Here's the link: Most artists are not making money off NFTs and here are some graphs to prove it
Seriously, if you're considering getting into the NFT market, seller beware. It is not really buyer beware if you can convince people to jump into the game (because the more people in the game the easier it is to sell and make a profit). I can't say it as well as Canadian Artist Kimberly Parker puts it, so you should read her article posted below. In short, she did a massive data scrape of those markets that sell NFTs, and the results show that the average artist actually loses money, and that data are skewed by the very few who make millions.
Here's the link: Most artists are not making money off NFTs and here are some graphs to prove it
This is why I always tell people to buy what they like. Don't buy art to match the decor (the art will outlast the decor) and don't buy art to compete as an investor (the game is rigged before you even enter it). Artists suffer the worst consequences, but there is a way to solve this: buy local artists you like.
Also, Google the follow titles by the Freakonomics folks to get a wonderful view of how the art market really sucker-punches artists:
Below is the artist talk I gave at Watershed Studios in Galway, Ireland. This was sponsored by the Maine Arts Commission - an independent state agency supported by the National Endowment for the Arts.
Personally, I think the talk was good and I explained myself well, but I was really disappointed with the turnout. I promoted this a lot, and I hope the residency did, too. As it was, however, no one from the Galway arts community participated beyond the residency. Still, it was productive and now folks can see more about my artistic process and development. Enjoy!
Greg Mason Burns will be giving an artist talk on Monday, Nov 15, at 2pm EST via zoom. The discussion will be presented by Watershed Studios in Galway, Ireland and will center on Burns's two collaborative projects of Abstract Photography and Abstract Collage.
Zoom link: https://us04web.zoom.us/j/71710780040?pwd=WDNJa1BvblYra2VnOWRVOGJjZHNSdz09
The Greg Mason Burns Watershed Studios Residency in Galway, Ireland for November, 2021 is funded in part by a grant from the Maine Arts Commission, an independent state agency supported by the National Endowment for the Arts.
Just to further my previous post on the grant that I received, here is the link and a print screen of my name on the awards page for 2022, for validation purposes: https://mainearts.maine.gov/Pages/Funding/past-awards#
Super excited that I have been selected to received a Maine Arts Commission Springboard Artist Grant in 2021. The funds will be used for my up-coming residency at Watershed Studios in Galway, Ireland in November of 2021. The residency will be for developing a stronger body of work in my abstract photography series, currently titled "Redirecting the Message", but it will also be used to develop a series of collage-based abstract photography works, as well.
This is a bit of a defining moment for me, as it is the first grant I have ever received. I'm super grateful, too, as I also didn't think I would be getting the grant based on the panelists' comments when they scored my application. I felt some of the negative feedback was undeserving and unrelated to the requirements of the grant. The most common note was that I didn't link my residency to Ireland with me being a Maine artist, and this was frustrating because it wasn't a requirement to make that link. I applied for this residency for a few reasons, but one is because I knew I had a connection with the residency and I knew I'd have a better chance at getting accepted as a result of this connection (do panelists have any idea how difficult it is to get accepted to good residencies?). But, a few weeks later, and I got the email stating that I had been accepted, and the amount was sufficient to pay for most of my costs. Yes, this is awesome, and I'm really happy to be putting this official statement on my website: The Greg Mason Burns Watershed Studios Residency in Galway, Ireland for November, 2021 is funded in part by a grant from the Maine Arts Commission, an independent state agency supported by the National Endowment for the Arts.
UPDATED ON 12/20/21 WITH LATEST - SEE BOTTOM OF TIMELINE FOR UPDATE
Scam might be a bit of a harsh word, but "uber-wealthy family asking for free art from emerging artists" is not far from reality, and I want people to know about it. I've given a bit of a timeline below for you to read, but essentially the Copelouzos Family Art Museum in Athens Greece asked me to be a part of their 35 x 35 project, which was simply a donation to their personal, private, family art collection.
After doing some research on them, without them knowing, I accepted the offer with a caveat, that I would create what I felt was the correct response to their request. I have participated in donation-style exhibits before that have some similar elements to the 35 x 35 Project. Most notably is that these projects send the artist the canvas, publish the art(ist) in a book, and have a public exhibit. Many others scan and upload the artwork into digital databases that can be accessed publicly going forward.
What differed from this project was the "... opportunity for us and the receivers of the book but also through the exhibition, to get acquainted with your work and begin a longtime fruitful communication/collaboration with you." In other words, there was hope of future sales or commissions with this donation.
As you might imagine, this never happens. Also, there is no public component to the 35 x 35 Project. It is a "voluntary art project" and a "donation art project" where the art goes directly into the private collection of the Copelouzos Family Art Museum, which doesn't even have a website, let alone a public component to it (i.e. - you probably can't walk up to the ticket window and buy entry to the museum - it's private). So while it is voluntary and a donation project, it might actually be emerging artists giving art to a very rich family in Greece so that they can add to their collection. This is especially true if the vast majority of artists who participate never hear from the museum ever again after their submission.
And that's what happened, too. I contacted several artists who have participated in the past, and while they said the book was decent (it used artist-submitted photos, so not all photos were up to snuff), 100% of all the artists who got back to me said that they never heard from the museum, the program, or any other collector or gallery otherwise again. In other words, they took the art and ran off with it.
I'm an artist who sells, but not a lot. I get a lot of support through my Patreon page. Please click here to support me. Thank you!
For context, I participated in the Imago Mundi Project, which is another voluntary, donation art project. It was created by Luciano Benetton as a means to show the diversity of art throughout the world. The aim is to collect contemporary art from every single country, exhibit these works in all the countries so as to reach as many people as possible, and to create a publicly accessible digital database for research (<-- This link is the specific collection that I am in). My submission was called Incomplete and is in the Scotland Collection. It is a reference to Scottish Independence, and the book looks nice, too.
And here's the real kicker. The Copelouzos Museum says they are collecting contemporary art, but in reality they're puffing their own chests. Because what happened is I created a piece of work that they invited me to send in, and then they rejected it (through silence, see timeline below) because it is "...a negative criticism to the 35x35project...". But anyone collecting contemporary art should know that this type of activism is extremely popular. In fact, the Imago Mundi Project accepted work exactly like this by Spanish artist Eugenio Merino (Pay Me, 2014). So their criticism is not just dangerous with regards to muting artistic voice, but it clearly states that they just wanted something pretty to add to their collection, not uncensored contemporary art.
I've also participated in other donation-style projects that were mere fundraisers for non-profit arts organizations or studio collectives. I gave a free piece of art specifically to help these organizations raise money for their stated non-profit mission. I didn't get anything in return (except for a tax deduction, which I may have or not even used) but I knew there was a community benefit. In fact, one donation was to an organization I have never even visited in the Studio Channel Islands in California. So I'm not against "voluntary" or "donation" projects. If I do participate, however, there must be a community component or they accept what I give them. If you want something special, you buy it. The Copelouzos Family Art Museum decided they didn't want what was offered to them.
If subscribing isn't your thing, please buy a print. This link brings you to the artwork I submitted to the project, but there are many other works under my name. Thanks again!
Here is the timeline of events. Please note that I have the email thread from the director of the program, so what I'm stating is true and I can prove it legally if need be.
May 2021: Remembering that their response to other artists never having heard from the museum again after submission was if the artists themselves had reached out, I actually did reach out. To be fair, I kind of knew what the response would be considering how I had written this post and how they felt about it, but I did it anyway just to test them. I reached out and asked if they were willing to participate in my project that I was going to further develop at a residency in Galway, Ireland.
June 2021: They replied to my request that they participate in my project by stating that the "museum doesn't run a program for financial support". I replied to them stating that I wasn't looking for a cash handout, but merely wondered if they were interested in buying any pieces related to the project. The price for whatever they wanted would have been fair, and in my eyes it would have shown that they really were interested in cultivating a relationship with their participating artists. Think about it, of any of the artists who participated, if they had agreed to participate with me then they would have blown my argument out of the water. It would have shown a genuine interest in supporting the artists rather than simply taking free art for their own private use.
One good thing from that email was they stated they are in the process of developing a website of their projects. This is a step in the right direction, as it helps to put a public face on the collected works. Whether this happens in a good way remains to be seen.
Dec 2021: We are now approaching the end of 2021 and I have yet to receive a response from the museum regarding my request for participation in the project I spent time developing at a residency in Galway, Ireland. That residency was in Nov, 2021, so they very clearly missed that opportunity. I am doing another residency in 2022, but since they rejected my request the first time I figure they will continue to reject or ignore me going forward. For transparency's sake, I did receive a grant from the Maine Arts Commission for this residency. The Maine Arts Commission is a public, state agency that is partially funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. So yeah, my residency was not a scam - it was a legit project validated by this grant.
What can you do? What is my point? Here:
Just got accepted into the Spring Issue of the Maine Arts Journal. The title is "Sanctuary" and I wrote about how the abstract is my sanctuary. Here is the link, enjoy: http://maineartsjournal.com/members-showcase-greg-mason-burns-gail-wartell/
This was recently published by The Prostitution of Art, which is a contemporary art blog based out of Boston. The site discusses the unfair treatment of artists by society / market. Articles are meant to be abstract criticisms of these forces in the contemporary world. Here is the link to the original text: The Prostitution of Art.
Here is the original text:
I want to be creative, but society has its own rules. There are no rules for creativity, and yet here we are. Where? Here, today, when art is no longer supported except through behemoth organizations sucking up money from the artist direct. Sure, you’ll go out and buy your prints from Target and destroy the artist even more. But they’re cheaper and look more professionally done. You need to be competitive. Competition is good. And bad, because the artist has no competition. He or she is unique, without comparison. That's foolish, think outside the box. There is no box. Not even an amoeba. The artist is the box, forever changing form and shape, pushing boundaries that only exist because we need a word to describe what we’re supposedly pushing. Then why the expression? It’s a corporate thing, meant to give permission to exceed established efficiency boundaries. And art doesn’t have efficiency boundaries? If no, why are you so poor? Because my world isn’t your world. You can never conquer the creative world, only diminish it, lessen its importance in society, the society you create, always pointing to what you call progress, upward, always making it hard on the artist. Sounds phallic, hehe. It is a fallacy. Art sold for millions never goes to the artist, the creator. Give me an example. A dangling light. A light? That shows the way. A light that shows the way is a fallacy in of itself because it only shows what it can shine upon and everything else remains darkened by the soft edges of the light and its limits and how far it can go and how far it cannot go. Auction houses are the light, but creativity is the darkness. Too deep for me, just like the price of your painting. Another car payment? That and a family cruise to Aspen. A cruise that can’t be taken. And yet I’ll pay for it just the same. Here’s a quarter, what can you make me for a quarter? I’ll take your quarter and take a picture. And you’ll send it to me by email? So you can reproduce it on the Internet and make more money than it cost you? Sure, that’s what I’m talking about. No need to give me your card, I’ll remember your email by memory. Now that’s why I only gave you a quarter. And it’s why your idea that art will always exist on a quarter is a fallacy. If art is darkness, it will always exist. Someday the light will go out forever. Art will conquer? Not if you only have one word for darkness. Maybe I’ll create another one. Ah, maybe.
Color Field painting, a derivative of Abstract Expressionism, is essentially the attention to color in abstraction as opposed to form or structure. The early Color Field painters, such as Mark Rothko, Clement Greenberg, and Clyfford Still wanted to create large works such that when one was standing up close one was absorbed in the color. Color Field has developed since then with various tendencies moving both further from shape and form and closer to it.
I'm developing color field in a way that combats the color against the figure (and will be doing so this year mostly at a residency at Contemporary Arts International with an exhibit following in November). This is not easy to do. First and foremost I need to have worthy figures that can both compete with the color but not overtake it. I do this by developing minimalist charcoal drawings, and the ones that work get transferred to paintings (digital studies below). But that's not all that's difficult. Color Field requires the fluid consistency of color, and the more colors that are added the more they must contrast and compliment each other at the same time. Make one mistake, and you've lost that jarring awakeness, so to speak.
So it's important to note that while creating one of these paintings is actually technically easy to do, what is difficult is the discovery and development of the painting. Many studies are done before a piece is finally ready to be painted on the final support. For example, Color Field #4 (noted above) is the study for Color Field #7, the latter of which is almost 3.5 times larger than the smaller version. Below are a couple of "failed" studies, too. Again, once the paint is done, there's no going back, so one needs to be right before going in.
It's the same with Jackson Pollock's streams of paint. Those look completely random (while Color Field tends to look quite prepared - a stunning contrast of the diversity of Abstract Expressionism), but Pollock did a lot of studying to prepare for his final pieces. Those paintings are anything but random. Neither are these paintings that focus on the color. So I have actually four steps:
We'll see how this develops and if the idea sticks in the exhibit later this year.
Greg Mason Burns is an American-born contemporary visual artist. These are his thoughts on life as an artist.