Comments on: Those Who Can’t “Do”, Quit. (And Then Write About It)

By: dee clements

dee clements — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:01:59 +0000

Lisa, thank you for writing down the very truth, to which I think we all know or have known for some time but perhaps choose to ignore. And thank you too for being so honest. I have loved the work you exhibit and will be sad to see you go, but am much happier knowing you will be doing what you want. Best of luck!

By: Lisa

Lisa — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:15:08 +0000

Erik has noted something more artists can think about. Show as much as you can at spaces whose proprietors you connect with. If you want to start selling through a dealer you like, it becomes more complicated, and you have to go in with your eyes wide open. If the dealer doesn’t seem transparent to you, he’s the wrong guy to be dealing with.

I was so freaked out by artists that were like, “Ugh, I hate the idea of pricing my work- Whatever you think is good”, and every other manner of “you handle that part”. Yes, as a dealer, I am prepared to handle that part, but don’t you even want to know what’s going on? I mean, it boggles my mind how many artists prefer, PREFER to remain willfully ignorant of the logistics of what’s happening with their own work. If I were an artist dealing with a gallery, I would have some very pointed questions for my dealer.

By: erik brown

erik brown — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:32:42 +0000

If the gallerist tier of the art scene is either eroding or mutating, I am most encouraged by the ground-up swell of scrappy & domestic art-spaces in town. Artists should be fully engaged in this arena, and then extend their activities toward galleries/fairs only when they desire to tango with the realm of commerce. What I see happening is that galleries have been used (or abused) by artists as a place to (finally, at last!) express themselves publicly. And I confess to that charge myself, every single time. Furthermore, when the gallerist herself exhibits the traits of a curator (expressively and creatively — like Lisa’s Katamari Damacy show which I was super-excited to be a part of) — I can’t help thinking this is like two peculiar, recessive genes that match up and weaken an otherwise efficient and predatory species. A good time for everyone involved, but I imagine it’s got to be rotten for a business.

In response to Kathryn: “I think the gallerist of the future is something of a personal art consultant.”

–I’m reminded of some discussions in the digital music industry, where there is a call for business-people to pay closer attention to consumer demands — and not waste energy on a suicidal defense position against tech changes. As one writer put it (whose name I’ve forgotten), forward-thinking professionals should be viewing music fans as “tribes”. They don’t need professional help with distributing audio recordings anymore, but they do need help connecting with other fans to become music-centered networks, or to discover related musics. Thus, “tribe-building” becomes a lucrative field for the business-minded, and there’s plenty of room for improvement over the algorithm-driven networks in place now. I like applying this analogy to the art market because music is an industry where folks with small incomes can still be viable customers.

I sense that “artist representation” (playing mom) is really what drags gallerists down, and it seems to have resulted in a culture where artists are passive and expect to be cared-for. As an artist, I would like be contacted by numerous people saying something like “hey! I have clients in Texas, Oregon and New Zealand who may be into the type of stuff you’re doing. Let’s keep in touch.” These folks would no longer be investing all their resources in a product-line of a dozen-or-so unpredictable individuals, and can work nimbly. I might be one of 125 artists they are in touch with, and they might switch that 125 out with a different 125 when the time is right. As usual, I will focus on the work and exhibiting publicly, and they can focus on the art of discovering/designing those client/artwork connections, as well as the nature & flavor of the commerce to be pursued — without the burden of the overhead.

Overall, artists can bear the burden of exhibitions (which they’ve proven they are ready and willing to do), and dealers can focus on the joys of business.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:01:55 +0000

Hey thanks, Laura. Though condolences not necessary, I’m not actually teaching ESL.

By: Laura Jones

Laura Jones — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:04:20 +0000

Hi Lisa-
Are you me, only smarter and better-spoken? I feel your pain and thank you for expressing it so plainly and so well. Condolences and congratulations.
Laura

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:55:03 +0000

Tell me about it. Click on my name.

By: Michael Workman

Michael Workman — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:22:02 +0000

I thought that image of the moth at your window was gonna haunt me but then I was sitting out in the courtyard in front of my coach house this afternoon, sitting in a chair and smoking when this little white-winged butterfly came fluttering by. I thought immediately of your moth as I watched it flit. My son was blowing bubbles through this wrought-iron fencing between our house and the neighbor’s back yard and the neighbor’s dog was chasing the bubbles as they went and popping them. This butterfly fluttered over the gate and got too low and the dog snapped it in its jaws and sat there a minute clamping its jaws the way dogs do when they’re chewing. And it was all gone, just like that.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:51:40 +0000

Michael Workman says: “Patrick–Nice to see you still have your hand in it!”

What I’ve had my hand in these past five years is dirt. Soil. The Missus and me gave farming a go. Now, before romantic notions set in, ponder this: Think the art world is fickle, try Nature!

I’ve had very little to do with galleries and the like for quite some time. There’s something very dour that persists, no? Oh, I’m still making art, and cultivating idiosyncrasies that this relatively isolated existence affords. Slowly but surely the sour taste of hullabaloo has dissipated.

The prodigal foot dares to test the water once again.

(A rather sizable moth beats against my window to get in.)

By: Shoemaker

Shoemaker — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:47:24 +0000

Sorry you had to close. I appreciate your effort and honest confession,
“But here’s the big bad bald truth, people: I’m just not that good at running a gallery.”
From Webster’s Online Dictionary.
ART: The creation of beautiful or significant things.
I especially like the second part of the definition, significant things!
I see galleries fail all the time for the same reason.
Artists are free to create whatever they please and gallery owners are free to show what they choose but why should someone be expected to pay a high price for what is otherwise insignificant to a collector or the public.
The public doesn’t know how to buy art in the first place, understand it or it’s purpose and at the same time it has lost it’s trust. The market is cluttered with insignificant things in galleries, art fairs, museums and magizines all day long. Take for instance the wonderful market killer “giclee”. Is that really significant art?. And why do so many insignificant works have such huge price tags?
The work is priced and hyped out of proportion to the significants. Nobody wins, artist or gallery. Put the emphasis back on meaning where it belongs and the work might contain something a market could trust and get interested in.

By: Missy

Missy — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:21:26 +0000

Lisa,

No worries. Just go to this website and it will make everything alright (if only for a moment).

http://www.hana-ess.eu.dodea.edu/activities/video/dog_screen_clean.swf

Say hi to Millie for me! I miss you guys.
xoxo
Missy