Filthy Lucre

[Steven Sweeney]

[It was thoughtfully brought to my attention that these comments, as posted in their original form, could be interpreted to mean that I think money equals quality and that lack of financial reward indicates some deficit in the quality of the work. I'm modifying the post to, I hope, make it clear that that was not my intent.]

Are there people here who are embarrassed to cash the checks they receive for commissioned work? Does it compromise your artistic integrity to be happy to be paid -- and even to consider your client's or collectors' or audiences' wishes as you work?

I'm working, perhaps not always as diligently as possible, to acquire a level of competence in realistic representational art that satisfies me and that, at the same time, sufficiently intrigues or engages a viewer to trade for it a negotiable instrument of substantial face value, or other mutually acceptable barter. We can get a little precious about our "calling" sometimes, but we're not working in a social or commercial vacuum here. What profession or vocation doesn't have excellent practitioners who struggle, and street-savvy "technicians", if you will, who thrive? I'm not suggesting that a boat load of money proves competence, but there's a kind of Mobius logic turning back on itself, isn't there, to say that an "incompetent" artist has made a boatload of money? ("Yeah, look at that Pablo, he's so godawful that he's actually making a living at this, can you believe it, mes amis?") I'm not particularly enamored of the ubiquitous Thomas Kinkade works (though a lot of my acquaintances DO like them), but I don't begrudge him one bit the wealth he's acquired as a reward for his efforts. And if a "competent" artist remains impecunious, well, come on now: what's that about? The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? Sometimes, perhaps, he's too self-absorbed, too self-indulgent, or too lazy to get out and hustle up some business. "I want the world to discover ME." And other times -- and likely this is much more often the case -- he works his fingers raw, doing everything "right", but disappointment dogs his every effort -- the economy sours, a gallery fails, there's no money for frames, the mortgage company sends a foreclosure notice.

A late starter, I'm not a great painter and probably never will be, in the time I have left to hone the skills, but I'm a pretty competent painter and I can sell my work. And I'm puzzled that some of my past instructors, who were better painters twenty years ago -- inspirationally and technically -- than I ever will be, can't seem to make a go of it. People must not be buying their work because people don't like it, right? Are these artists, then, incompetent? Hardly. Competent but not understood? An annoyingly self-indulgent rationalization. I've read about those driven souls who "can't not paint" (and I hear there's medication for that now), but the Mozarts (who, I suppose, was one who just couldn't stop hummin doz tunes) and Van Goghs notwithstanding, I don't detect any particular professional honour in a pauper's grave, nor any particular personal shame in sharing one's unique talents with a paying public -- even one that may not be as discerning as curators or docents or folks like us, lucky enough to be engaged in this ****ably [SOG's asterisks, not mine] blessed pursuit.

Do your very best work all the time and strive ever to advance. If you'd like to sell the work, put it out there, do the legwork, and hope for the best. Good luck.

Is there heresy or blasphemy in such a pedestrian plan? Is the difference between portraits and portraiture, as one critic has divided it, really the difference between lightning and a lightning bug?

Steven

[Stanka Kordic]

Steven,

You bring up a provacative subject. Oh, do I have experiences to share..won't bore you with all of them. Suffice is to say that now, nearing my 40th year, I have become the true lioness in defense of making a living in art. What I've learned is that it takes passion, committment, and quite a bit of business savvy. The last piece is the hardest for many of us to acquire because it takes a large portion of confidence.

I have become so tired of the attitude the general public has about a living in the arts (whatever it may be). "Oh, how lovely that you are an artist!" But will those same people 'allow' their children to make it a career? No way. "Find something practical" (I teach occasionally at the high school level and have heard this).

I have been a freelance illustrator, a painter showing in galleries, and ultimately, came full circle to my first love of portraiture. I've had to send the henchmen to threaten the corporate people who were notoriously late with payment...had to watch as the galleries took 40-50% of my profits after selling work...My resentments have grown, in tandem with my passion for what I (and all of you) do.

Artists are important in this world. We should not be apologizing for what we charge. Yes, there may be less than quality work out there, but art is so subjective. The cream rises to the top..

No, I have no problem going to the bank and presenting big checks. In fact, I quietly enjoy the shock on people's faces (not art appreciators) when I openly discuss what I get for my work. What I really want to say is "..SO THERE!" I proudly announce that there are people out there earning 6 figures on art alone. Imagine!

Steven, you may have been putting the brush to canvas for only 6 years, but you have been a painter since the day you were born.

So there.

[Steven Sweeney]

I have become so tired of the attitude the general public has about a living in the arts (whatever it may be). "Oh, how lovely that you are an artist!"

Add this gender twist for married male artists: "Isn't that nice that he can finally do that while you're still working?!!" I understand that there's a bit of social turnabout here that's fair play, but it isn't apt in our house, and never has been.

Thanks for piping up, Stanka. Your note has especially inspired me during a bit of a slump here at the ranch.

Cheers,
Steven

[David Dowbyhuz]

Steven, you ol

[Karin Wells]

Making a living with a brush in my hand is nothing new to me....and I laugh all the way to the bank!

[Cynthia Daniel]

...this raises a question that's been on my mind. I have a tendency to go soft on artists I work with...perhaps the empathy of a lone individual making it by their ability to create?

Whereas, most artists on my site have raised their prices at least once in the last 4 years, I haven't raised the basic fee for being on Stroke of Genius once during this time period. Am I being too soft?

[Debra Jones]

As your site grows, the intent is to have a whole mob of people happily going into the 6 figure range and equally sitting waiting for the few commissions a year they will get here.
I am not up to the task, but I would bet the number of artists finding the way here keeps it stable in the shakey economy. Keep it simple and if you need to CUT the size, then raise the price and standard. There are both ends of the spectrum and the running leap into the bigtime can start slow. There are still artists "on a diet" out here...

[Steven Sweeney]

[quote]Steven, you ol

[Steven Sweeney]

I haven't raised the basic fee for being on Stroke of Genius once during this time period. Am I being too soft?

Yes, probably. If I was doing work and hadn't had a raise in 4 years, I'd feel at the very least that I was being taken advantage of. I'm in no position to tell you what your market will bear, but I doubt that regular, modest adjustments to your fees would drive away the serious artist or discourage a potential client of merit and determination. Some professional licenses cost more each year as the licensee becomes more experienced and, presumably, has increased earning potential. If an artist finds value year after year by having a "share" in SOG, why shouldn't you share in that value as well? And anyway, SOG fees must be tax deductible, right?

If this turns out to be a bad idea with unfortunate consequences, I will deny that I ever posted it.

[Chris Saper]

I see commissioned portraiture as not "just" painting..it is a mix of service and product, and its value is judged in advance by a buyer who has an expectation about the ability of the painter and the likely outcome of the product. In this way, it's similar to any of the professions, where the price relates to time and skill as opposed to cost inputs to the product.

I always encourage artists to respond, when asked "Are your prices firm?", "No, they could go higher."

I have never once been embarrassed to cash a check, although I would love the chance.

Chris

ps What medication?