 |
 |
Hi Catharine Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response. As I explained in another post, I do not have a problem with artists selling their work or making a living. I also pointed out there that my main day job remains being an artist and I expect my practice to pay its way (and me). I donıt subsidise my work with my academic role. However, I do have a problem with commodification and capitalism enough that I relocated from a more capitalist environment (Australia) to a more socialist one (Europe) as soon as I was able (25 years ago). I have tried various economic models for my work. As I explained in another post, the tactic of selling an experience, rather than a collectible artefact, and employing the sort of funding model used in theatre worked well for me but this only works so long as there is significant public funding available as the audience still donıt pay in this model. The venues do and they are non-profits so they are free. Their income comes from the state, who also often pay for the development costs of the project as well. I know that in the US this model could not function. I have tried the stackımıhigh and sellımıcheap route. In the 1990ıs I produced a couple of editions (in the thousands) of CDROMıs, again partly state funded but also working with a well established specialist publisher. This worked well and all the CDıs were sold, and in many different countries and cheap. I didnıt make much money (a few pennies on each sale) and nor did the publisher. We decided we would market them like books, so they were on the market at US$20 or thereabouts. We packaged them like books and the first even had a little book inside it. However, what has bothered me since is these items appearing on the secondary market at unbelievably inflated prices. You will see them selling for hundreds of dollars (even more) but at the same time you can sometimes find one on Amazon (so I guess some are still out there in the system that were sold in batches) at much lower prices (although still factors higher than we sold them for). I receive no royalties on these sales as the publisher was bought out by a bigger one and then that one was bought (I think this is the part of the publishing model that is profitable as publishers rarely make money selling books) and after 15 years I canıt keep track of sales. The main thing that bothers me here is the profit motive driving the process. It would be good to able to legislate against that (I imagine I wouldnıt be a very popular person in the States). Best Simon Simon Biggs [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] Skype: simonbiggsuk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ Research Professor edinburgh college of art http://www.eca.ac.uk/ Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice http://www.elmcip.net/ From: Catharine Clark | Catharine Clark Gallery <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:28:20 -0700 To: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>, 'Ken Goldberg' <[log in to unmask]> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]> Subject: RE: one way to own a work of art on the Web If you are not comfortable selling your work then you shouldnıt sell it. If you are, then you have to identify a model that is true to your work. Re-sale is another issue entirely. Artists in California are protected a bit in that they get a 5% cut on re-sale of their work if it sells for more than the original sales price and is sold by a private individual and brokered by a dealer or auction house to another person. Dealer to dealer sale does not amount in a re-sale royalty for the artist. It is true that much work created on the web was intended to subvert commodification and therefore artists are not inclined to sell it. Collectors who are interested in acquiring this kind of work, like Theo Armour was in purchasing Kenıs, are partly interested in somehow being a part of the patronage that surrounds the rather ³new² form of artistic practice. In our opinion, as long as he was willing to respect the access issues inherent in the work being web-based, we felt it was appropriate to assign a value and some rules and make the sale. Not all artists working in this way (or many dealers, frankly) would want to try to figure out how to develop the terms of such a transaction. I donıt imagine we will be selling a lot of this kind of work but it was an exciting exercise and challenge to meet the collectorıs desires in terms that were favorable to Kenıs work. If your desire is to keep things accessible and infinitely reproducible then you might look at models like that of Packard Jenningsı video sales, where he feels distribution for a small fee (to cover his costs) trumps selling it for a lot of money, partly because his messages are political and subject to expiration (a change of presidency, for example, might render some of his work less cogent). He therefore makes open editions and sells them for $25 each. As far as re-sale goes, it is a difficult thing to get too upset about. People will collect all kinds of things that are free or cheap at some point and later sell it to whomever will pay for it. Thatıs the market place and as long as we live in the US, supply and demand will be in play when it comes to trying to sell something (I am amazed at what people buy/sell). Packard worked on the fake NY Times, for example, that was originally distributed for free. Now if you want one you have to buy it from whomever is selling them on the web at whatever they are asking (or you are willing to pay), etc. I hope this provides some insight into the process by which we price work and/or agree to sell it in the first place. Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201