Minimum Wage Art

[stlukesguild]

 

[Artyczar]

I love this.

Many years ago, when the minimum wage was even worse, I was making art on timecards that had a theme to make people more aware of how awful this was because I worked so many minimum wage jobs back when it was $3.35. In one show I had a timeclock where people could punch the timecards before they took the original art away. Each card was the price of a 40-hour week (before taxes). Above the time clock there was a sign that said, "And don't forget to pay the IRS." I wish I had documented this pop-up show, but I didn't.

I had some other pieces in the show, one was a "painting" with dyed blue collars on it--40 of them--(on top of timecards) to represent the 40-hour week. Kinda literal, but here's a picture of it.

 

[Trier]

View attachment 15455

I was curious as to how many, or what percentage of NYC workers, were in this category and found this:

The Economic Policy InstituteMinimum Wage Tracker​

ew York​

New York City​

Minimum wage​

$15.00

Tipped wage​

$10.00

Most recent increase​

$13.00 to $15.00, effective December 31, 2018

Most recent major change to minimum wage law​

2016, by legislation

Upcoming increases​

n/a

Indexing​

n/a

Notes​

Small businesses (those with 10 employees or fewer) have a minimum wage of $13.50.

 

[Bongo]

brilliant!

I love this.

Many years ago, when the minimum wage was even worse, I was making art on timecards that had a theme to make people more aware of how awful this was because I worked so many minimum wage jobs back when it was $3.35. In one show I had a timeclock where people could punch the timecards before they took the original art away. Each card was the price of a 40-hour week (before taxes). Above the time clock there was a sign that said, "And don't forget to pay the IRS." I wish I had documented this pop-up show, but I didn't.

I had some other pieces in the show, one was a "painting" with dyed blue collars on it--40 of them--(on top of timecards) to represent the 40-hour week. Kinda literal, but here's a picture of it.

This is awesome . You should revive that

Elon Musk makes $16,000,000.00 per hour -- just saying

 

[Artyczar]

brilliant!

This is awesome . You should revive that

Thank you! Maybe I will, but I did sell that timeclock some years ago. I have a few of the drawings left from the show.

Elon Musk makes $16,000,000.00 per hour -- just saying

Somethings we'd rather not know.

 

[Bartc]

Arty/Ayin, I actually like your blue collars esthetically. Had you not told us the real message (and I would have missed the time cards due to poor vision), it would still hold up for me.
BTW, if you hate the absurd minimum wage, consider that in many states the minimum wage for disabled folks or students can be even lower!
How many times in my life have I heard artists and fine crafts people bemoan that if they figured what their work sold for in terms of the hours they put in, it would be 50 cents/hour....

 

[Artyczar]

Thanks Bartc. I appreciate the compliment about the collar piece. I'm secretly glad to know that you liked it for aesthetics alone. I don't like explaining pieces and was afraid it was too literal. Someone (an academic) once told me it was too literal and I didn't want it to be an obvious kind of piece like that. It was an aesthetic work only.

I know about not even incorporating any hourly wage into an artwork! I used to be happy to barely make the materials back, if that! I think my first sale was six dollars, or whatever the cost of a Happy Meal was, or some gas in the car I was living in at the time.

The minimum wage in California is not enough to live on in any way shape or form, and never was. No one making min wage can afford rent. They must have several roommates to live anywhere in any major city. I made $3.55 when I was a manager of a retail store. I lived on a couch with three roommates in a two-bedroom apartment in North Hollywood. This was when I was 16 or so. I'd already been emancipated for over a year by then working a few different jobs. It was my first "higher-paying" job.

 

[Bartc]

Ayin, I run an anti-poverty nonprofit agency serving tens of thousands of very hard "working poor" folks. We live in the most expensive county in the US, yet one in five people live well below "sustainability" and we all depend on their labor. Go figure. It's a crime in a moral sense, it's stupid in economic terms, but perfectly legal and all too accepted. And we're not talking struggling artists here.

For a short time I toyed with selling my paintings and did all the usual web research on how to price artworks. Aside from the obvious (whatever the market will bear), there seemed to be two common formulae that kept being recommended: time/materials or size.

Because I paint very fast, I could never have priced things on a basis of time and materials. Because I paint on the smaller size en plein air for portability (9x12" mostly), the size formulae weren't tremendously flattering either.

Stephen Baumann's (somewhat narcissistic delivery) series on painting on YT had one interesting point that stuck with me. He said not to paint in sizes below 16x20", because smaller than that would be relegated to a bathroom sized wall and not a living room, at which point he quips that "but you would have a captured audience."

 

[Artyczar]

Yes, I know you live up north and it's worse than LA in terms of the cost of living, at least for housing and rent. That's for damn sure! I don't understand how anyone can live up there. It's a mystery, unless you have a good job. I've lived well below the poverty line almost half my life.

I would never listen to anyone about the systems on pricing art. They are all bogus in my opinion. It's a moot point since you aren't interested in selling, but it's taken a long time for me to come up with my own system in pricing art--many different factors come into play, not just a couple of things "fix" them all and some things about works on paper are always still problematic because of the art world/market (unfair because of time), but nothing is perfect. It's the way it is, unfortunately.

I am the slowest painter on earth, so I could complain that if I factored time, like some kind of hourly wage, into my work, I would not be making much per hour. I don't price things that way, and can't. It's taken years to get a price tier in place, and the prices don't get raised unless other things "happen" so it's been years. (I even had to lower them slightly when I hopped galleries in 2015.)

Meanwhile the price of milk goes up and up, and because my prices are high, they don't happen often, and the ones with the gallery are only half. After solo shows, which happen once every couple of years, I might sell a bunch, sure. People think I'm rich! Ha. 50% to the gallery, expenses, and stretch it all out until the next show and the trickling sales in between; it's not as posh as it might seem. I have no children. I have no debt. I own no property. And it's all about spinning plates in the air. But I have managed to work it all out to do this full time because of those things. It's been a lifetime of non-stop effort and hustling, but it gets easier.

 

[Bartc]

Time simply doesn't work in my case at all. My watercolors take around 30 minutes. Pastel or acrylics in the 1.25-1.5 hour time. I'm not bragging, it's just the way I paint, for whatever reason. So on a time basis what could I possibly charge. Hmmm, let's see, I let this one go for $300; then my rate is about $200/hour. Yeah, sure, I'd love to paint for you at that rate Mr./Ms. collector! LOL

Don't you love the question, "How long did it take you to paint that?" As though that were a measure of value.

Somewhere on the web I heard a fabulous retort to that question, and I do wish I could find whom to credit with it: "It took me an hour to paint it, but it took me 40 years to learn how!"

You really have struggled, Arty. Truly sad that your 40 years aren't credited to your account.

 

[Artyczar]

When people ask me "how long did it take you to paint that?" I say, "my whole life," which is like that other retort.

You can charge $200 an hour by the way! Why the hell not??? You know how much doctors and programmers charge? Plummers? Any specialty fields charge a lot, and we are in a specialty field.

 

[Bongo]

I lived on a couch with three roommates in a two-bedroom apartment in North Hollywood.

Yikes! I lived in North Hollywood from 1973 to 1988!

They say that you should price artwork of the same size at the same rate. So if you get $350 for a 16"x20", then all your 16"x20" should be priced at $350. I understand the logic behind that, and begrudgingly accept that -- but I consider some of my work of the same size to be worth a lot more and others to be worth a lot less - and I base that not on how much time or effort it took to make, but on how successful aesthetically I think it is.

 

[Bartc]

Yeah, Bongo, I keep hearing that same refrain. It's counter-intuitive.
FWIW, out today painting with our group and one of them was over the moon that a local guy bought his painting off the easel. He was offered $100 for what I think was a 12x24" oil on panel, and he talked the buyer down to $70. Talk about really counter-intuitive!
We were blown away that he let something that good and that size go for so little.

 

[Artyczar]

Bongo, I also begrudgingly accept this because the buyers will often have too many stupid questions about consistency if you don't price the work this way. They don't care about your time. They do care about the size and aesthetic, so, so be it. That's how I price it, and begrudgingly price the work on paper much less as well, even though many of those take me longer than the oil paintings and cost just as much in materials after framing. Doesn't matter. It is the way it is.

An oil on canvas at 16x20 (or on panel) are all the same price whether it's intricate or not as intricate. That's how it goes. But how long is a painting supposed to take? It takes as long as it takes. I've come to accept that fully.

 

[Bongo]

all you can do Is hold the ones you think are truly exceptional off-market until your prices overall rise to its level. And the ones you think are dogs, keep off-market so as not to dilute your brand. Of course, financial imperatives can dictate otherwise.

 

[Bartc]

Bongo, I also begrudgingly accept this because the buyers will often have too many stupid questions about consistency if you don't price the work this way. They don't care about your time. They do care about the size and aesthetic, so, so be it. That's how I price it, and begrudgingly price the work on paper much less as well, even though many of those take me longer than the oil paintings and cost just as much in materials after framing. Doesn't matter. It is the way it is.

An oil on canvas at 16x20 (or on panel) are all the same price whether it's intricate or not as intricate. That's how it goes. But how long is a painting supposed to take? It takes as long as it takes. I've come to accept that fully.

What motivates the buyers? I'm afraid it isn't what most of us would want, appreciation for our vision.
Some buy on impulse alone, some for souvenirs, some for memories of a place, some for colors, some to match décor. And sadly in most cases it appears that size does matter to what they are willing to pay. None of this I find thrilling as an artist.
How rare it must be to have a buyer who really understands art and who appreciates your vision and its execution. How utterly satisfying it must be to have a collector who values your works in a way that you can relate. Must be almost as hard to attain as winning a lottery!

 

[Artyczar]

I think you are pretty sorely mistaken Bart. You must have really bad experiences selling your art. I don't know where you'd get this stuff, unless you are solely judging on what you read about in the upper 1% in high-end art contemporary magazines or something. Art sales are not black and white.

Yes, buyers have many reasons on which they buy, and that is out of our control. In my experience, I'd say 99% of my collectors have purchased because of sheer connection to the work, whether they have a complete understanding of art or not. I don't make much design-related work that matches the decor of people's home. Sometimes buyers believe in you as an artist. They could be banking on you to have a fulfilling career later on and hope their "investment" increases to later sell, but at my level, that is never a guarantee and has not happened as far as I know. The secondary market is usually for those much more successful. I've seen my work on eBay for pennies on the dollar before. I've seen it in small auctions at half, and less. It's very disappointing.

I think those that purchased because they "believed in me" also enjoyed the work. I sold many, many pieces before I ever got into a gallery or won big fellowships. What about those people? And my work is still lower priced than more than half my peers with higher educations. They sell smaller pieces than mine for $12K+ (retail, mind you). Remember, commercial galleries get half of retail.

I think what's closer to winning the lottery are winning grants and fellowships. Many of those are not blind panels (many are, but some are not). There are percentages on the images alone, but usually a higher percentage of judging goes into your CV, education, and written ephemera, and even higher to who your references are. It depends on the foundation, and it doesn't matter if they are private or not. There is usually a "club" among academia.

I know literally hundreds of artists. They sell for many reasons, of course, but on the level/price range most of these artists sell for, their buyers buy for the aesthetic and connection. Some have small art collections, some have big ones, and some have none (first-time buyers).

I myself buy art and have been since I was a late teenager. Full disclosure, the most I've paid is $5K for a painting, but I've also bought for under $100. Most of the work I have purchased has probably averaged out at $500 because I am not well to do and most of that was after I've sold my own work for better prices. But that is a passion of mine. Remember, I don't have debts, or kids, or a mortgage. I don't make a "posh" living on my art. The higher the prices, the farther and fewer between the sales come. You tend to rely on smart budgeting.

I digress. But my point is that it's not a rare thing to find people who love your work and who are buying it for the sheer joy of it. I do not make traditional work, and I will always argue that traditional artists have it way easier in terms of selling more artwork more often. I believe they can make a living on their work if they put the effort in, and if they so desire, of course. People tend to buy the familiar more often: a familiar landscape, a still life, portraits of loved ones, etc. It takes a different kind of collector to buy abstracts, surrealism, lowbrow, Outsider (which is typically cheap, unfortunately), Naive/Art Brut, or very contemporary art. I'd say it's a lot more niche, in my opinion and from experience in seeing that for myself.

 

[Bartc]

Arty/Ayin, you have spent what sounds like many years selling your art (and you have said before how hard it has been many times.) You are a professional artist, and by my reckoning apparently a successful one. You are one of the lucky ones, even if you paid dearly for the achievement.

I don't sell my art, as I've stated before. I'm not crying in my beer here. My observations come from having associations with galleries and gallerists over the years, as well as other artists, plus peripherally some smaller museums. And that does include some collectors at what to me seem high prices (not the 1%, though I know some of those too.) In fact, they also include many highly skilled crafts people, artists in my book and winners at shows too.

As you know from my posts, I'm appalled at the high end markets. I wasn't speaking of those here. I was speaking of the ground level that I inhabit or witness. That's the level that most artists live.

If your observation is different, that's encouraging.

I'm not disparaging the customers. Why they buy what they buy is their own business. It's the business of trying to be both creative for yourself and commercially successful that I find disappointing. And maybe that's just my own question or quest, but I truly think I'm more typical in that regard.

I had a business in photography almost 50 years ago, when photography was my art form as well. I learned early on to my disappointment that good creative photography rarely sold (in those days) and that most people only wanted a souvenir or memento. So though the business was lucrative, it wasn't what I wanted out of the art and I left it.

A personal story. One of my wife's older cousins invited us for dinner at their home in an upper middle class suburb on Long Island 45 years ago. On speaking about art I learned that they were not just connoisseurs, but also collectors. They showed me a small gallery of at least 50 pieces in their home, all German Expressionists. I was astonished to find that I was very familiar with the famous artists and some of the pieces from books and museums, and I said so. I asked how they knew what to purchase (not the price, I'm not that gauche), and the response was that it was "what we like to look at, but also as an investment what we think will appreciate." That way they won both ways. All those artists were quite dead at that time and known. They were not patronizing the likes of you and I.

My point was, how lovely it would be - and I believe it to be rare compared to the sheer number of "good" artists out there - to have that kind of collectors of your work. If folks with that attitude (and some good pockets to match) abounded you would not hear the words you and I both hate, "starving artists."

 

[Artyczar]

I understand what you're saying, and as you know, I am not appalled by the high-end art market at all. I might be one of the very rare few. And I do not equate success to luck, but I fully understand all that (because I've heard it about a million times) Most people think it's all who you know and that every step of the way in contemporary art is luck. I think it is fortune when some people are born to rich parents that can afford them a higher education, but a person still needs to work hard. You still have to make artwork to get into a gallery and have a show. I do not begrudge someone for being rich or getting rich. It makes me sad, and I think it's not right that poverty even exists--for ANYONE. But how it is okay to write a hit song and make millions of dollars on it (that could have taken you a few minutes), and it NOT be okay to make a million dollars on one work of art that took you weeks or months???

I don't hate the high art market. I hate when artists sell for less than their worth out of desperation. We agree there. I do understand what you mean about an artist wishing they can just make the work they want, but then "sacrificing" by making "commercial" work to get by. But it that sacrificing for their art, or is that selling out? What about getting a job that pays some of your bills, so you don't have to make art you don't want to make and sacrificing in that way instead of NEVER making art you don't want to make? In essence, is it selling out if you wound up making art you did not want to make? On some level you didn't mind it if you did it. Selling out is doing something you absolutely hate. What we are talking about here is really a balance of two different careers (not just one you'd rather not do and one you love), but a commercial artist and a fine artist. How else would you define it? I only use those two terms because of a lack of being able to differentiate. One is like a work-for-hire, and one is doing whatever your original vision is. That's all I mean. I don't mean making art for others is not "fine" art.

To tell the truth, I always try to buy two pieces from artists when I can, or more than one. I don't "bank" on it appreciating, but if it does, I can always keep one, and sell one if I really needed to one day. Am I an awful person? I am still buying because I love the art whether it's ever worth more or not, even the "one" I may have to give up one day if it does appreciate. But I don't have that "one" picked out ahead of time. I just buy what I want, or love rather.

I also have known big-time collectors who own Picassos, Dekoonings, and Rushenberg's (a commission on his wall), etc., you name it. (I'm talking about Norman Lear) who's house is chalk full of major works of art. And that was only one of his houses I have been to. I didn't ask why he/they (his wife too) bought what he bought, but who cares? He's had them all these years and I'm sure what happens to them are up to his kids. I'm in quite a few collections like that, not to brag at all, but it makes me happy. I don't care if those works ever get sold, though I sure hope one day they will appreciate. The fact that I've shown in museums with million-dollar artists may help me with that, who knows? I certainly hope so. Does this make me something to feel bad about? I don't.

I'm also happy to be in hospital collections too. Just as seriously happy. I seek that out as much as being in "prestigious" ones.

I want ALL artists to make millions of dollars. That is my point. There is enough money in this country for this to be so. Artists should not starve or sacrifice by taking less than what they are worth. I think we also at least agree there too.

But every time they do so (take much less than what their art is worth), it doesn't help other artists. And it may also keep them angry about the higher markets and feel that they are "unfair." I don't like the idea of life being fair or unfair. People say this a lot, but life is not fair. People only need to look around, and/or look outside of this country to see what is truly "unfair." Or, what "luck" really truly is.

 

[Artyczar]

Oh, and FYI, sorry if my strong opinions rub YOUR strong opinions in any upsetting way.