» » » Artists; the Future of Art, and Art as your Day Job

Artists; the Future of Art, and Art as your Day Job

posted in: Arty-nomics | 4

An online artist acquaintance, Cindy Schnackel, recently asked 4 artists – all working hard to become established – some pertinent questions about living the artist’s life right now. Read her summary post at http://cindyschnackel.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/artists-the-future-of-art-and-art-as-your-day-job/ to see what she found. And while you’re there, check out some very personable birds and other creatures from Cindy’s very busy imagination and brush.

The artists were Janis Zroback
Anita Inverarity
Regina Valluzzi
Lynnette Shelly


4 Responses

  1. cindyschnackel

    Thanks for reblogging and for your nice comments!

  2. cindyschnackel

    It was good to get your input in this. There were quite a few artists on RB alone that were probably good choices, so hopefully more will comment and add their thoughts. I Approved the reblog and hope it shows up publicly the way its supposed to. This is the first time anyone reblogged from mine, so it’s new to me. Thanks!

  3. Susan

    This was an interesting read.
    Do you find Red Bubble has been profitable for you?

    • nerdlypainter

      I don’t make a lot of income from Red Bubble. they managed to attract some superlative artists early on, but the team managing the site seems to have decided that they’ll focus on more commercial graphic art and merchandising phone cases and T-shirts. As a result it has gotten more and more difficult to sell art there. Even in merchandized form if it isn’t line art that could go on a hair band album cover or big eyed girl cartoons and posters for a High School goth kid’s bedroom – it’s very hard to sell.
      I think this goes back to some of the points made in the article I’d cited in an earlier post (Early evidence is often not really evidence).
      The internet tends to create little Bubbles. With art and visual information, the items that will get a quick response are works that (a) translate very well from “work” to jpeg “image” without a lot of content loss (b) works whose jpeg “image” translates into a small thumbnail well. There may be some good, craveable art that manages to fit those two criteria, but I would not use them to define “good art”.

      Your work is very detailed and the charm and interest is in the details and the way they add up within the whole. An internet thumbnail of your “Bearing Strait” for example, might show one or two of the main critters clearly, but probably would not really tell anything about the piece at all. Yet it’s an engaging piece that jpegs well.

      What thumbnails well? Exactly what sites like RedBubble promote most heavily. Simple line art, graphic art, and slick commercial art and photography. But the good thumbnails are trending in just the opposite direction from where offline fine art collection seems to be heading (details, texture, presence, complexity).