>I am interested in hearing from more artists on this list, in response to
>Christiane's posting: what would an ideal economic model look like for new
>media when it is shown, bought, sold? (and can this be amswered without a
>coy response?) Rosanna F.

This is a constant problem for those of us who curate (and produce)
intangibles.  Before I address this, I would like to state my position, as well
as a recent conversation that I had with my in-laws.

The exhibitions that I have organized through voyd.com are difficult to address
in regards to the corporate model of funding/commodification/distribution as
the default starting place for all my projects is a budget of $0.  My only
consolation to the artists is that in doing so, I am expending greater
resources than they are, as my time for press generation, site design, and show
coordination is strictly pro bono.  This is no excuse for not paying an artist
for exhibition, but if I am not getting paid as well, this places us all on
equal ground.

Point 1a:  I realize that institutions have corporate financial models, and
funding is highly problematic for intangibles like net art.  ANd in the case
that net art is found to be 'sexy' to funders, the administrators in the
traditionalist areas invariably try to attach themselves to your funds.  Not
fair at all, but true in too many cases.  This is why we have instances like
major institutions that put on large scale exhibitions of net art, but are only
able to pay a token fee.  The hard truth here is that in response to the note
that if an institution cannot afford to pay, they cannot afford to have the
show, under current conditions this is just not quite viable, as there would be
few, if any, shows at all.

Secondly, I refer to a Rhizome (or Nettime) posting Jon Ippolito made regarding
his notes on "the Gift Economy" in regards to Internet Art.  I think there is
something to be said for cultural gestures or conceptual art that cannot be
easily commodified, as in the story of the (I believe) pipe that was given by a
Native American to a 19th Century US Anglo, in which he was horrified to see it
placed upon the mantle in the man's home when it was a symbol of exchange, and
not a fetish.  Perhaps in some ways, net artists have to realize the grim truth
that symbolic art is almost as marketable as conceptual work.

In regards to the recent conversation with my In-laws, the question came up as
to how I sold net art.  They were shocked and amazed to hear that I didn't, and
that I had only once ever sold a piece of net art, and it was done
(regrettably) as a 'work for hire', which means I have lost all rights to it.
Since they never used it, and the design company that had it is now defunct, I
may still show it anyway at a later date and take the consequences.  My belief
is that the funding model for net artists comes as a result of derivative
functions, such as residenceis, commissions, speaking engagements, and
publishing royalties.  Much as in the tenure process of academics, monographs
usually offer little compensation, but they are often requirements of
promotion.

The other problem in this case is the secondary market requires that the artist
achieve a certain level of status before being able to capitalize on their
achievements.  This is not unusual in the fine and performing arts, as many
practitioners have long gauntlets of 'dues-paying' that they have to do before
achieving some modicum of success.  There are endless stories of artists in the
performing and recording arts who spend a decade as an unknown in thankless
clubs/parts before becoming an 'overnight success'.  Others, such as Eduardo
Kac, have been tireless in the creation/promotion of their work, and this has
gained them the requisite amount of attention.

My point is that in the arts (and often the humanities) the road is long, hard,
and success usually comes to the persistant and the lucky.

ANother conversation that comes to mind in regards to this topis is one I had
over lunch with Wattenberg and Walczak in November regarding the efforts of
artists like themselves, Tribe, et al to begin pursuing public art projects as
derivative endeavors from their online efforts.  Few people know that I also
work in video, oils, neon, photography, blown glass and ceramic, but it's the
technological art that has gotten me press.  It's what's hip, and if it
interests me as well, why not?  But it does not pay the bills well, I'll
admit.  This is why I'm considering the conceptual grounds of satirizing this
whole topic through the possibility of promoting e-commerce as another form of
'interactive art', as well as considering tangible manifestations of
technological media.  There's even the possiblity for production of CD-ROMs and
DVD's etc (that is, if your work is static).

One more thought- perhaps a performance model is apt.

Which brings me to my most pointed, and altruistic comment on the endless
commenting on artists on how to make money from their work.  First, the hard
reality is that the world is currently in a mild recession, and the halcyon
days of the 80's when the art market had more money than sense, as well as the
90's where anything with a dot-com on it had people reaching for their
pocketbook, have vanished (to a large extent).  The money that was once there
is now lacking, and those used to the fatter times, and worse yet actually
believed that they were going to be eternal, are feeling the strain.  There is
less money to go around, and it will take craft(iness), connections, and talent
for any artist to do as well in the current climate.

Did I say altruism?  Here is my shining pearl of wide-eyed enthusiasm for the
genre.  I have serious misgivings with the common capitalist conception that
correlates cultural value with financial use value.  If this were the case,
there would be no such thing as volunteerism, charity, or any other form of
uncompensated civic works.  This is not to say that I do not understand the
hard facts of financial survival, and those reasons are already catching up to
me as well, as I am attending fewer and fewer conferences as time goes on.
However, I am still resolute that centering artistic discourse around
materialist/capitalist themes _largely_ results in cultural catastrophes such
as Thomas Kinkaide, Wyland, and Peter Max.  Perhaps I exaggerate, but the
consumerist mentality is highly problematic.

In short, There is a lot of blame to go around, but it is far from a simple set
of cause and effect relations.  Artists' devaluation in Western cultural
practices is nothing new, and should we expect it to be different now?  Oh, how
I wish that were the case.  Insitutions are in a sticky situation, as there are
some very good people curating new media art in the current day at the major
institutions, but they are hamstrung by their own institutional bugbears.  If
we are not to consider the creation of hyperparadigmatic solutions that
question the entire system as it stands, I feel that the only way that net
artists can make money is from making sure that the work gains greater
validation in the museum so that curators can strike harder deals with
administrators, making sure it is prominent in the media, consider derivative
profit making enterprises, and so on.

It's tough, but I didn't get into this for the money.  However, I sometimes
have to think about how I'll eat as well.

Hope this is of any use.

Patrick