ArtPrize has created some debate among artists recently. The Grand Rapids, Michigan based art prize is offering the winning artist $250,000, 2nd place $100,000, 3rd place $50,000 and $7000 for the next 7 artists.

That much money on offer gets a lot of attention from artists and the media, but the thing that artists are discussing most is the judging process; there is none. OK, not none, but the public vote for the winner. This has made many artist afraid, especially conceptual artists, and I think they have good reason to be afraid as most people have no reason to be in a gallery. I know that I wouldn’t be a very good judge of hairy footed pheasants at a cock show as I don’t know anything about them, which is the same reason that people who wouldn’t know a poster from an oil painting wouldn’t be very good at judging art.

It seems to be an experimental art prize though, which hopes to involve the public and get them looking at art, so it’s all good. It will be interesting to see the winning work. The choices of art experts often have me scratching my head, so the public can’t do much worse in choosing a winner.

ArtPrize is open to artists worldwide and judging is open to anyone that attends an exhibition space throughout Grand Rapids, Michigan. See the ArtPrize website for more information on entering the art competition. They also have a blog discussing the prize.

Thanks to Susan and those that let me know of the art prize.

If you believe that art auction results are the be all and end all of the art market and that art auction results tell the full story of the evolution of art prices then you should probably reconsider your point of view. What art auction results do reflect is an extremely narrow view of how art market participants are reacting to the various influences that affect what price people are willing to pay for a work of art at a very specific moment in time. Looking at the sale history of an artwork over a period of one or two years or for that matter even five years may not give enough information to be able to truly appreciate how the value of that artwork has evolved.

It is difficult to make sense of what is happening when so many different points of view are being expressed by various experts and the media but when one puts things into perspective the figures speak for themselves. As an example of what I am talking about I will use the recent sale of the work “Untitled” (1992) by Albert Oehlen at the Sotheby’s Contemporary Art Day auction on the 12th of November (2008). The estimate for this work was USD $250,000 – $300,000 however it sold for $200,000 (hammer price) which doesn’t appear to be a particularly good result but the full story of this work paints a different picture. First of all, lets look at the sale history of similar works. In June 2002 another “Untitled” work painting in 1989 by Oehlen of a similar size sold for USD $17,322 (hammer price) with several other similar works selling for around the same price. To put this into perspective, if someone had purchased “Untitled” (1992) at auction in 2001 for USD $17,322 (hammer price) and then sold the work for USD $200,000 (hammer price) at the November 12 2008 auction that person would have received an increase of around 860% (taking fees into consideration) on their initial investment which, regardless of the fact that the work sold for $50,000 under the estimate at Sotheby’s on November 12, is an extremely good return. The purpose of this example is to show that the performance of a work of art cannot be determined from one auction results but needs to be assessed using data from a period of at least 10 years.

Another work by Oehlen, “Untitled” (1990), was also sold at the same sale as the above mentioned “Untitled” (1992) but with an estimate of USD $200,000 – $300,000 which was a $50,000 wider estimate than the USD $250,000 – $300,000 estimate for “Untitled” (1990). Although they both sold for the same price and had the same upper estimate the different lower estimate resulted in the sale of one work looking better than the other work. The perceived performance of these works of art have been manipulated by the auction house which once again shows how important it is to look at the big picture. The wider estimate of “Untitled” (1990) may reflect nothing more than the auction house having difficulty determining what the estimate should be and may not have been done to purposely affect people’s perception of the work but never the less the actions of the auction house did in this instance have the potential to alter the way people viewed the sale results and, consequently, the value of the works.

Am I optimistic about the future of the art market? Yes I am, because there are plenty of signs that people have confidence in the art market and have not lost their nerve. One such sign is the strong results being achieved for contemporary art which has been particularly evident with the November auctions as seen in the table below. The table from chelseaartgalleries.com shows the most successful lots from the November 14 Phillips De Pury Contemporary Art Part II auction. It is important to note that the prices in the table are exceptional and are not representative of the whole market for contemporary art but what they do show is that there is still plenty of confidence in the work of contemporary artists. There has definitely been a reduction in the average price people are willing to pay for many contemporary works but that doesn’t mean that the prices being paid aren’t still good in the overall scheme of things as I have shown in the earlier example of the Albert Oehlen works. The relatively strong market for top works of contemporary art reflects the continued confidence in the work of contemporary artists whose work would usually be expected to be the most seriously affected because of the higher risk involved in purchasing such works. Regardless of what people were paying for works of contemporary art six months ago the prices being paid in this first phase of the art market correction represent an art market that is exceeding expectations on many levels and is still showing strength and resilience in a time of financial distress and uncertainty.

Best performers from November 14 Phillips De Pury Contemporary Art Part II auction:
1 Jin Meyerson Lot: 456 $40,000 – $60,000 $200,000 3.33 times high estimate
2 Steven Charles Lot: 243 $8,000 – $12,000 $32,000 2.67 times high estimate
3 Jack Goldstein Lot: 329 $35,000 – $45,000 $90,000 2.00 times high estimate
4 Eric Freeman Lot: 449 $7,000 – $9,000 $16,000 1.78 times high estimate
5 Beatriz Milhazes Lot: 105 $150,000 – $200,000 $310,000 1.55 times high estimate
6 Yayoi Kusama Lot: 260 $12,000 – $18,000 $26,000 1.44 times high estimate
7 George Baselitz Lot: 346 $15,000 – $20,000 $28,000 1.40 times high estimate
8 Nasser Azam Lot: 120 $150,000 – $200,000 $275,000 1.38 times high estimate

Created by Nicholas Forrest On 11/17/08 At 10:38 AM

There is a difference in my creative art process between “copy” and “replication.” Let me explain. As artist I start off with digital tools, use oil paints as an intermediate step, then end up with a digital derived final product. So how does this compare and differ from the commonplace procedure of reproducing paintings by copyists? I’ll try to clarify so here goes-

I started off in painting and sculpture, earning a master’s degree in Studio Art (Northern Illinois University, 1975). This developed an affinity as well as artistic sensitivity for the expressive powers of the paint medium. But with the introduction of the personal computer (PC graphics) in the 80s, I decided to emerge along with it as digital artist. I abandoned my paint tubes and brushes. In the beginning I was a purist, never scanning or importing photographs (of course back then there was no digital camera). I took pride in starting with clusters of pixels on an otherwise blank monitor screen. But times have changed and my attitude and approach has evolved along with the medium. My work now is truly “multi-media” or as they said before, “mixed media.” I am now free to use whatever resources are available to make innovative imagery.

Which brings me to the issue of “original” and “reproduction.” How do these terms relate to my idiosyncratic approach to producing art?

Other artists who create a painting may have their work later duplicated by another individual, whether willingly or not. The first painted image is the “original” and the subsequent effort(s) is a “copy.” In this case the medium is the same. Both are paint on canvas. Today because of economics and the advancement of technology, the original can also be “duplicated” through digital photography and digital printmaking. Archival quality print editions called “Giclees” can be offered at a more affordable price to many collectors instead of just one. The original painting so popularized by the multitude of identical print imagery thereby also appreciates in value, or price.

My art making process differs. I start off with a completed digital image on the computer monitor display. My “original” is represented virtually by photons of light called pixels that are directed in visual attributes by computer data stored as files. My “original” is actually a bunch of numbers in a computer data base. Its display as a picture on the screen is merely temporary. When the image file is closed or the computer turned off, there is no picture. There is no visual/visible art. In the “early days” my digital art was either printed or photographed off the monitor. The latter method was used to frame hardcopy prints for my 1988 solo exhibition at the Shanghai Art Museum. It was by the way, the first digital art exhibition in China, thereby making Chinese art history.

But from this standard way of capturing the digital image and being able to touch it, frame it, and display it, my work has evolved. Maybe it was because of my earlier studio work in painting and drawing at Northern Illinois. Besides, after remaining the purist as a digital artist, it started to feel stale. I wanted to experiment outside of conventional digital imagery. Supported by an aesthetic theory and philosophy through years of exploring the psychology of art, I moved on to develop my systems approach that incorporated other media besides the digital. My work also embraced a team approach, with me as primary artist and image-making visionary.

I either start from scratch in front of the monitor with a blinking light cursor waiting to be led. Or I can load into ram memory a former digital image and take it further or into a new direction. Alternately I can use my professional photography skills and import imagery from my digital camera. After manipulation with mixed bag of graphic software, I arrive with an image that I judge with confidence in having made the transformation from merely “computer graphics” to literally fine art. I go ahead and “save” a work of art, still in its initial, or “original” state and form.

Somewhere over the decades I evaluated a purely digital image to still be too machine-like, too technically perfect to achieve my specific goal as a digital artist. I aspire to achieve works that convincingly simulate the appearance of paintings manually produced on canvas. So in order to “soften” the unyielding calculated imagery generated through the dictation of mathematical functions, I farm out my digital pictures to be actually painted-by-hand. The task is executed by selected collaborators who are masters in their craft. Remember that in my case the digital image is the original. Therefore the subsequent painting cannot be a “copy,” as this term requires the existence of an actual painting. So just what is the painting of a digital image, for the role that it performs in my creative process?

It is a “replication” of the digital image. It is also, however, transient like the original. The digital image disappears when the file is closed. The knock off painting is merely a means to an end. As good as the craftsman is in replicating the digital “blueprint,” there is subtle variation from the original digital that cannot be avoided. Such “error” in the translation between media is intentionally added by me, the “digital painting designer.” For one thing we are using a different media to transpose the digital. The computer picture is projected dots of light into the human retina. Color and form of a painting are light waves reflected off opaque surfaces (of paint and canvas). One image is made of pixels of light, the other of paint. Then there is human error that cannot be avoided, as the infinite amount of visual information of a detailed digital image cannot be completely captured by the limits of both the paint medium as well as the accuracy and skill of the individual artisan. The human as computer printer is imperfect. As I said before, this margin of error in the replication process is not only anticipated but also desired. Because of such deviance the high-tech, hard edge look of the digital imagery can be “cut” or reduced, giving the secondary image a hands-on feel and appearance. Through the hands of humans my digital picture is “softened” and soothed. By using the limitation of the paint medium, my simulated digital “paintings” are more convincingly perceived as paint.

But the painting produced from the digital picture is not the end of my process. The object is digitally photographed, ironically converting the picture back to pixels. After personally enhancing the captured image with software, printing test prints to proof and doing the subsequent adjustments, this final digital file of the original digital image is offered as a limited edition Giclee print. I define the print as “derivative” of the whole process. I dub it “derivative” art and my artistic intent, process and final imagery as the new art of “Derivativism.”

To summarize, other artists have paintings “copied” or “reproduced.” I instead create a digital image, have it “replicated” in order to “derive” a final digital (once again) print. It can be tossed (in 2006 I literally destroyed 175 canvas paintings), or sold (they are beautiful and masterfully crafted) to an admirer. Or, as documentary of my long-term process leading to an extensive series of print editions, the intermediary paintings could be exhibited in a hall of their own. In such a paradoxical way would they compliment as well as elevate an audience’s appreciation of the monumentally scaled (40”x50”) derivative print collection. The Giclees would be the featured works, installed as the main exhibition of my future digital art museum.

Everybody expects artwork to be signed. So, you may ask, how is the art signed? I back off as Rodney Chang, multi-media conceptual artist. Instead I sign “Pygoya” for the team of Pygoya Productions.

“Sailing in Cyberspace,” 2003 – original digital

“Sailing in Cyberspace,” 2003 – 40″x50″ Giclee canvas print

photo courtesy, V Salon, Manhattan, New York City, NY

Created by Pygoya On 10/09/08 At 10:33 AM

Orphan Works: Connect the Dots     

9.30.08                                                                                     

1. Web firms quietly win copyright victory in Congress

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) Sept 29 — As the media turned its attention last weekend to battles on Capitol Hill over the fate of the proposed Wall Street bailout bill, Internet companies including Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp. quietly walked away with a legislative victory that could facilitate their use of copyrighted material.

The Senate on Friday passed the Orphan Works Act of 2008, legislation that weakens copyright protection for works whose owners cannot be located. The legislation has now been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The legislation requires only that a company make a “reasonably diligent” search to locate a copyright owner before using their work in media including the Internet, and limits compensation required for the use of an infringed work.

Orphan Works: Connect the Dots     

9.30.08                                                                                     

1. Web firms quietly win copyright victory in Congress

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) Sept 29 — As the media turned its attention last weekend to battles on Capitol Hill over the fate of the proposed Wall Street bailout bill, Internet companies including Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp. quietly walked away with a legislative victory that could facilitate their use of copyrighted material.

The Senate on Friday passed the Orphan Works Act of 2008, legislation that weakens copyright protection for works whose owners cannot be located. The legislation has now been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The legislation requires only that a company make a “reasonably diligent” search to locate a copyright owner before using their work in media including the Internet, and limits compensation required for the use of an infringed work.  

-By John Letzing, MarketWatch Sept. 29, 2008
www.marketwatch.com/news/story/web-firms-quietly-win-copyright/story.aspx?guid={E21206C0-98F5-459B-9506-8133CBD82859}&dist=hpts

2. Google Acknowledges Copyright Infringement Claims Could Harm Business

ILLUSTRATORS PARTNERSHIP Sept 30 — In March 2007, Google filed a mandatory 10-Q Filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In it, they acknowledged: “copyright claims filed against us [by copyright owners] alleging that features of certain of our products and services, including Google Web Search, Google News, Google Video, Google Image Search, Google Book Search and YouTube, infringe their rights.”

Google admitted that “[a]dverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of substantial monetary damages, costly royalty or licensing agreements or orders preventing us from offering certain functionalities, and may also result in a change in our business practices, which could result in a loss of revenue for us or otherwise harm our business.” (Italics added.)

–Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, Illustrators Partnership
investor.google.com/documents/20070331_10-Q.html

3. Google Sees Value in Orphan Works

ILLUSTRATORS PARTNERSHIP March 8, 2006 — At the Copyright Office’s Orphan Works Roundtables, July 26-27, 2005, Alexander MacGilivray of Google stated:

 ”The thing that I would encourage the Copyright Office to consider is not just the very, very small scale -the one user who wants to make use of the [orphan] work – but also the very, very large scale – and talking in the millions of works. – page 21

 ”Google strongly believes that these orphan works are both worthwhile, useful, and extremely valuable.” – page 119

“We expect that our use of these orphan works will likely be in the 1 million works range…” (Italics added.) – page 166

“[W]e know that many of them  [orphan works] will be in the public domain, that most of their authors won’t care. But there are a few [authors] that really will care and they will come forward [to claim authorship] and it will be extremely inefficient for us.” (Italics added.) -page 166
(Page numbers are from Copyright Office transcripts.)

Orphan Works Roundtables were held by the US Copyright Office July 26-7, 2005 in Washington DC
www.copyright.gov/orphan/transcript/0726LOC.PDF

4. Google Donates $3 Million to U.S. Library of Congress

Australian IT Nov 23, 2005 — The U.S. Library of Congress is kicking off a campaign to work with other nation’s libraries to build a World Digital Library, starting with a $US3 million donation from Google.

-Eric Auchard in San Francisco | November 23, 2005
australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,173391455E5E15306-15322,00.html

TAKE ACTION: EMAIL CONGRESS NOW
http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/alert/?alertid=11980321

Please post or forward this message immediately to any interested party.
_

For news and information:
Illustrators’ Partnership Orphan Works Blog: ipaorphanworks.blogspot.com/

Over 75 organizations oppose this bill, representing over half a million creators. Illustrators, photographers, fine artists, songwriters, musicians, and countless licensing firms all believe this bill will harm their small businesses.

U.S. Creators and the image-making public can email Congress through the Capwiz site: capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/ 2 minutes is all it takes to tell the U.S. Congress to uphold copyright protection for the world’s artists.

INTERNATIONAL ARTISTS please fax these 4 U.S. State Agencies and appeal to your home representatives for intervention. www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00267

CALL CONGRESS: 1-800-828-0498.  Tell the U.S. Capitol Switchboard Operator “I would like to leave a message for Congressperson  that I oppose the Orphan Works Act.”  The switchboard operator will patch you through to the lawmaker’s office and often take a message which also gets passed on to the lawmaker. Once you’re put through tell your Representative the message again.

If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com Place “Add Name” in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.

STOP THE ORPHAN WORKS ACT NOW.

Created by Walter King On 10/06/08 At 11:43 AM

The controversial Australian photographer Bill Henson is making news again down under. Earlier in the year he had his Roslyn Oxley9 exhibition in Sydney raided by police with several nude photos being seized (and later returned). Henson was labelled everything from a pornographer to a paedophile and even prompted the Australian prime minister to call the photos revolting.

Henson now has the school teacher Sue Knight in trouble after she allowed the photographer to search for models at the St Kilda Park Primary School when she was the principal of the Melbourne school.

Here’s some more from the Canberra Times.. “Parents of children at the primary school where photographer Bill Henson scouted the playground for models have supported the artist and the principal’s decision to allow him into the school. St Kilda Park Primary School council president David Myer said the school backed former principal Sue Knight who escorted Mr Henson around the school last year.”

I must confess that if I had an 11 year old daughter at school, I wouldn’t like a middle aged man scouting the school for possible nude photos. The matter is still being investigated but it seems that the media is making the incident sound much scarier than it actually was.

Bill Henson remained silent during his controversial Sydney exhibition earlier in the year, but has spoken to the Age’s David Marr about the latest media frenzy/witch hunt. Here’s some Bill Henson quotes from the interview..

“Sometimes it’s a friend, or the kids of a friend, or a friend of a friend. Sometimes it can be a friend of a relative. Sometimes you are walking down the street or you are in a restaurant and you see someone. There is this face. All you can do is give them a card and say: ‘Look, just Google me, and I’d be very interested in photographing your daughter or son.’ “
Bill Henson

“I went in there (the Melbourne school) just wandered around while everyone was having their lunch. I saw this boy, and I saw a girl too actually, and I thought they would be great and the principal said, ‘Fine, I will give the parents a ring and let you know.’ So the ball is always in their court. The girl’s parents went, ‘Oh no, we don’t think it’s for us’ and the boy’s parents said, ‘Yes, sure.’ So … that is how I started working with him.”
Bill Henson

>> Bill Henson Nude Teen Controversy, Controversies, Photography News

I finally watched the Marla Olmstead documentary that people have been commenting on in earlier Marla posts here, here, and here. The comments that people have left on earlier posts are very FOR or AGAINST the little “child prodigy” with very few neutral opinions on the whole saga. I still think the art critic Clement Greenberg got it right when he said..

“In visual arts, prodigies don’t count. In music and literature, yes, but not in art.” Clement Greenberg

For those that don’t know, Marla Olmstead is a child painter that quickly rose to fame at the ripe old age of 4, before a 60 Minutes episode doubted the authenticity of Marla’s work. Some of the doubt has since disappeared for some people and she is back in demand with art collectors, selling original paintings for tens of thousands of dollars.

The documentary called “My Kid Could Paint That” by director Amir Bar-Lev seems like a fair and balanced portrayal of Marla and the Olmstead family. The filmmaker seemed to become very attached to the family and struggled to confront them when his suspicions were aroused about who painted the more “polished” works, but he generally let’s the viewer come to their own conclusion.

I felt uncomfortable through a lot of it, especially when Marla’s father was around (most of the film). His performance just wasn’t convincing for me. I think Marla’s an adorable little child, but I didn’t see a child prodigy in the film. Hopefully Marla’s mother will step in when it looks like her child is losing too much of her childhood, as she seemed to have the interests of her child before the money and fame, which is not the same impression that I got from the father.

Here’s a quote from the director Amir Bar-Lev..
“If Marla wasn’t doing the paintings, why would Mark and Laura ever have allowed 60 Minutes to do a piece? Why would they have invited me to make a documentary? Especially given my “deeper truth” speech upon our agreement? Marla had done one sub-par painting – what did that prove? Was it really conceivable that Marla had been propped up in front of a bunch of paintings that she hadn’t done – and hadn’t ever said anything about it? And was it really possible that Mark could hide this from his wife – it would mean that, mysteriously, every time a painting was completed, Laura was out of the house? I had to conclude that the Olmsteads’ version of events was the most likely – or rather, in retrospect, I chose to conclude that – it was far more comfortable than the other, darker scenarios.”

More of Marla Olmstead’s work can be seen at her website here.