I have mixed feelings about art auctions as fundraisers. A lot of organizations rely on money coming in from these events, but many such events do not benefit the artists as they could and instead can fit into that category of art opportunities that extort money/patronage from those they are designed to support.
Artists must give works for the art auction event to even work in the first place because what kind of art auction would have no art? Most of these artworks are given by donation only, and most organizations do not compensate the artists for their artworks but offer them a letter to use for tax deduction purposes and possibly a ticket to the event (if they donated an item valued high enough). Many artists have no qualms about donating a piece of artwork to an organization that they support because they are more likely able to do so than to give money, but artists can be hit up for A LOT of such donations. This is something too many of these organizations seem to forget.
Art auctions can also devalue the work of those artists who donated by allowing collectors to get works cheap. Artworks are very rarely bid up to what they are worth, especially when many artworks are offered at auction at once because there may actually be more pieces than interested buyers and collectors. Some collectors will wait for an opportunity to bid on a piece at auction rather than purchasing one at full price from the artist even if they genuinely want a piece by that artist. Those collectors feel that they are doing good by supporting the organization that the event benefits while publicly demonstrating their patronage and possibly even getting a work for less than they would otherwise have to spend. So it's a win-win situation for the buyer, but not necessarily for the artist whose work sold for half of what it is worth and who didn't see a penny of that.
The art auction can offer good publicity and exposure, but often so many artworks are donated that any one work may be overlooked or lost in the crowd. As a result, "safe" and somewhat generic works that match people's sofas and artworks by already established artists will gain more notice. (Jeane Vogel posted some interesting thoughts on "safe" art here.) Thus those that would benefit from the exposure are likely to find that they may not get as much exposure from the event as they had hoped to.
Some organizations have sought alternatives to better benefit the artists, either offering the artists some portion of the sales price of their work or by offering artworks through some other creative means. The St. Louis Artists' Guild does this in their annual Collectors' Choice event. The event is planned out such that ticket purchasers are each guaranteed an artwork valued at $250 or more. (Donated artworks are not typically auctioned off unless they are valued at less than $250 by the donor.) Instead of an auction, ticketholders are chosen by potluck and then allowed to select which piece they want in the order that their names are drawn. As a result, the collectors actually study more of the works more closely so that they can pick their first, second, third... choices, and the artworks are not devalued because they are not actually sold for less than they are worth. Yes, the artist is still expected to donate 100% of the proceeds from their work to the organization and ticketholders come out well ahead by purchasing tickets for less than the artworks are worth, but the artworks are not themselves devalued because they weren't bid up in the auction process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Your points are very valid.
I do think however, especially for lesser known artists, the exposure at such events can be more beneficial than the lack of compensation.
A smart artist will choose a fundraiser dear to the heart and not just give randomly to every door knocking organisation that comes along.
I think some events are more beneficial than others in regards to exposure, even for artists starting out. It depends a lot on the group hosting the event and who is involved, how it is managed, what the attendance is like, how much publicity was generated and so on.
Most artists are highly selective about what they donate to. But a huge variety of organizations that artists support rely on these sorts of events as fundraisers, so many artists are hit up for a lot of donations. Most artists simply can't donate to everything and are extremely picky, even if that means not supporting everything that is dear to the heart because there are too many such things asking for donations.
I know there are definite perks to these events as well, but some such events are really not that advantageous on behalf of the artists. But some artists will still willingly participate despite knowing it does not benefit them because they so strongly believe in the cause.
I personally think that if a more creative strategy were taken to the approach, like what the Artists' Guild is doing, that the artists will benefit even more, donate more and then be happier that they did.
I think the "exposure" argument is dubious at best. No body really cares or remembers who the "unexposed" artist is. It's the argument that is used to separate artists from their work. Very little ever comes from it. Give because you want to support the organization, not because of "exposure." People die from exposure, don't they?
I agree that with as many organizations ask for art donations for these sorts of events, all artists are better off donating to only those causes they believe in strongly and want to support more than anything else. Exposure is a difficult thing to obtain and is often found in places where you don't expect it, so seeking it out or choosing to do things to try to gain notice is not always in one's best interest.
Post a Comment