With art auctions having recently garnered much attention and higher-than-expected sales, the question on some
people's minds is whether or not the artist will/should get a commission from that sales. In the case of contemporary
art, I believe that whether or not an artist actually gets a commission is too hard to determine. State laws, ownership
issues, etc. all play into this. But, though the owner may get an instant monetary benefit, a living artist stands to
benefit for the rest of their career. Granted, auctions are tricky and sometimes things go for more than they should
but, in its essence, the market is determing the price. So though said collector will receive a onetime payment of
$500,000 the artist can now sell numerous works for around that price.
What led me to this topic was something that Sean sent my way about an
artist organization who wants to change the way art is
sold:
The mission of the prodigal art organization is to create a free flowing assimilation of art into society. We believe this can be accomplished by reversing the way art is currently sold. Instead of artist's locating buyers of their art, and charging that single buyer for everything the art encompasses, including time, materials, marketing and storage, artist's choose to give the art away for free. Then, whenever the art is sold in the future, 50% of the profit collected from that sale is sent back to the artist. This process is expected of anyone else down the line that owns and sells the art for profit.
If you read the rest of their statement you'll realize that there are many loop-holes in this mission. One, they aren't factoring in a gallery at all which means that they aren't artists on a gallery-representative level. Second, if it's an artist selling the work why would you rather take the change of maybe seeing a 50% return years from now rather than a 100% return now? And if you'd take the 50% why aren't you showing with a gallery who's job it is to sell/promote your art? Third, art has value. Yes, it should be enjoyed and I guess if you're never going to sell or try to sell anything having it up in someone's living room for free might be satisfying but it just seems a little sad to give it away. Fourth, if you're that concerned about the resale, why don't you have the collector sign something upfront that states that if they ever re-sell your piece, you get a commission? And finally, I don't believe that art that won't sell and is being given away for free will likely ever see the secondary market.
1. Hi Caryn, Thank you for linking to Amanda Koh's project, and for your thoughts. I'll try to reply:
- One, they aren?t factoring in a gallery at all which means that they aren?t artists on a gallery-representative level.
- Correct! Wouldn't it be nice if most people could enjoy art in their homes? Isn't it a shame that they don't? Especially when so many creative works are produced and never leave the artist? Isn't this a problem that art galleries are not meant to solve? And so doesn't it make sense to find a radically different solution? Although there is nothing here to keep galleries from participating.
- Second, if it?s an artist selling the work why would you rather take the change of maybe seeing a 50% return years from now rather than a 100% return now?
- Selling art at 100% means that you are representing yourself! This is for artists who don't want to be focusing on selling. Certainly 50% (of the profits!) is quite fair to give to the seller. Even in galleries, only a small portion of art is sold "now". And the original price has very little to do with the ultimate price.
- And if you?d take the 50% why aren?t you showing with a gallery who?s job it is to sell/promote your art?
- Galleries are also welcome to sell art under this system.
- Third, art has value. Yes, it should be enjoyed and I guess if you?re never going to sell or try to sell anything having it up in someone?s living room for free might be satisfying but it just seems a little sad to give it away.
Yes, this is for the people who enjoy giving things away. It encourages them - and hopefully rewards them - for doing that more often.
- Fourth, if you?re that concerned about the resale, why don?t you have the collector sign something upfront that states that if they ever re-sell your piece, you get a commission?
- The legal system is not much better than you're ability to go to court. So it's nice to operate under the moral system - it's simply establishing a moral obligation to the artist. This makes it much more powerful than the legal system, because if anybody cheats, then the purchaser who learns of the obligation must take it up! which is generally not the case in the legal system.
- And finally, I don?t believe that art that won?t sell and is being given away for free will likely ever see the secondary market.
- But why not try? Actually, this system allows art to be sold at very low prices, because it takes nothing away from the artist. They benefit from the total number of sales. This allows for greater circulation of art and greater enjoyment of art.
I understand that none of this is needed in cases where art galleries are doing a great job. But in all other cases, please help us think this through and make this happen at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minciu_sodas_EN/ Thank you!
Posted at 6:00AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Andrius Kulikauskas