Kathy, right: the "exposure thing"! Often that does not come through
as planned. It's a good idea to donate unframed art (if a person is
going to donate), though a year ago I did give a piece to a nonprofit
that quite vocally frowned on that and I had to weigh all the pros and
cons very carefully.
FYI: the letter I got yesterday requesting art came about because of a
show I'm in right now. Little did I realize that getting juried into
this exhibit made me "eligible" for the auction: apparently artists
who get in (and pay the usual entry fee) are then tapped for this
annual auction to raise money to keep the art galleries going. The
twist - obviously to get our hopes up and encourage the art to be
forthcoming - is that cash prizes will be offered (none were given for
the "regular" show) AND that the 8 lucky people who get prizes will be
offered a later exhibit where they can show up to five pieces. There's
the usual blurb about lots of press, promotion, etc.
I do feel put upon. After all, isn't the entry fee I already paid, and
the percent the venue takes when art sells, supposed to keep the place
going? Haven't we artists already done our part? Okay, got that off my
chest. . . I feel better.
On Sep 20, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Kathleen Garness wrote:
> I'm pretty sure your understanding is correct. And that law isn't
> likely to change anytime soon. ; )
> And... as a tangent - I've donated work a few times to organizations
> who told me it would be 'good exposure' and that I'd get commissions
> or other sales from it. Never happened. So now I only donate work
> that a) did not represent a significant outlay of my time and b) did
> not cost me more than what I would be willing and able to donate to
> the organization anyway (so, no framed, matted pieces, for example).
> Kathy G
Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at