pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on thu 29 apr 04
Hi Kathy,
If the salientmost dimension of these mentions, lay in your
wishing to do the kind of Work you do, and, for those Works
to bring sufficient remunerations in their matriculation
into the World, for you to maintain the logistics of Making
them...if not a little more than that even, just for fun...
Then...we maybe can focus on some of the common sense
appreciations as concern that:
How to allow a wide enough audience to see and find out
about your Work, for potentially interested parties to
become numerous enough to support it?
What kinds of 'prices' have you in mind for them, or, as
they may feel to be encouraged by?
What are the concerns as for shipping your Work to distant
buyers? And, maybe, how would that add to the cost for them,
and or, the additional efforts for you?
What departures or progressions or spin-offs of your work
would still satisfy you Artistically, ethically and
otherwise, as you have not done, or not focused on, but
could do, as could allow additional choices in your
offerings? And, maybe, as would make easier, any of the
above?
Phil
(been there, doing that...still there, doing that...and
maybe not very well, either...)
in
el ve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy Forer"
> "In this kind of a world," Peterson said, "absurd if you
will,
> possibilities nevertheless proliferate and escalate all
around us and
> there are opportunities for beginning again. I am a minor
artist and my
> dealer won't even display my work if he can help it but
minor is as
> minor does and lightning may strike even yet. Don't be
reconciled. Turn
> off your television sets," Peterson said, "cash in your
life insurance,
> indulge in a mindless optimism. Visit girls at dusk. Play
the guitar.
> How can you be alienated without ever having been
connected? Think
> back and remember how it was." -- Donald Barthelme, A
Shower of Gold,
> 1964
>
> On Apr 27, 2004, at 10:15 PM, pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
>
> > need to be able to justify or
> > rationalize things to the satisfaction of my tormentors
>
> Phil,
>
> You're absolutely correct that I appear to be playing in a
sandbox of
> reason and rationalization. One could say "why don't you
just spit it
> out?" but the words that have been defined and redefined
by others seem
> to get in the way.
>
> There's a political and economic element that can barely
be ignored as
> we pursue our useful or useless arts and crafts. The kind
of purity I
> often seek is not always available and I rage around
trying to find out
> where it is. Certainly it's somewhere in my heart, but
just as likely
> it's clouded by demands and desires.
>
> Someone who makes something of use contributes to the
world, to
> society, to neighbors and friends. Those who make the
inanely useless
> stuff of this world, while free to lop off an arm, as Nana
related,
> have a harder time cultivating and pruning the arrogance
necessary to
> be willfully extraneous, to make things of no needful
purpose. And so
> we seek to create meaning out of nothing, perhaps even
devise a
> rationale or world view.
>
> There's an old theory making the rounds lately, focused
perhaps most
> specifically on a collective belt-loosening and an exhibit
at a local
> dress shack and perhaps related to a current museum show
as well. The
> show is about Fashion and the theory, as iterated by the
architecture
> critic Herbert Muschamp, basically goes:
> "Georges Bataille argued that all culture is
luxury. It's what
> we do with the energy that is left over after our
material needs
> are met. Luxury, in the modern sense, means the
transformation
> of the commonplace, in Arthur Danto's phrase."
>
> One might disagree and say, "ah, that's just some theory,
and who am I
> to say, I know what I like, don't pay it no mind," but
that still
> leaves us in the position of having a culture that values
luxury over
> need. There's something wanton about art, something of
privation in
> need. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the
polarization this
> kind of theory causes, -- and it's not the media or the
theory itself,
> they're just writers attempting to take a pulse, enhance a
pulse.
>
> The theory implicitly says that what is not luxury is not
culture. That
> what is commonplace and mundane is mere subsistence, not
living.
> Okay... Given that, people will try to live to the
fullest, to meet
> their needs with the least amount of difficulty so as to
attend to the
> energy left over. Or will they? Our needs are met by
culture itself. We
> can't separate the makers from the makees.
>
> I see opposites, and reconciliation of opposites, all the
time, or at
> least I think I do, things seem opposed, then they seem
reconciled, or
> they become even more opposite. I couldn't explain it to
my dad, which
> means I can't explain it at all, but there's also a
political theory
> where the left meets the right, if they both go far enough
to extremes.
> Inert circles and directed spirals.
>
> An ancient gold diadem, a Kharmann Ghia, Rebecca's "worn,
and now
> useless, security blanket" and a box of sugar have only
the value we
> decide, they're just objects. Why do we make a teapot with
a lovely
> spout, balance our checkbook or paint a story or make a
cd? I don't
> think there's anything different between these activities
except our
> own aptitudes and proclivities. It seems wrong to create
an alternate
> system that values and fetishizes the intangible just
because some
> disapprove of a system of economic determinism that
assigns value based
> on scarcity, production and supply and demand. One
commodifies an
> object, the other mythologizes it.
>
> But again, that's just more words.
>
> Maybe I just need to accept that embracing bits and pieces
and making
> my own sense is fine. It seems hackneyed and incomplete,
commonplace
> and impure, not really thorough; but it's a work in
progress. A soupcon
> of social realism would go well with this dram of formal
craft.
>
>
> I had a show a couple of months ago.
> http://homepage.mac.com/kef/exhibitions It went really
well, the people
> who came were very enthusiastic. But no one bought
anything. The
> gallery guy, the gallery owner, said my work was high
priced, but
> admitted that no one made any offers. It's work that took
forever and a
> day and was actually comparably priced to other work he
had shown, work
> that in my purest arrogance I might say was elementary. He
chastised or
> condemned me for broken/repaired work as well. But I'd
never have come
> up with what I did if I abided by the rules, though now
it's time to be
> a more responsible citizen.
>
> The point was nothing sold, not even a small piece, and
I'm back in the
> studio thinking I'm doing this all for myself, all for me,
what for?
> I've been through this before and come out on the side of
the wanton
> wastrels, but it's harder now, I have a studio and life to
support. I
> have to push pixels, letters, digits and elsenot to make a
go of it,
> and somehow keep believing in the illusion as well. Maybe
it's not an
> illusion. Push clay, push paint.
>
> I'm trying, trying hard to realize that what I do with
clay, useless
> personal detritus that sometimes connects, is really no
different than
> what a wheel or production potter may do. It's all 9 to 5
and you've
> got to stake a claim and mine it. Then it stops being an
illusion, it's
> just making stuff, could be bottle labels, song jingles or
tv parts.
> The hard part is the energy. Not that I don't have any,
but I'm often
> preoccupied, angry and unresponsive; Bataille might say I
was seduced
> by material needs, but I look outside and see the Clay Pit
Creek where
> I live, and sometimes can't help but think how it was
mined out in the
> 30s and there's nothing left of it. But then I take a
breath and look a
> bit farther, maybe to home, across the harbor, and it's
just fine, just
> fine, just fine. Waste not, 'wont' not.
>
> A far too long email but now it's nearly done.
> > These rationalizations or justifications may be
> > found to underlie, or to lie, below and amid many other
> > vexations
>
> Kathy
> not far above Clay Pit Creek, where the lights are left
burning in the
> studio and my web site is about as done as it will be
until I get some
> new work fired, perhaps in my own kiln (which I still need
to get) with
> the chemicals and materials cache I scored last week. Or
maybe use that
> yet to be delivered 100 pounds of Pottery #1 plaster with
all that
> mouldering wax, bamboo and paper. And shoot out the
lights.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
__________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your
subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached
at melpots@pclink.com.
Kathy Forer on fri 30 apr 04
Hi Phil, Some excellent questions and thank you for a careful reading
of my excess verbiage.
I shall reply below, amid...
> How to allow a wide enough audience to see and find out
> about your Work, for potentially interested parties to
> become numerous enough to support it?
That's a tough one. Ideally the answer would be that someone else would
do it for me. Alternatively, I can continue to make a fool of myself
here and elsewhere on line and perhaps get a reputation, perhaps
notoriety, definitely something that will affect the appearance more
than the actual, spreading thin the work itself. Or, concentrate it, if
I could manage to get the computer to work for my work, as I work for
it.
Also see:
> On Feb 18, 2004, at 8:56 PM, Helen Bates wrote:
>
>> "Art and the Internet" by Dana Altman
>> artphoto - contemporary art magazine
>>
> What kinds of 'prices' have you in mind for them, or, as
> they may feel to be encouraged by?
If I make five pieces a month and have x expenses, then each piece
should be x/5.
Though that sounds suspiciously like "time is money." So I propose
another system:
A - give it away
B - dirt cheap
C - for friends and family if I had the sort of friends and
family that bought art (or maybe I would if I priced it that way...)
D - solid investment
E - outrageous
F - NFS
> What are the concerns as for shipping your Work to distant
> buyers? And, maybe, how would that add to the cost for them,
> and or, the additional efforts for you?
I've been looking at proper gallery crates lately. Whooo, there's a lot
of work that goes into them. Possibly as much as your hand-crafted
boxes, though production.
packing01.htm>
I've been reluctant to enter far-flung exhibits for that very reason,
though the smaller work is certainly easy to handle. Lighter is good
too, it just doesn't have to be 49/98 of an inch thick, even on an
analog micrometer.
> What departures or progressions or spin-offs of your work
> would still satisfy you Artistically, ethically and
> otherwise, as you have not done, or not focused on, but
> could do, as could allow additional choices in your
> offerings? And, maybe, as would make easier, any of the
> above?
I would like to cast some of my work in bronze, mainly to make it more
accessible in price and was very disappointed to find out that the
Johnson Atelier is no longer casting bronze. Though there are many
other fine, even finer places, Johnson was convenient. But a chapter
closed with my recent gallery show and at this point, I'd prefer to
move on with new work, and make as much of it as I can.
My desk is filled with pounds of paper, ideas and departures. In the
lovely isolation of this clay pit creek, I am finally unearthing and
responding to them. I'm not quite a ceramic sculptor and not entirely a
modren fine art sculptor, I have to find my way somewhere, and getting
on top of or ahead of my time is the way.
My mother always wanted me to make multiples of my work and I resisted.
Mostly snobbery, but also reflection from a stint as a mold and model
maker (mainly tool and die) working in polyester resin and epoxy.
Thousands of "fine art replica" 1988 AT&T 'Olympic' collectible
telephones made in a filthy, smelly, under-ventilated Brooklyn factory
with hundreds of non-masked Guyanese workers stooped over grinding
resin and patching holes. Really took the romance out of it. Unlike a
printing press, which is a lovely thing to behold, mass production of
sculpture is wickedly harmful, dirty and ugly. Plaster and ceramic
production are considerably more appealing. Metal even nicer.
Some of the work would have lent itself to series of multiples, but,
well, no one ever bit and I didn't do it myself, for reasons above, for
also not wanting to "get stuck."
I haven't done printmaking in a while. I'd also like to experiment with
larger, lighter work, maybe outdoors, probably plaster over metal or
bamboo. Also fast work, a string of work instead of a circle of one.
Nothing earthshaking, "work small, work smart," it's soon time to turn
off the computer and see the day.
> Phil
> (been there, doing that...still there, doing that...and
> maybe not very well, either...)
Bye there, Bison Studios! Keep making those sharp-eyed beechnut and
cherry handled trimming tools. Using them tempted me to get a wheel.
Kathy
---------
Kathy Forer
http://www.kforer.com
Snail Scott on fri 30 apr 04
At 04:20 AM 4/30/04 -0400, Kathy F wrote:
>I would like to cast some of my work in bronze, mainly to make it more
>accessible in price...
I do sculpture in clay and bronze (often both),
and worked for years in an art bronze foundry.
Although the production of multiples would seem
to be a route to lower prices, it doesn't really
work out that way with bronze sculpture, unless
it's mass-produced in Asia or elsewhere by very
inexpensive labor.
The reason bronze sculpture is expensive is the
labor involved in the process. It lends itself
poorly to automated methods. Lots of handwork,
as well as considerable overhead in tools and
equipment. Some work is less labor-intensive than
others, but it's all got some. Much more than the
resin-casting operation you described, and even
that has (as you observed) a lot more handwork
than most people realize.
In theory, the larger the edition, the less the
cost per item, but that's mainly true in mass-
manufacturing. As production potters have observed
in the past, if you are talking about handwork,
multiples are NOT easier and don't get cheaper.
Bronze casting for art is somewhere in the middle.
There are distributed costs, like the cost of
making the initial mold: paid once, regardless
of the size of the edition, and so the cost is
divided among a larger number of salable items.
And the labor is somewhat reduced after the
optimum casting and finishing for each piece has
been worked out. Logically, then, the more units,
the lower the production cost, but only to a
point.
Fine-art editions need to be small. For the people
who buy such things, the size of the edition
matters. And they pay more for works in smaller
editions. It's rare to see a fine work of sculpture
in editions larger than about two dozen. Larger
editions tend to be made for artists who are aiming
at a lower-priced market. Better galleries won't
handle large editions; it looks too 'Wal-Mart'.
You end up in the gift-shop market, with its
commensurately lower price structure. Huge editions
(or unlimited ones, like the fake Remingtons at
Costco) get very cheap, and that's why you don't
see them made in the US: even with the slipshod
workmanship of those knockoffs, they couldn't be
sold for that price if the foundry workers were
making even the US minimum wage. So, with only a
few exceptions, the price for progressively larger
editions tends to drop faster than the cost of
producing them.
Another factor: for very large editions, you need
a real distribution network. You can't sell even
500 copies of the same item at regional galleries
or art fairs; you need retailers and wholesaling,
and a steady product stream - a whole different
market.
It seems to me that an original, unique work in
clay (or any other material) should be worth more
than anything that's a multiple, but it doesn't
work out that way. It's not just the 'high-class'
factor that keeps bronze prices high; it's that
you simply can't produce it cheaply enough to
give the gallery their cut and still make a profit
of any size at all, unless the price is high.
I earn much less on each bronze piece than on
each clay piece, although the selling price is
higher. This is somewhat equalized for my larger
work, where the prices for my clay and my bronze
approach one another. But, I can't afford to cast
bronze at that scale if I had to pay a foundry -
the 'front money' is too much.
(I work as the sculpture-department technician at
the local university here, mainly because it
allows me to cast my own work. The cost is thus
in labor, not dollars - but it still costs.)
The main reason I work in bronze is not financial.
It's because some of the work I make 'needs' to
be in bronze, to be the piece of art that it wants
to be. Not every idea is appropriate for clay,
and I'd rather work in other materials than let
the medium dictate the choice (or, worse in my
thinking, demand that clay to do things that
would be better expressed by other means.)
I heard of a guy when I lived in Santa Fe who
was doing cast multiples in clay, and managing
to sell them like bronze: with a higher price
structure and the same 'cachet' as bronze
multiples (i.e. not as 'copies', but as multiple
originals), and avoiding the slip-cast figurine
stigma entirely. They were small editions, and
looked like terra cotta. They were nice. The
main reason he was able to do this, though, (I
believe,) was the venue. He was showing at a
gallery on the grounds of a bronze foundry,
surrounded by works in bronze and other high-end
fine art, NOT mass-produced tchotschkes or even
fine craftwork. So, the viewers (and thus buyers)
saw what they expected to see: artwork which
existed as multiple originals, with a value that
was consistent with the (high) asking price.
Reputation has something to do with it, too.
Artists with broad name recognition can sell more
work, for higher prices AND in larger editions
than relative unknowns like me. But you've got to
get to that level first.
Anyway, those are a few of my thoughts on casting
in bronze. It's worth doing, IF bronze is the
material you want, for its own sake, or if you
have sufficient resources and reputation to
leverage yourself to a higher level of sales,
but I doubt that it can really be an effective
road to lowering your prices. It might be
possible, but I've personally never seen it.
-Snail Scott
Reno, Nevada, USA, Earth
| |
|
