Over-produced Artists' Sites

During the past few years, I have looked at thousands of artists' sites. The least successful in my opinion are those that are the least straightforward. Such sites are often built with Flash and require the viewer to spend time waiting for things to load. While those are loading, the viewer gets to look at a progress bar which shows the percentage already loaded. Although the amount of time for each message is not really that long, the cumulative effect is that the viewer is more likely to be left with an impression of that progress bar than with the work itself. It's as though you were telling a story and before each line said:"OK, here is the next sentence."

This is not the reason the sites are problematic, it's merely one of the symptoms. Artists understandably want to sell their work, but if the site looks more like an on-line store, with constant references to shopping carts or an exercise to show off a website designer's bag of tricks, it is likely to annoy serious viewers and drive them away in less time than it takes a progress bar to finish.

What was it?

Questions from a young artist:

What is the relationship of existing values to the "rightness" of a contemporary creation? That is, at least within a particular society, how much like the old does the new have to be in order for it to be acknowledged as art?

Also, are there any values that are universal? Any symbols that are understood by all societies in general?

Art Brings in the Bucks

Public Interest cannot be put in jeopardy; the arts are an education for the spirit; expositions ought to be accessible to all without restriction; one cannot ensure that everyone will benefit from them, but no one should be excluded and there is as much injustice in closing the door of annual expositions as there would be in having paid admission at the Louvre or at the Bibliothèque Impériale . --Anatole de Montaiglon, 1855

Not only were M. Montaiglon's protestations ignored, two years later, the Salon added a café. Museum shops started showing up in the late 1950's and by the 80's were discovered to be big businesses, with fancy catalogs and branch offices in shopping malls, and by the late 90s, websites.

The British Museum, the Tate and the Tate Modern, and many other superb London Museums have no entrance fees. Unfortunately, this allows them to be filled with people who are interested in the art and students, lots of students.

New York's Museum of Modern Art charges a $20 entrance fee. To be fair, the aforementioned London museums are publicly funded and MoMA is not. At any rate, stiff fees help keep out the riffraff and the people who would only look at the art and not spend big money in museum shop. Museum stores are important to the income of museums. In many cases they bring in much more money than do admission fees. Sales figures for the MoMA gift shop weren't ready available, but the SFMOMA, in a city 1/12th the size of NYC, pulls in $30 million a year.

Some other admission fees:
Los Angeles County Museum of Art (publicly supported): $25 for recent Pompei show
Seattle Art Museum: $15, more for special exhibits
Philadelphia Museum of Art: $16, plus special exhibit fees
Chicago Art Institute: $18

Medicine on Canvas

Interesting collection of paintings concerning medicine, including Rembrandt's brilliant "Anatomy Lecture of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp," 1632, and Eakins's two Clinic pictures.

From call for public art for new medical examiner's building

From the call for public art to be placed in a new medical examiner's building in downtown Orlando:

"[seeking work] that will embrace grieving families in a calming and soothing atmosphere as they come to deal with the passing of a family member.

"Site located on the intersection of two streets – Michigan Street and Bumby Avenue. The other corners hold an electrical substation, a storage facility and a strip mall with a pizza shop."
--------------
Yeah, that was Mom's body all right -- at least I think so. Kinda hard to tell with it all flat like that. I want all you kids to understand exactly what this means: Pizza!! Let's go!!

An Artists is an Artist is an Artist

Definition of artist according to the San Diego Municipal Code,Chapter 02, 06Division 07, Section 26.0702:

Artist means an individual generally recognized by critics and peers as a professional practitioner of the visual, performing, or language arts, or a combination thereof, based on that professional practitioner’s body of work, educational background, experience, past commissions, exhibition/ performance record, publications, and
production of artworks.

Barely-related quote: If that's art, I'm a Hottentot. -- Harry S Truman, in 1947 after viewing a group of paintings the State Department had bought for an overseas tour meant to demonstrate to non-believers that artistic creativity flourished best in America, under American capitalism. The works were hardly radical; none were abstract, let alone Abstract Expressionist.

Web Design Warning

Because of the prevalence of malware sites, many surfers have JavaScript turned of by default. This means that if you have a JavaScript front page, these people will probably pass you by. Flash presentations on the home page are also problematic as people without high-speed connections will turn elsewhere.

It all depends on the function of your website, of course. Each site should have a specific primary purpose. If yours is to serve as a portfolio for potential collectors or high-end galleries who are likely to have the latest computer systems, and whom you send there, then a Flash presentation on the home page might be OK. Still, if a busy person has to spend too much time waiting for what they came for, they may move on. In general, you want your site to present your work with the same respect a good gallery would present it.

More on Bedford Gallery Tackiness

TCA spoke with an artist who was at the Bedford Gallery opening where it cost $5 to enter. This artist reported that the place was packed, mainly with "art ladies," some of whom were friends of the artists in the show but many of whom seemed to be locals "who just love art." You know the kind. Many appeared to have had purchased new outfits just for the occasion, our spy reported.

Outside, some people who had come to the opening were complaining they didn't have $5, that they didn't bring cash when going to an art opening. There were also one or two "homeless guys" asking for spare change. Heck, I don't blame them. If I were down and out, I'd head over to a place where it was rumored that suburban ladies in new outfits were throwing money away.

Back inside: the artists who had work in the show were required to wear round labels with their names and the word "Artist." This is the type of label that sticks because of a tacky substance on the back.

The food and drinks we were meager and sub-standard despite the charge. I see someone commented on this already.

TCA also spoke to an artist who has had some connection with the Bedford Gallery for years. She was appalled at the idea that a fee would be charged to attend an opening and said she had never heard of such a thing before.

She did know about the charge the gallery levies for those who simply want to see an exhibit. She had been on the committee that discussed such fees, in fact. The original fee proposed had been $7 or $8, she thought. Those in favor of that amount pointed out that the Museum of Modern Art in SF charged more than that, but she and others argued that the Bedford Gallery was not SFMOMA and was not in San Francisco. She felt, as she still feels, that a high fee -- or any fee -- would keep out those who could benefit most from seeing a show: art students and young artists. It is, after all, a community gallery that is supposed to serve the people. The committee reached a compromise of sorts and set the entrance fee at $4. Now it is $5, more for "special." shows.

We also heard directly from an artist who has significant gallery representation and thus has not entered juried shows in several years. She was approached by a member of the staff and asked to submit to the show because, according to that person, they had not had many good submissions, and wanted some good work in the show. She declined. But then was asked again -- as a favor, please. She agreed and was charged $35 to submit her work. (TCA is aware of the practice of inviting artists to show along side of those who had to submit their work to the jury process, but this is different; such artist are usually honored, not charged.) She was accepted, so had to take her work to the gallery, a good three-hour round trip if all went well. After dropping off her work, she asked if she could take a look at the current show in the gallery. She was told yes, then charged $7 for the privilege.

Tackiness Among the Wax

Walnut Creek is a city of 65,384 about 30 miles northeast of San Francisco. The median household income is $106,122. As of July 2006, the average price of a detached single-family home was $857,136. In the 2000 census, 83.1% of the residents identified as White, 1.1% Black.

The city's Bedford Gallery, supported by taxpayers and presumably charged with cultural enrichment of the community, is currently hosting a juried show of works made primarily of wax. It cost $35 for artists to submit images for judging. That figure is above the national average, but not outrageous. What is different and new and outrageous is this:

The gallery charged people $5 to attend the opening, which was last night, May 6. Artists who have work in the show having paid a $35 submission fee and sometimes hundreds of dollars in crating and shipping), however, were treated with great magnanimity: they got in free. Not only that, they were allowed to bring one guest without charge. Isn't that nice? Two, guests, well, that is $5 and three is $10, and if you invited your collectors and friends and relatives and 15 showed up to support you, the Bedford Gallery benefited $75 from them.And the friends and relatives and collectors will forever remember that opening and the Bedford Gallery and you.

I get to see perhaps 50 invitations a month and have seen thousands during my lifetime. This is the first time I have seen a fee charged for an opening. Have you ever? I mean, have you ever!

Copyscape - About Online Plagiarism

A useful site about plagiarism, copyright and related subjects, it has a service that lets you enter a URL to check if anyone is making extensive copies of that site.

Copyscape - About Online Plagiarism

Resumes

Q: I read in the cover letter to the April Art Opportunities Monthly that an artist shouldn't list vanity galleries on his/her resume (something I have never invested money or time in, thankfully). But what about the taking-all-comers/no-submission-declined things like "The Canvas Project" at the Atlanta airport, "6x6x9" at the Rochester Contemporary Art Center and so on?

A: The point of a resume is to help you get the job, so to speak. It's also a story about you, in a particular format. In general, try to list only the "best" things on a resume and only those things that tell the "story" about you that you are trying to tell.

In the business world, a resume is normally the first thing looked at. If the job applicant doesn't have a suitable background, the process ends there. In the art world, a resume is not as important. There, the first thing looked at is the work. If the work doesn't suit the needs of the gallery (or residency committee or Request For Qualifications, etc.), the process ends there. It doesn't matter how impressive the resume is.

But if the work seems to be appropriate, then the resume will get a quick read. Normally, it is the overall impression the resume makes that counts. These impressions can range from "beginner, trying to pad the resume with stuff that anyone could be in" to "stuck in small-time shows forever" to "solid professional, with shows at about the level of artists we already deal with."

For commercial galleries, the weight given a resume varies with the personality of the gallerist. Several years ago I did an article about what dealers were looking for. To the question, "How important is the resume?" one replied, "I don't need them. I trust my eye." Another, more typical, answer was: "Well, it tells me where the artist has been." In other words: it is some information about the level he or she has been involved with, which may influence my decision to show this artist. An "impressive" resume may make the dealer look more favorably at the work, whereas a weak one may, at least at some level, make the dealer question his/her initial reaction to the work. Dealers, are, after all, in business to sell work; they are not primarily art critics.

A resume for a RFQ for a public art commission has much more importance. There, assuming the past work is suitable, the committee wants to see evidence that the artist can carry out a project like the one they want. A grant committee may be looking for other things, etc.

Which gets to this point: you can have different resumes for different purposes. (I am not suggesting lying or exaggerating. Ethics aside, dishonesty in the art world is a bad idea because it is quickly uncovered, the art world being essentially a small one.) Each resumes can emphasize what is important for its purpose and eliminate the things that are not.

And which gets to your answer, finally: If you are using the resume to help you get into a commercial gallery, probably best to leave those accept-all-comers shows out. A few of them on a resume used to help you get a residency wouldn't hurt.

Honesty

I was once at a workshop on breaking into public art where an audience member asked, "Is it OK to lie on your resume?" Laughter ensued, but you can bet a lot of the young artists there laughed for the wrong reason.

The presenter gave an excellent response. It went something like this: "The art world is essentially very small place." If you lie, you will be found out."

They say there's a class idiot in every group. If the person who asked the question filled that role, he was quickly replaced by a young woman who volunteered: "It's not OK to lie but it's OK to exaggerate. Like on this one project, I was a volunteer helper but on my resume, I said I was in charge." A short embarrassed silence followed. During that time, the handful of arts administrators and the presenter, who was a public art consultant for several small cities, probably made a mental note of the woman's name. As did her boss, who was the city official who had put together the workshop.

A friend of mine is responsible for hiring for the art department at a college. She does the initial screening and interviewing prior to a committee making the final decisions. There was a job opening recently. One seeming well-qualified applicant listed on her resume a solo show at a certain time in a certain very good gallery. Impressive. But their was one problem: my friend also lists that show on her resume. But she lists it as the group show it actually was. Next application, please.

Future posts

Future topics will include: vanity galleries, vanity art publishers, bad curators who match works as though they were accessories, why art matters, too many dumb artists, visual cliches and how to avoid them, why using color in painting is not like choosing color for a wardrobe or a room, the art instinct, art scams to watch out for, why to skip art competitions by commercial galleries that charge submission fees, why "submittal" is a stupid word, why an artist cannot see his/her work as others see it, why students should study work they don't like, why art exists -- stuff like that.  Animation

Copyright does not prevent your work from being copied

Copyright is mainly about commerce.

As most artists know, copyright goes into effect the moment your work is "published. " This means the moment it is made public, the moment you show it to someone else, perhaps even the moment it is finished. You do not have to register the copyright, although doing so gives you certain legal advantages should you ever have to sue someone for infringement.

But a copyright does not keep your work from being copied except in the sense that it is a reminder to people not to do it. It is merely a ticket to a courtroom. In reality, you'll probably never even get to a courtroom unless you already have a record that your work is commercially valuable. Basically, you'll have to show not only that the work you are suing about is actually your own original work, that you made it before the alleged copy was made, that whomever you are suing copied your work on purpose, that it was close enough a copy that art collectors or other potential buyers would confuse it with your work and the copying could reasonably be expected to impinge upon you income or had or would hurt you financially. In addition, if the person you are accusing has no financial assets that you could get hold of if you won, no lawyer would take the case (unless you wanted to pay an hourly rate just to pursue it). You could hire a lawyer (perhaps at a reduced rate through your local Lawyers for the Arts) to write a cease-and-desist sort of letter to the miscreant, though.

There are other, more creative and probably more effective, ways to deal with copying, however. For instance: If someone has put an image of yours on their site, that may be a good thing -- if you can turn it into that. Contact that person and thank them for liking your work so much that they wanted to use it. Be polite and not sarcastic. But explain that, because of fairness and copyright law, your work can only be used with explicit permission from you and that you give them that permission if -- and only if -- they give you credit for the image and provide a direct clickable link to your site. Since they already have a favorable view of you work, your goal is to make them in effect an "agent" for it.

All of that assumes that you don't mind having your work publicized on that site. If the site is incompatible with your values or aesthetic or anything else, you will probably want to ask them to take it down. There are creative yet perfectly legal ways of dealing with this but I don't have room here.

One very useful thing you can do to deal with potential copiers: put a "use license" notice on your site, probably as a link. It could say something like, "All the material in this site is copyrighted but you can license any of the images for specific use. You must contact us first and pay a use fee. Fees start at $xx." Now if you find a commercial site has copied your work, you can contact them and explain your terms and bill them for the fee. You'll probably also want credit. They may or may not agree immediately, but always keep in mind that your goal should not be to stop this awful thing that has happened but to turn it to your advantage.

Watermarking Images Ill-advised

Q: A speaker last night warned against posting ones art on Facebook, because of its poor contract. I asked, what about posting my work with a watermark on it?

A: The information the speaker was giving you is out of date and in fact was never quite correct. When Facebook revised its terms a while back, it seemed to imply that members granted it a license to use their work.

People became alarmed that Facebook could steal their work. But what was really going on is that technically FB needed permission to copy work to send on to another Facebook member who had correctly requested it. Broadly interpreted, the contract did give FB the right to use the material anyway they saw fit, but FB claimed that they never intended to use members' work in any other way.

After a storm of protest, FB withdrew the new wording saying, "We think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective." (Mark Zuckerman, FB founder.)

As to putting a watermark on your images, it's easy to do with any image editing software you use. Look in your help file under Text. Simply follow those directions to write what you want on top of your image. If you want it in a very light and/or transparent text, as watermarks are, choose the color and transparency options to make that happen. Many programs have an explicit function to make watermarks, so look for that first.

Having said that, perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I'm not of fan of putting a watermark or even a copyright symbol on you images. I think it looks amateurish. I've rarely seen it done by serious professional artists, and there are good reasons. It doesn't protect your work from being printed out and copied; the low resolution of what the Web provides will do that. It may prevent your image from being snatched by someone else to be used on their site, but if that (very unlikely) event happens, there are ways of turning it to your advantage, the first of which is negotiating with the copier to give you full credit and a link to your site.

As to posting work on Facebook: why not? Seems to be a good way to share your latest work with friends.