Money & visual arts

[Jaakko V.]

Some previous threads here made me think about the monetary value of visual arts and I don't think we have a thread discussing this yet, so here goes...

In underground music cultures it's rather easy to calculate the factors that create an album's monetary worth. Production expenses, p&p, some extra to keep the labels and distros running, and some symbolic amount for the artist's hard work. It's obvious when someone is asking for too much, and no amount of pretensions will change this impression of most of those who are serious about buying and listening and know the ways of record business. Even with all the money leeches at eBay and Discogs, or maybe partially because of them, there seems to be a certain kind of concensual understanding about what constitutes a reasonable price in relation to an album's quality, availability, cover stylings/materials, etc. With visual arts it seems more arbitrary. The actual costs of a painting, collage or a photograph can be minimal, and it might have required just a little bit of actual work (not including all the thought-work one has to do of course, but that I think is too abstract thing to take into calculation). However, when selling the art one has to decide for the pricing, and depending of the social context, it seems it can go anywhere from very low to very high.

Basically I've heard two different arguments from visual artists working in the underground circles regarding their art, and both seem to have some difficulties in putting an actual price tag on the works. FreakAnimalFinland for example said that no reasonable amount of money will ever compensate for the loss of the actual piece of art he made (referring to the collages here), so he's reluctant to sell any. I take it so that the value would be reasonably high if any. Others on the other hand seemed to ask very little, or instead preferred to trade the piece for another piece of art or some albums, or give it away entirely free for someone who should own it or deserves it. It seems to me that instead of a quick buck or significant social recognition, the art's economic value in these cases is determined by other factors, by the actual emotional content and meaning it has for the creators themselves, creative communication with like minded people, etc.

And then there are those, whose motivations seem mixed, whose argument I didn't hear or understand. Let's take for example this Mimsy DeBlois, who's asking £850 a piece for her culturally appropriated faux-"primitive" doodlings. With a website that actively tries to sell the work, it's obvious that she wants to get rid of it, so I'm getting the feeling that it's not about the art being so valuable to her that it has to have a high price. However, I'm assuming that the rationale behind the pricing justifies the amount. Riding on the reputation of Cut Hands, which after all the exposure in the Wire or whatever, is still pretty underground, with a target audience of mostly relatively poor and middle class people, and yet setting the price tag according to the principles of "art world". With no gallery connections or recognized high art credentials which would make it understandable – yet questionable – the price is too high for most people in the potential target group, the actual underground, and certainly too much for anyone involved with actual vodou in Haiti. Something constitutes the price, but what? It may very well be that my impressions are totally misguided, and she's a respected artist in her own right, with credentials, exhibitions, etc, and the quality oils she mentions costed too fucking much, but even in that case this phenomenon persists, it's not just one case. Hell, there's even this (operating on a significantly lower level though!) This is not about the individual but about the dynamic.

I want to buy a very simple and minimalistic xerox-copied A4 collage from a friend, who in addition to being a hairy underground animal happens to have some part of his body in the official art world as well. He promised it to me for a discount price of 150 euros, which I think is rather much for a xeroxed paper, but on the other hand I understand this particular work's value, based entirely on an intuitive, irrational feeling, and I'm willing to pay for it (one day). In my case I think this is an upper limit for this kind of art, anyway. I know that had the same piece been made by someone from another kind of social and mental context, the price could have been different, but it doesn't bother me at all as I really want to see the picture on my wall and I'm willing to pay for the experience.

What is the highest price you've paid for a single piece, or how much would you be willing to pay for an inspiring picture, and why..?

[FreakAnimalFinland]

FreakAnimalFinland for example said that no reasonable amount of money will ever compensate for the loss of the actual piece of art he made (referring to the collages here), so he's reluctant to sell any. I take it so that the value would be reasonably high if any.

Well, logic was two things:
If the piece is too cheap, it can be meaningless for the person who buys it. You know, 20,- for something and later in life you wonder why the fuck I have this collage of nudist kids in my possession? Because it's merely 20,- piece of shit, he could throw it away. If it was 100,-... 500.-... whatever, it's much more likely you bought it because you really wanted it, and treat it as such. It won't be discarded to nearest dumpster, but kept or forwarded to person who wants it.

Coming from roots of "underground culture", it's really hard to adjust this mentality of bourgeois art world - which I basically despise. Perhaps now more than ever. I'm not artists who does art for living. I have absolutely no pressure to sell single piece of work, therefore I would do so only when conditions are right. Same goes to exhibitions or publishing material. This doesn't mean "conditions are right" equals hefty payment. It's just like playing live gigs. Most of the time I play for free of charge or minimal payment, but for some gigs I would simply not attend whatever financial compensation is offered. This same logic goes for selling art.

I guess in artschools people probably get these classes of "art as business"? And I think they are taught very often to not work for too low, not undersell themselves. But I hardly see such happening. What I see is the exaggerated overpricing.

http://www.artbusiness.com/pricerealistic.html

In order to price your art realistically, you must understand and respect how the art business works and how collectors shop and buy. You must step back and objectively evaluate the significance and quality of your art in relation to all other art. You must also objectively assess your art world accomplishments and determine how they position you in relation to all other artists. These are difficult tasks and not necessarily pleasant, but they're absolutely essential to achieving the goals of making a go of it as an artist and of selling art.
Understanding common mistakes that artists make when setting prices is the first step in this process. Perhaps the most significant error is the tendency to focus too much attention on only that segment of the art world that pertains to you and too little attention on the rest, or even worse, dismissing the rest as irrelevant. If you let this happen, your asking prices may make sense to you and to your inner circle, but make little sense to the overall art community. The more aware you are of the big picture, of what other artists are creating, how it's being priced and marketed, and who's buying what for how much and why, the better prepared you are to price your art sensibly.

If you think your art is as good as that of Picasso or Matisse, for example, do you price it into the millions of dollars? Of course not. Your art may indeed by as good as that of a well-known or even famous artist who sells for lots of money, but many other factors must also compare favorably before your selling prices can approach those of that artist. Your personal opinion about how good your art is has little to do with that artist's prices or why collectors pay them. If it did, any artist could sell any work of art for any price at any time.

Perhaps instead of cut & paste more, I suggest to read whole article if someone is interested.

What it means simply is, that now any fool with couple doodles will attempt to price their work to level, where they most often have to start giving justifications a'la "this is dirt-cheap compared to _____(attach world famous name)". But what does it matter if you doodle is fraction of Picasso original, or if its really couple xeroxed glued together by mr/mrs nobody, with relatively little effort... How could you justify it being priced anything more than material costs and average hourly wages? You know 30 minutes of planning & execution, couple xeroxes... 10 euro fair enough? VAT included! If your exceptional skills and all that made it more than anyone else could do, I guess you can start planning asking a bit more.

[bitewerksMTB]

"If the art is too cheap..." could be applied to records, tapes, cd's, magazines or anything else. High prices doesn't necessarily mean the buyer is going to appreciate it anymore in the future. He may start thinking he was ripped off  (or fucking stupid for buying it) & just throw it away especially after trying  to sell it and can't find a buyer or has to sell it for less than he paid for it.

I've traded collages & have made a few customworks for people in trade for a record or something. I can't really see sticking a $50+ pricetag on something unless it's a piece the size of a LP cover and,maybe, sheet metal... I certainly wouldn't turn down the $. I've done work for other noise artists & was fine with copies of the release as payment...

[FreakAnimalFinland]

For releases, cheap price is slightly different. In case of 1 out of 100, 200 or 500 being lost due someone just throwing them out, is hardly a loss. Losing unique original art you personally cared for more than for 20$ bill, could be. Certainly setting high price has its flaws like explained later in message.
I don't think many throw away pieces what they paid 500$ for, even if being pissed off. But it's most likely lesson learned when they realize it was like some of these opportunist discogs listings. Person who doesn't want or need to sell record, but lists LP for 1000$ and if someone is stupid enough to buy it, he'll gladly sell it. But in reality "market price" would be tiny fraction of that.
It is unfortunate that this kind of scenarios would set level of overall prices. It should mean nothing if there are couple collectors who have totally different value for money. It could be curious to see when in history underground music or art transformed into game of highest bidders? I have a feeling it wasn't always that.

What comes to 2nd part of Salamanauhat question, I have bought original works. From price range of few dozen euros up to 1000e a piece. Piece has to be exceptionally good, to be technically masterpiece, to be theme/concept what I find personally appealing and most certainly a piece what will be on display all the time. It should be also something superior to what I can do myself.
Together these qualifications certainly narrow my purchases to very limited range. If price is high - what in my case means certainly anything with 3 digits - it needs to be unique piece. I don't see myself paying money for easy mass replications. Then it sinks down to price range of poster or postcard.
I prefer to buy directly from artists, but few cases of something else.

[bitewerksMTB]

I was only thinking about noise-collage art. Would be nice if someone out there gets tired of looking at expensive Art & just dumps it.

[Black_Angkar]

Now for me, with one foot in underground and a tiny toe in fine art  - I consider it like this: A collage in original format (or drawing) especially from someone with a name that WILL be collectible in the future (and we all know this is principles aside, collectors WILL emerge). I f artwork was used for CLASSIC releases I can'ät see why artist couldn't ask for high price? The artist is only getting paid once, and sooner or later some asshole is going to make money out of it. Put like this - if buying say an Alfarmania original artwork helps Kristian releasing records or tapes, it's all for the better. Fuck, even if it pays his rent (Kristian is only used as an example I'm not really refering to him) it's fine. The MOTIVAION has never been the money, but WHY shouldn't an artist be able to claim his due? That is fucking retarded. If anyone in the scene was able to make big money from playing a couple of gigs and then reverting back to underground, why not? Its not as if we're in a field om music which actually contains a lot of money. Complaining about this is like believing in consumer power - like the retarded idea that your choice of bananas will somehow affect world economy. And off course, I don't think anyone of us are in  it for cash.

[Jaakko V.]

Now for me, with one foot in underground and a tiny toe in fine art - I consider it like this: A collage in original format (or drawing) especially from someone with a name that WILL be collectible in the future (and we all know this is principles aside, collectors WILL emerge). I f artwork was used for CLASSIC releases I can'ät see why artist couldn't ask for high price? The artist is only getting paid once, and sooner or later some asshole is going to make money out of it. Put like this - if buying say an Alfarmania original artwork helps Kristian releasing records or tapes, it's all for the better. Fuck, even if it pays his rent (Kristian is only used as an example I'm not really refering to him) it's fine. The MOTIVAION has never been the money, but WHY shouldn't an artist be able to claim his due? That is fucking retarded. If anyone in the scene was able to make big money from playing a couple of gigs and then reverting back to underground, why not? Its not as if we're in a field om music which actually contains a lot of money. Complaining about this is like believing in consumer power - like the retarded idea that your choice of bananas will somehow affect world economy. And off course, I don't think anyone of us are in it for cash.

Sure thing. Who's complaining, though?

The point of initiating this discussion was not to talk about whether it is right or wrong that an art has a price (high or low), but merely to discuss about what forms the price. As you said, it is already evident that the collector will emerge. This is definitely certain. It's as certain as William Bennett googling up his own name in search of discussions related to himself. What I'm interested of is why is he willing to pay a certain price and not another? What are the mechanics and the rationale? Don't know how much these things actually sell, but i.e. why is a Cut Hands related work priced £850, when an awesome Alfarmania related work is mere € 60? I don't expect a "because of..." type of answer, but just various points of view. On a personal note, I for one would be happy to hear someone paying £850 for Kristian, but that is entirely besides the point of the questions originally asked.

The article posted by FA sheds some light on the mechanisms of recognized art world, which I am definitely rather clueless about, but it seems quite applicable to the world of Discogs too, where the price of certain collectibles doesn't really represent their actual value i.e. what is being paid. Many albums "exist", yet they do not move. It is mostly easily criticized and evaluated however as the music collectors largely are comparable to the "sophisticated" art collectors and dealers mentioned in the same text. The prices have a rationale. The site showing the sales history is a great thing. But outside the "art" realm, the price for visual art must be formed differently as we are not involved with art dealers, or a general "standard" of any kind, or regular art sales, etc. Every once in a while one sees interesting art works by outsider/underground/whatever artists. The prices vary, and there I don't really recognize a standard about what constitutes a reasonable price. The only thing I'm really considering is a gut feeling, but that doesn't really explain anything about what I am paying for, or is there some other criterion than "I really like this and the price feels OK". I see a price tag of 850, but if I cut off matters of personal taste, how do I evaluate if the art is really worth 850.00, 85.00, 8.5 or 0.85? Of course I am not assuming any kind of definitive price standard as such, but still I am interested of others' experiences. Thus, the question "how much are you willing to pay and why?" Looking forward to more examples!

Tangentially, this question could be related to the already discussed topic of "what constitutes good quality noise?" One can easily come up with a viewpoint that is not just arbitrarily or individually decided, but also something that has slowly grown out of the field itself.

There are opinions according to which noise scene is becoming a capitalistic playground, which is fair enough in some respects, but this noise scene also seems a culture in which business has something in common with a more traditional exchange form of economy, sharing of "communal" values (exaggeration, I know, but just to make a point), exchange of ideas, services, and items - not mere profit but value. I am not implying a one big happy family, a brotherhood of noisers, or anything like that but a common ground based on the movement of something a little more meaningful than mere money, which would of course be an impossibility anyway since nobody's really making any money. Even a £850 every now and then will run out pretty soon. A reciprocal system that holds together by exhange between members of the culture. Trading albums is a big part of both history and today, and as everyone knows, most of the consumers are also people who produce. Someone selling their art to release an album is a good example. Shameless profit makers are called out, and devotion and sacrifice is respected. The history is largely based on the concept of trading instead of the one-way system of creating demand and then fulfilling it. There are harsh economic realities involved, but it also has a social factor. In this atmosphere it's obvious that the pricing will be explained, if asked about. There can be big money involved, but it doesn't necessarily seem unjustified, if the artist explains why it's not for sale for everyone, and why the price is high. I don't see difference between this and just giving it away as a gift - from my point of view both are ways of making sure that the art will find a proper place, is being put to good use, and there are things like personal contact, genuine respect, transparency etc. involved. So it's not a problem that there's a price. This much I gathered this far, but still the question remains... Maybe this is becoming hair-splitting, and the point is getting lost. Just curious.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

The MOTIVATION has never been the money, but WHY shouldn't an artist be able to claim his due?

If we are not talking about some specific case, I see the "claim his due" is integrally build inside motivation of many artists, what in end is the money. And certainly in level of the back-stabbing opportunists and those who have received education to know "their worth". It is probably different in different countries, but in many western european countries we live under bubble system of funded art and art as job. And that job is not like artist in past - skilled craftman gun for hire. More likely to be hobbyist, who simply is educated to know his worth measured by wild imagination of game consisting art investors, galleries, potential museum curators, etc. He is independent and often not working under demand to underline his integrity, but insists we accept his value.

You must also objectively assess your art world accomplishments and determine how they position you in relation to all other artists.

Lets say random artist, who considers his art is world class level and to claim his due, he most often sets himself to perspective of internationally acknowledged heroes who changed the course of artforms. While in reality, he could release that he's not the new Francis Bacon, not new Picasso, not new Man Ray, not even new Trevor Brown, or whatever, but really among tens of thousands of wannabes, hobbyists and with luck potentially interesting future artists. If they insist to belong among high class of art celebrities, and ignore fact they rather belong to endless stream of blogs, deviant-art hosted galleries, exhibitions held for friends in recordstores & hipster shoeshops etc, they will most likely end up having extremely distorted view of what it means to "claim your due".

Of course fact remains, that for 1 item, you really need just 1 person to be interested. In field of niche art, one may eventually find one to pay you exaggerated price.

Of course, it is very little my damage, what people want of their "careers" and what are their aims, but I'd hope art to go towards direction, where it's connected to purpose of use and simply level of "craftmanship". Not always sliding day by day to dreams of collector market, state & organization funded bubble and art-as-investment ideology.
Basically rejecting the bourgeois art market what seems nowadays really the necessary evil for people to do things.

Logic that things will be collectible, and become higher value is just assumption. It's process what requires guy that sells and guy who buys, but before transaction is done, it has no specific value. For example of paintings I knew artist sold for 1000 euro for customer, I got it few months later in auction for... was it 600e. Did he hope to sell it higher price? Maybe. Was he art-investor making investment to up&coming new name? Who knows. But in transaction between seller and buyer, value of this piece was set to different level and that in the end set the correct market value.
Having piece on display for 100, 400 or 850,- doesn't mean that would be the value. If piece doesn't sell, it simply may be worthless. If one piece sold for 1000e and nothing else been ever sold, it doesn't mean the rest are worth 1000e a piece - but that the one sold, probably not worth that much - which will be realized in next transaction.

If artist would be really in intent to sell, and he is active artists who keeps making stuff, the most logical advice has been to sell for price what it requires to move items. When realizing he doesn't operate in field of upper-class art investors (at least yet), perspective could be found. I refuse to accept someone elses time and effort would be so much more valuable than mine - unless they prove it. The piece I could throw together in 10 minutes, ain't worth shit. The "ideas" or "skills" of contemporary artists ain't that revolutionary. But they can work out when set to context. If my intent would be decorate my wall with corpses and nude bodies, it doesn't need to be art celebrity's high price trophy, but whatever suits the purpose. New & upcoming artists included.

[nosfe]

I guess in artschools people probably get these classes of "art as business"? And I think they are taught very often to not work for too low, not undersell themselves. But I hardly see such happening. What I see is the exaggerated overpricing.

Never stumbled upon classes like that while I studied arts at the academy, and haven't really heard that there would be classes like that elsewhere either.
But I guess there could be something like that, would be more useful for an artist than quite a lot of things that one has to go through at an artschool.

[hsv]

I guess in artschools people probably get these classes of "art as business"? And I think they are taught very often to not work for too low, not undersell themselves. But I hardly see such happening. What I see is the exaggerated overpricing.

Never stumbled upon classes like that while I studied arts at the academy, and haven't really heard that there would be classes like that elsewhere either.
But I guess there could be something like that, would be more useful for an artist than quite a lot of things that one has to go through at an artschool.

A friend who studies graphic design/storytelling at Konstfack in Stockholm said her peers would refuse to do gig posters even for organizers they know because it's apparently bad for your reputation to work cheap. Most the people who go there seem to be pretty shitty.

Something that I always found funny was that if I for example silk screen a t-shirt by hand, I can sell that for absolutely tops 20 euro or something, otherwise I would get very few customers... whereas even a one-color screen print on paper, the same size as your typical shirt design, would go for at least twice that cause then it's "art". Now generally I would say it's more difficult to print on fabric than paper, and there are definitely more costs involved, but the shirt is an object intended for use; I'm not gonna pay 40 euro for something that will get torn, faded in the laundry, get kebabsauce stains, etc. The art piece would be consciously limited, numbered and signed, making it VERY clear it's of course hand-printed bu the artist, etc. to motivate a certain price, whereas the shirt is probably born out of a necessity to make merch for the music project and a lack of funds to print it professionally.

But I agree with FA in a way, a certain price, a limited edition or whatever can be necessary to show that this is a real work. With the excess of printed and visual material constantly available today, no matter how nice quality your stuff is, if you hand it out for free 75% of it will end up in the gutter outside the gallery... like the glossy, professionally printed on high-quality paper, advertising flyers you get walking down any city street, or free magazines like VICE, really luxurious and absolutely "worthless" in that sense... in the marketplace you can get your expenses back other ways, so the actual production cost doesn't even need to be a factor.

[Johann]

Regarding visual art or an art object (which music mediums could obviously fall into, and sometimes do), i think the one thing that is often not considered is quantity.

For example, you can put out a piece of music in an edition of 150 (and just for examples sake) were gonna sell them for 8 dollars PPD, assuming you can sell them all that's 1200 dollars (obviously it's a little less because of materials and such, but you get the point). However if we take a painting/collage, where it is a unique object that can not be rapidly reproduced (i am not speaking for prints) although the materials may cost far less than the music/album in question to produce, you can not benefit from multiple sales of the same object.

So, in actuality i think that music is often times priced very fairly in terms of art considering that you can continue to rerelease it until the demand is met constantly lowering the amount of money that was originally invested into producing it where as the visual art piece is uniquely one of a kind even if the material used to construct it was cheap or free it can not be resold in such a quantity.

Where this changes is in regards to print making (and i think some underground music labels and artist are also able to reep the benefits of this), where if a person takes a photograph and only prints 5 they can say it is a first edition of five, where any subsequent edition is worth less. It is the same if an audio artist releases a special edition cassette of 20, though he may be selling them at 20 bucks a pop they will end up being worth far more than the LP reissue to come out on a different label 6 months down the line.

At least that's my understanding of it.

Regarding art as business in the University setting, isn't that the reason you go to an art school in the first place? Maybe it is different in Europe. But in America colleges use their alumni's status in the current pop culture to try to sell why you should go to their school, the opportunities and competitive edge it will give you in the market place over a lesser known college that has the same programs, and believe me, at the tuition rates their asking for your gonna need one hell of a wad at the end of it to pay back those loans. I remember reading (from a source i can not offer a proper citation of) an account of a student who went to CAL ARTS that said something to the effect of, 'we never made art, we just talked about making it' because on some level being able to speak about it (especially in regards to visual art) and really bullshit your way through what you mean, and what you were trying to speak to is more likely to sell your art to your bourgeois art collector who's wallet you are relying on in that moment, where as if it were a friend you liked and felt truly took something personally from you work you might give it to them or take far less from them.

I think a lot of what sells art is the willingness of the artist to put on different mask and play a game, the better/more willing you are at playing that game the more likely your art is to sell. Because art to many collectors (who may have money, but no sense of taste) is simply a price, a commodity, or something to simply brag and talk about among their "cultured" peers. Then selling your art at to low a price could hurt your ability to move up more rapidly in that market because they may just devalue it based on price alone, however if you price to high they may feel like you have an overly inflated ego. I've always thought it best to price just higher than your actually willing to sell it at, that way durning the bullshit process you can always offer to lower it "because you like them", or feel they are "personally connected" and the piece is "deserving" of them. You submit to the dollar essentially at this level. But shit, they think your a friend at that point and that sucker will talk you up to their rich friends, selling more shit hopefully. I tend to come off as kind of cynical regarding this, but, when i see what is selling i'm almost certain this is the way it is.

[hsv]

Yeah I think that's about how it works practically. The world of fine arts today (almost always?) seems to be about maintaining an image or spectacle, presenting yourself in a certain way, and price is a big part of that. There's still a question however as to how art in the "underground" should be priced... I think a healthy middle could be "a little higher than just covering expenses" (even if you somehow factor in the amount of this month's studio rent that went into that project, etc.) for various reasons already stated in this thread.

I'm happy that this is being discussed, because I like to see a possibility of working and trading in art beside the established world of "fine arts" - without mirroring it. It seems like 80% of people working in the world of "fine arts" criticize it for these very reasons, yet they continue to work in that environment because it's convenient and lucrative... and asked about it, they get a little bit awkward and play it off like "yeah it's stupid, but that's the way it has to be right?". When someone's whole work seems to be themed about criticizing the bourgeois art world, yet it's comfortably distributed and exhibited in that context, I can't help thinking "Well if it sucks so much to be an artist, why don't you quit and get a REAL job instead?" - hehe...

Well to the original question about how much you would spend on a piece of art, even if I disregard my horrible financial situation right now, I have a hard time imagining I could ever afford to spend more than 600 euros or something on art, but I would if I found something that I really really liked, a rare item from an artist I like, or something like that.

[Johann]

Well, only the bottom two parts of my post was regarding the fine art world. I don't even think 1200 is a particularly unreasonable price for a fairly large piece of art, even in the "underground". I see Fernow gets blasted a lot for selling "art objects" at high prices, fans complain that it puts them out of reach with the product they would like to horde. But what obligation does he, or any other artist have to price something reasonably to a fan? Obviously if you know the artist the price is generally going to change (it may be given to you free, or for a trade), if your a stranger and they feel no tie to you other than they like your project or art who's to say they are obligated to show you love? I mean, the "underground" is much larger than it probably ever has been with the advent of the internet.

I think John Olson of American Tapes/Wolf Eyes prices his art extremely reasonably, almost giving it away. And i would not criticize him if he raised his prices, I like his art very much if i had the extra income would gladly buy it. I have never bought any art, it is completely out of my budget, however in a money is not a problem scenario i would not have a problem paying a lot (and i mean like 12-1500) for something that i really like, because in the end that money goes to the artist and will help them fuel their projects and help them to produce more art/sounds i feel personally connected too.

[icepick method]

I'm starting to collect art. Most recently i spent $600 on a piece. It hurt financially, and i even felt a little embarrassed at first telling people how much i spent on it. It was a indulgence that i didn't feel i could live without and i'm now glad i did, the thought of not owning it would sting and i'd probably always regret passing up the opportunity.

Justifications for paying that much? One of my favorite artists Bill Sienkiewicz, selling a published piece from one of my favorite graphic novels ever Stray Toasters, featuring a character i was planning on commissioning him to do a much cheaper version of, from a period in his art where he was doing his art, his writing and not just a commercial job, In a mixed medium style uniquely his own. Other published pages from this book are for sale for $1-7000 on the artists site.
http://www.billsienkiewiczart.com/gallery.asp?sc=BSST1&afs=T


This is the page i bought, minus all the text. It's not a "hero" page, basically b&w pen on board, the color is done with an overlay of plastic film. This is a variation on the cover image from that volume that sold a few years ago for $5k (that i'd buy in a heartbeat if i could).


Sienkiewicz has worked with the biggest names in comics, Frank Miller, Alan Moore,Neil Gaiman, etc. worked on storyboards/preproduction/promo for some of hollywood's biggest movies (green mile, matrix, etc.) album art for Rza (as Bobby Digital), EPMD. He's a working commercial artist hired by some of the biggest media conglomerates on the planet but will still sell a piece of art that's been in his portfolio for 24 years to a rabid fan for a justifiable price.

It's not something i'd ever sell, and if i had the $6,000 he's asking for some of his paintings i'd probably pay it. What else would i spend $6k on? a motorcycle? it's a sum of money that isn't life changing and could easily be blown on random bullshit, Why not something i can enjoy forever.


On a side note, I attended Art Basel Miami last december and it was insane and quite sickening the numbers you heard people throwing around. Millions of dollars on peoples lips, all for 2nd rate works by big names. Art as speculative investment. Lots of Damien Hirst's boring butterfly shit, etc. Saw a small group of really lovely hans bellmer drawings, none of the doll stuff though.

[online prowler]

For the Scandinavian peeps.

Possibilty for support. Kulturkontakt Nord. Diverse opportunities. This is more directed towards art, not practice as musician. Though could be solved in packaging an application as sound art.  

http://www.kulturkontaktnord.org/lang-en