.
3. Because the money comes from the audience, from the marketplace, it changes the art.

The main idea is to charge admission for the show, and make a show that’s entertaining. Generally, people only charge for massive group shows and museums. This would be charging for a smaller festival. Usually all the proceeds go to the exhibition organization. In addition, artists and gallerists pay for the spot.

Long term, this can become problematic for artists.

You know, I’ve written about this before and it took pages and pages. But I’ve been working with it for so long that it’s gotten very simple.

Where I have faith, and where I’ll debate anyone, is that I believe that a focus on approachable artist that attracts a broader audience could still be really great. People who disagree with me have used the term “dumbing it down” and I just don’t agree. I don’t think anything has to be simplified, I just think some of the greatest work is attractive to a wide audience, and I’d like to highlight those types of exhibits and those types of artists and installations.