Monday, May 9, 2022

Art Hacks: A Day in the Life of an Artist

 I've been creating art for over a half century and in that time I have developed an inventory of hacks and shortcuts for managing the typical items on the artistic to do list of an everyday artist.  And before we get into specifics let's define a few terms and concepts that require some clarity.

What is an Artist in the context of the Art Hacks discussions?

I think that while many of the Art Hacks tools to organize and navigate the art ecosystem can apply to the "arts and crafts" contingent and to the Art World exclusive club of artists who do *nothing but work on their own *art all day, my experience is that the vast majority of serious artists not only make art but work for a living at something else.

In a future Art Hacks entry I'll further examine the assumptions about who artists are and what we do but for the moment let's use this general description as a baseline.

Time and Money

Time and money are two of the critical components for creating Art.  The following illustration provides a visualization of the many topics and complex relationships artists must navigate and control to maintain a sensible plan for making a go of it.

Future Art Hacks blog entries will provide deeper dives into the open source or free tools, techniques, and resources available to an artist to make the day productive. Needless to say, curating the activities of any given day involves just a few of the things illustrated and everyone will have their own esoteric way of doing things.

Nothing here will manufacture a magic formula for success.  These "art hacks" are aimed at making the creation of art easier and nothing else. Success, profitability, and risk is out of scope.

My previous art hacks entry (how much does it cost to enter a juried art gallery show) is found here


Art Hacks: The Value of an Art Donation by an Artist

 

The finest explanation of the value an artist can claim for tax purposes upon donating a piece of artwork is expressed in a blog post called "The Generosity of Artists" by Doug Woodham dated Feb. 11, 2019.


"THE GENEROSITY OF ARTISTS

These artists are generous in the extreme. None of them will receive meaningful tax benefits from their donations, due to two U.S. tax code provisions.

When a taxpayer donates an artwork to a charitable organization, she can receive a charitable deduction equal to the fair market value of the object only if the organization receiving it passes what is called the "related use" test. Put simply, the organization must use the donated artwork in pursuit of its mission. Art that is accepted into the permanent collection of a museum passes this test, as does art donated to a school that will be displayed and used in art history classes. But if the intent of the charity is to sell the work, then the donation fails the “related use” test. In these circumstances, the taxpayer will only be able to receive a charitable deduction equal to what the IRS calls their “basis” in the object, which is typically much lower than its fair market value. Because all the artworks donated to the Miss Porter’s auction do not meet the “related use” test, it’s essential to understand how the IRS defines “basis.”  

The IRS defines “basis” very differently for artists and collectors. Artists can only deduct what it cost them to make the artwork. For example, if an artist donated a drawing with a $100,000 fair market value to a benefit auction, they would likely receive a tax deduction of around $100 for it -- the cost of the pencils and paper that went into making it. This is true even if the work sells for $100,000 or more in the auction. So all the artists donating their works to the Miss Porter’s auction are receiving essentially no tax benefits for their generosity. Collectors are marginally better off than the artists, because the IRS deems their basis to be what they originally spent to buy the artwork. For the kinds of works that show up at auction, that is still likely to be far less than its current fair market value."




Thursday, April 14, 2022

Art Hacks: How Much Does It Cost: to Participate in a Juried Art Gallery Show?

Budgeting money for art shows is an often ignored topic.  The Heading of this blog entry should have more accurately been "How much does it cost to rent wall space in a juried art gallery show?".  The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of serious fine artists (say 99.5% of all artists) have few options available to get their art seen.

This blog entry has nothing to do with the  *arts and  crafts* army of craftspeople who have similar but different economics working for them.  This is about Art Gallery shows - mostly juried.

Art galleries are everywhere and they are easier than ever to enter.  CallForEntry.org is one of many call-for-artists show aggregators through which an artist can locate shows of interest. Aside from distance shows most artists choose to join a local gallery or two that are familiar and dependable.

With that as a context for the following fiscal considerations. It should be obvious that the default values assigned in the following calculations are numbers you can change to suit your local reality.


Gallery Membership Fees

Unless you are represented by a gallery, almost all galleries will charge a yearly membership fee and schedule a certain number of usually monthly shows that members can participate in. For the sake of argument let's assign some default values to each of these shows (show-op).

The assumption here is that the artist will participate in all available show opportunities.
Obviously, you don't have to join a gallery membership in which case this cost is $0.00 in later calculations.

1 default yearly membership fee = $48.00

default number of yearly show-ops = 4

1 show-op = 1 yearly membership fee/number of show-ops/membership year = $12.00 [default]


The Cost of Rejection

We have pegged the value of both juried and member free shows identically to keep the arithmetic straightforward. But that number will need to be adjusted to accurately calculate our true cost of participation.   This refers to all pieces being rejected only - in other words no representation in the show at all.

1 show-op-rejection = 1 show-ops [$12.00 default]

An adjusted show-op cost will be the number of show op-rejections added to the cost of the remaining show-ops

(1 [or more] rejection(s) [$12] + ($36 [cost of 3 more show-ops]))/ 3 [remaining show-ops]

OR 

$48/3 = $16 per remaining show-op entry


The Cost of Entry/Piece

We will simply assume that some number of objects will be getting entered into the art show and that this cost per entry will be different for members and more for non-members of a gallery. Other esoteric considerations can also intervene.

We'll keep it simple. Here a default cost per piece is $15.00 + (cost of rejected pieces/number of accepted pieces).

Show Expenses

Here you can adjust these default values as you see fit.

Cost of time-to-deliver/pickup = $15/hr

Cost of round trip fuel = $20

Cost of Tolls = ($0 to $40+)

Cost of parking = $0.00

Cost of work opt-out [or gallery sitting] = $20.00

Cost of Shipping Fees = $0.00

Show expenses = your sum of these costs

Gallery Commission

Every art gallery is the same yet different.  If a sale is made of your work, you receive a percentage of that sales price.

Generally speaking, a reasonable commission is 35% of a sales.  Use a percentage that reflects your reality as reasonable.  Then take any commission fee that  exceeds that reasonable expectation and treat it as lost opportunity cost (LOC).

So if your work sells for $1000 with a reasonable commission of 35%  ($350.00) but is charged a commission of 50% ($500) then consider the $150 difference as an LOC cost in our final calculations.


So What's Our Sample Cost to Show Some Work?

12.00 [membership fee]
15.00 [1 piece entered]
30.00 [delivery/pickup]
20.00 [Fuel]
20.00 [opt-out of sitting]
_____
$97.00 total cost of the happy path version of expenses


Gallery Hours

No calculation of expenses is worthwhile without understanding what you just paid for.  In this sample, it is the cost to rent space on a gallery wall for a certain number of viewable hours.

As a default let's assume the show last 1 month and is open 8 hours a day on Saturday and Sunday.  That's 4 x 16 = 64 hours

So 97/64 = approx. $1.50/viewing hour

Comparing gallery viewing hour costs per show is an exercise in managing the economy of showing work.


What's It Mean

What it means is that in order to make it worthwhile you need to charge at least 2 times as much for your work as you spend on showing it plus what the work costed you to make.

Rounding up that sample $97 to show cost to $100 and adding a $200 cost to make the work means that the piece must sell at $600 of which the artist will get $390.


Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Guerrilla Girls 2021 EOY Cumulative Body Count

This year's Juried Art  shows numbered 11  12 from CT, RI, and New York.  All shows whose counts are used here were previously cited in earlier blog posts most of which provided audit trails.


This year's Juried Art Shows come in two categories:

In Juried Art Shows that I have no piece count for, 6 7 shows accepted the work of 78 80 male artists and 145 148 women artists.  That's approximately a 65% acceptance rate for women in those shows.

In 4 Juried Shows in which piece counts are available;

105 pieces by 94 men were accepted
197 pieces by 171 women were accepted

35% of all pieces were by men
65% of all pieces were by women

35% of all accepted artists were men
65% of all accepted artists were female

For 2021, more than 65% of accepted artists to juried shows in the Northeast were women. 

Only one of ten eleven gallery shows in 2021 featured a juried show that accepted more men than women.

In 2021, politically obligatory, women-gender-only shows were routinely scheduled at almost all of the galleries studied.  No such male gender specific gallery shows exist to my knowledge.

Sunday, December 19, 2021

On the Politics of Contemporary Art (Why Modern Day Art)

 1. The conceptual ecosystem of  Contemporary Art has been saturated by political messaging.  

2. It forms and deforms the meaning of Contemporary Art.

3. The signifying message of Contemporary Art requires that the art itself pay a virtue signal  tax for being allowed acceptance to the genre.

4. The Contemporary Art ecosystem constrains and governs its aesthetic territory by rejecting alternative art expressions from self-signifying differently.  

5. Its authoritarian stranglehold on the art vernacular creates and distorts cultural discourse.

6. This political aesthetic Kafka Trap operates as a cultural sensory deprivation mechanism.

7. The Contemporary Art ecosystem entangles and engulfs all currently produced art into an inescapable framework of political polarization.  You cannot choose a side.  The side chooses you or NOT.

8. Abstraction and other more esoteric territories have been co-opted. Play or perish.

9. The social politics of Contemporary Art are aesthetically cancerous.  Contemporary Art is a money sink for political and social special interest groups whose promotional interests have nothing to do with art.

10.  Contemporary Art is a self-serving, self-perpetuating system that demands absolute conformity.

This is where artists such as myself fork away from this madness to create a new stream of expression that is called Modern Day Art.

It's a cohort of artists whose byproducts are not described by Identity politics or any other form of political bigotry.  Art for Art's Sake on a planet whose insane asylums have open borders.

Monday, July 5, 2021

Bound By Creativity, Imprinted with Victimhood

 On page 112 of Hannah Wohl's Bound By Creativity book, the assertion that women and others are under-collected because they are under-represented in galleries is made without any further evidence.  The author, claiming deep and thorough research of the subject matter, is wholly imprinted with the meme that women are and have been victims of gallery neglect.  Its an assumption as certain as the sun rising the next morning.

Readers of this blog can do the arithmetic for themselves.


The lie is far too profitable to investigate or accurately report.


 

Wednesday, May 19, 2021

The Modern Day Art Manifesto

 The Modern Day Art Manifesto - (a work in progress)


Modern Day Art is an evolutionary succession away from Contemporary Art.


It can be referred to as #mdArt, #mdA, #notContemporaryArt, #nCA, or #modernDayArt.


Two aesthetic subsets of Modern Day Art are #postContemporary and #newModern. Both refer to esoteric Modern Day Art ecosystems. These obvious manifestations do not preclude more existing and future sub-genres.


All art creation exercises additive, subtractive, transformational, spiritual, temporal, theoretical, cognitive, and other forms of artistic agency.


In the case of Modern Day art as an aesthetic ecosystem, it subtracts from Contemporary Art - Identity Politics and the hubris of toxic academic entanglement. Consider its relationship to Contemporary Art's Art World as an orthogonal social entity wholly disengaged from those trappings and expectations. The creation, quality, and intent of Modern Day Art is not to satisfy an Art Market but rather an Art future while mindfully acknowledging the importance of providing the artist's means to a dignified living.


Modern Day Art promotes an exclusive Art for Art's Sake aesthetic.


The subtraction of political identity virtue signaling neutralizes holding galleries and art patrons hostage to the discriminatory tribalism of gender, age, moral superiority claims, "saving______" platitudes, and so on. The Art is intended to feed aesthetic, artistic, and intellectual hunger.


- Frank Krasicki, May 2021

Wednesday, January 6, 2021

Guerrilla Girls 2020 EOY Cumulative Body Count

This year's Juried Art  shows numbered 14 from CT, VT, RI, and New York.  All shows whose counts are used here were previously cited in earlier blog posts most of which provided audit trails.


This year's Juried Art Shows come in two categories:

In Juried Art Shows that I have no piece count for, 4 shows accepted the work of 95 male artists and 181 women artists.  That's approximately a 65% acceptance rate for women in those shows.

In 7 Juried Shows in which piece counts are available;

236 pieces by 163 men were accepted
380 pieces by 305 females were accepted

38% of all pieces were by men
62% of all pieces were by women

34% of all accepted artists were men
66% of all accepted artists were female

In all 11 2020 shows represented, 35% of all selected artists were male,

For 2020, more than 63% of accepted artists to juried shows in the Northeast were women. 

Only three of eleven galleries in 2020, featured juried shows that accepted more men than women.

In 2020, politically obligatory, women-gender-only shows were routinely scheduled at almost all of the galleries studied.  No such male gender specific gallery shows exist to my knowledge.

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Herb Gerjuoy, Our Friendship

I first met Herb in the late eighties.  We were both Software Engineers hired by the now renamed Northeast Utilities.  We ate lunch together almost always exclusively.  We were hired to create a test emulator to simulate Millstone.  Seemingly the entire staff was *very* Jesus religious.  As such, faith often trumped reasoned discussion.  The China Syndrome movie was fresh in those days.  We had each other to talk to.

We talked about raising our unacknowledged concerns about the veracity of certain tests with a [German co-incidentally and darkly humorously] manager who claimed to have an open door policy.  Herb helped talk me out of walking through that open door.  The building we worked in on the Berlin turnpike was simply identified by a number and set into the landscape so as to feel like a bunker once inside.  So along a side wall of managerial offices, our manager had arranged his office so that his back was to the door opening and his daily gaze was at an undecorated  far wall.

Herb cautioned me as to the subliminal significance of the manager's back to the door.  The "open door" policy was someone else's idea unless you happened not to get the signalling going on.  I left a few months later and arranged an exit interview in which I gave Northeast Utilities an earful.  Herb left soon after.  Many years later, Northeast Utilities invited back their critics - I never bothered going back - remembering the experience as not ever being worthwhile.

I didn't know what to make of Herb at first.  Intellectually, he covered a LOT of ground.  We were both interested in everything but Herb not only had breadth but he had unusual depth of knowledge.  Our interests were so perfectly aligned that I thought I was being fooled.

In college, when I was training to be a teacher, I had read Alvin Toffler's Future Shock as part of the curriculum. By cosmic co-incidence, Herb had been interviewed and quoted by Toffler in the writing of the book and Herb's contribution was the education specific substance.  To this day, the most famous quote that the book is known by originated with Herb, "Tomorrow’s illiterate will not be the man who can’t read; he will be the man who has not learned how to learn."

So a year or two later, Herb called me about a teaching position at Mohegan Community College (later renamed to Three Rivers) in Norwich, CT where he was teaching at the time (1990ish).  He convinced me that the long-distressed community needed  good instructors and that based on our conversations, he was convinced I was it.

Sold.  I taught there part-time for approximately six years.  There were young policemen, nurses, and laid off Groton shipyard workers all there to learn personal computers.  That's what Herb and I did. They left knowing their stuff - maybe better than individuals being -cough- "trained" by their corporate sponsors.

Along the way, Herb and I continued our dialogues.  One Holiday season I wrote a Christmas card to my Studio art mentor from the University of Nebraska, Richard Trickey, some time later I got a card from his wife telling me that Richard had died tragically in a car accident and thanked me for the card and memories it contained.  We talked about this.

Herb spoke about something he had once read that essentially said that knowledge was a baton that gets passed along.  When a mentor of yours expires the baton is passed to you and you are expected to expand and extend its scope.  In other words, like a game of mortal tag, *you're now IT!*.

In another conversation, I had been deeply reading the Joseph Campbell and Elizabeth Pagels work on the Gnostic  Gospels and followed that with concentric circles of cross-reference material.  Herb, upon hearing this siad that if I thought the Gnostic Gospels were interesting then I should also read the Jewish mystics and he pointed me to The Tales of Rabbi Nachman which I subsequently devoured.

Herb knew the map and the territory like few others I have ever met - a brilliant man in a dimly lit world.

He wrote many, many poems that I advocated he self-publish. He wrote a prayer book and many many other topical essays that I hope don't get lost.

A typical email correspondence between the two of us looked like (and this is curated Nov. 2011 content):

"Herb, I'm doing some research on post-modernism. what can you tell me about Isaac Luria?

hydrargium@comcast.net

Nov 1, 2011, 10:21 AM
to me
Hi, Frank,

As always, it is good to hear from you.

-snip-

I assume you Googled "Isaac Luria" and learned that he was a 16th-century kabbalist of the Safed school, known as the Ari (lion).  I would be pleased to chat with you about him in some live interactive format, such as telephone.  However, I probably have little or nothing to add to what you would find online. "

Later:

"Hi again, Frank,

1.  I think the most interesting aspect of kabbalistic thinking is its cosmogony.  It is an unusual take on the classical philosophical conundrum: How reconcile an omnipotent, omniscient, and infinitely good God with the presence in the world of suffering and evil?  In that connection, I'll quote an excerpt from commentary in a Jewish prayer book I have been writing:

Starting with the seventh line [of Psalm 92], the psalm addresses a (perhaps the) question for those who believe in a good God: how can an omnipotent good God tolerate injustice, that at least sometimes the wicked prosper and the good or innocent suffer? There have been many answers. Philosophers Epicurus and David Hume argued that God is either not omnipotent or not good. Some gnostics maintained that God is not good. Other philosophers, e.g., Plato, John Stuart Mill, and Thomas Henry Huxley, suggested that God is not omnipotent. Philosopher William James concluded God is either not omnipotent or not omniscient. The psalmist asserts that prosperity by the wicked is, at most, a temporary aberration. Rashi suggested that the psalmist was referring to the time after the coming of Messiah, the “Great Sabbath,” when indeed there will be no injustice. Hindus and Hassidism's founder, Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer (1698-1760), the Good Master of the Name, believe justice is achieved by reincarnation; many Christians believe it is achieved by afterlife in heaven or hell; many Buddhists believe suffering, just or unjust, is transcended by learning to detach from life's lures and distractions. Some Jewish mystics suggest that injustice in the world reflects flaws or “bugs” in God's creation that we humans were created to remedy [tikkun]. Philosopher F. H. Bradley had a similar view. Thomas Aquinas, the eminent thirteenth-century Catholic theologian, argued that injustice makes possible good aspects of God's creation otherwise impossible. For example, suffering by the good or innocent gives them an opportunity to exhibit the virtue of faithfully and trustingly enduring their misfortune. 
Some Jewish kabbalists attributed injustice and evil to the misfit between an infinite God and God's finite creations, which at the time of Creation caused God's infinite creative energy to shatter those aspects or portions of the nascent finite universe closest to God's infinity, thereby partially reducing to chaos the universe's initial orderly beauty, and thus, by randomly intermixing Good and Bad, making the entropy of the universe higher. Consequently, God, the Great Separator/Divider ("Who separates darkness from light," etc.) is the Source of entropy reduction, and God wants humans to participate in this cosmic task, despite or notwithstanding the presence in humans of intermingled Good and Evil.
Note: the above viewpoint is a thoroughly pre-modern way of treating Good and Evil.  They are, in this view, attributes, much as in medieval thinking even existence was considered an attribute (so there might be things, e.g., centaurs, that did not have the attribute of existence but otherwise were in the universe).  For more on these last comments, you might want to read some of my currently favorite philosopher's writings -- Raymond Smullyan.
Wittenstein wrote in Latin in part because he wanted to discourage his ideas being read by those he considered philosophical amateurs, who, he was convinced, could not possibly understand his ideas.
Tune in later for the next thrilling episode of "Reality Faces Philosophy," in which we will hear Ma Reality say, "The older I get, the more memories I acquire that I am at risk of forgetting," and her (tor)mentor reply, "The simpler something is, the easier it is to remember. So, I am going to teach you something infinitely simple, and therefore you will be unable to forget it."
-- Herb G.

Over the decades we would meet and attempt to meet every few years. It was always hit or miss.

In recent years his grand children consumed his schedule for a while and my latest attempt to contact him garnered no response.  That's when I knew something might be wrong.

I'm going to miss him.

His blog:  http://nexialistics.blogspot.com/?zx=fe72f4870f816c91

Some remembrances:  http://www.kehilatchaverim.org/wp-content/uploads/KC-Newsletter-May2019.pdf








Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Guerrilla Girls Body Count: 2019 Year End Artistic Participation Arithmetic

This year's Juried Art  shows numbered 14 from CT, VT, RI, and New York.  All shows whose counts are used here were previously cited in earlier blog posts most of which provided audit trails.

This year's Juried Art Shows accepted the work of 297 male artists and 520 women artists.

For 2019, more than 63% of accepted artists to juried shows in the Northeast were women. 
Last year, 69% of all accepted juried artists were women. 

Four of the fourteen shows, listed the total number of pieces accepted.  In these four shows, the number of women accepted was 107 and the number of men 75 (55% women on average).

In these four shows, 255 pieces were accepted, 149 by women and 106 by men (58% by women on average).

Only two galleries in 2019, featured juried shows that accepted more men than women.

I requested data on the Guilford 2019 Juried Show and received none.

Late update: Real Art Ways Artists Chosen: 5 Women, 1 Man


Interestingly, in 2019, the Connecticut Office of the Arts employs 7 women and 0 men.

In 2019, politically obligatory women gender only shows were routinely scheduled at almost all of the galleries studied.  No such male gender specific gallery shows exist to my knowledge.

Sunday, December 15, 2019

The Gerrymandering of Art Museums by Gender

Since the election of Conservative governments in the cultural West, there has been a screaming siren about the politics of Museum art.  Using rudimentary arithmetic, activists have counted the number of pieces of art that belong to major museums and have discovered that men are historically (to date) more highly represented than women.

This lonely, unrepresentative of any context save provincial politics, factoid is sufficient to provoke an aesthetic Sherman's March on the collections of major museums.  Numerology and not historical context, quality, nor even a sense of decency is driving one museum after another to make these numbers match population demographics (gender only of course).

The fact that these collections were largely donated by wealthy collectors and connoisseurs whose cultural ecology was ambiently patriarchal is immaterial.  The cult of Numerology in sexual politics is both profitable, politically satisfying, and culturally toxic.  Museum shows now pander to a mass of contemporary female artists whose claim to recognition starts and often ends with genital equipment however installed.

I recognize that I'm - excuse the expression - pissing into the wind by pointing out that a historically accurate museum should be imbalanced prior to the mid-nineteenth century and be correcting its acquisitions to the degree that they can control gifts from then on.

In 2020, the Baltimore museum will only but women's art.  What's the rush?  Why isn't a healthier balance of acquisition just good business every year?

WE ALL KNOW that this will not be followed by a year dedicated to buying only men's art. After all what sin have today's male artists committed to be flogged for years with womens only shows, economic boycott, and  suicidal worthy neglect?  Are there sociological studies that recommend these kinds of remedies?

And although museum collections are mathematically imbalanced, women dominate juried gallery shows  on the order of 70% women acceptance and 30% male artist acceptance.  I've been doing the arithmetic in this blog and it goes back years.

Gender advocates have been distorting art in Western countries for decades.  They can rewrite history but they cannot undo it without ruthless indifference to inescapable cultural heritage.  Museum walls are being wallpapered over with politically motivated aesthetics rather than artistic merits.  It hurts everyone and turning museums into political battlefields is unacceptable political damage.

Yesterday *this* arrived from the New Britain Museum of American Art:


Shameless pandering.