A picture of the artist at 4. Why was she not practising her drawing or selling skills
at this important point in her life? Read on to find out.
Yesterday an Australian Facebook friend jokingly called me a marketing guru.
She was sending me a link about the importance of getting a lot of ‘Likes’ on Facebook.
I laughed. Uneasily.
But why did she call me that?
And why did I laugh it off?
3 mistaken ideas about selling art
I am not a guru, I shot back at her (via my keyboard, to the opposite end of the world in milliseconds); I just happen to share the information I am gathering. Thanks to all the tweet- and share buttons all over the internet. And right now I am studying art marketing. I share while I study, see?
That was pretty defensive, really.
I am sure she actually meant that little jibe as a compliment. She is running a successful business herself.
So why the defense?
Because not only don’t I want to become an art marketing guru, I don’t even want to be associated with the notion of marketing too much.
Why?
I have been thinking about it.
It is time to come clear.
Rembrandt, Rubens and Van Dyck were great marketeers
Since I started to write openly about my own marketing goals, back in July, here and here, there seems no reason for me to be bothered if someone says I am ‘into’ marketing. Even more so because I am one who always, and ad nauseam, points out that most great artists were also great at finding new ways to sell and get attention.
Rembrandt was highly inventive. He made endless variations of his etchings, for instance, each series to be sold at different price points.
Rubens was a genius businessman.
Van Dyck had the British throne doing his PR for him.
So it is time to shed my own, lingering, last misconceptions about selling art.
I mean totally. And forever. Every last bit of them.
These misconceptions are:
- An artist who thinks about money, not art, is a fraud.
- Art is a reward in itself
- Art is priceless
Let’s go into each of these a little deeper.
1. An artist who thinks about money, not art, is a fraud.
Artists are supposed to be people who are consumed by the urge to produce art. Art is supposed to be their core identity. Nothing but art – and certainly not business. A true artist is expected to be so devoted to his art that he would even die for it – as many people mistakenly think Van Gogh did.
(I mean, he died. But not because of his art. He killed himself because of his depressions.)
It is all humbug. As all students of history know, these are Romantic (as in: 19th century Romanticism) notions that have unluckily stuck.
They have also stuck with many teachers at art school.
For which reason I have had several artists – those who DID go to art school, unlike me – quite seriously tell me they are building an oeuvre first and foremost. That not selling, but making is the purpose. Even worse: they will point a finger at succesful artists, who they will then often accuse of ‘selling out’.
You may think: is she making this up? Do people really still think like that in 2011?
Yes, these artists do. Some are my good friends. Forgive them, they have been brainwashed.
I am secretly convinced they believe all artists should be prepared to cut off their ears for their art if the worst came to the worst. Each of them thinks she should aim to be Van Gogh Number Two.
But who is ever going to look at their oeuvre if they weren’t already famous during their lifetime?
The odds of winning the Spanish Christmas lottery are better.
2. Making art is a reward in itself
First of all, many customers think this. Unluckily.
Last year I got a phone call from a publisher. He asked for 5 illustrations for a cookbook. How much would I charge? I said I would give him a discount because it was a series, so € 1000.
He was flabbergasted. A thousand euro’s for five drawings? He meant, JUST drawings?
At five hours work per drawing (including the back and forth) that was a price of less than € 50 per hour. For someone who has to pay herself a salary, plus taxes, office space, materials, her ongoing education and pension fund as well as her holidays and her children’s education, that is a very reasonable Dutch rate.
This publisher decided to go for photographs instead.
He was a typical example of someone who thinks that making art is a reward in itself. It is something artists do all day anyway, wherefore the payment is really pocket money.
Funny, people never think the same thing of sports heroes. Or politicians. Or lawyers.
Even worse though, is that a lot of artists really think the same thing.
WHY?
I think I know.
But you have to keep this a secret.
Making art IS a reward in itself. Making art is playing around, solving puzzles, getting lost in the moment, having time fly by. It is a wonderful state of being. Like many other preferred activities it can be addictive and it can even raise your endorfin levels.
That, however, does not mean that to make good art you don’t need to practise long and hard.
Or, better put: to make good art you have to put in a lot of practise.
Just like it takes practise to run very fast, to perform well at public debates or to pull off all sort of smart tricks with the law.
It is the investment of time and practice to achieve the skill that is being rewarded. Which includes the talent.
Also, the fact that many artists like making art is no reason to punish them by substracting a significant amount from their paycheck. We would not do that to doctors, lawyers or cleaning ladies, would we?
A drawing of Saint Nicholas by the artist at 4. Clearly a lot of hours still had to be put in here.
Let’s take an example: me
Take my own case. I have always been good at drawing, but early on I chose to write. May be because I have a sister who is a very talented painter, and who was clearly better at it than me when we were kids.
When I took up making art again in 2007, I knew I could thanks to the existence of digital media. Having neglected to practise drawing and painting daily for a lifetime, like my sister, my skills are less developed than I should like.
However, my interest lies not in the making of a pretty drawing or painting per se. I do not even think of images when I get to work. I am interested in combining images and text, and for me the text comes first.
What anyone buying my art should pay me for is therefore not only my eye for composition and colour, and my skill in achieving the effects I aim for thanks to the combination of several media and Photoshop – which took me years to achieve but not a lifetime – no, they are paying me for my language skills as well. These I trained ever since I started writing a diary at 10.
3. Art is priceless
On to the last misconception then: if art is the base of your identity, how could you put a price on it?
I mean, how much is your very soul worth in silverlings?
I guess you know my answer by now: art is not your soul, art is your profession.
That does not take away from the fact that pricing art is extremely difficult and tricky. I have yet to meet an artist who is 100 % certain of his pricing policy.
Ask too little and you will not be taken seriously.
Ask too much and people will think you are a pompous ass.
Different people will react both ways to different price levels, by the way.
For this reason alone, selling art makes artists insecure.
Also, artists often wrongfully perceive the price they get for their work as a way to measure the inherent value of it.
My recent foray into the world of art marketing has cured me once and for all of that idea. Different people will value the same piece very differently. The job of the artist is to find the people willing to pay the right price.
*
PS I promised to write only short posts, but sometimes I can’t help myself. You know, time flying by and all. If you have come this far however, you must be interested. If so, please share this article on Facebook or Twitter. Just click the ‘Like’ button below and find out what happens. Thank you!
Tags: art marketing, mistaken ideas, running a successful business, selling art
I enjoyed this blogpost very much! Just recently I was talking with a yup who’s thinking about starting saxophone lessons but reckons 30 euros an hour is too expensive for private lessons. I also tried to explain to her that when I charge this for my oboe lessons I have to pay a third of it to taxes, make other expenses (sheet music for example) and spend many hours on improving my teaching skills and preparing lessons. Although I don’t believe I convinced her… (in the end I advised her to search for a teacher who wants to teach her for cash, avoiding taxes). Also I must admit that I was one of the victims of the misconceptions, feeling guilty every moment I’m not practicing the oboe/making reeds/playing concerts and hardly daring to ask for a reasonable salary for my services. Guess the same misconceptions haunt musicians. You really inspired me to give this matter some more thought, so thanks!
Thanks Marleen! About the oboe lessons: on average a journalist charges € 65,- per hour, an ICT consultant € 75, an interim-manager € 110,- and a lawyer € 250. Source: http://www.zzp-nederland.nl/artikel/uurtarief-bepalen
Great post, Kitty. What I really liked was that pop up after I had walked away from the computer for a moment with your page still up! I’d been caught! Very clever.
Great post Kitty, I agree with it all. I hate the starving artist myth that is still put about. As artists we have to do all we can to dispel it. Damien Hurst and Tracy Emin are brilliant examples of extremely successful artists who are also brilliant business people, yet they are so despised by for this very reason.
I love Emin’s work.. may be just because of all the weird texts she uses..
Pre-freakin’-cisely. Thanks so much for writing this!
Part of my work is to help artists build successful businesses out of their work, but it’s a struggle-and-a-half even finding and identifying those who are ready to admit that it might be something they’d want to consider.
Coming from a performing arts background, I can tell you the same rings 100% true across media.
It’s almost like we need to re-route the arts education system (and re-write the “romanticised” texts of our classical consumption, from when we were being wee, brainwashed babes in kindergarten smocks and fingerpaint-messy hands).
I’m sharing this far and wide. x
Thank you Ming-Zhu! I am interested to hear this goes for more types of art. I had never even considered ballet dancers or oboe teachers.. I agree something is pretty wrong in the values installed into students in the art education system. A bit of solid (pre- 19th century) art history could help a lot of artist put things in perspective. And of course we have not even discussed the difficult matter of quality yet and the current confusion thereabouts (in the visual arts). Or the role of art subsidies, such as exist here in Holland.
O, yes, you told me about your former job before.. I had forgotten all about it.. Great setup. I am sure every country could use a project like that. Thank you for this lengthy reply! It touched me deeply that you took so much time to share these very applicable memories. Crossing over to the dark side.. haha!
Funny huh, these virtual bonds that can form..
Loving that I have been able to connect my two FB friends (neither of who I have ever met face to face) on different sides of this beautiful globe because they are both passionate, creative, straight-talkin’ women who have a way with words!! xx You both inspire me.
Wow – one of THE best posts I have read on being an artist – you even convince me (an artist) about the cost AND price of being an artist
Kitty – very relevant for all artists – visual and performance – I ‘ve had to argue these points all my working life – many artists are indeed brainwashed – re ” art is its own reward ” and all that BS ! Thanks for the post -love your blog name too “100% Cynicism free Art”