October 11, 2007               10:01 AM (EST)
“Parallax expressionism,” what is it?

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. When you change the ground from which your expression originates, what you express inherently changes.

Parallax expressionism is an artistic expression, expressed from a shifted viewpoint, a viewpoint somewhat new to the artist and certainly new to the observer.

The artist has shifted observational/experiential viewpoints to ‘see’ or experience things differently. This shifts the artist’s expression. Given that the artist’s creativity springs from the processing of observation or experience, parallax expressionism is the artistic expression that results from this shift.

An artist expresses himself/herself from an overall context. When that overall context is changed, the artist’s expression must therefore be different. As Parallax Expressionists we are exploring the creativity made available by shifting our paradigms, first in the area of being financially successful, then in other areas that tweak at the core of who we are in our artistic expression.

An example of a shift in viewpoints is the shift that occurs when an artist steps over from questioning his/her validity as an artist into the view of himself/herself as being legitimate as an artist. I’m not here speaking of hubris, though that in itself would be a shift. I am speaking of the artist relating to himself/herself as simply a legitimate source of artistic expression. The artist stops seeking validation for his/her art from the outside. What new artistic expression now comes from that new ground of legitimacy? This is the first shift in the modern movement of parallax expressionism.

To claim parallax expressionism, it is helpful for the artist to be aware of his/her originating viewpoint, or context. Without this origination point, intentionally altering the ground from which one comes is unlikely. In parallax expressionism, one must know or have some idea where they are coming from and by the same token at least have some idea for where they are going too in shifting their viewpoint.

We continue to look at the results of our current expression of art. Is it becoming stale? Is it time for another shift in viewpoint?

My art is parallax expressionism.

Roberts


July 18, 2007         10:00 PM (EST)

Where Is A New York Times Art Critic When You Need One?

From time to time I will post comments I receive from visitors to my website. I found this email rather interesting and could not help but wish whoever it was was an art critic from the New York Times. In the vein that any press is good press, I wish this writer godspeed in achieving that goal if they so wish.
 
Using the nom de plume, Art Enthusiast, one critic wrote: "Perhaps the crash test dummies are better suited for an IIHS test lab. You may want to spread the narcissism a bit thinner, it overshadows the "angelic philosophies" spewing from your keyboard. A true artist would value an admirer's praise as the greatest reward. You seem to prefer to rant about conspirators limiting your profit margins, and that somehow humanity would benefit from the larger check you somehow deserve?! Furthermore, referring to yourself in the third person and omitting your first name is not going to appeal to your "fans"(ha!) as more dynamic, it merely makes your efforts to desperately "belong" in the art scene much more transparent. I just thought I should let you know that your website portrays you as (for lack of a better description)full-of-sh--. I hope this helps."

Helps? Hardly, unless you publish it in the New York Times. On the other hand the writer seems to read with a chip on the shoulder. There is nothing of a rant in this blog. What I have written is proposing a different, unconventional, approach to marketing art. People who have invested their whole lives into the traditional model of marketing art may find this a threat to their validity. With that size of investment, it is understandable.

I received one email with a "PS: Your pricing is insane!"  Two days later I received an unsolicited inquiry from someone wanting to invest $75,000 in a painting. Go figure.

The marketing model works. We have created a conference call for artists and others interested in marketing art that is designed to teach this marketing technique. We explore on this call, pricing and managing the conversation on price, recognition, exhibiting, talking to people, the difference between art as a decorative commodity and art as a decorative investment, and various other subjects designed to equip artists and those who market art for succeeding in their pursuit. The call, called The Thriving Artists Global Conference Call, at this time is free of charge. Contact me via the contact page if you are interested.

Roberts




July 7, 2007           12:01 PM (EST)

Managing The Conversation For The Price Of Art.

How much is a particular painting worth? How much is a Picasso worth? A Monet? A De Kooning? A Damien Hirst? In the case of the latter, it seems $19.1 million US.

I assert (and a great friend and fellow artist, Duncan Chatwin, seems to assert the same thing) that a piece of art has NO INHERENT VALUE. After all, once paint is applied to the canvas, it is actually used canvas? Ever checked the market price for used canvas?

What then can we say about the value of a particular piece of art? We can say that the value resides in a conversation about the piece, rather than in the piece itself. The value resides in what we might call a stand for its price, and in creating agreement for that stand, in conversation. We might call it an agreement.

In the traditional model for marketing art, it seems that the gallery owners, critics, appraisers, and buyers work together in a conspiracy (I’m using the term conspiracy rather loosely here) to keep prices low. This conspiracy tends to support them in their efforts over the short term by allaying their fears around scarcity (not enough money, not enough buyers, I’m not enough to make a sale at that level, there is not enough agreement, and etc.). However, I assert that this conspiracy around the fear of lack tends to limit everyone’s long term benefit. For instance, a gallery’s reluctance to ask for a higher price for a particular piece limits the artist’s share, their share, the salesperson’s commission, and limits the agreement on the piece’s value to the purchaser. The same fears work to limit the resale value of the piece, no matter how long it has been since its last sale.

This being the case, I also assert that one of the biggest mistakes artists make in facing this traditional model for marketing art, is in not saying anything about the price of their work after it is completed, certainly after it has been sold, and throughout its entire life cycle.

I suggest that artists take on managing the conversation for the price of their art themselves. What I mean by this is by setting initial and subsequent sales prices and then by actively engaging in finding buyers for pieces that have already been sold once, twice, or several times. Everyone benefits. If, as artists, we manage these conversations over time, creating agreement with our stand for the price we pick, we will find that a sustainable increase in what the rest perceive as value becomes possible. It in fact becomes possible to have our art double in investment value every 2 to 3 years.

This not only benefits me as an artist, but more importantly benefits those who invest in my art and it benefits all of our communities. The benefit of this will touch everyone who has a monetary interest in the piece, in the body of work, and in the artist.

Imagine what it may be like if artist’s generously funded their own arts organizations from the bounty of their sales rather than from asking for grants or handouts from philanthropic foundations or from government. And imagine what it would be like if investors and communities experienced fine art and the fine artists as an economic windfall.

Roberts

                                             ---------------------------------------------------

July 5, 2007   6:00PM (EST)

Welcome to my new blog. It is my pleasure and priviledge to bring you comments and opinion on or about the world of art, marketing art, investing in art, and on my philosophy of the creative process.

I will bring you commentary from the world of managing conversations about art pricing and the value of art. Working to establish with this, confidence in the idea of art as a reliable investment and in its use for enriching the community in which the artist dwells.

I will also comment on the use of art for philanthropic purposes, for raising money to facilitate the causes we may hold dear. How can art support generosity while at the same time facilitate benefit to the artist, the donor, and the philanthropic cause?

I hope you will enjoy the read!

Roberts