Hey everyone,
Thank you all for your wonderfully thought-out replies. You've certainly given me a lot to chew on, and I seriously appreciate your candor. Now, I have to warn you, I didn't really end up editing this post or anything, so hopefully I don't sound too weird or bitter - it's definitely not my intention.
Before I jump to anything, I wanted to answer a few of the questions that some of you posed:
Matt, the issue with the prints and lithographs is a headache, as it all comes down to a lot of legal red tape which is super expensive to cut through. In essence, the paintings that I make are the safest bet for me right now, as since they're one-of-a-kind originals, I'm protected under my first amendment rights. However, if I were to make prints, giclčes, lithographs or any other kind of reproductions of a particular piece, then I would be using it for commercial purposes. So, if I'm doing a painting of Babe Ruth, if I don't buy the permission to do so, I could be in trouble with not only the people who run the estate of Ruth (CMG), but also MLB, MLBPA, the photo service I'm using the photograph from, or any number of others. In other words, if I'm making money off of their clients, they feel as if they're entitled to a slice (which they certainly are). Securing such licenses is a VERY expensive thing to do. I remember chatting with Mickey Mantle's estate about 10 years ago, and they said that in order for me to sell prints depicting the man, they would need 25% of the royalties, 20 copies of the particular print, and around $30,000 down. And that's JUST for Mantle, for one project. MLB licenses run around $50,000 a year these days from what I've heard. It's possible that I could just do it and fly under the radar, but it's a risk I'd care not to take (and for the record, 'yes', they're PLENTY of artists out there who are doing so without permission from whomever owns the intellectual property). With that in mind, it's gotta just stay as originals for now. Though, if the right opportunity presents itself with creating reproductions, then I'll surely listen.
Lance, for starters, the book seems to be on a bit of a hold. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the holdup is on Dean's end, though I imagine it has something to do with people not returning phone calls or emails (which seems to be the trend this year). And in regards to the Feller silhouette, it was given to us by the people at Photofile. I'm not really sure why, to be honest, but when we met with their owner Chuck Singer, he gave it to us when we told him we were heading to Cleveland. I thought it was a pretty neat thing to have, so we kept it around the booth. Whether they sell them regularly or not, I'm not even sure.
Mark, in the end, I think it's up to me regarding certain decisions. Though, what's good is that Dean and I are in constant contact, and he's always concerned about where I'm going with my career, both in regards to how I feel about the journey and where I want to see myself. So in the end, if there was something that he thought we should really do that I didn't agree with, I theoretically could put the kibosh on it. But, because of our relationship, I feel like we wouldn't ever really get to a major fork that we were completely diametrically opposed to. Or at least, I hope not.
If I've forgotten to answer something, forgive me, but I think I got them all?
Now, I think you're all right about the National. The main thing is, it's a great place to meet people and just get my work in front of them. And in all honesty, that was always the most important part of it for me. That's one of the reasons why I still go today, even if I don't have a booth. Just getting to meet people and talk about similar passions is a beyond fun. And of course, the fact that I have a few good buddies to troll around the floor with and tell jokes to NEVER hurts.
But seriously, the fact is, these paintings aren't cheap, and that applies to both the studies and the full-blown ones. And some of you mentioned that it's not the kind of money and decision that is normally made on the fly. Especially at a place where 'fine art' doesn't really appear on many people's wishlists and in many cases, budget.
Howard brought up a really good point about deciding what market I'm in. And I guess when it comes down to it, that's a big problem for me. Going to an art trade-show, you know that you're setting up for people who want to buy art. In a way, a lot of them are prepared to spend the kind of money necessary to acquire whatever pieces they fall in love with, so if they see a price tag of $40,000, they're not completely shocked out of contention. But some of the issues that I have there is the subject matter. It's sad to say, but when art collectors see my work, though they might like the handling of the paint, baseball as a focus ends up being a bit kitschy to them. It's almost like if I'm not displaying a landscape or a nude then the work I'm making isn't worth the investment.
And then, if I go to a place like the National, a lot of people don't see the paintings as 'fine art,' but more of a unique collectible - something that doesn't take the place of the cards or memorabilia that they're seeking out. Some of them don't see any value in having the painting unless it's paired with something. I had a one dealer at Cleveland mention to me that the paintings were alright, but they really needed was to be framed and signed by the players to be worth the prices Dean was asking. I know that he didn't have any malice in his words or anything, but hearing that really made me think that maybe I was barking up the wrong tree.
I think ideally, I'd like to be straddled in the middle. When I started doing these paintings, I just really got into the idea of bridging the gap between sports and art in a different way than others had. I feel like everybody out there creates paintings for the sole purpose of producing prints and lithographs, many of which are signed by the athletes and sold through their websites and then eventually, the secondary market. And there's nothing wrong with that at all, but to me, it almost ends up that these pieces are looked at as products and not works of art. I never wanted to feel that way about the stuff I was making myself, nor did I want others to feel the same way. I thought that having sports collectors see paintings and develop an appreciation for the medium could be a wonderful thing, no matter how rare the occasion. I feel like some people have made that jump because of me, which I'm incredibly humbled to even fathom.
But I guess this is the kind of stuff that can hopefully happen over time. Rome wasn't built in a day, right? I'd like to think that if I put my head down and keep doing what I'm doing, some good has to come out of it. And of course, a lot of this stuff needs to fall on the shoulders of Dean, as he's the brains in that department, but I can't imagine that it hurts for me to think about it. Either way, it's nice to obsess over something else besides becoming a better painter. I think.
I do like the idea of the raffle, Jack, and it's something I'll pose to Dean at some point. Granted, I would love to finish the one from the boards and call it a success before even considering it (but of course, I'm still waiting for the image). But I think it's a nice way to attract a buzz and help Dean recoup some of those immediate expenses. Also, a couple of you mentioned the ideas of approaching the organizers and auction houses too, which I also really like the idea of, so again, something to bring to Dean's attention.
Again, thank you all for taking the time to read and respond to this nutty brain fart of mine. It's VERY much appreciated.
Graig
|