Before we draw to the close of February, I wanted to express my delight in the discussions that had dominated a good part of the month of January, concerning the evolution of business models and the practice of making new media work available for collection on the internet. Simon Biggs, Robbin Murphy and others empathized how most practicing artists are forced to follow a non-commercial model of practice (eg: they do not employ a model based on "selling" their work), and therefore new media artists actually can be well-known in the artworld but still have near-zero income (1/07, 1/08). Paraphrasing Lichty's response, this was a constant problem for those who curate and produce intangibles, and believed that the funding model for net artists came as a result of derivative functions, such as residencies, commissions, speaking engagements, publishing royalties... he was ready to consider the conceptual grounds of satirizing this whole topic through the possibility of promoting e-commerce as another form of 'interactive art' (1/08).
Those discussions posted back in January helped inspire a forthcoming public event at the Guggenheim, I hope that i am indulged as I post the event below.
"Collecting the Un-Collectable"
Tuesday, April 9 @ 7pm
The Sackler Center for Arts Education at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
"What are the challenges and potentials of buying and selling software-based artwork? Join artists Mark Napier, John F. Simon Jr., John Klima and new media consultant Michele Thursz in a discussion and exploration of new economic models for artists working in digital media and the implications of its production and sale."
The audience sought for the above event is for gallerists, collectors and curators to pose questions about collecting this type of work directly to the artists creating them. *As a side note, or perhaps as another "possible off-topic" for the last few days of this month, I have been trying to think of ways that artists can formulate an increasingly beneficial relationship with [notorious] institutions... that can help them network as well as while collecting monetary gain. Since the opening of a technology-based art education resource center as this institution, we have been working with two new media artists to formulate a "roving residency."
This is a situation where the artist-in-residence is given studio space and a computer provided by the museum for the duration of roughly three months, but he or she is not required to log-in all the hours of the residency here at the museum. The artist can work from home or away, as long as the work continues to evolve for the course of the residency. The artist is by invitation (and in the particular case of our first two artists, Napier and Simon have also been commissioned by the museum). They are also paid a small stipend to participate in two to three public events organized in conjunction with the education department.
Sounds pretty ideal, until one tries it out. What commitments (besides production of a new work) can be asked of the artist? Is face-time crucial, even if they are "virtually" in residency? Are these kind of relationships really beneficial to the artist? How does a public event with the artist not become a fancy dog-and-pony show? And, are any other institutions out there that are using their facilities, their membership base, or their collector-base to formulate ways that artists do their networking? Maybe it's not too far from the topic for February... and where the boundaries defined by the roles of artist/critic/curator blur the most. Any suggestions, esp. with regardings to residencies?
>>> "Dr. Johnny Golding" <[log in to unmask]> 02/21 4:36 PM >>>
In a message dated 2/21/02 2:32:22 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< and what makes good exhibition interresting, is when the curator's
discourse is overwhelmed or enhanced, as you wish.
jean's remark, so far, is the most interesting yet. thanx