Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:22:18 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 SCHRAMMR@WLSVAX.WVNET.EDU wrote:
> .... For me, anyway, it takes a
> lot more effort to produce a nice monochrome gum than a cyanotype and
> I think I mentioned that I could make lots of platinotypes in the time
> it takes to make one daguerreotype. Let me also say that I do not think
> it would be possible to account for every hour of time we spend creating
> a print and assign a value to that. First one has to come up with an idea
> and then figure out how to carry that out. After deciding on the process
> the negative has to be produced. Then there are all those flubby dubs
> that end up in the waste basket. Finally the print is made, matted and
> framed. Sometimes, however, the idea doesn't work and the print does
> not get made so all those hours are down the drain.
>
> Anyway, I always believed that true artists make images for the pure
> joy of it and partly just because they are compeled to do so. So, even
> if they never sold a single piece, they would continue.
Absolutely absolutely. When a student asks my advice on whether to become
an ARTIST, I tell them if you think you can possibly have a fulfilled life
at something else, the answer is no. (I give the same advice about
parenthood.)
But all this talk about pricing awakens memory of my first gallery show,
practically prelapsarian, circa 1983. The prints I showed (in a "good"
Madison Av photo gallery, later moved to Soho, now defunct) were all 8x10-
inch silver gelatin, toned and solarized. They were priced low because I
was an unknown (a status I have by due diligence managed to preserve), at
$700 each. About half, however, were also painted -- figures added in
acrylic -- they were priced at $900.
This may or may not prove that the key to art pricing is the same as
real estate: location, location, location. Because of the
labor-intensivity of those prints (and the HIGH degree of failure), I
doubt I would have priced them lower at the remotest art fair, and
needless to say they were one of a kind.
At the time, however, the consumer czar of NYC was enforcing the law that
declared the number in an edition of prints must be stated. (My number was
"unique print.") I recall also a big stink being made, with
letters-to-editor, etc. about a law that prices must be posted, as with
any consumer establishment. There was a flurry of ticket-giving to
galleries that didn't have their prices up. I believe Ronald Feldman was
one of the ticketees. Last I heard he had it on appeal, don't know the
upshot.
Pricing, promo, hype, reality, sales, investing vs. decorating, etc.
were discussed in a number of panels in the 1980s, dealers to some extent
letting down their hair in front of a mere 100 or so people at a CAA
convention, or Artists-Talk-on-Art, etc. The title of one I recall was
"How the Marketplace Gives Form to Art. (Several of these talk events are
in my anthology "Mutiny & the Mainstream: Talk That Changed Art,
1975-1990." That's a commercial if you like, but info is info.)
You might say this is a different time, but the basic principles of
selling art are essentially the same... and the non-correlation between
sales and "the judgement of history" probably also. But of course we
won't know that -- unless we plan to watch the auctions from a cloud in
heaven, and I doubt they play that channel.
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37