Today,  I have bounced around in the familiar post show territory that I am sure many artists fall into from time to time.  It is the territory of "what is my relative value", or "what price is correct for my work."  New artists and veterans alike struggle with how to value the work we do. As a professional artist there are many things that are taken into account when working out the price of my work including the 50% commission that most Galleries command, cost of studio rental, supplies, framing, transportation of work, and my time.  But ultimately it is what is fair for the quality of work I am offering; because, all the cost factors aside, the work is not worth anything if it is not good to begin with.

That being said today, I was greeted with an article that gave me pause.  Posted by a mentor of mine, Reinhard Reitzenstein, it cast a spotlight on the public rant of famed art curator David Hickey, who criticized the lack of debate and objective assessment of artwork, and the complicity of art critics today, in artificially propping up the value of celebrity artists.  For the full story you can follow this link (I hope) https://www.facebook.com/reinhard.reitzenstein/posts/10152213692455322.

Being a non-celebrity, my art is not quite caught up in the direct path of this storm, but it does raise the question of the valuation of those who fight for the faint flickers of the fringe of the spotlight.  I suppose criticism is no different than other forms of journalism, which seems more and more caught up in the vortex of entertainment and sponsor interests over real debate and dialogue.

One commenter on Reinhard's essay, suggested that "Hickey should go where art is made rather than shown."  I would think this statement should hold true for critics as well.  Interesting debate if nothing else.  So, I am happy to elevate the debate by inviting all curators and critics to my studio. :-)

For the sake of starting I am doing just that....starting.  I have been contemplating a blog with respect to my art practice for some time.  Why?  Why? Why?  That is the question.   In short, my work is not created in a vacuum and there are many associations/concerns/ideas/ideals that come into play when creating an art piece.  This considerations needfully disappear to the background and the work stands on its on merit.  But I have found that, for those who are interested, an understanding of motivations breathes a particular life into the work.  Does it demystify it?  Perhaps.  But then I do not feel this detracts from an appreciation of the work.  It still must stand on its own and I do not ever expect that my reasoning in its creation is paramount.  We all come with a unique set of sensors, developed in the unique incubator of our lives; and, therefore, even my imposed vision is subject to augmentation by the viewer's experience.

More will come as thought and time allow.  These are my thoughts.  They are neither correct or wrong, they simply are.