BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

PODGallery - the future of art?

  
 
Saveloy
21:19 / 18.06.01
PODGallery

From the manifesto:

"Since the 1980's, art produced using computers has offered
artists a method for image making with a formal range rivaling
paint. Each of the elements which constitute a digital image are
available to a wide assortment of tools which can collage, clone,
and distort them. Practically infinite numbers of changes can be
made quickly to colors and textures, and compositional elements
can be reorganized with a freedom that far exceeds painting.

Since digital art exists first as information, it is as suited to enter
the Internet-centered information economy as are music, books,
and film. Instances of the work can multiply directly throughout this
global grid rather than be restricted to one particular gallery in
one particular city. Photographic-quality outputs of these files can now be produced up to the size of a billboard. Each copy is
equally original, and reproduces nothing.

Today, this enables us to propose a system where consumers of
visual art acquire the latest open edition prints by their favorite
artists, printed on demand from servers containing millions of
works from all over the world - and priced at a small fraction of the
cost of a painting or "limited" edition print. In the future, even
prints may become unnecessary in an environment full of large,
high resolution wall-mounted displays. For artists, royalty
payments from the multiple sale (and re-sale) of their digital work
in such a system might soon offer a far better income than
showing in a gallery."
 
 
bio k9
12:25 / 19.06.01
Interesting but all of the art in my home (with the exception of a Klimt print) was created by myself or someone I know. There is just something about having the origional piece of art. And two-dimentional reproductions or computer generated work can't even begin to compare to the (three-dimentional textured) look of a brush stroke on canvas.
Sounds like a good way for artists to make a buck though (until an art swaping web site opens up and lets everyone trade prints for free).

[ 19-06-2001: Message edited by: Biologic K-9 ]
 
 
levon
17:03 / 19.06.01
This sort of sounds like a big "dot com" pitch from 1999. The only reason I don't believe people will go for this scam (people have been trying to scam artists through these "online galleries" for a couple of years now) because it turns art into a commodity.
 
 
Saveloy
21:22 / 19.06.01
Biologic K-9:

"And two-dimentional reproductions or computer generated
work can't even begin to compare to the (three-dimentional textured) look of a brush stroke on canvas."

Agreed. I don't think that will ever be replaced (though I wonder if it would be possible to produce a 'printer' that mechanically manipulates paint on canvas, or maybe a variant of the 3D-printers discussed a while back). What this offers is simply an additional way to buy and sell physical prints.


Levon:
"The only reason I don't believe people will go for this scam (people have been trying to scam artists through these "online galleries" for a couple of years now)..."

I'm curious, why do you see it as a scam? Are you saying that the artists don't get paid for their work? The only thing that makes me uneasy is the fact that it doesn't tell you what percentage royalties the artists get.

"...because it turns art into a commodity."

Art is already a commodity, isn't it? A massively overpriced one, which is generally out of the reach of the pockets of most people, and one which can be physically difficult to find. Is it any 'worse' to buy a large, good quality print to hang on your wall than it is to buy a postcard or a book of reproductions? Or a CD? Or a book?
 
 
levon
22:01 / 22.06.01
Well the royalties have been consistent with that of galleries (BTW, since galleries take up to 50% of the commission, artwork is usually priced at double what the artist thinks it's worth) except these sites tend not to put in the work in terms of promoting your art. The money they are making off of your work is insane and it's a rip off and all they do is provide web space, which is just not enough. It's just part of the mentality that you can put anything before ".com" (dot bomb) and it will be worth gold. Yeah right.
 
 
Saveloy
21:41 / 26.06.01
Hang on, if they're not promoting your work, surely that's bad for them as well? And if they're making insane money of your work but not making any more commission than yer trad gallery, surely you are too?

That and your evident mistrust of internet business aside, don't you think that, as an idea, it's a good one? Or at least a start?

I've often wished that the visual art world had the same kind of culture around it as the music world. [I might explain this in detail in a bit]
 
 
Saveloy
12:53 / 03.07.01
I sent the URL for this thread to Kevin Mutch, the director of PODGallery and asked for his comments. Here's his reply:

Kevin Mutch:
Regarding Levon's comment "And two-dimentional (sic) reproductions or
computer generated work can't even begin to compare to the
(three-dimentional (sic) textured) look of a brush stroke on canvas." -
well, listening to studio multi-tracks of sampled beats played through
speakers can't begin to compare to the experience of sitting in Carnegie
Hall listening to a musician play a violin. Does that mean rap music isn't
valid? Or is it just a different form of art, with different criteria and
strengths?

Regarding the amount of royalties we pay, they vary from 20-30% of
the retail price of the print, depending on whether or not the work
is solely copyrighted by whoever provides it to us (some vintage
images are in the public domain). The major difference between a
publishing royalty such as this (or the 10-15% typical in music or
book publishing) and a traditional artist/gallery 50-50% split is
that we pay for the cost of the making the physical art work. The
artists have no production costs whatsoever, as long as they provide us
with a digital file of the image.

As an artist myself (see: http://www.podgallery.com/index.cfm?page=catdetails&category=115&From=44,4
5), the whole reason I started PODGallery (and, yes, it was in "1999") was
to avoid the elitist limitations of the traditional art world and
substitute a model that would appeal to me personally, as an artist.
Having my work up there on the site getting looked at (and getting the
occasional royalty check when it sells) sure doesn't feel like a scam to
me.

Kevin Mutch
Director
PODGallery
 
 
Pablo R
03:27 / 04.07.01
Hello!

The legitimacy of PODGallery is something none of us can question or cast doubt upon without proper evidence. The concept is a great one. Only with patience and vision will this concept stay alive. Slow exposure will gain in momentum until it is a normal way to view and purchase art.

Old barriers must be broken - such as the "need" people have to own original artwork. I say that if you need to have original artwork then go create your own.

I do not understand this desire in people. On some levels, I can see it as simply a love for art and the desire to own what one loves. But it goes beyond that to represent social symbol status - to represent personalities that people dress themselves in. It ultimately boils down to this form of greed because those people who buy original art take the art away from the eyes of the world.

Digital art, any piece of art that has a digital origin, needs to be offered to the public as a cheap way of obtaining amazing and good quality art. This kind of art needs to reintroduce to humans the concept of why we adore art in the first place. It is not about painting ownership or knowledge. It is about the immediate experience of immersing oneself in art. When the experience of it is appreciated, simply having a copy of it is enough. Why is it that we accept recorded audio? video? photography? But for some reason digital art cannot gain legitimacy because people can't own original versions.

Fortunately, I don't think that's too big of a barrier to get past. No matter what, people love to be surrounded by color. Digital art presents an infinite world of that. The range of art that is represented by the term "digital" is more dynamic than most people realize. From 3D art to photomanipulation to computer based fine art (graphic tablet artist), the talent is varied and immense. I think the biggest problem is that people simply aren't aware. People don't know about the efforts made by organizations like PODGallery. If one takes the time to stroll through their gallery, they will find amazing works of art - all of it affordable.

The Internet had it's boom and is now stabilizing. Ecommerce and the proliferation of culture will probably be the TWO leading reasons why people log on (well count games too - even though that is considered culture). I think if online art galleries continue to provide quality art to the public, they will succeed. It's just a matter of exposure and getting most people away from the "it must be in a museum to be legitimate"mentality when it comes to art.

This goes out to the young generation and all you hip art historians who know about every artist that is dead but never take the time to learn and appreciate contemporary artist. Next time you fork out another $50 for a Monet print or a Degas print, why not take a stroll over to PODGallery and buy an art piece from an artist that is alive and is probably in great need of your money!

-pablo

[ 04-07-2001: Message edited by: Pablo R ]

[ 04-07-2001: Message edited by: Pablo R ]
 
 
netbanshee
16:39 / 05.07.01
just a quick note...textures and three-dimensional brush strokes being printed out is possible...saw it work on a printer almost ten years ago. Can't source the name of it at the moment but I saw an employee hand-pulling a roll of canvas through this monster demoing the relief effects it had. It took forever but looked fairly convincing for the time. All I can remember was getting hot and bothered by it but came to my senses when the retail price for it was quoted as being around $200k.
 
  
Add Your Reply