In February, my gallery exhibited the 3D modeling sculptures of Bathsheba Grossman. If you haven't heard of her you should really check out her work, it is a most interesting fusion of digital imaging, art, science and mathematics (see, there is a reason art majors should study math!). I was very taken with her artist statement and the way she handles work production and distribution:
My plan is to make these designs available, rather than restrict the supply. It's more like publishing than like gallery-based art marketing: we don't feel that a book has lost anything because many people have read it. In fact it becomes more valuable as it gains wide currency and influence. With the advent of 3D printing, this is the first moment in art history when sculpture can be, in this sense, published. I think it's the wave of the future.
I think it is as well. I've never been an artist for profit. Of course I want to be successful and appreciated as an artist but profit has never been my main motivation for the creation of artwork. If I really cared about finances I would have never pursued two art degrees or teaching in the arts. Believe me, I'm not in it for the money, because the money isn't always there. If financial consistency was my main goal I should have become a doctor or majored in business or pretty much done anything besides becoming an artist. I have sold my work, but I don't believe in charging outlandish prices for diamond-encrusted skulls and whatnot. This mindset is everything that is wrong with art making. And according to this article, with the economy the way it is, inflated art values might have reached the end of the road.
But what happens to the value of work when there are unlimited amounts or if it is given away for free? Instinctively, this sounds like a bad idea because it isn't the model of distribution we are used to. But then again we are dealing with a medium that has not existed and new models of marketing are necessary. Recently there has been a lot of talk about the comedy group Monty Python's page on YouTube. Their site states:
No more of those crap quality videos you've been posting. We're giving you the real thing - HQ videos delivered straight from our vault.
What's more, we're taking our most viewed clips and uploading brand new HQ versions. And what's even more, we're letting you see absolutely everything for free. So there!
Crazy? Many people thought so. If you give content away for free, then who will pay for it? But that's just what has happened. Shortly thereafter, YouTube reported that Monty Python's DVD sales increased 23,000 percent on Amazon. And Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails) has employed a similar method of offering some material free and charging for higher quality and "collectible" versions on their website. These are a few of the more popular examples floating around, but there are countless more artists out there finding new ways to distribute their work and get recognition.
Artists now have more freedom to reach a wider range of audience. We should not fear the web as a place where others will "steal" away our work without paying. But we should approach the web as a place to share, to sample and to reach more of an audience than ever before. Exposure is a currency in itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment