Sell-in' or sell-out
I recently went to check out Mel, Kel and Will's exhibition at Global Galleries, Paddington, Sydney (check it out if you have time).
The work is particularly interesting and, most importnatly differs across artists so there is a real choice for everyone (OK - enough of the blatant plugs)
Anyway...so I had a chat to Mel and Kel at the opening about what their works were about, the general premise or theme of their works and how they came to translate those into pieces. What I found, as someone who is not particularly creative, was that the more I heard the stories, the more I felt an affinity with the works.
It led me to the conclusion that purchasing art is a form of aspirational consumption. I think that art is generally not bought by the creative, but by those who are envious of the artists ability to create the art. Actually, I don't think it's the ability to create the art itself but the ability to first have the creative inspiration then convert that into something tangible that forms the basis of the aspiration. (Remember Newton's Law of gravity seems so simple AFTER you've heard it)
As a result, the "story" behind the creation of the tangible piece becomes as important as the finished artwork itself.
So - in true marketing style, I told Mel and Kel they should put the stories near the artworks, i.e. give people something interesting to tell their dinner guests about the artwork.
After i went home it dawned on me that that could very well be promoting "selling out". After all, what artist wants to produce art that can only be appreciated after it has been explained?
But an artist has to get paid, right?
So where is the balance between selling and sellin' out? If you had to sell out to gain the notoriety necessary to get your non-sell out work to the market would you do it?
Or just to live? Would you sell out to be able to maintain your profession as an artist or would you rather not produce art at all?
I guess that's almost an "indecent proposal" and that Sleiman is going to quote Chuck D - but I thought I'd ask anyway...
The work is particularly interesting and, most importnatly differs across artists so there is a real choice for everyone (OK - enough of the blatant plugs)
Anyway...so I had a chat to Mel and Kel at the opening about what their works were about, the general premise or theme of their works and how they came to translate those into pieces. What I found, as someone who is not particularly creative, was that the more I heard the stories, the more I felt an affinity with the works.
It led me to the conclusion that purchasing art is a form of aspirational consumption. I think that art is generally not bought by the creative, but by those who are envious of the artists ability to create the art. Actually, I don't think it's the ability to create the art itself but the ability to first have the creative inspiration then convert that into something tangible that forms the basis of the aspiration. (Remember Newton's Law of gravity seems so simple AFTER you've heard it)
As a result, the "story" behind the creation of the tangible piece becomes as important as the finished artwork itself.
So - in true marketing style, I told Mel and Kel they should put the stories near the artworks, i.e. give people something interesting to tell their dinner guests about the artwork.
After i went home it dawned on me that that could very well be promoting "selling out". After all, what artist wants to produce art that can only be appreciated after it has been explained?
But an artist has to get paid, right?
So where is the balance between selling and sellin' out? If you had to sell out to gain the notoriety necessary to get your non-sell out work to the market would you do it?
Or just to live? Would you sell out to be able to maintain your profession as an artist or would you rather not produce art at all?
I guess that's almost an "indecent proposal" and that Sleiman is going to quote Chuck D - but I thought I'd ask anyway...
posted by KH @ 10:43 PM
9 Comments:
At 2:23 AM, February 14, 2006,
Anonymous said…
Making the decision to not sell your art is can also be a reaction to the idea of selling out. Let me give an example;
There are many people in our dojo who come from overseas and refuse the ranks given to them by the teachers (It must be said that ranks are given out fairly easily in our art, but there is a reason for this...).
They justify not accepting their ranks by saying that they are not in it for the ranks. All good and well, but if they aren't in it for the ranks, then why don't they just accept the rank and just get back to training?
My thinking is that an artist shouldn't worry about whether they are selling out or not. Just worry about the art and the rest will take care of itself.
Naturally so.
At 9:42 AM, February 14, 2006,
KH said…
I don't know about that.
If the purpose was art for art's sake then yes, your analogy is correct and people should focus on the art only.
But what if you want to make a living out of being an artist?
In that context the dojo analogy fails because of a fundamental difference. Your ability to train is generally not predicated on someone else's approval.
Now, if you wanted to be a professional "fighter" and your ability to fight was determined by your association with a given school (think Van Damme in
Bloodsport and how he needed an invitation from a particular school) then maybe things would be different. What if no-one would let you train because they didn't "get" your style. Would you put aside some of your pre-existing beliefs and revert back to the old style in order to be able to fight? (OK I'm on fire with the movie references - this sounds a bit like
Strictly Ballroom)
Do you see the difference?
At some stage we all have to make decisions re: trading off our beliefs for cash - I guess it goes back to a mix of
classic economic utility theory and Maslow's hierarchy of needs. At some stage the utility of cash is greater than the utility of a given scruple (probably at a stage where food and shelter are needed).
At this point I wonder if letting the rest take care of itself is really a solution.
At 11:56 AM, February 14, 2006,
Anonymous said…
A person's ability to create, art is not predicated on someone else's approval. The ability to create art depends, quite literally, on one's ability to produce art.
Similarly, one's capacity to train has nothing to with rank or anything else other than one's genuine desire to train. Channeled correctly, and if sincere, this desire will find a way to overcome cost or distance or language barriers or any other obstacles.
Understanding that one may not be able to overcome such obstacles is also important. Nonetheless, one shouldn't confuse the forest for the trees.
If you want to make a living out of being an artist, then good luck. Making a living obviously depends on people wanting to buy what you have, even if they don't understand it.
(Do people actually understand the absurdity of considering Coke to be the 'real thing'? If they actually understood, they wouldn't buy it.)
So no, people understanding your art has little to do with selling it. Like I said, just worry about the art. Art and the selling of art are not mutually exclusive.
I always wondered at the mentality that being an artist meant that one had to be struggling or be a drunk or drug addict or whatever.
I think that one has to be able to naturally fit into the right place at the right time to be able to do many things, including selling art. This kind of rhythm is more important, I think, than 'selling' art.
By following and accepting as fact, trends in thought, then I think that one misses out on the underlying 'sense' or 'feeling' that allows these trends to come and go.
That is why I believe that letting the rest take care of itself is more than a 'solution'.
At 2:37 PM, February 14, 2006,
Anonymous said…
Interesting that our exhibition is provoking this type of discussion!N Can I pipe in?
What I've gathered from Kims and Sols views is that one must ask, 'why do you create art?'. Do I want to make a living from this? Why did I choose to hang those particular works on the gallery walls? If I really wanted to sell, would I have chosen those images to exhibit?
There is always a story to each artwork, regardless of the artists intention. If the artist is seriously intending to sell, than a different approach would most likely be taken, including more collaboration with the gallery to ensure that the works chosen had an 'explanatory' blurb next to it, allowing the gallery to play a more thorough and active part in deciding works shown, choosing a gallery that specifically supported the medium, and really understood the play with the medium.
In this light, the artist makes choices for various reasons (both intentional and misguided - I've learnt a deal from this show), but ultimately, I kind of agree with Solly's line, "Just worry about the art and the rest will take care of itself". The higher pursuit for the artist should be to always pursue your work with integrity. If an artist wants to ultimately sell their work, then do so with integrity. If the artist wants to experiment with fusing different art forms in non-conventional manners, then they should do so with integrity. In this light, an exhibition can reward the artist in other ways than sales, such as exposure and awareness of what the artist is trying to do. So, selling your art may not necessarily be the primary intention of the artist, especially if one is truly fascinated with the act and outcome of creating art.
On top of that, being able to sell your art is a bonus. To think that someone out there 'gets' what you are trying to do and can afford to support it is wonderful. (Although Sols said, people buying the art does not necessarily mean they understand it. True, but I think Kim is saying that if you give people something to grasp onto or connect with, then there is a higher potential for sales)
As all artists are different, they have different intentions and different approaches to reaching their goal. Of course, these intentions change in different stages of the artists career. As long as you maintain integrity in what you do!
At 2:50 PM, February 14, 2006,
Anonymous said…
PS. Thanks for coming to the Opening Night, Kim&Silvana!
At 9:24 PM, February 14, 2006,
KH said…
I think it's easy to "say" certain things, or to claim to hold certain positions, but in reality, at some stage - we are all tested and fail.
I think the juxtaposition of the following paragraphs highlights the eternal dilemma: -
"Similarly, one's capacity to train has nothing to with rank or anything else other than one's genuine desire to train. Channeled correctly, and if sincere, this desire will find a way to overcome cost or distance or language barriers or any other obstacles.
Understanding that one may not be able to overcome such obstacles is also important."
That dilemma is whether or not it is better to be steadfast or flexible. The steadfast person might believe that things will go their way if, for example as Mel puts it, they maintain their integrity.
The flexible might suggest that knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em is a more sensible approach.
My understanding is that you're saying "pick a position", follow it with all your heart and sincerity and the rest will be OK (the 1st of your quoted paragraphs)
I'd suggest that it's more important to be able to recognise that things often won't take care of themselves. (the 2nd of your quoted paragraphs)
As such, I think that selling out, based on an understanding of the forces which require the sell-out to occur (the need to sell to maintain a living?) is a higher level solution.
I'm sure there are situations in which I would sell out, as I'm sure there are situations in which we all would. The question, I guess, is how long would you hold onto your beliefs before you gve in and whether it even matters if, in the end, we're all prone to selling out anyway.
At 9:26 PM, February 14, 2006,
KH said…
Aye also, what about some credit for the creative title - it took me ages to think of that...
At 11:16 PM, February 14, 2006,
Anonymous said…
The problem occurs, I think, when one starts to think that there is a difference between the two 'positions'. Certainly, when I first wrote what I did, I didn't even consider that they were opposites.
The only position that one need to take, I feel, is to simply keep going. That's all. In doing so, one comes to see that there really is no difference between being steadfast and being flexible. They turn out to be the same thing.
In budo, this is probably connected to the ideas of 'fudoshin' (immoveable heart) and 'banpen fugyo' (ten thousand changes, no surprises).
PS: By the way, I was meaning to tell you, nice title.... hehe
At 9:25 PM, February 22, 2006,
Anonymous said…
You always need a level of flexibility when dealing with different situations.
The extent of your flexibility depends on how you can reconcile it within yourself. This may depend on how much integrity you have, how much you are willing to succumb to the indecent proposal, how you view your art and your intentions.
At the end of the day, you answer to yourself, that is, you need to be able to cope with your decisions and the reasons for making them. The artist may think their latest works are not so great, but they may sell. How does this artist reconcile this issue? Maybe they just wanted to sell? Maybe the artist was experimenting and were ok with the level they had reached, but were willing to use it as a springboard for further creativity in later works and weren't complaining that they sold.
Its not a choice between being steadfast or flexible. I would assume flexibility will help everyone. If you dont have conditions as to how 'flexible' you are, then the person is a sell-out and most likely fall for anything!
One artist's condition of success may mean selling at least one work. Another's may be the feeling of producing something without compromising their artistic intentions.
Kim, your last paragraph sounded like everyone will just end up selling out anyway and that it may not really matter. That doesnt say much for ethics, eh??
Sols, I think only time will show whether there really is no difference between being steadfast or flexible.
Post a Comment
<< Home