as some of you might know, I don't have an academic background and really
worked my way to market, promote and create an understanding on digital media.
Thank you for inviting me to the list, as I'm always curious to learn more.
The topic is crucial, because from my experience, if artists don't sell their
for they often don't do that well in their art either. There are exceptions
for that, button the opposite I have very often seen creating much more
and better art after some decent sales! But this is another story.
When I started to get interested and excited about digital art at the end of
the 1980s, I was confronted with a lack of understanding in the professional
field, which means: no galleries, curators didn't know about the history or the
contemporary situation of this artists working with the computer, museum people
were not interested and of course it was difficult to find a customer. My first
gallery in London with a partner for three years from 1999-2002 hardly sold anything.
I was forced to be creative about and decided on one side to take a realistic approach,
meaning mostly printed work or plotter drawings, that I offered in the gallery and at the same
time to raise the understanding by starting the online museum [DAM] in 2000.
Since then it has worked continuously better. Since 2003 I make my living only by selling
digital art in all it's formats: prints, plotter drawings, software art, 3d prints, animations
etc. If it would have been for the money, it was a mistake, but that was not the prime
From the beginning I have approached my customers on the basis, that first of all:
this is the future in art, second, forget about the old concepts of buying a painting
and taking it home. Instead consider your acquisition a contribution to the artist,
so he can work better and create better art. This kind of philosophy of marketing
has gradually been more fruitful and it changes their views slowly. They still love the
great discovery of an early drawing by Molnar in great condition, but...it is working on
them. All my major collectors have started to collect through me, my activities.
Not that there are many, but it shows as well, that they were not hooked on before.
That made it easier. In the meantime bigger collectors are getting interested as well,
where digital media is just a part of their collection. But these are not the hardcore ones.
I'm as well convinced about what Domenico said, that an aspect of the market will change
towards that, copying software art is easy and it is available everywhere, where you find a
computer. Our culture might become more nomad and we might work as well in a different
way in the future, more flexible. For this our digital files will be a perfect companion.
Switch on any screen in a place and look at your personal selection of art.
So, as a conclusion, the art market will not change, as some people will always go for
the investment aspect of buying art. But if you start to understand the concept of relational
art, then you know where it's happening and life will be much richer.
Have a nice weekend and apologies for some lack of precise enough English.
[DAM]Berlin "Summer Splash", Eelco Brand, Vuk Cosic, Gerhard Mantz, Evan Roth, Marius Watz
Preview: Friday 11th May 7 - 9 PM 12.5. - 14.7.2012
[DAM]Cologne closed due to relocating.
DAM Projects GmbH
Neue Location in Berlin: Neue Jakobstr.6/7, D-10179 Berlin, Phone: +49 30 28098135
GF Wolfgang Lieser HRB 90873 Charlottenburg DE 161744610
On Jul 6, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Simon Biggs wrote:
> The concept of the "The Do-it-Yourself Artwork" is very interesting but in terms of participatory artworks the concept of "Do it With Others" (DIWO) is possibly more powerful, as practiced so well at Furtherfield. This is an arts initiative that exists with relations to both the new media and traditional art worlds but, being more concerned with the particularities of social context, works beyond the confines of either. This seems a more profound instance of relational creative practice than anything ever made under the rubric of relational aesthetics, which seems an internally conflicted, if not incoherent, concept anyway. I'm quite happy to see relational aesthetics fade from the fashion magazines (oops, I mean art magazines). The only problem is, given recent art fads, what it might be replaced with.
> On 6 Jul 2012, at 14:15, Beryl Graham wrote:
>> Dear List,
>> Thanks Domenico, Christiane and Simon.
>> So, in addition to Domenico's useful 3 categories below, we have a couple of 'behaviours' which relate to issues for collecting, and cross over categories of media:
>> Collecting participatory art.
>> Collecting (documents of) 'live art'.
>> And as Christiane point out in her excellent artnodes article, "Relational Aesthetics Syndrome" is an unfortunate condition wherein although those aware of new media can see clear crossovers between inherently participatory new media structures and non-new-media, those in the mainstream of contemporary art appear to be wearing one-way mirror sunglasses and can't see the crossovers. This is very visible in exclusions and exclusions from books and conferences, but I should say that some books do include both, such as "The Do-it-Yourself Artwork" edited by Anna Dezeuze, which include chapters from Tate's Catherine Wood about Robert Morris, and from yours truly.
>> Which leaves us with the more specific question of collecting participatory art - what examples are there from collecting participatory new media art that might help those wearing mirror shades? And, vice versa, re Robert Morris' Bodyspacemotionthings, the Tate did not collect his chipboard sculptures but did manage to reconstruct the whole exhibition anew (with less splinters) from information in the archives - might this be a way of sidestepping the red herring of broken websites - i.e. it might not matter if every bit of code is dead, as long as an artwork such as Learning To Love You More could be reconstructed anew to retain the participative intent of the artists??
>> On 4 Jul 2012, at 15:43, Domenico Quaranta wrote:
>>> For the sake of clarity, I will try to divide the topic in three
>>> different areas:
>>> 1. collecting new media art;
>>> 2. collecting unstable media;
>>> 3. collecting the digital.
>>> 1. Collecting new media art. New media art IS collected, by private
>>> collections and institutions, as long as its cultural relevance is
>>> accepted in the art market field. That is, not so much, because
>>> galleries, art critics and curators didn't do a great job so far in
>>> making this cultural relevance a widespread truth in the field of
>>> contemporary art; and yet, enough to allow anybody to make a nice "new
>>> media art show" with collected or collectable works provided
>>> exclusively by private and institutional collectors or commercial
>> Beryl Graham, Professor of New Media Art
>> Research Student Manager, Art and Design
>> MA Curating Course Leader
>> Faculty of Arts, Design, and Media, University of Sunderland
>> Ashburne House, Ryhope Road
>> SR2 7EE
>> Tel: +44 191 515 2896 Fax: +44 191 515 2132
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> CRUMB web resource for new media art curators
>> CRUMB's new books:
>> Rethinking Curating: Art After New Media from MIT Press
>> A Brief History of Curating New Media Art, and A Brief History of Working with New Media Art from The Green Box
> Simon Biggs
> [log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/