[HN Gopher] Lessons I learned working at an art gallery
___________________________________________________________________
Lessons I learned working at an art gallery
Author : bkudria
Score : 418 points
Date : 2024-12-03 03:18 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.henrikkarlsson.xyz)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.henrikkarlsson.xyz)
| beltranaceves wrote:
| Some years ago I decided that, at some point in my life, I would
| try and involve myself with a gallery or museum.
|
| As with all things, it depends, but it seems to me that in such
| places you can find some of the most authentic and driven people
| out there. And it's probably quite fun to work with them.
| yodon wrote:
| Artists are like engineers. The types of decisions the two
| groups make are wildly different, but each group makes
| decisions for a living and focuses the rest of their time on
| craftsmanship.
|
| Also like engineers, the best make far better decisions, or are
| far better craftsmen, or both.
| m463 wrote:
| > the most authentic
|
| I have found the most authentic folks are the low-key ones that
| have a booth at an arts festival or some other show.
|
| I've been to galleries, and thought the vibe was really un-
| authentic. maybe I've been to the dysfunctional ones. Maybe
| that it is that galleries are more about something else than
| the art, more meta. (and they sold art not like this community
| gallery)
|
| Don't know the reality of museums.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| The small community galleries I know are filled with artists
| who also have a booth at the local arts festivals - and they
| _definitely_ sell art!
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| I don't get what you're trying to say. Most art galleries are
| businesses. They exhibits artists and artworks that sell.
| There is nothing un-authentic or dysfunctional about it; to
| put it more precisely, dysfunctional art galleries won't last
| very long, just like any other business that offers products
| that aren't in demand and don't attract buyers.
|
| Are you saying that galleries usually don't last very long
| and tend to be commercial failures?
| m463 wrote:
| I'm saying:
|
| Talking to a guy in an arts festival booth, the
| conversation is usually about the art.
|
| Talking to a guy in a gallery (in the US, that sells art
| for other people), the conversation is usually about me
| (sizing up a sales prospect).
|
| Note that galleries I'm talking about are for-profit -
| selling people's artwork and paying the rent. If you do
| talk to the artist, it is some artist-attends gathering and
| there are a lot of other people talking to the frazzled
| artist too.
|
| the gallery in the article seems different, it is a
| community coop and might have a different dynamic.
| space_oddity wrote:
| People there not just working for financial gain but for the
| preservation and promotion of something meaningful (I mean in
| most cases)
| grammarxcore wrote:
| I refuse to believe that not answering every single email within
| an hour is a good predictor of anything other than being glued to
| your phone. I think extending it to a reasonable amount of time,
| maybe a business day max, works out pretty well. Sometimes people
| respond really fast because they're taking regular breaks and
| other times they don't respond all evening because they're
| putting on their kid's birthday party. Even at work, sometimes
| very good colleagues are doing things back-to-back for hours and
| using short windows to do things like go to the bathroom.
|
| On the other hand maybe this is some art thing I'm too far away
| from to understand? Maybe really good artists to work with never
| need more than twenty minutes of deep focus at a time for
| anything?
| avg_dev wrote:
| i did take some issue with the way that point was phrased as
| well.
|
| but, i took it a little more broadly than it was actually
| specified: people who are not great about communicating or make
| it hard for you to work with them at the outset will probably
| continue to be like that throughout the entirety of your
| working relationship.
|
| i watch some videos on the Tested youtube channel, where the
| host is Adam Savage, who was one of the hosts/creators of the
| MythBusters tv show, and he often talks about this point, and
| how he learned it working with Jamie Hyneman early on in his
| career where they would take clients, and Jamie explained this
| principal.
| sroussey wrote:
| Artists tend to be in art production mode or sales mode. When
| in sales mode and doing exhibitions, etc., good ones are very
| responsive.
|
| They work for a a year, or maybe several, then there are sales
| to be had over the corse of a month or so. The work they are
| selling is finished.
|
| Would you work on something for years, and then when the time
| comes to _maybe_ sell it -- not answer the phone?
| ranit wrote:
| People that work at art galleries are not artists.
| vector_spaces wrote:
| The bit in the article about email responsiveness concerned
| artists
| tayo42 wrote:
| depends on the gallery, some make you work a shift if you
| want to sell your art there
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Not professional artists (in the UK)? Curation is a
| separate skill, and you're paying through the nose for
| the gallery's services, usually.
| tayo42 wrote:
| it depends, but i tried to sell my paintings at local
| galleries and some wanted me to do things like that
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Are you a professional [earning most of your money
| through your art]? Which country do you live in please?
|
| I've only seen the self-curation from community groups.
| I'm all for collectives but I'm pretty sure the
| professional artists I know would say it gives off
| budget/desperate vibes and so it's something you can't
| afford to do if you aspire to 'make it [big]'.
|
| {I express myself through overuse of parentheses and
| through runon sentences...}
| space_oddity wrote:
| Though they do play a crucial role in selling and promoting
| the art
| dasil003 wrote:
| This is an uncharitable take. Who said anything about an
| interruption every 20 minutes? We're talking about an artist
| doing an exhibition at a gallery, by any measure, this is a
| pretty significant collaboration that is in the artist's best
| interest and not something their getting spammed with dozens of
| a times a day.
|
| If you read and digest the article, the point is not to create
| a litmus test based on time-to-response, it's to recognize
| there are a lot of people to talk a big game but are unserious
| about achieving shared goals.
|
| If an artist is not responsive because they are so serious
| about their creative process that they don't have time to
| respond to a gallery doing an exhibition than maybe that's the
| right thing for what they are serious about, but it does jack
| shit for _the gallery staffer who is serious about creating an
| exhibition_.
| smgit wrote:
| All people are not alike. Thankfully. Refer Law of Requisite
| Variety. Some people live to please.
|
| Once you understand people are very different, the whole story
| turns into setting teams up such that the right people are in
| the right role. Ofcourse this is hard to pull off, so there is
| always drama in any group.
| shawndrost wrote:
| This is not just some art thing. People note it in every field.
| It's not the only predictor; the author of Chrome reportedly
| did most of it offline IIRC. But it's a real phenomenon that is
| robust in the face of the concerns you're raising. There is a
| wide range of email responsiveness -- even among people who are
| going to the bathroom and putting on birthday parties and doing
| focus work -- and it is a helpful predictor.
| spullara wrote:
| I have found that folks like Jensen, Elon, Jobs, etc answer
| their emails in 5-10 min. You be the judge.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| They have EA's that can go through their inboxes for them and
| highlight what actually needs a response. Hell they probably
| draft responses for them too
| ponow wrote:
| And that is so because they made it a priority for it to be
| so.
| space_oddity wrote:
| Yep, this wouldn't necessarily apply to everyone -- especially
| those who balance multiple roles
| Kiro wrote:
| Unfortunately it's one of those hacks that makes your look like
| a superhuman. I hate it but obsessively answering emails and
| messages as soon as possible has given me so many opportunities
| that it feels like a cheat code. It's nothing reasonable about
| it but it's just the way things are.
| nobodywillobsrv wrote:
| When people complain about this they aren't thinking about
| how much they love people not answering them. Obviously not
| everything needs to be answered quickly all the time but the
| world is full of delays and waiting. Any relief is welcome.
| freefaler wrote:
| So how does that work, can you elaborate?
|
| What is the difference if you answer in 10 minutes, 6 hours
| or 24 hours? Are you competing on time of response so if
| you're fast you're getting the deal?
| ljf wrote:
| I can only speak for myself - I produce exec/board
| materials. Often a request will go out to several people
| and I can get ahead by responding first. Sometimes someone
| will reply to me quickly and the edge I bring is properly
| digesting their response and then going back quickly to
| them with questions. Others might accept they have a reply
| and then wait until they are pulling the paper together to
| realise they are missing key data.
|
| I don't read or action all emails instantly, but I am very
| aware of the ones I need to, or when I am in a period of
| high focus that needs information fast.
|
| In an ideal world I'd be in an office with all the people I
| needed around me, all with the same focus and priorities,
| but that is rarely the case. So to excel at my job I need
| to make connections fast and respond fast. (Note this isn't
| just email, this is just for my communications in general.)
| lupire wrote:
| I remember one event vividly.
|
| Exec asked for some business information information while
| traveling.
|
| I replied promptly, sending a link to a webpage, within the
| proper process for secure data sharing according to company
| policy. This required exec to visit our internal website to
| view the information.
|
| A teammate emailed the information directly, violating
| policy and good data stewardship.
|
| CEO replied to teammate's email with a big group thank you
| for "emailing the information quickly".
| 1123581321 wrote:
| That is classic, but you knew it would go like that when
| you sent the link, didn't you? :)
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Replying quickly looks like you care and you already know
| what's going on. It also suggests that you'd be willing to
| have even more synchronous conversations (phone calls,
| trips together, etc.)
|
| Doing it during business hours matters more than off hours
| outside of major deadlines or event prep.
|
| With many organizations, if you want to give this
| impression and also shut down communications to focus, you
| need blocks of time outside of business hours where you
| focus. For example, I know a responsive executive who
| cannot be reached from 6am-9am every weekday, when most
| people aren't trying to get hold of him. This is when he
| writes and reads. Even then, his assistant fields
| communications so he doesn't seem to have disappeared.
|
| Not saying you should do this or that it's for everybody.
| tomcam wrote:
| Very interesting. How do you square this with the times you
| need to concentrate?
| refactor_master wrote:
| My experience is the complete opposite. It's a weak point
| like a supermarket that is still open at 11 pm. Do I need it?
| No, but I'll take the service anyway since it's free.
| naming_the_user wrote:
| How is it a weak point for a supermarket to be open at 11?
| 24 hour supermarkets are fantastic and have saved my bottom
| many a time.
|
| Do I _need_ it? No, I don't _need_ much of anything other
| than air to breathe and a bit of food in my belly. Most
| people don't just settle for that though.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Obligatory song to the last part of your message:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm8oxC24QZc (Eddie Vedder
| - Society)
|
| It has always resonated with me.
| bleakenthusiasm wrote:
| I read this as "answer within the hour when preparing an
| exhibition". If you are in full swing to get an exhibition up
| and running and this is the time you decide to throw yourself
| into deep focus work, you are probably hard to work with. I
| would also assume if some artist told the author "look I know
| we open on Tuesday, but this Friday we have my kid's birthday
| so from 4 to 8 I won't be easy to reach", this would probably
| just be silently dropped from the cou ting of how fast they
| respond.
|
| On the other hand, without warning going dark for 4 work day
| hours a few days before exhibition would look terrible if any
| serious question came up.
|
| So I don't think it's literally responding within the hour, but
| it comes pretty dang close. You have to keep in mind that being
| an artist creating art and being an artist setting up an
| exhibition are basically two different jobs and if you end up
| doing them in parallel at the same time, that's your problem
| right there.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| How long does setting up an exhibition take, and what kind of
| hours are you expecting? 4-8 are workday hours?
|
| And what kind of question needs to be answered that fast, but
| wasn't important enough to be asked several days earlier? My
| feeling is that there should be very few such questions, few
| enough that each artist can safely take half a day if they
| get one.
| ben_w wrote:
| A day and a half is slow even in software, and software
| doesn't have things like the example given of wanting a
| wall put up then asking for it to be taken down again.
|
| Sure, software does have bad communicators who change their
| minds, but revert is relatively easy.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > A day and a half is slow even in software,
|
| We're talking about half a day, not a day and a half. Or
| really, less than half a day.
|
| > and software doesn't have things like the example given
| of wanting a wall put up then asking for it to be taken
| down again.
|
| The wall example was taking place over "weeks". If there
| is still an urgent question about wall-building a few
| days out then it sounds like someone waited much too long
| and that's the real problem, not the extra four hours.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| If everyone is there to set up your exhibition at a certain
| agreed upon time, then you should be engaged and answering
| any questions immediately if not sooner, regardless of how
| long it takes to set up the exhibition.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Certain agreed upon time? Yes, of course. You should
| probably be there for most of it too.
|
| But once you're covering multiple days, no, a single
| person should not be expected to respond lightning fast
| the entire time. And the several day scenario is what the
| comment I replied to talked about.
| dkga wrote:
| I read it like so too. I don't typically respond to emails
| immediately unless I have my email application open (which I
| rarely do as I do enjoy time to do deep work). But in the
| lead up to a big event there is no way I would go radio
| silent, unless I'm unconscious in the hospital.
| soco wrote:
| Since when is email expected to be answered immediately???
| Anything urgent means a phone call, or a text message. Emails
| are either for cya reasons (but then my urgency is not
| necessarily your urgency) or just big stuff needing time - to
| write, to compose, to think, to analyse. So email answering
| time is a wrong metric by definition.
| itronitron wrote:
| Becoming recognized as a good artist depends a great deal on
| being an effective communicator about one's work. It's sort of
| self-selecting but it is part of the job.
| naming_the_user wrote:
| You're trying to systematise something that is more like basic
| human nature. It's like trying to explain why people like
| attractive people from a utilitarian perspective.
|
| In the real world I just prefer to interact with people who
| prioritise me over other things and most people are the same.
| ponow wrote:
| Yet some artists do believe that it's morally wrong that
| producing whatever they deem as good art isn't guaranteed to
| be self-supporting. They shouldn't ultimately have to answer
| to anyone else's opinion to earn a living. Which is highly
| entitled, and non-evolutionary.
| naming_the_user wrote:
| Anyone who thinks that the Universe owes them is sorely
| mistaken.
| huijzer wrote:
| He didn't mention a timescale. Maybe it's a difference between
| 4 hours and 1 day? I would agree that if someone takes longer
| than a day to respond, then it's going to be hard to work with
| this person. 4 hours is fine.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| I interpreted it as "artists who are reasonable people produce
| better art."
|
| IE, focus more on qualities like: Asking to move a wall at the
| last minute, needing a life counselor...
| balderdash wrote:
| I enjoyed reading this, but I felt that 90% of this person's
| experience was simply the result of being a real contributor in
| an organization with non-existent expectations/completely un-
| optimized state/no other real contributors.
|
| In other words it's easy to make a difference as a high performer
| in a low performance organization.
|
| Again not detracting from this persons achievements, I just don't
| think these most of these observations apply in high performIng
| organizations
| busterarm wrote:
| And if you're this kind of person you can absolutely crush it
| at certain types of non-profits and NGOs that attract people
| with a lot of ideas but no work ethic.
|
| At least if you're okay with being the only person with any
| ambition. Personally I have to flee from those environments.
| robertclaus wrote:
| I got a similar sense, especially the section where they talked
| about needing to build trust before trying to change things. I
| do volunteer photography, and feel the same way as this article
| any time I do a shoot for a small organization that has never
| gotten good photos for their business before. It's super
| rewarding, but a completely different thing than my dayjob
| managing a solid team of engineers.
| teractiveodular wrote:
| There are a _lot_ more low performing organizations than high
| performing ones. Even organizations usually perceived as high
| performing tend to have a few high performing _teams_
| surrounded by oceans of mediocrity.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Which can be an incredibly important realization.
|
| If you don't have access to high performing institutions for
| whatever reason, this is how you can leverage a position in a
| low performing institution to achieve a lot of success.
| jchmbrln wrote:
| > In other words it's easy to make a difference as a high
| performer in a low performance organization.
|
| And yet, the big takeaway for me is that to be a high performer
| it isn't enough to A) know what needs to be done, or B) be able
| to do it well. The key is C) figuring out the incentive
| landscape.
|
| His story of carving out his own job only to find he had no
| support from the board is what I've tried before. In my low
| performing organization, I thought I could be a high performer
| by knowing what needed to be done and doing it well. Everybody
| I directly worked with loved me and thought I was highly
| effective, but I never made any lasting change like this
| author. I didn't understand the need to skip way up the levels
| until I was already burnt out.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| It's not necessarily more easy to be great in a low performance
| organisation. Often these organisations are low performant for
| a reason. The worst one egos, drama and politics
| outlaw42 wrote:
| i was a security guard at an art museum for a long time. it was
| the only job i could find after being laid off from my software
| gig. thanks for sharing
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| This is odd. What country and period was it?
|
| Before Covid, everyone on LinkedIn was bombarded with job
| offers as and soon as they created an account and put anything
| IT related on it.
| outlaw42 wrote:
| USA/2022
|
| I was a php dev. Sort of the Wild West over here
| harisankarh wrote:
| Nice to read. I didn't guess that the article would be so fun to
| read and insightful. I wouldn't have even read it if it wasn't
| ranked 1 in hackernews.
| oseph wrote:
| Lovely article! It induced an unexpected feeling of nostalgia for
| me personally as I previously worked at an large public art
| gallery. I was part of the marketing team and my role focused
| mostly on the digital side: web updates and digital signage
| throughout the space. The description of great artists in the
| article resonated with me; the best ones where those that truly
| did it for the art and were surprisingly humble.
|
| That's not to say that all amateur artists are self-centered; I
| met plenty of up and coming artists that felt like wizened "old
| souls" without ego, and playful at heart. I think they were just
| great artists in the making!
|
| Even though it wasn't the most high paying job, it was really fun
| being part of the visual art heartbeat in a city.
| p1nkpineapple wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. Henrik Karlsson is one of my favourite
| writers on the internet at the moment. His other piece called
| "Everything that turned out well in my life followed the same
| design process" [1] left such a big impression on me and I return
| to it frequently, highly recommend.
|
| 1:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240816150009/https://www.henri...
| KingFelix wrote:
| Great essay, just read it
| mwidell wrote:
| Wow, that was a great essay. It describes the process I've been
| using for the past 10 years to design a happy life. I had no
| words to describe it in a good way, but now I have.
| heopd wrote:
| An alternative, more nuanced, realistic version of "follow your
| passion" ? Follow your passion might have ended up in "follow
| your vision", "vision" used here as the article defines it. The
| article makes a case for "follow your context", a more workable
| version of the popular adage. Thought provoking !
| exitb wrote:
| The article glosses over the bosses and board members, but it
| feels that's where the story is. Often art institutions are not
| optimized to make money for the organization, but rather to
| employ specific people or make specific people visible in a
| desired way. Hence the workshops and fundraisers. I suspect
| that's why the boss, eventually becomes just a ,,first boss".
| anshulbhide wrote:
| The article itself is fantastic. However, this is a great example
| of what makes catnip for HN -
|
| 1) Use scientific terms (e.g. vector fields, waves resonance) 2)
| Cite tech influencers (e.g. Sholto Douglas, Tyler Cowen) 3) Make
| the subject an abstract novel field that most developers or tech
| folk don't really pay attention and use #1 and #2 to make it
| relevant
| pickledoyster wrote:
| Honestly, the entire blog feels that way: referencing the same
| old tropes and personalities in a slightly novel context. A
| sort of a comfort read for the web2.0 nostalgia crowd.
|
| I guess this approach worked, since it allowed the author to go
| on writing full time in Denmark (HCoL), which is an achievement
| these days.
| badgersnake wrote:
| You forgot be smug and entitled. He does that a lot.
| resonious wrote:
| > But if someone else isn't measuring up, I have no idea how to
| convince them to do so. So I look for people who have already
| decided.
|
| This reminded me of the part in Good to Great where one company's
| success was attributed to setting up a steel factory in a
| agriculture-heavy area, where the residents were farmers who were
| already predisposed to working hard.
|
| I'm curious if, on the flip side, anyone has any strategies for
| "convincing someone to measure up" as the author puts it.
| brazzy wrote:
| I suspect that would need to be highly specific to the
| individual, their personality, past experiences and current
| situation.
| krisoft wrote:
| The problem here is that I don't trust the author on being able
| to tell who is the "best artist". Clearly he has opinions. But
| for example in point 3, he says he can predict which exhibition
| will be great based on how easy it is to work with the artist. He
| predicts that some exhibition will be crap and he is right! Which
| sounds impressive until you notice that he is not measuring his
| judgement against something objective, but just against his
| judgement. He decides something will be crap and then he feels
| crap about it once he sees it. Did others, who did not know that
| the artist was slow to email back also feel that those
| exhibitions were mediocre and the others not? Who knows? All we
| have is this one man's opinion. Maybe others thought differently.
|
| Even more so in his point 6. He writes "What you see in the
| biographies of great artists, great writers, great anything is
| that they are good at figuring out where the vectors align."
| Which is just plainly and absolutely not true. There were plenty
| of people who we now recognise as "great artist" who absolutely
| could not figure out where the "incentive vectors align". Thus
| they lived in abject poverty, or needed to support themselves
| from something other than their art. But if your definition of
| "great art" is that it is commercially succesfull then of course
| what you will find that the "great artist" are all like good
| businesman. But that doesn't tell you about what it take to be an
| artist, just only what you value.
| l5870uoo9y wrote:
| > The problem here is that I don't trust the author on being
| able to tell who is the "best artist".
|
| A prerequisite to be considered a great artist is that the
| artist master a "craft" to perfection be it painting, drawing,
| sculpting, or something complete different like Burial who
| created one of the most important electronic album using the
| basic audio-editing software Sound Forge.
| djtango wrote:
| Is art really about craft anymore?
|
| There's certainly an element of it but it's gotten very meta
| and abstract these days.
|
| What is the craft in a dirty bath tub or a robot endlessly
| sweeping liquid?
|
| Better yet what's the craft in a white canvas:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invisible_artworks
|
| I'm actually not denying there's art here, sometimes I "get
| it" but the art of today has gotten very conceptual and meta.
|
| I see similar issues with music - where the need to be
| accessible vs original are pit against each other. Da Vinci,
| Monet, Turner, Picasso - the art is fairly accessible.
| Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy, Holst ditto.
|
| But who will be remembered as being accessible and "serious"
| from our generation in music? Probably John Williams - a film
| composer primarily. I'm not dissing composers, one of my
| favourites of all time is Nobuo Uematsu but I am not sure
| what is art anymore. I wonder if art can only emerge with
| hindsight. What did it feel like to be in the present when
| people like Chopin and Liszt were in their heyday while
| Delacroix and Moreau were painting. Or when Ravel and Debussy
| were writing impressionistic music alongside Monet and Manet
| painting
| Arkhaine_kupo wrote:
| > Is art really about craft anymore?
|
| It never was, but it is still important as it always has
| been.
|
| > There's certainly an element of it but it's gotten very
| meta and abstract these days.
|
| Art is about many things. I agree that a lot of art can be
| esoteric nowadays, mostly because its in conversation with
| specific things, so it can feel like an inside joke, or a
| private conversation you are not privy to. If I make an art
| piece critiquing an article from The Economist and you
| never read business news then my piece will be unparseable
| for you, regardless of quality.
|
| Many art pieces are in response to other art movements, or
| to niche communities, or to conversations happening in the
| art world etc. If you jump into a modern art gallery and
| someone is replying to the art that was in Art Basel Miami,
| which was a repsonse to internet art, which in itself was a
| response to figurative early .... and then you go to this
| art gallery and you cant get a painting because its talking
| to someone that is not you.
|
| > where the need to be accessible vs original are pit
| against each other.
|
| I dont think thats true. There are certainly artists that
| manage to break new ground while being accesible, while
| other prime originality over mainstream appeal. That is an
| artistic choice to be made, in the same way retreading
| comfortable ground or releasing a Christman Carol album is.
|
| > Da Vinci, Monet, Turner, Picasso - the art is fairly
| accessible.
|
| Trying to understand the last supper without knowledge of
| Christianity would make Da Vinci fairly hard. Monet was a
| counter culture leader against The Salon in France which
| prized craft, and execution over more ground breaking
| attempts like impressionism, so hardly accesible when his
| entire life was a fight against the culture of the time.
| Picasso can be called many things, but accesible is not one
| that comes to mind. Gernika can be considered striking, but
| cubism, his portraits of women (and their significance),
| his pottery... there is plenty of his work that needs
| analysis and is plain ugly on first watch.
|
| > But who will be remembered as being accessible and
| "serious" from our generation in music?
|
| There will be plenty. Kendrick Lamar won a Pulitzer for his
| lyrics, to give a simple example his song Swimming Pools
| about the many faces of alcoholism and its raveging effects
| on the black community is both a popular song as well as
| really well written narratively. From the 90s you could
| easily pull Nirvana for offering grunge as an alternative
| to the hyper corporate, pro capitalism, runaway train that
| american political and social life was engaged in, while
| having incredibly catchy songs. If you wanna go further
| back Bob Dylan and The Beatles are absolute masters of
| catchy tunes and powerful lyrics.
|
| You said what felt to be in the present with List? Well you
| had Lisztomania, an absolute uproar of women turning up to
| see him. This was mocked/replicated by the beatles with
| Beatlemania. You could argue the Boy band, Justin Bieber
| phenomenom was that same effect although the musicality,
| and the corporate interference shows a darker more
| manufactured side to the art.
|
| And in terms of art you have incredible art of every type
| right now, never has art been more accesible or easy to
| produce. What we are missing is search tools, surfacing
| interesting works and specially people curating what stuff
| is good from the muck. But if a tree falls in a forest, it
| still makes sound and rn there are countless artists
| dropping trees you just need to perk your ears up
| djtango wrote:
| Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think you've addressed
| to some degree what I was trying to think around. That
| art may be difficult to evaluate in its time. Monet may
| have been a counter culture artist in his time but today
| he has a somewhat universal appeal. Is that cultural? Are
| we now primed to like Monet because people have told us
| to like Monet?
|
| No doubt in his time there were factions, those who
| pandered to the institution and those who fawned over
| innovation and originality. I'm sure these cycles occur
| in every present.
|
| So then what will be remembered from our time? As you say
| a lot of today's art is esoteric and holding a
| conversation not all of us are privy to.
|
| I also agree that to some extent we do now have the most
| art we ever could have. The internet and the creator
| economy has unlocked creativity in many ways. I recall
| some discussion the other day about the "hollowing out of
| the middle" in musical instrument proficiency, and more
| widely a lot of other skills. Technology and convenience
| has eradicated a need for many skills at a "mediocre"
| level but we also have more access to information and
| learning than ever before.
| bradley13 wrote:
| I have worked a little bit with "artists". Too many of them are
| caught up in their vision, and apparently incapable of dealing
| with reality. Too many of them believe that their vision is so,
| so unique that everyone else should sort out any problems.
|
| There's one guy where I live, whom I tried to help out several
| times. I would invest lots of effort handling the practical
| stuff: flyers, text, web site, etc. Little thanks, because it
| was his due. Then he would have a new idea, change direction,
| and it was all for nothing.
| specialist wrote:
| True.
|
| Part of Gage Art Academy's mission is to create working
| artists. Students learn about (and struggle with) how to get
| paid. Stuff like how to price their works, balancing one's
| own artistic expression with making stuff that sells, how to
| pull off an exhibit, etc.
|
| https://gageacademy.org/
| irjustin wrote:
| > But if your definition of "great art" is that it is
| commercially succesfull then of course what you will find that
| the "great artist" are all like good businesman.
|
| While the author doesn't explicitly define what is "great", I
| 100% believed that what it is defined as. That "great" is being
| commercially successful.
|
| The article is premised around running a non-profit art gallery
| in a struggling municipality. That he did a good job by
| "helping grow the revenues"[0]. He needed money for his new
| baby and couldn't afford to lose a job[1]
|
| It is a modern day art gallery. These things are businesses
| first - to support their own operations and then to help artist
| support themselves and their work.
|
| So yes, "great" art IS art that sells.
|
| Now, what sells is highly highly subjective, and a very large
| part of that sales process is making the customer _feel good_
| about their purchase. And I think this is where you disagree -
| that there is a higher, objective reality around good vs great
| art. And for so much art, there really isn't.
|
| [0] "I started was the inflection point when the revenue, which
| had been shrinking or muddling for 5 years, began growing
| again"
|
| [1] "since I knew I couldn't afford to quit anytime soon with
| the baby and all"
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| By your definition, super-successful kitsch-meisters like
| Thomas Kinkade are great artists.
|
| That's quite a niche view.
|
| In fact art is an overlap of many different kinds of markets
| selling to many different kinds of customers - from people
| buying phone wallpapers online, to tourists buying souvenirs
| on holiday, to oligarchs laundering money through prestige
| purchases.
|
| And many others.
|
| A community gallery is going to intersect with a couple of
| those, but not all of them. Sustainable funding is a goal,
| but maximising income isn't.
|
| Financial success doesn't sane wash narcissistic entitlement,
| of which there is plenty outside of the arts.
| krisoft wrote:
| > By your definition, super-successful kitsch-meisters like
| Thomas Kinkade are great artists.
|
| And Vincent van Gogh is not. Or was not a great artist,
| then he died and become a great artist somehow suddenly
| after his death. (at least by that definition, which just
| to make it clear, I don't agree with.)
| specialist wrote:
| I'm fine with "remembered somehow" as another useful
| definition for "a great artist".
|
| More cynically: van Gogh was only successfully monetized
| posthumously.
| krisoft wrote:
| > While the author doesn't explicitly define what is "great",
| I 100% believed that what it is defined as.
|
| I understand that is his definition, but then talk about
| that. Instead of saying that the exhibition ended up
| "mediocre" say that "ticket sales were lower than expected"
| or "sold less paintings than we hoped for", or "didn't bring
| in anybody".
|
| Because as is he just writes "after weeks of this you end up
| with something mediocre" and "predict which exhibitions would
| end up great". That is very vibes based. Did he just not
| enjoy those exhibitions? Or is it tied to something objective
| outside of his head? (such as revenue, or crowd size, or
| critical acclaim) The first is not interesting, the second
| is.
|
| > That he did a good job by "helping grow the revenues"[0].
|
| Or did not do a good job. Base on the very sentence you quote
| which starts "It helped that the year I started ...". Doesn't
| give me the impression that even the author believes it is
| all their doing. Very easily someone could write the same
| story from a differed perspective "we hired a guy to run the
| cafe, but he was way too distracted to keep consistently at
| it. First he ruffled some feathers with the board then he
| mellowed out so we kept him around. He pooh-poohed artist who
| was not as responsive in electronic communication as he would
| have liked, but we told him softly that is not his decision
| and to shut it. At the end he was only showing up
| sporadically and then left to write or something." We only
| have his world on it and even based on that his track record
| is less than stelar.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Yes, this is the situation we are left in. I don't really
| know of course (and presumably nor do you) whether he was a
| good employee or made substantive improvements or whatever.
| It would have helped if he was more specific and concrete
| in his descriptions.
|
| The biggest failing here is a failing of clear and
| compelling writing.
| krisoft wrote:
| > I don't really know of course (and presumably nor do
| you) whether he was a good employee or made substantive
| improvements or whatever.
|
| Yes, absolutely. I don't know anything about him outside
| of this article. I assume he is a good employee, or they
| were mostly happy with him (for the simple reason that
| they kept employing him). Just wrote that part to
| illustrate that the same facts from his own pen can be
| also interpreted in a negative light.
|
| > It would have helped if he was more specific and
| concrete in his descriptions.
|
| I totally agree with that.
| atoav wrote:
| On which timeframe tho? Many great artists did _not_ sell
| well during their lifetime, Van Gogh being the most famous
| example.
|
| Was Van Gogh a great artist because at some point in the
| future his works are among the most expensive ones ever sold
| sold? Or was he a bad artist, that turned great after his
| death when the market favored him more?
|
| If it is the former, _every_ artist could potentially sell
| well in the remaining time of human civilization -- how far
| in the future do you draw the line?
|
| If it is the latter then we get the paradoxical situation,
| that the same work can be both great and bad depending on the
| observers time reference. So the same painting is bad, until
| someone "discovers" it and manages ro produce economic hype
| around it.
|
| As someone with a MA of art who has probably seen more
| exhibitions than most people on this site (including the last
| 5 Biennales and the last 3 Documentas) my guess is: great art
| is great even before it is commercially successful.
|
| Whether it then turns out to be economically successful as
| well (and when) hinges on many different factors, like the
| Zeitgeist, pure chance, where it was exhibited or next to
| what it was exhibited, how the galerist treats the work, how
| much the artist puts on the market, how the market feels at
| the time when it is shown etc.
|
| The "greatness" of the work is only a very small factor in
| the economic success it has, some would even argue it doesn't
| matter as much as one would think.
|
| But all of that matters on how we define "great". If you are
| a rich collector that sees art as an investment it is just
| about the numbers, then great art is only art that you have
| _and_ that sells for more than you bought it. You 'd define
| it differently depending on who you are: artist, art
| historian, galerist, lay person, crafts person, journalist,
| copyright lawyer, restaurator, ..
| fenomas wrote:
| > in point 3, he says he can predict which exhibition will be
| great based on how easy it is to work with the artist
|
| I strongly assumed that bit was about him predicting whether
| each exhibition would be "great" from the gallery's perspective
| - in terms of attendance or revenue or whatever metrics they
| used. It's not spelled out, but since the whole piece is about
| him focusing on the business and ops side of things, that bit
| probably was as well.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| > He writes "What you see in the biographies of great artists,
| great writers, great anything is that they are good at figuring
| out where the vectors align." Which is just plainly and
| absolutely not true
|
| I take it the author means "great" as in "successful".
| llamaimperative wrote:
| It is not true in that case either, or at least "successful"
| is still poorly defined.
|
| It's defined implicitly in this blog as _commercially
| successful within the timeframe I had to sell their art._
| Which is a perfectly defensible definition, but should be
| explicit so people know what argument they're hearing.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| > commercially successful within the timeframe I had to
| sell their art
|
| That's what I meant with successful. Not sure what other
| variations there would be, though I'm not a native speaker.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| For example, to receive prestigious awards would also fit
| under "successful," regardless of monetary components. To
| be recognized after death as one of the Masters would be
| successful.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| The author is talking about the artistry being aligned
| with market forces in the paragraph preceding the quote.
|
| I don't really see how either of those definitions fit in
| that context.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Sure, but now you're just circularly defining it back to
| what was initially pointed out: this is implicitly a very
| specific definition of greatness, ergo yeah, you replace
| the word with "successful" and it's implicitly a very
| specific definition of successful.
| munificent wrote:
| It was clear to me from the article. The very next section
| is about how being economically sustainable is important if
| your goal is to maximize the amount of art you can present
| to a community.
| ValentinA23 wrote:
| https://www.zmescience.com/science/physicist-shows-that-to-b...
|
| Albert-Laszlo Barabas, a physicist, created a network map that
| can predict an artist's future success based on their early
| network connections. His work outlines two key "laws of
| success":
|
| - Performance drives success, but when performance can't be
| measured, networks drive success. This highlights the
| importance of networks when objective measures of quality are
| difficult to establish.
|
| - Performance is bounded, but success is unbounded. This
| indicates that small differences in quality can lead to large
| disparities in success due to the amplifying power of social
| networks
|
| Barabasi's model can predict an artist's career success with
| surprising accuracy based on the venues of their first five
| exhibitions. This model underscores the importance of early
| connections and the venues where an artist exhibits their work,
| which can significantly influence their long-term success4.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| This is great to think about. Glad I ran across this comment.
| blitzar wrote:
| I guess this is why a sucessful genius can tape a banana to a
| wall while a run of the mill worker can only restore Notre
| Dame to its original state.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| No that is more about money laundering
| lancesells wrote:
| It's more about people with a lot of money hoping to sell
| it for a greater return, while maybe also having shit
| taste in art. In five years it'll be at an auction and
| sell to some other person with too much money in hopes of
| making a profit on it later on.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Nah, it has to do with money laundering, tax evasion, and
| easy international money transmission. There are tons of
| interesting tricks you can pull once you have your hands
| on a small object "worth" hundreds of thousands or
| millions of dollars whose very illiquid + inefficiently
| priced sales also affects an entire market of similar
| objects.
| neaden wrote:
| The guy who bought it, Justin Sun, ate it. So unless it's
| going to get really meta (and stinky) he's not going to
| resell it.
| blitzar wrote:
| That would be a piece of art.
| lancesells wrote:
| Net worth $1.6B. So eating a $6M banana is a PR stunt.
|
| Edit: Also doesn't mean it can't be resold as that banana
| gets replaced x number of days.
| detaro wrote:
| The thing being bought by him was not a specific physical
| banana, so he can resell what was sold just fine if he
| wants to.
| niceice wrote:
| How does that work exactly?
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Have you ever tried to move $10MM between jurisdictions
| before? It's much easier when you can put it in a box
| that looks like, weighs as much as, and actually is a
| piece of cloth inside of a box, and then open the box up
| wherever you want it.
|
| (To be clear, the banana piece _specifically_ is probably
| a bad artwork to use for financial engineering purposes,
| but for the art market as a whole these dynamics add a
| lot to the prices near the top end)
| trgn wrote:
| that isn't money laundering though.
|
| I wonder that too fwiw, what's the exact mechanism with
| this banana NFT-purchase by which elicit money (from who
| (?)) is now being laundered as legal income (of who (?)).
| How does the process work?
| numpad0 wrote:
| let's buy that argument for discussion's sake, that
| doesn't contradict with the notion that networking is
| important.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| I wasn't trying to contradict that
| Aunche wrote:
| Whenever an absurdly priced work of art makes it to the
| news, laypeople immediately jump to the explanation of
| money laundering, but any artist, art purchaser, or even
| money launderer would know that this is ridiculous. You'd
| be an idiot to launder their money in the most publicized
| auction in the year. If you wanted to launder money, it
| would most likely be through low-profile private sales.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| I agree that any _individual piece_ is not guaranteed to
| be laundering, but the market as a whole is definitely
| pushed upwards by more factors than people 's desire for
| historical artifacts or decoration.
|
| In any case, in the true upper end of the market, most of
| these auctions are publicized but the buyers are behind
| many layers of indirection.
| neaden wrote:
| In this specific case we know who bought it Justin Sun.
| He's a Hong Kong based cyrptocurrency investor who ate
| it. So it seems like in this case it was more about
| getting some press, and probably a bit of distraction
| against some of the allegations against him.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| Nope he didn't eat it. He got a digital token with
| instructions on how to tape his own banana to the wall.
|
| Before someone thinks I'm not serious - I am. That was
| out in the news today.
| plagiarist wrote:
| The world is pretty disappointing in that way.
|
| All my life I have been thinking I should develop good
| skills in my career. But actually I should have been
| learning how to make connections and talk to people.
|
| There's no chance of me selling a single banana for that
| much. But I could be making a multiple what I do now.
| cpach wrote:
| Why not do both?
| m0llusk wrote:
| Workers are required to follow the orders they are given
| which are typically specified such that it is the people
| paying them that get to exercise aesthetic judgement. That
| is why Notre Dame was restored to a modernized design that
| is visibly different from its original state.
| albumen wrote:
| Interesting...the several articles I've read note how
| closely it has remained to the original design. What
| aspects are modernised?
| zcw100 wrote:
| Money laundering is probably what makes a banana taped to a
| wall successful.
| ValentinA23 wrote:
| This is a reflexion I made to a friend yesterday: the
| banana doesn't improve the state of art over Duchamp's
| Fountain. The real artist, in this case, is the guy who
| paid 6 millions to eat the banana !
| blitzar wrote:
| They are artists all the way down.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Now someone must eat the artist who ate the banana, for
| several million dollars.
| blitzar wrote:
| An artist has to tape them to a wall first.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I'll do it. But not for less than $12mm
| blitzar wrote:
| I am an artist. I would do it for the sake of art (and
| $10mil)
| burkaman wrote:
| The guy that bought it is not an artist, he was just
| trying to distract from some good-old-fashioned
| corruption: https://popular.info/p/a-chinese-national-
| charged-with-fraud
|
| Based on the coverage of his purchase it seems like he
| succeeded.
| trhway wrote:
| sounds like startups founding and software engineers career
| llamaimperative wrote:
| > It turns out, however, that you can make it by starting
| from the outside. It's not easy, but it can work. You have to
| go around and show your art as much as possible to as many
| people as possible.
|
| I.e. some portion of "network success strategy" is actually
| downstream of talent success.
| therealcamino wrote:
| It seems to me like a more valid way to describe that work is
| that, you can predict an artist's long-term success based on
| their early success.
|
| The first five venues where an artist exhibits isn't wholly
| based on their social networks, but also tells you how
| excited the art world is about their work. Since attitudes
| about the work or the artist are key factors in establishing
| what their early network is, I don't see how you can conclude
| that the work and the artist are irrelevant, but the network
| is relevant.
| niceice wrote:
| Or is it that performance creates a network?
| julianeon wrote:
| Hold up. This is very intriguing.
|
| When you say it can "predict an artist's career success", to
| a 1st approximation, that means it can predict which artists'
| work will sell for over 10x its current price in a dozen
| years.
|
| Is it really that easy to make money in the art market?
| dfxm12 wrote:
| I think the author's definition of "best artist" is "artist who
| made my job easiest". I have no reason to distrust the author
| about this, but, on the other hand, this information is simply
| not useful.
| westondeboer wrote:
| I have worked for an artist for about 20 years. He releases a
| print every week, I could not tell you which one is going to
| sell well or not.
| Aunche wrote:
| > There were plenty of people who we now recognise as "great
| artist" who absolutely could not figure out where the
| "incentive vectors align". Thus they lived in abject poverty,
| or needed to support themselves from something other than their
| art.
|
| I don't think this is particularly true anymore. Most of the
| canonical artists of the past century were successful during
| their lifetimes. The ones who weren't either died tragically
| young (e.g. Basquiat), or didn't care for exposure much at all
| (e.g. Hilma af Kint).
| robenkleene wrote:
| I agree with this. I'd be curious if you have any hypothesis
| about why exactly that is? Personally, I can think of three
| possible reasons but I'm not convinced by any of them:
|
| 1. It's became harder to distinguish quality. Artist training
| has been streamlined, so technical excellence (which is
| easier to evaluate) isn't novel anymore. So that means
| determining quality of art now depends on more difficult to
| evaluate criteria.
|
| 2. Art moves faster now, so it's harder to have an influence
| on the art world (one of the ways an artist becomes famous)
| posthumously, because by then the art world has probably
| moved on from the state where the art would have impact.
|
| 3. We're just better at discovering artists. E.g., low-
| barrier to entry for digital distribution means it's easier
| for artists to find an audience.
|
| Any thoughts?
| archagon wrote:
| Perhaps they are "canonical" because they were successful.
| Perhaps the canon will look a lot different a century from
| now when the less commercially successful, obscure greats are
| finally dusted off.
| thih9 wrote:
| > If we want to make the world a better place, we can't just
| think about the lofty stuff: we have to get our hands dirty and
| make sure the economic engine works.
|
| This seems a very narrow if not conformist view of art.
|
| Artists doing graffiti, participating in hobby groups, state
| funded projects, discovered by later generations, etc - they
| don't care about making viewers feel good about funding; and yet
| their art can very much make the world a better place.
| trosi wrote:
| It is perhaps a narrow view, but not an incorrect one.
|
| You mention state funded projects, but the funding has to come
| from somewhere else. What the author is saying is this: it
| takes money to run a gallery (or a museum, for that matter),
| therefore even if it is not the primary objective, we should
| strive to keep the money flowing so that we can make have
| better galleries/museums.
| thih9 wrote:
| Actually the money doesn't have to come from anywhere, that's
| my point. If we cut all state funding - I'm sure artists
| would continue making art, as they did for millenia. We
| encourage art with state funding because we consider it
| beneficial to the society[1].
|
| The "keep the money flowing" approach distracts from making
| art and leads to making art that sells well. Do we really
| want that to dominate galleries/museums?
|
| [1]: "American taxpayers concur, with 55% supporting
| increasing federal investment in the arts, 57% supporting
| state government funding for the arts and 58% supporting
| local government funding for the arts"
| https://www.delawareartsalliance.org/government-funding-
| arts...
| Tade0 wrote:
| The narrowness makes it incorrect.
|
| Galleries are necessarily behind the curve because they're
| businesses and have to stay afloat. You typically don't go to
| a gallery to see something new, but to see the works of an
| already established artist.
|
| Meanwhile interesting, innovative art happens outside of
| galleries, but you have to look for it, as there's an
| oversupply of aspiring artists.
|
| Bottom line is you can't base the whole art scene on the
| opinions of art galleries, as they play it safe and art is
| strictly about the opposite.
| quantum_mcts wrote:
| 0. There's money laundering.
| bradley13 wrote:
| I went into this article with a lot of skepticism, but the author
| has some excellent points. Here's one, as an example.
|
| On dealing with people (in his case, artists): "if...someone
| isn't measuring up, I have no idea how to convince them to do so.
| So I look for people [who do]." I.e., don't waste your time on
| people who are "demanding or confused or slow at answering their
| email".
|
| Lots of other interesting points!
| ideasphere wrote:
| How many deep insights can you really gain on an entire industry
| by working in it for 2 years? And starting off in a separate
| industry which just happens to be located within the other?
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Another, perhaps less triumphant account of the art world is
| here: https://profilebooks.com/work/all-that-glitters/ which for
| me is a very interesting read. If reading isn't your thing then
| it has a good audio book, but also this might be of interest
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m001nwhs
| xg15 wrote:
| > _I am very much in that direction myself; I found it, for
| example, almost shameful to turn on paid subscriptions on my
| blog._
|
| Almost.
| zenogantner wrote:
| People here in the comments seem to focus on whether it is
| possible to predict an artist's success based on secondary
| "civic" virtues, and criticize the author for having subjective
| criteria for what "success" means. I'd argue that independently
| of how you measure success, all other things being equal, having
| diligence and other civic virtues will get you further, on
| average.
|
| That said, the most interesting lessons are in the first and
| sixth (the 2nd 6th, the actual 6th) item: How to do a better/more
| widely scoped job than what you got hired for (by understanding
| how interests, incentives and responsibilities align in an org)
| and the fact that in most places, most people are not serious
| (meaning they tend to not go deeper, look at the big picture,
| etc.).
| riazrizvi wrote:
| I think the point is more that there are indicators that a
| person is in conflict with their own mission. Struggles to
| respond, complains, focuses on the immaterial. I think OP is
| completely right. When a person is aligned, they get out of
| their own way, this people are easy to differentiate. One
| produces mediocre work, the other produces great stuff. I also
| agree it's within the power of the individual to be either.
| thih9 wrote:
| I like this view. Still, this seems a way of reasoning about
| that artist's success at that particular gallery - perhaps
| the artist is busy with art projects that are better aligned
| with them.
| riazrizvi wrote:
| Quite likely, though I think we are talking about different
| things. OP and I are talking to shared alignment, where
| they came together to sell art for mutual benefit and how
| to spot good partners to work with. Sure if a partner isn't
| good for you, they might have other places where they work
| well, but I think that's out of scope to the article IMO.
| greenie_beans wrote:
| artists aren't like startup founders. let's stop using that
| archetype to describe everything.
| ParadisoShlee wrote:
| Linkedin is leaking?
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| ?
| ParadisoShlee wrote:
| Linkedin is infamous for "what doing something unrelated
| taught me about B2B sales" or similar kinds of slop.
| broabprobe wrote:
| Curious they say in the first paragraph, "didn't speak the
| language" but then seemingly very quickly started attending board
| meetings and taking notes? With no further mention of learning
| Danish. Seems like a notable achievement!
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| ...they probably spoke in English for them at board level. Good
| for his benefit, also very good for theirs, too.
|
| *where i am, any engineer (of any type) that can't speak
| English, is classed as an idiot (and probably benefitted from
| nepotistic [mal-] practices).
| tmilard wrote:
| This essai reminds me of someone a few years back telling me that
| Artists and Startups where very similar. - "What ?" I replied
| confused. - "Yes ! We work for nothing, crafting a unique skills
| and hoping to find Product Market Fit. Of either an original
| Software or an special Sculpture. The economic is for both an
| economic of big incertinity.
|
| Galleries bet on a few Artists among many just like YCombinator
| bets on a few startups every years hoping for the best.
| wslh wrote:
| I grew up immersed in the art world--my father is an artist, and
| my sister is a curator working on exhibitions for institutions
| like MoMA and the Reina Sofia Museum, and linked to a known dead
| artist. Based on my lifelong experience in this environment, here
| are my thoughts:
|
| Art as a Business: Selling art is predominantly a business, and,
| frankly, quality often doesn't play the leading role. Market
| dynamics, branding, and influence have a much stronger impact on
| an artist's commercial success. Many buyers lack a refined taste
| for art but are guided by curators, galleries, or social trends
| to invest in one artist over another. This is particularly true
| outside the realm of blue-chip artists like Picasso, van Gogh, or
| Bacon, where established market signals guide decisions.
|
| Theory and Practice: while I love the theoretical discussions
| around art (e.g. Walter Benjamin) I find these ideas largely
| irrelevant to the business side of the art market. Theory has its
| place in academia and criticism, but it often feels disconnected
| from the pragmatic realities of selling and promoting art.
|
| If you're interested in understanding how the art world operates,
| I highly recommend visiting Art Basel or similar art fairs. These
| events showcase the intersection of commerce, curation, and
| culture, providing a fascinating snapshot of the art market's
| priorities and trends. I personally did my own art intervention
| with technology and received known artists who wanted to
| participated in the experiment and beyond the project originality
| it would not work in other contexts without some validation
| (being in a space in Wynwood [1]).
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynwood
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I think the biggest win for this job was not the six points
| identified, but the author gained their boss's trust; got project
| alignment to the organization's mission, and earned more
| autonomy.
|
| In essence the task-oriented leading was switched to area-of-
| responsibility leading. That is, instead of giving a list of
| tasks to complete by the author, an AoR was given, and all tasks
| initially verified, then allowed to move forward as the author
| saw it fit. It is task-oriented vs. AoR-Oriented leadership.
|
| Basically, in large part this worked because of the job context
| and the leadership of the boss.
| iamleppert wrote:
| How dare someone not respond to the email of a gallery coffee
| director within the hour! Obviously that makes them a bad artist.
| I like how the OP has anointed himself as the judge of other's
| work but instead of actually judging the work itself based on its
| own merits (which he can't be bothered to do) he instead relies
| on personal attacks and poor measurements like how fast someone
| responds to an email from him.
|
| Maybe these artists were put out by the odd relationship of
| corresponding with the guy who runs the coffee stand for their
| show? He strikes me as the kind of person who needs to be
| involved in everything, but doesn't really care about anything.
| Huge ego and constantly judging everyone around him. He would
| make an excellent manager in corporate america.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| He set them up for success, and then left. With no mention of
| choosing a successor! Without that, they will fall back into bad
| decisions in months and blow through their 'war chest' the first
| year.
|
| My wife reorganized the after-school program for our elementary
| school, got it on an upward trajectory, got grants and some money
| in the bank to pay for exceptional bills. And left, without
| choosing a successor.
|
| Of course, the staff blew through the savings instantly, because
| they didn't know the budget or the purpose of having some margin
| for safety. Had to raise rates and reduce hours and all the bad
| things, just to keep going. All the time thinking it wasn't their
| fault, just the bad old world that didn't want to give them money
| for free to blow on their whims.
| jheriko wrote:
| this is kind of mindblowing... just... WAT?!?!
|
| getting through that first section makes me want to take nothing
| this guy says seriously. the insanity of it...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-03 23:00 UTC)