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