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.

It's my history that made me an activist, I think. I'm not in as difficult a situation as I was with being a mother a year ago. My child's issues are getting manageable and things are just working out more.

But I rise from that (in the extremely limited way I can rise, having about 3-5 hours a week I can work on art related stuff. And this includes working on art stuff rather than relaxing and watching TV). But it's something, and I don't care much for TV after a bit anyway.

So that said, coming out of it, I want to go back and help fix what made things so wrong before. The thing I remember is that my feeling 3 years ago was that I was a single mom, and I was going to kill myself for 9 months working on a gallery project. My thought was, just give me one shot, give me one chance to do a show, and get my stuff out there and either I'll make it or I won't.

And I didn't make it and my son's issues appeared shortly after and that was that for over a year. More like a year and a half I didn't let myself work on anything. As much as it hurt, I don't regret it. Lee Bontacau did an interview and the woman interviewed her about the work/mother balance. Lee said, "Of course your child should be a priority. You can always make are later. In the meantime, you can always draw." I held onto that and it kept me sane.

But now, with a little time, I think back to the One-Line Collective, and the truth is that the show was just fine. Maybe it was good. I thought it was good. But the attitude about getting a chance in the marketplace... well, that's where I didn't get a chance. I wanted to run, to complete in the marketplace. And there was no market. And there was no place to market my work. The media was two limited with only two critics in town.

I've always wanted to be an activist, and I just realized that it will never be saving trees or trying to get other people to vote democrat. I will try just to make this one little place, this one little corner, better. Better for the next girl with a baby who just wants to take a shot at the big time.

I told Duncan today that I think the new mixed media artist is one who is an artist, who cuates and writes critical articles. I also think this will mix with the need for content that the Intenet will provide. Once all the boundaries of publishing and distribution are bulldozed over, there will be openings for content creators, artists, writers. Mixing the above, the mixed media of being an artist and commentator, combined with a future ripe with openings. Well, I think things just might get interesting here in Chicago.

I always just wanted to make art, and I never wanted to be a part of the institutions that surround it. It’s only through my personal experiences that I’ve experienced the problems first-hand. At the end of the day, I want to help the art world, or more specifically the problems that surround the current system of art and artists in Chicago to help myself.

By the “current system” of art is Chicago, I see the following core problem: selling art is Chicago is generally so financially unrewarding that artists drop out in time. Now right here, I’ll qualify everything I say, and say that my perception of the problems and the solutions are not only just my own, but they’re not necessarily the right answers, they’re just the answers that are right for me.

So a new batch of young, recent art graduates comes out of the school. They can find a place to show, but it’s difficult to sell. For my purposes, I divide art into two categories, decorative and non-functional.

Decorative art isn’t necessarily pretty, or light, but it involves one main criteria. It could work in a home. Maybe a somewhat eccentric home, but still work in a home. It’s a piece that can work above a sofa. For those folks, if they can hustle, market themselves well, and create a popular product, they may have some success. How much and for how long is not the topic of this writing.

What is the topic, is the rest of us, the artists of non-functional work. Meaning, simply, it does not work in any way as a home decoration. Bizarre houses aside, most installations don’t go well with the theme of the living room or bathroom.

As an artist, a participate in both camps. I do artwork that involves text. I think it’s neat, it makes neat installation and the like, but … in all fairness, I don’t want it on my walls ether. It’s really meant to be viewed and somehow contribute to the land of conceptual art.

Then I make fish sculptures. They are just precious in the kitchen or bath. I like them, and I make them from an inspired place, but I am stuck with them, as they are a simple series of sculptures I can whip up and sell for a couple bills.

Not so with the Textwork artwork. Let’s go back to the recent graduate. If this person were to make non-functional art, if they’re good, they can show. But they won’t be able to sell, as “the collector”, the phantom person who purchases and stores work for the sake of posterity or future auction value barely exists in Chicago. Our person turns to grants, which are hard to come by, and resources run thin. They are a little older now, a couple years out of school, and it’s time to earn a living like a normal person. From there, they stop making art completely, or do it outside their day job. The equivalent of the young gallerist who borrowed money to open a spot closes its doors in the same timeframe.

I could go on, but I’ve made my point. The answer for me, and only for my person view involves several things. The complicated solution is for Chicago’s art scene simply to be more robust. Enough good artists making good art and showing in Chicago will help build a collector base. Again, collector meaning a possible buyer of an installation or other type of non-decorative work.

Second, if the environment is healthy enough, make art gallery shows you have to pay to attend, and the proceeds from the door not only cover the costs, but go back into the pockets of the artists.

I harp on money, and I know that’s not everyone’s bag. That is totally fine. But there are people, myself included, who would simply be better and more productive artists if they could do it in lieu of a day job. I’ve been making art from a tired place for many years now, and I’ve suffered periods of burnout. For many artists, it’s hard to make art when you know you’re probably just going to bring it home and store it.

So my two big ideas, strengthening the scene and making gallery shows in which artist charge the audience to view, only view, their work. Much like a museum or a performance. Visual art as a type of entertainment. Competition for dinner and a movie. I believe the potential of the art market really is there, because people really are sick of dinner and a movie. At the same token, I think the gallery scene disappoints people. The galleries are spread out, have openings at different times than their neighbors, and most people end of driving to some weird location to look at 12 pieces for 10 minutes. It starts at 6 PM, done by 8. Lots of people are just getting home from work, I’ve never understood exactly who is free on Friday at 6 PM. It’s when most people are hungry.

I think the idea of charging to attend a gallery needs to be more workable on both sides, you are charging a certain amount, with the understanding you’re giving people an hour or two of stuff to see. Festivals do a nice job of this, but again, it’s just a group storefront and you ante up for the publicity. The artist have to sell the actual work. And that goes back to the problems non-functional artists have.

What’s so controversial about this is that to some degree, there needs to be an eye on market forces. People. Normal people with $5 in their pocket need to feel satisfied with the experience. The curatorial choices would be different. You’d survey some folks after the show and see what they like and don’t like and keep curating to the end of for favorable survey responses. True intellectual artists flip out when I talk like this. They feel that art is there to improve people, and challenge them to appreciate art that takes a lot of work, reading, education and understanding to appreciate. My ideas are not for them. Grant writing is for them.

If I sound like the capitalist devil with these ideas, please understand that this fits right into my overall feeling about the art audience. Lots of good curators and academics are hip to the fact that the art world is extremely white. The demographics of artists do not reflect the demographics of Chicago. More Chicagoans are non-white than white. I believe Chicago is about 40% Caucasian. That 40% creates about 95% of the artwork.

But I’ve always wanted to stretch the non-inclusive statistics even further. As a mother, mothers are quick to drop out as artists. Many a promising artist stopped making art in order to raise children. The statistical reality is that most “full time” artists are young, childless, white, and have access to funds outside of their earned income.

In a nutshell, we think of art as being purchased by the elite. The truth is that most art is created by the elite. As a rule it’s by the elite, and for the elite, as the rule.

If I could see one improvement, it would be a greater inclusion of the population into the artist pool, and a greater slice of the general population as its audience. And yes, art will look different if more people make it and more people see it. Some true intellectuals would hate the new stuff, too untrained, obvious and gimmicky.

Well, I make untrained, obvious and gimmicky work. And I stand by it. Simple, understandable artwork has been my aesthetic my whole art life. I like simple, understandable stuff and I make stuff that I like. I like complicated, confusing stuff too, and make the same. I just don’t think great art has to require study. I’ve had long battles about the significance of the artist statements on the wall, and the idea that some artists ideas, history and contemporaries need to be studied in order to appreciate them. Of course there is a place for that. But that’s not the environment I want to create, a place where you pay $5, feel entertained, and have the audience feel like art can be a good show, and have some type of experience that speaks to them.