Showing posts with label licensing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label licensing. Show all posts

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Flogging Art

Paradise Sky (2012)
The list of labels (or keywords) at the end of this post should tell you a little about the complexity of this topic. Sure, those of you still making art the traditional way (by hand, in meat-space) still have your traditional markets: art fairs, galleries, solo shows, etc. The rest of us, who, like me, have taken to the computer like a duck to water (how does a duck take to water? Is it really that natural? How would a duck take to water without mom around?), are having a different sort of experience.

This has all led me to the question: what is art anyway? Is it something we hang on the wall and perhaps forget about a lot of the time? Is it something we like on our (ooops!) CD covers? Is it just for decorating the desktop?

Once upon a time we all knew what art was: that stuff made out of canvas and oil paint hanging in a gallery. This is no longer the case. Now art is everywhere on everything. And with the tons of free art programs out there, anyone can make art. And I'm all for that.

My dilemma is how to make money flogging my art.

PRINTS
Once upon a time, there were originals. They were lithographs on stone or drawings on paper or a water color or oil painting that you could reproduce as a printed copy. That kind of art was not very expensive because it was easy to produce. You could make a lot of those and the fees reflected that. Art gets it's value from rarity. There is only one Mona Lisa and they ain't makin' any more.

Art also gets value from history. Old art is generally more valuable than new art. Mostly because no one knows what new art is really worth. It is, basically, worth what someone will pay for it. This is how old art gets it value. Over time a work becomes increasingly popular and so we have the old supply and demand law kicking in.

Art gets some value from art critics. Some. Friends ask me how to determine what is good art. I say, "If you like it, it's good art." Sure, a ton of "good art" gets bought and put into storage as an investment. But that's not how most artists make a living. In fact, most of that "good art" was made by dead artists.
Yellow Stones (2011)
ORIGINALS
When I make art, technically I don't have an original because I create on the computer. This means I have a file which can be endlessly copied without loss of quality and from which I can make an unlimited number of prints - also without loss of quality (depending, of course, on the output device).  Since value depends on originality, a lot of buyers have questions about rarity. Who wants to buy something you think is one of a kind and find a millions of them in Target?

One solution is to limit production and never sell or give away the original file. It would be nice to have just the one file, however, this is why backing up was invented. Also, as an artist, it is nearly impossible to keep just one version of a work a art when you discover that you can make endless non-destructible variations.

I can limit physical reproductions. No one makes prints or derivatives (versions) from my files unless I say they can. And I can limit the kind of reproductions they make. Although, technically, since you can't (yet) really display the original file, each reproduction is an original. Hence the title: multiple original. So, what I'm really doing is limiting the number of original prints. (Prints - not reproductions.)

So, here's the real issue: if anyone anywhere can view my art online how do I charge for it?

LICENSING
Digital Blasphemy has found a few ways. He chooses licensing. Licensing let's third parties sell art by giving the artist a percentage of the sale. Since the licensor bears most of the cost, they take most of the money. Typical licensing fees are about 10%, often less. Simple math: if I want to pay my mortgage with 10% fees, I have to sell about 400 pieces of art. Or the licensor has to.

This works really well for Digital Blasphemy because he's a high volume producer, kind of like Thomas Kinkade. He has a lot of outlets and he's been at it for a long time. He's also not bothered by how or where you use art. He even gives it away for free; a part of the new internet marketing model.

Which brings up marketing which still works traditionally and always will. As Kickstarter participants have discovered, you have to have a crowd for crowd fund sourcing to work. One way or another - on the web, at parties, on the news, through word of mouth - you have to get fans for you work. People interested in owning your work. Which is why artists are plentiful but rich artists are few.

Art is a solitary endeavor and tends to appeal to those who enjoy spending a lot of time alone. Which means most artists are introverts and tend to not engage in large quantities of group time. Although, artists can be happily sociable - see Whistler, Renoir, Rubens, Goethe, Oscar Wilde, etc. This is not the rule.

Which brings me back to how to flog my art. I have posted art on a few licensing sites. I haven't marketed those sites much. And, harshly, I don't care. What I really care about is being able to make art. Tangentially, it's nice to be able to show it, to have others look at and like it, and sometimes make a sale.

Few of my circle are interested in owning original art. Most are happy with posters or nothing. Many are totally satisfied with snapshots taken on family vacations. Where does the art go? It goes on packaging. Mostly. It goes into ads, on tee shirts, bed linens, web sites. It's disposable. As in, not long lived. Even my son has free desktops that change daily.

So, I'll go on making art and wondering what it is really - more than a concept or idea; more than execution; something between dialogue and a kiss; a conglomeration of color and form. Perhaps some day, somewhere in there will be something I can (ahem) monetize.
Bomb Shelter (2010)

Monday, May 21, 2012

Searching for Perfect Art

Expansive
(my first choice for an iPhone decal)
My definition of perfect art changes more than daily. It changes by the moment – from morning to afternoon, from break of day to twilight – which makes it difficult for me to settle on one work of art to make into a skin. A skin I'll see a lot, since it will be on my iPhone.

Decal Girl makes the best skins ever. I own three of them. So, naturally, I chose to use them for my art. Unfortunately, they didn't choose me.

I sent them a file with my custom art, inserted into their Photoshop template  file. What that means is: they sent me a Photoshop file in the pixel dimensions they needed to print the decal, with a cut out layer showing the position of the art. I sent the file back with my art in it, having removed the cut out layer and renamed the file with my name (in case it got lost).

I didn't hear back from them. A couple months later I remembered I was trying to make a phone decal and got back in touch with them. Oh, yeah, they got it. Did I really make it? they asked. Would I prove it was mine by please returning the original template with my art in it. Okay, so yeah, I did that. I also told them they could Google me and see that it was my art. How hard is that? They didn't responds again. When I inquired, they told me they never received the email. I sent the file one more time. I did not hear back. I gave up.

Paradise Sky
Today I decided to take another stab at it. I have a decal on my phone that has probably been there since the fall. Time for a change! However, I didn't want to us the same art I sent Decal Girl before. I wanted something newer and fresher and brighter. I suppose I'll have to make something. The closest I could come up with is "Paradise Sky" which, although lovely, is a little too plain for daily use. I need something with a bit of detail that I can mull over.

So, the search continues. Although, after all those issues with Decal Girl, I may just decide to use Zazzle* who don't give me that kind of grief. I do appreciate Decal Girl checking up on rights and all, but their documentation clearly states only to submit work you own the rights to.

I notice they have Van Gogh on their site. I assume they have the rights to sell his work. Not so much his work, actually, as the work of whoever photographed his art. That's the kicker. Van Gogh is way out of copyright. Anyone can use his work. However, it's the capturing of his work that is copyrighted. I'm also assuming that the updated bio on the page is okay with Van Gogh.

All of that to tell you this: today's favorite is "star tube." For no particular reason other than that it grabbed me today. I know it's simple and a little amateurish. I don't care. It's perfect for now.
star tube
* Zazzle also has rules about copyright, and even if they didn't, artists (and other creatives) are protected by US Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Look it up!