 |
 |
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. Lynette 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 http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv