艺术家操作模式和可能性（A.R.T 网站）
观察：重新看艺术家模式
"Observations: rethinking the artist's model"
第1部分
我们想在这里写关于当代视觉艺术家的经济模式。[…] 由于经济跟制作有关，我们可以先从艺术家的制作方式开始研究。视觉艺术家平时怎么做作品？如果参考在画廊平时展出的作品,一般来说制作质量好一点的作品,我们可以安全地说大部分作品是手工做出来。当然，我们也能看到许多用机器做的作品，不管是印刷品、或通过化学过程做出来的雕刻作品以及其他用机器做出来的雕塑。除了这些机器的协助之外，可以把总的制作过程看成为手工的，因为都需要人的手来控制它。
就是说，每个作品的完成过程当中会有一些不一样的地方。比如说，如果一个雕塑家用一些小的工具来雕一个人的脸，然后如果他试图重新做一某一样的脸，两个雕塑会有一定的小区别，按照艺术家能够把第一个雕塑的动作完全重复一边。但效果不可能是完全一某一样。
除了美感质量之外，一个手工作品的独特性跟它的价值直接有关。这些也就是一个销路和提供经济功能模式，尤其是所谓的“缺乏原则（scarcity principle）”模式。这个原则的理论为一个物品越难得，它的质量就越高，但先得有销路。价值会跟着销路上升，尤其是在销路比货多的情况下。
对艺术家和画廊家来说最理想的刺激在艺术家名声成长的时候，而这个会让销路提高，但产品一样有数量限制。因为我们都知道一个人一天也只能工作那么一段时间也只能活这么一段时间；当艺术家自己参与作品制作就制作时间有限。
有些艺术家通过实业家工作方式找到了一个解决这个“问题”的办法：创立工作室以及训练助手来办大部分制作作品程序。列Koons, Murakami以及最近塌下来的Hirst，他们都为了满足销路就聘请十几个到几百个工作人员。美术史充满了这种类型的例子，比如：1960年代的时候Warhol跟他的“工厂”，17世纪的时候巴洛克画家Rubens在安特卫普。Rubens也不算是第一个做这个的艺术家，古代的时候也能找到很多为一个单独艺术家工作的一个工作室。
无论艺术家很有名或完全没有名都不会影响他的经济操作方式；主要还是销路和提供的问题影响作品价值。这个从市场的角度来说就引起不同的问题。总的来说，一个艺术家越有名他的作品卖得越贵，就是说买得起的人越来越少。
艺术家越来越没名气，作品价值越来越底，从一个作品价钱的角度来说是一个好事情，因为作品是可买的，但也说明艺术家不太可能用他的艺术生存（不用说画廊家出售作品的挑战）。
后来，这个问题就有不同的应对方式。摄影和印刷品就允许做无限量作品。1960年代，多量艺术这个概念被艺术家和艺术dealer利用作为一个更民主更买得起的艺术。Keith Haring 1986年开了他的第一个波普商店，在店里出售t-shirts, 包，海报跟他的绘画。连Gagosian画廊开了一个“民主空间”：在曼哈顿的上东区开了一个店。
但，其实这些想法都没有真正解决市场问题。其实，市场的极性从来没有那么严重过。在一个极端，有名气艺术家作品的价值一直上升，但另一个极端，市场最差的一端越来越被网络服务，从不是那么好到不错的作品。对中间艺术家来说，经济挑战一直在，给真正对当代艺术作品感兴趣的观众留下来的选择不多。大部分艺术画廊是家庭生意所以跟一些指定的区域有关，除了通过网络之外就很难接近艺术。
我们当然认为有一个解决办法，要不然我们为什么会这样继续做？
过去这几年，物品制作引起了一个新的系统。我们把这个制作系统叫成“新工业体制”。可以认为是新的因为历史里工业设备第一次跟电脑有关。激光和水刀切割技术、数控万能铣床、离心成形和很多其他技术从这个数码和模拟的综合发展出来。
新工业体制也包含新技术和制作策略；这个包括大规模定制、众包、开放创新、按照销路制作以及其他的数码时代之前不存在的工作方式。
在第二段文章，我们会研究艺术家从新工业体制能用的创意可能性以及他们怎么通过这个方式重新去想经济和制作模式。
第2部分
我们认为这个情况很可惜因为市场中间对艺术家来说是充满了希望。就像Daniel Bell和后来Richard Florida说出去，过去几十年一种专业、有创造力、管理性或科技性的阶层。这些说法描述这类型人民的一部分。他们是受到专业训练来面对创立性问题，管理复杂商业关系以及用科技。许多有很好的口味，比较了解设计以及对艺术很感兴趣，不光作为观众但也是参加者。（所以互动艺术也很受欢迎因为非艺术家也可以直接参与）。并说，他们不是很富有但有足够收入来花钱买东西，列艺术。
当然，有名气的艺术家不一定会愿意把作品卖给这种人。但现在另外一个市场问题也出现了。大部分画廊是家庭事情，就是说是主人来管理一个店。有一些很好的原因，其中一个是艺术家和画廊家的关系本来是一个很私人和个人的关系。另外呢，画廊家管理的“货”是独特的，然后是不能控制容量的，所以也不太可能开同样一个生意在很多地方。最后，传统画廊的生意需要许多人来成立，所以大部分都在庞大的城市中心开的。
所以，市场中间的社会阶层不仅仅要跑到这些地区，而且算他们也去价格肯定就离他们的承受能力太远。这个也还不包括去那些无数个艺术空间开的区域得花好几个小时时间看哪个画廊好。对我们来说，好玩的部分之一也就是去“发现”这些画廊，但可能对其他人来说不是那么合适。
越来越明确的是画廊系统和艺术制作方式越来越有关系。如果改变一个另外一个也得跟着改变。而我们在这里也就是想这样做。这个出发点的目标很直接：让更多的人接近好的当代艺术。我们觉得，这个跟21世纪的合作性本质比跟传统艺术更有关。
我们先从制作方式开始。我们觉得不要去用传统手工艺术而更要利用新工业体制来制作作品。我们在第一段总结过现在制作东西的新方式，而把电脑和机器组合起来。也涉及到我们创作和传播设计物品的新方式。第一种包含数码制作、大批量定制以及定做制作；第二种包含大众采购、开放创新以及网上交易。
对艺术家来说，这个说明产品有两个结果而不仅仅一个：用的电子文件来做作品以及最后的产品。最美的是当电子文件做好了可以用它来制作无数个产品－而都不需要艺术家自己动手去做，这样他也有更多时间去想更多作品。因为理论上可以无限地提供作品，传统画廊的价格系统就已经不适合。可以制作费用加其他费用和利益来定价格，所以总的来说艺术的价格会降下来。这个对很多艺术家来说是一个恩赐的可能新。
艺术家就不光接受一次性销路而从协议版权拿到佣金。如果收藏家接受艺术家的作品那么就可以继续下去。从另外一个角度来看,“缺乏原则”变成 “充足原则”。
在我们的网站“ModulA.R.T.”部分里，我们也是按照新工业体制方式去设计、建造和传播资料。
现在，可能会有人说如果作品不是用艺术家的手去做，那么就不成立。那么我们就会回答按照这样的说法Sol LeWitt作品大部分也是不成立因为他经常委托其他人去制作他的作品，美术史里也都是这样的例子。我们也想提出最近150年建筑设计和作曲家都没有自己建造自己的作品。这样看，如果视觉艺术家也用这样的工作方式是可以理解的。
另外一种反对的可能性是，如果艺术作品是无限地被重复艺术就变成一个商品。我们不能肯定这个真的是一个问题，原因也比较复杂，这里解释也时间不够。但A.R.T.网站通过做一种“模块式”作品去应对这些问题的可能性。艺术的创造范围在于用想象力不停的重新安排这些模块、而不光是一个单独的、稳定的物品。作为一个模块也适合我们前面提到观众对互动性和体验艺术的要求，离开传统画廊的作品展出方式。
关于画廊，这些作品变化也自然地影响经济模式以及传播方式。这个经济模式也就是物品的价格在总价格以上或以下。这个不光影响到作品制作方式但也影响到出售场地，这个场地也可以变成一个商店之类。而且这样的场地不一定非要在大城市里、中间城市、大学城市以及其他集合这种创作专家和阶层的地方都可以。
我们在这里也没打算批评艺术的传统创造方式，我们也没有在支持画廊系统的消失。两种都服务市场和手工作品的价值，而且肯定也会很久这样下去。我们只想提供第三个推广的可能性也提供另外一种对当代艺术的角度，怎么制作怎么给它一个价值。因为其实如果当代艺术需要当代性，那么是否得让它接受一些当代文化的当代性想法？
来源：A.R.T.
http://www.art-rethought.com/blog/2010/10/observations-rethinking-the-artists-model/
http://www.art-rethought.com/blog/2010/10/observations-rethinking-the-artist’s-model2/
OBSERVATIONS: RETHINKING THE ARTIST’S MODEL
Part 1
Full disclosure: this is not an essay about the people who pose for artists, as intriguing and largely neglected a subject as that might be. Rather what we want to write about is the economic model by which contemporary visual artists operate. Wait! Get your hand off that mouse or trackpad – you’re not clicking out of here so easily. This really is an important discussion which is absolutely intertwined with fundamental questions surrounding contemporary art…you know, like, what makes it contemporary? So stick around, it might just be illuminating.
Let’s start by looking at the contemporary artist in terms of his/her production model, since economics are closely related to production. How do visual artists generally make their work? Surveying the kind of art generally exhibited in galleries, which is the preferred venue for artists producing quality work, we can safely say that the vast majority of pieces are made largely by hand. Of course, we find an extensive use of various types of machines as well, be they mechanical printing devices, chemical processes such as are used for engraving and etching, and power tools for the production of sculptural objects. Despite the intercession of these non-manual techniques, however, we can still characterize the overall production process used for such work as being essentially manual, because they all require the human hand to operate.
That, in turn, means there must be a degree of variability in the execution of each piece. For example, if a sculptor uses hand-held power tools to carve one block of stone into a figure, and then tries to repeat exactly the same design in a second, the two will be different in small or large degrees, depending on how well the artist can match the ‘choreography’ of the first version. But they will never be exactly the same.
Beyond its purely aesthetic qualities, it is the quality of uniqueness that endows the work of hand-made art with much of its perceived monetary value. That is simply a function of supply and demand economics, and in particular, of the Scarcity Principle. This principle states that the the rarer an object is, the greater its value if there is demand for it. That value will then increase further as demand grows and especially if it exceeds supply.
The perfect storm for artists and gallerists – in the positive sense of the term – is for an artist’s reputation to grow, as that will increase demand for what is inevitably a limited supply of product (sorry, that’s what it is). Because as we all know, a human being can only work so many hours in a day and will only live so long; by its nature supply is going to be limited and finite as long as the artist is expected to be personally involved in the physical production of his/her work.
Some artists have managed this ‘problem’ by operating as proto-industrialists, setting up workshops populated by trained assistants who then carry out much of the labor required to produce their work. Koons, Murakami and, until his recent market collapse at least, Hirst have each employed dozens and even hundreds of such surrogates as a way to boost production to feed excess demand. All have ample historical precedent: Warhol worked under the same arrangement in his aptly named Factory in the 1960s and after, as did the Baroque painter Peter Paul Rubens in 17th century Antwerp. Nor was Rubens the first to do this; workshops centered on individual artists working for personal gain can be traced back as far as antiquity.
Whether the artist is highly successful or barely known does not ultimately affect the economic model under which they operate; it’s still very much a question of supply and demand as to how their work is valued. This poses several problems from a market standpoint. Generally speaking, the more successful an artist is, the higher the price for their work, which means fewer and fewer people can afford it. The less successful an artist is, the lower the price, which is positive in terms of affordability but means that the emerging artist is increasingly unlikely to be able to earn a living from it (not to mention the challenges to the gallerist trying to sell it).
Several responses to this problem have been devised over the years. Mechanical processes such as photography and printmaking offered an opportunity to produce artwork in unlimited qualities. In the 1960s the concept of the art multiple was taken up by a number of artists and dealers as a way to make art more democratic and affordable. Keith Haring opened his first Pop Shop in 1986, where he sold gear like t-shirts, bags and posters embellished with his signature line drawings. Even the exalted Gagosian Gallery has entered ‘democratic space’ in opening up a retail store on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
But the fact is that none of these developments has truly solved the problem of the market. In fact, the polarities of the market seem to have never been greater. At the upper tier the prices for the most coveted artists continues into the stratosphere (only partly halted by the recent global slowdown), while the ‘bottom’ of the market is more and more served by websites that sell open edition work by the yard, ranging from the not so good to the pretty okay. For quality artists caught in the middle, the financial challenges of sustaining their calling remain significant, while the buying public with real interest in acquiring compelling contemporary art that is not restricted to the usual suspects of photography and prints is left with relatively few choices. That most art galleries are mom-and-pop businesses and therefore limited to certain geographic areas only exacerbates their difficulty in accessing art other than through the internet outlets.
Naturally, we think there is a potential solution, or why would we be going on like this?
Over the past few years there has arisen a wholly new mechanism for the physical production of objects. We have nicknamed this novel set of production capabilities the New Industrialism. It can be considered new because for the first time in history industrial manufacturing equipment has been married to the computer. Laser and water cutting, CNC milling machines, rotational molding and many other techniques have been developed out of this synthesis of the digital and the analog.
The New Industrialism also encompasses what we might call new design and production strategies; these would include mass customization, crowdsourcing, open innovation, on demand and short run production, and various other ways of working that were not viable in the pre-Digital Age.
In Part 2 of this thinkpiece, we will expound on the ways that artists can utilize the tremendous creative possibilities born out of the New Industrialism and in doing so rethink the economic and production models that have guided them for centuries.
Part 2
If you haven’t read the first installment of this post you’ll want to do so now by either clicking here or scrolling down when viewing all posts.
In the first part of this two-part essay we cogitated on the basic economics of artistic production, in particular, how the laws of supply and demand relate to price. In doing so we concluded that there are several built-in dilemmas in the current marketplace. First, the more successful an artist becomes, the fewer people or institutions can afford his/her work; and second, the less an artist can sell his/her artwork, the more difficult it is for either artist or gallerist to remain in business (no great revelation there). Both of these conditions relate directly to the fact that the art in question is largely executed by the artist’s own hand one piece at a time. Moreover, we pointed out that today’s marketplace seems more and more bifurcated in its extremes: super-high price points at the upper end (galleries), super-low prices at the other end (internet). The middle segment of the market is only scarcely populated in terms of the artwork or venues to sell it.
We think this situation is unfortunate because the middle of the market is a place of great promise for artists. As first Daniel Bell and later Richard Florida have pointed out, there has arisen over the past several decades a demographic variously known as the professional, creative, managerial and/or technological class. These terms pretty well describe the profile of this population segment in terms of their occupations. They are on the whole trained professionals adept at creative problem-solving, managing complex business relationships and utilizing technology. Many have sophisticated tastes, are design savvy and have an interest in the arts not only as spectators but as participants. (Hence the recent popularity of interactive art in which non-artists physically engage with the artwork rather than merely watch or hear it passively.) And, while not uniformly wealthy, many have discretionary income to spend on things like art.
Of course, there is certainly no shortage of mid-career and reasonably established artists who would be happy to sell these people their work. But now another problem of the market comes into play. Galleries are almost entirely mom-and-pop affairs, meaning they are generally run by their proprietors as a single shop. There are good reasons for this, beginning with the fact that the artist-gallerist relationship is an intensely personal and individualistic one. In addition, the ‘stock’ in which the gallerist deals is by its nature unique and its supply not always controllable, thus greatly reducing the feasibility of trying to franchise or replicate the business across multiple locations. On top of all this the economics of the traditional gallery are such that they require a pretty high population density to reach a threshold of viability, which is why they are overwhelmingly situated in only the largest urban centers.
So, not only do all the people in this middle market who don’t live in this handful of cities have a large hurdle to clear in trying to gain access to them geographically, even if they do transport themselves to where the galleries are they may very well be priced out of range anyway. Not to mention that visiting the many galleries in places like New York City is largely a hit-and-miss game for anyone who doesn’t spend hours culling through the galaxy of art spaces to discern the ones worth exploring. Sure, part of the fun for folks like us is the process of discovery, but that level of investment may not be possible or appropriate for others.
It should be increasingly evident (if it wasn’t already) that the current gallery system and the predominant means of artistic production are inter-connected. Change one and you’ll need to change or augment the other. Which is precisely what we at A.R.T. propose to do (if that wasn’t obvious already). The goal of this initiative is straightforward: to make compelling contemporary art more accessible to more people. And, we believe, to make contemporary art more closely aligned with the fluid, collaborative nature of 21st century culture than traditionally conceived art.
We start by addressing the means of production. In place of traditional hand-crafted art we propose instead that artists utilize the techniques of the New Industrialism to fabricate their work. As introduced in part 1, the term New Industrialism summarizes the novel ways that we can now manufacture things when we marry the computer to the machine. It also references the new ways we create and distribute objects of design. In the former category we can include digital fabrication, mass customization and on-demand production; in the latter are crowdsourcing, open innovation and ecommerce.
For the artist it means that there are two end products rather the one: the digital file from which the physical piece will be produced, and the final assembled artwork. The beauty of this approach is that once the file has been created it can be used to generate an unlimited number of physical pieces – none of which requires the personal intervention of the artist, who is then free to utilize the time to create more art. Since the supply of a given work of art is theoretically unlimited, the speculative pricing method utilized in the traditional gallery system is no longer applicable. Instead, the work can be priced as a function of the cost to manufacture plus overhead and profit, which will invariably lower the cost of art in general. That is actually a potential boon to the vast majority of artists. Rather than receive a one-time commission, the artist instead derives income based on a licensing agreement in which he/she earns a percentage of total sales. If the artist does good work that’s accepted by collectors, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Put it another way, the Scarcity Principle has given way to the Abundance Principle.
It should be remarked that all the work in our ModulA.R.T. portfolio is designed, constructed and distributed using the methodologies of the New Industrialism.
Now, some may argue that art that isn’t made by the hand of the artist is intrinsically invalid. To which we would respond that we must then invalidate almost all of Sol LeWitt’s portfolio, since he ‘outsourced’ to others much of his physical production, as have other prominent artists all along the historical spectrum. We would also point out that for the last 150 years neither architects nor composers have fabricated or performed their own work either. Seen in this light, having visual artists shift to the same production paradigm as these other creatives does not seem out of line.
Another objection that can be made is that reproducing art in unlimited supply reduces it to a commodity. We’re not entirely sure that is an issue, for reasons too lengthy to go into here. But one of the ways we at A.R.T. try to address this potential problem is by creating a portfolio that is modular. The creative dimension necessary to art is therefore satisfied by the imaginative arrangement of the modules rather than the uniqueness of the individual, static object. Being modular also dovetails with what we asserted above about contemporary audiences wanting to be more interactive in their experience of art, in contrast to the top-down and passive approach associated with traditional gallery pieces.
Speaking of the gallery, with all these proposed changes in the way the artist works it’s inevitable that an alternative economic model will have to be adopted for the distribution of the art of the New Industrialism. That model is no more or less than the conventional retail operation, in which objects are sold for a price over and above that of the wholesale cost. Not only does this make sense in terms of how the art is made, but it also means that the venue for selling this type of art can be either a one-off boutique or a multi-store operation. Nor are large cities the only environment in which such a venue could survive; now mid-sized cities, university towns and other concentrations of the professional and creative classes become viable contexts as well.
Let’s conclude by stating unequivocally that we make no value judgments about art that is traditionally conceived and created, nor are we advocating or predicting the disappearance of the gallery system. Both serve a purpose and a market that values the hand-crafted item, and will no doubt be with us for a long time. Instead, we are proposing to add a third option to the current constellation of distribution points as well as to change our perceptions of what contemporary art can be, how it can be made and how it’s valued. After all, if contemporary art is to be contemporary, then shouldn’t it be open to to the ideas that make contemporary culture contemporary?
"Observations: rethinking the artist's model"
第1部分
我们想在这里写关于当代视觉艺术家的经济模式。[…] 由于经济跟制作有关，我们可以先从艺术家的制作方式开始研究。视觉艺术家平时怎么做作品？如果参考在画廊平时展出的作品,一般来说制作质量好一点的作品,我们可以安全地说大部分作品是手工做出来。当然，我们也能看到许多用机器做的作品，不管是印刷品、或通过化学过程做出来的雕刻作品以及其他用机器做出来的雕塑。除了这些机器的协助之外，可以把总的制作过程看成为手工的，因为都需要人的手来控制它。
就是说，每个作品的完成过程当中会有一些不一样的地方。比如说，如果一个雕塑家用一些小的工具来雕一个人的脸，然后如果他试图重新做一某一样的脸，两个雕塑会有一定的小区别，按照艺术家能够把第一个雕塑的动作完全重复一边。但效果不可能是完全一某一样。
除了美感质量之外，一个手工作品的独特性跟它的价值直接有关。这些也就是一个销路和提供经济功能模式，尤其是所谓的“缺乏原则（scarcity principle）”模式。这个原则的理论为一个物品越难得，它的质量就越高，但先得有销路。价值会跟着销路上升，尤其是在销路比货多的情况下。
对艺术家和画廊家来说最理想的刺激在艺术家名声成长的时候，而这个会让销路提高，但产品一样有数量限制。因为我们都知道一个人一天也只能工作那么一段时间也只能活这么一段时间；当艺术家自己参与作品制作就制作时间有限。
有些艺术家通过实业家工作方式找到了一个解决这个“问题”的办法：创立工作室以及训练助手来办大部分制作作品程序。列Koons, Murakami以及最近塌下来的Hirst，他们都为了满足销路就聘请十几个到几百个工作人员。美术史充满了这种类型的例子，比如：1960年代的时候Warhol跟他的“工厂”，17世纪的时候巴洛克画家Rubens在安特卫普。Rubens也不算是第一个做这个的艺术家，古代的时候也能找到很多为一个单独艺术家工作的一个工作室。
无论艺术家很有名或完全没有名都不会影响他的经济操作方式；主要还是销路和提供的问题影响作品价值。这个从市场的角度来说就引起不同的问题。总的来说，一个艺术家越有名他的作品卖得越贵，就是说买得起的人越来越少。
艺术家越来越没名气，作品价值越来越底，从一个作品价钱的角度来说是一个好事情，因为作品是可买的，但也说明艺术家不太可能用他的艺术生存（不用说画廊家出售作品的挑战）。
后来，这个问题就有不同的应对方式。摄影和印刷品就允许做无限量作品。1960年代，多量艺术这个概念被艺术家和艺术dealer利用作为一个更民主更买得起的艺术。Keith Haring 1986年开了他的第一个波普商店，在店里出售t-shirts, 包，海报跟他的绘画。连Gagosian画廊开了一个“民主空间”：在曼哈顿的上东区开了一个店。
但，其实这些想法都没有真正解决市场问题。其实，市场的极性从来没有那么严重过。在一个极端，有名气艺术家作品的价值一直上升，但另一个极端，市场最差的一端越来越被网络服务，从不是那么好到不错的作品。对中间艺术家来说，经济挑战一直在，给真正对当代艺术作品感兴趣的观众留下来的选择不多。大部分艺术画廊是家庭生意所以跟一些指定的区域有关，除了通过网络之外就很难接近艺术。
我们当然认为有一个解决办法，要不然我们为什么会这样继续做？
过去这几年，物品制作引起了一个新的系统。我们把这个制作系统叫成“新工业体制”。可以认为是新的因为历史里工业设备第一次跟电脑有关。激光和水刀切割技术、数控万能铣床、离心成形和很多其他技术从这个数码和模拟的综合发展出来。
新工业体制也包含新技术和制作策略；这个包括大规模定制、众包、开放创新、按照销路制作以及其他的数码时代之前不存在的工作方式。
在第二段文章，我们会研究艺术家从新工业体制能用的创意可能性以及他们怎么通过这个方式重新去想经济和制作模式。
第2部分
我们认为这个情况很可惜因为市场中间对艺术家来说是充满了希望。就像Daniel Bell和后来Richard Florida说出去，过去几十年一种专业、有创造力、管理性或科技性的阶层。这些说法描述这类型人民的一部分。他们是受到专业训练来面对创立性问题，管理复杂商业关系以及用科技。许多有很好的口味，比较了解设计以及对艺术很感兴趣，不光作为观众但也是参加者。（所以互动艺术也很受欢迎因为非艺术家也可以直接参与）。并说，他们不是很富有但有足够收入来花钱买东西，列艺术。
当然，有名气的艺术家不一定会愿意把作品卖给这种人。但现在另外一个市场问题也出现了。大部分画廊是家庭事情，就是说是主人来管理一个店。有一些很好的原因，其中一个是艺术家和画廊家的关系本来是一个很私人和个人的关系。另外呢，画廊家管理的“货”是独特的，然后是不能控制容量的，所以也不太可能开同样一个生意在很多地方。最后，传统画廊的生意需要许多人来成立，所以大部分都在庞大的城市中心开的。
所以，市场中间的社会阶层不仅仅要跑到这些地区，而且算他们也去价格肯定就离他们的承受能力太远。这个也还不包括去那些无数个艺术空间开的区域得花好几个小时时间看哪个画廊好。对我们来说，好玩的部分之一也就是去“发现”这些画廊，但可能对其他人来说不是那么合适。
越来越明确的是画廊系统和艺术制作方式越来越有关系。如果改变一个另外一个也得跟着改变。而我们在这里也就是想这样做。这个出发点的目标很直接：让更多的人接近好的当代艺术。我们觉得，这个跟21世纪的合作性本质比跟传统艺术更有关。
我们先从制作方式开始。我们觉得不要去用传统手工艺术而更要利用新工业体制来制作作品。我们在第一段总结过现在制作东西的新方式，而把电脑和机器组合起来。也涉及到我们创作和传播设计物品的新方式。第一种包含数码制作、大批量定制以及定做制作；第二种包含大众采购、开放创新以及网上交易。
对艺术家来说，这个说明产品有两个结果而不仅仅一个：用的电子文件来做作品以及最后的产品。最美的是当电子文件做好了可以用它来制作无数个产品－而都不需要艺术家自己动手去做，这样他也有更多时间去想更多作品。因为理论上可以无限地提供作品，传统画廊的价格系统就已经不适合。可以制作费用加其他费用和利益来定价格，所以总的来说艺术的价格会降下来。这个对很多艺术家来说是一个恩赐的可能新。
艺术家就不光接受一次性销路而从协议版权拿到佣金。如果收藏家接受艺术家的作品那么就可以继续下去。从另外一个角度来看,“缺乏原则”变成 “充足原则”。
在我们的网站“ModulA.R.T.”部分里，我们也是按照新工业体制方式去设计、建造和传播资料。
现在，可能会有人说如果作品不是用艺术家的手去做，那么就不成立。那么我们就会回答按照这样的说法Sol LeWitt作品大部分也是不成立因为他经常委托其他人去制作他的作品，美术史里也都是这样的例子。我们也想提出最近150年建筑设计和作曲家都没有自己建造自己的作品。这样看，如果视觉艺术家也用这样的工作方式是可以理解的。
另外一种反对的可能性是，如果艺术作品是无限地被重复艺术就变成一个商品。我们不能肯定这个真的是一个问题，原因也比较复杂，这里解释也时间不够。但A.R.T.网站通过做一种“模块式”作品去应对这些问题的可能性。艺术的创造范围在于用想象力不停的重新安排这些模块、而不光是一个单独的、稳定的物品。作为一个模块也适合我们前面提到观众对互动性和体验艺术的要求，离开传统画廊的作品展出方式。
关于画廊，这些作品变化也自然地影响经济模式以及传播方式。这个经济模式也就是物品的价格在总价格以上或以下。这个不光影响到作品制作方式但也影响到出售场地，这个场地也可以变成一个商店之类。而且这样的场地不一定非要在大城市里、中间城市、大学城市以及其他集合这种创作专家和阶层的地方都可以。
我们在这里也没打算批评艺术的传统创造方式，我们也没有在支持画廊系统的消失。两种都服务市场和手工作品的价值，而且肯定也会很久这样下去。我们只想提供第三个推广的可能性也提供另外一种对当代艺术的角度，怎么制作怎么给它一个价值。因为其实如果当代艺术需要当代性，那么是否得让它接受一些当代文化的当代性想法？
来源：A.R.T.
http://www.art-rethought.com/blog/2010/10/observations-rethinking-the-artists-model/
http://www.art-rethought.com/blog/2010/10/observations-rethinking-the-artist’s-model2/
OBSERVATIONS: RETHINKING THE ARTIST’S MODEL
Part 1
Full disclosure: this is not an essay about the people who pose for artists, as intriguing and largely neglected a subject as that might be. Rather what we want to write about is the economic model by which contemporary visual artists operate. Wait! Get your hand off that mouse or trackpad – you’re not clicking out of here so easily. This really is an important discussion which is absolutely intertwined with fundamental questions surrounding contemporary art…you know, like, what makes it contemporary? So stick around, it might just be illuminating.
Let’s start by looking at the contemporary artist in terms of his/her production model, since economics are closely related to production. How do visual artists generally make their work? Surveying the kind of art generally exhibited in galleries, which is the preferred venue for artists producing quality work, we can safely say that the vast majority of pieces are made largely by hand. Of course, we find an extensive use of various types of machines as well, be they mechanical printing devices, chemical processes such as are used for engraving and etching, and power tools for the production of sculptural objects. Despite the intercession of these non-manual techniques, however, we can still characterize the overall production process used for such work as being essentially manual, because they all require the human hand to operate.
That, in turn, means there must be a degree of variability in the execution of each piece. For example, if a sculptor uses hand-held power tools to carve one block of stone into a figure, and then tries to repeat exactly the same design in a second, the two will be different in small or large degrees, depending on how well the artist can match the ‘choreography’ of the first version. But they will never be exactly the same.
Beyond its purely aesthetic qualities, it is the quality of uniqueness that endows the work of hand-made art with much of its perceived monetary value. That is simply a function of supply and demand economics, and in particular, of the Scarcity Principle. This principle states that the the rarer an object is, the greater its value if there is demand for it. That value will then increase further as demand grows and especially if it exceeds supply.
The perfect storm for artists and gallerists – in the positive sense of the term – is for an artist’s reputation to grow, as that will increase demand for what is inevitably a limited supply of product (sorry, that’s what it is). Because as we all know, a human being can only work so many hours in a day and will only live so long; by its nature supply is going to be limited and finite as long as the artist is expected to be personally involved in the physical production of his/her work.
Some artists have managed this ‘problem’ by operating as proto-industrialists, setting up workshops populated by trained assistants who then carry out much of the labor required to produce their work. Koons, Murakami and, until his recent market collapse at least, Hirst have each employed dozens and even hundreds of such surrogates as a way to boost production to feed excess demand. All have ample historical precedent: Warhol worked under the same arrangement in his aptly named Factory in the 1960s and after, as did the Baroque painter Peter Paul Rubens in 17th century Antwerp. Nor was Rubens the first to do this; workshops centered on individual artists working for personal gain can be traced back as far as antiquity.
Whether the artist is highly successful or barely known does not ultimately affect the economic model under which they operate; it’s still very much a question of supply and demand as to how their work is valued. This poses several problems from a market standpoint. Generally speaking, the more successful an artist is, the higher the price for their work, which means fewer and fewer people can afford it. The less successful an artist is, the lower the price, which is positive in terms of affordability but means that the emerging artist is increasingly unlikely to be able to earn a living from it (not to mention the challenges to the gallerist trying to sell it).
Several responses to this problem have been devised over the years. Mechanical processes such as photography and printmaking offered an opportunity to produce artwork in unlimited qualities. In the 1960s the concept of the art multiple was taken up by a number of artists and dealers as a way to make art more democratic and affordable. Keith Haring opened his first Pop Shop in 1986, where he sold gear like t-shirts, bags and posters embellished with his signature line drawings. Even the exalted Gagosian Gallery has entered ‘democratic space’ in opening up a retail store on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
But the fact is that none of these developments has truly solved the problem of the market. In fact, the polarities of the market seem to have never been greater. At the upper tier the prices for the most coveted artists continues into the stratosphere (only partly halted by the recent global slowdown), while the ‘bottom’ of the market is more and more served by websites that sell open edition work by the yard, ranging from the not so good to the pretty okay. For quality artists caught in the middle, the financial challenges of sustaining their calling remain significant, while the buying public with real interest in acquiring compelling contemporary art that is not restricted to the usual suspects of photography and prints is left with relatively few choices. That most art galleries are mom-and-pop businesses and therefore limited to certain geographic areas only exacerbates their difficulty in accessing art other than through the internet outlets.
Naturally, we think there is a potential solution, or why would we be going on like this?
Over the past few years there has arisen a wholly new mechanism for the physical production of objects. We have nicknamed this novel set of production capabilities the New Industrialism. It can be considered new because for the first time in history industrial manufacturing equipment has been married to the computer. Laser and water cutting, CNC milling machines, rotational molding and many other techniques have been developed out of this synthesis of the digital and the analog.
The New Industrialism also encompasses what we might call new design and production strategies; these would include mass customization, crowdsourcing, open innovation, on demand and short run production, and various other ways of working that were not viable in the pre-Digital Age.
In Part 2 of this thinkpiece, we will expound on the ways that artists can utilize the tremendous creative possibilities born out of the New Industrialism and in doing so rethink the economic and production models that have guided them for centuries.
Part 2
If you haven’t read the first installment of this post you’ll want to do so now by either clicking here or scrolling down when viewing all posts.
In the first part of this two-part essay we cogitated on the basic economics of artistic production, in particular, how the laws of supply and demand relate to price. In doing so we concluded that there are several built-in dilemmas in the current marketplace. First, the more successful an artist becomes, the fewer people or institutions can afford his/her work; and second, the less an artist can sell his/her artwork, the more difficult it is for either artist or gallerist to remain in business (no great revelation there). Both of these conditions relate directly to the fact that the art in question is largely executed by the artist’s own hand one piece at a time. Moreover, we pointed out that today’s marketplace seems more and more bifurcated in its extremes: super-high price points at the upper end (galleries), super-low prices at the other end (internet). The middle segment of the market is only scarcely populated in terms of the artwork or venues to sell it.
We think this situation is unfortunate because the middle of the market is a place of great promise for artists. As first Daniel Bell and later Richard Florida have pointed out, there has arisen over the past several decades a demographic variously known as the professional, creative, managerial and/or technological class. These terms pretty well describe the profile of this population segment in terms of their occupations. They are on the whole trained professionals adept at creative problem-solving, managing complex business relationships and utilizing technology. Many have sophisticated tastes, are design savvy and have an interest in the arts not only as spectators but as participants. (Hence the recent popularity of interactive art in which non-artists physically engage with the artwork rather than merely watch or hear it passively.) And, while not uniformly wealthy, many have discretionary income to spend on things like art.
Of course, there is certainly no shortage of mid-career and reasonably established artists who would be happy to sell these people their work. But now another problem of the market comes into play. Galleries are almost entirely mom-and-pop affairs, meaning they are generally run by their proprietors as a single shop. There are good reasons for this, beginning with the fact that the artist-gallerist relationship is an intensely personal and individualistic one. In addition, the ‘stock’ in which the gallerist deals is by its nature unique and its supply not always controllable, thus greatly reducing the feasibility of trying to franchise or replicate the business across multiple locations. On top of all this the economics of the traditional gallery are such that they require a pretty high population density to reach a threshold of viability, which is why they are overwhelmingly situated in only the largest urban centers.
So, not only do all the people in this middle market who don’t live in this handful of cities have a large hurdle to clear in trying to gain access to them geographically, even if they do transport themselves to where the galleries are they may very well be priced out of range anyway. Not to mention that visiting the many galleries in places like New York City is largely a hit-and-miss game for anyone who doesn’t spend hours culling through the galaxy of art spaces to discern the ones worth exploring. Sure, part of the fun for folks like us is the process of discovery, but that level of investment may not be possible or appropriate for others.
It should be increasingly evident (if it wasn’t already) that the current gallery system and the predominant means of artistic production are inter-connected. Change one and you’ll need to change or augment the other. Which is precisely what we at A.R.T. propose to do (if that wasn’t obvious already). The goal of this initiative is straightforward: to make compelling contemporary art more accessible to more people. And, we believe, to make contemporary art more closely aligned with the fluid, collaborative nature of 21st century culture than traditionally conceived art.
We start by addressing the means of production. In place of traditional hand-crafted art we propose instead that artists utilize the techniques of the New Industrialism to fabricate their work. As introduced in part 1, the term New Industrialism summarizes the novel ways that we can now manufacture things when we marry the computer to the machine. It also references the new ways we create and distribute objects of design. In the former category we can include digital fabrication, mass customization and on-demand production; in the latter are crowdsourcing, open innovation and ecommerce.
For the artist it means that there are two end products rather the one: the digital file from which the physical piece will be produced, and the final assembled artwork. The beauty of this approach is that once the file has been created it can be used to generate an unlimited number of physical pieces – none of which requires the personal intervention of the artist, who is then free to utilize the time to create more art. Since the supply of a given work of art is theoretically unlimited, the speculative pricing method utilized in the traditional gallery system is no longer applicable. Instead, the work can be priced as a function of the cost to manufacture plus overhead and profit, which will invariably lower the cost of art in general. That is actually a potential boon to the vast majority of artists. Rather than receive a one-time commission, the artist instead derives income based on a licensing agreement in which he/she earns a percentage of total sales. If the artist does good work that’s accepted by collectors, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Put it another way, the Scarcity Principle has given way to the Abundance Principle.
It should be remarked that all the work in our ModulA.R.T. portfolio is designed, constructed and distributed using the methodologies of the New Industrialism.
Now, some may argue that art that isn’t made by the hand of the artist is intrinsically invalid. To which we would respond that we must then invalidate almost all of Sol LeWitt’s portfolio, since he ‘outsourced’ to others much of his physical production, as have other prominent artists all along the historical spectrum. We would also point out that for the last 150 years neither architects nor composers have fabricated or performed their own work either. Seen in this light, having visual artists shift to the same production paradigm as these other creatives does not seem out of line.
Another objection that can be made is that reproducing art in unlimited supply reduces it to a commodity. We’re not entirely sure that is an issue, for reasons too lengthy to go into here. But one of the ways we at A.R.T. try to address this potential problem is by creating a portfolio that is modular. The creative dimension necessary to art is therefore satisfied by the imaginative arrangement of the modules rather than the uniqueness of the individual, static object. Being modular also dovetails with what we asserted above about contemporary audiences wanting to be more interactive in their experience of art, in contrast to the top-down and passive approach associated with traditional gallery pieces.
Speaking of the gallery, with all these proposed changes in the way the artist works it’s inevitable that an alternative economic model will have to be adopted for the distribution of the art of the New Industrialism. That model is no more or less than the conventional retail operation, in which objects are sold for a price over and above that of the wholesale cost. Not only does this make sense in terms of how the art is made, but it also means that the venue for selling this type of art can be either a one-off boutique or a multi-store operation. Nor are large cities the only environment in which such a venue could survive; now mid-sized cities, university towns and other concentrations of the professional and creative classes become viable contexts as well.
Let’s conclude by stating unequivocally that we make no value judgments about art that is traditionally conceived and created, nor are we advocating or predicting the disappearance of the gallery system. Both serve a purpose and a market that values the hand-crafted item, and will no doubt be with us for a long time. Instead, we are proposing to add a third option to the current constellation of distribution points as well as to change our perceptions of what contemporary art can be, how it can be made and how it’s valued. After all, if contemporary art is to be contemporary, then shouldn’t it be open to to the ideas that make contemporary culture contemporary?
出路在哪里
好好
