I think there is widespread agreement that keeping track of hours and charging a minimum wage for them and selling the lace thus produced is not an economical proposition. But, I don't actually think that art is priced on an hourly basis. You are not paying for time, you are paying for creativity. Some art is remarkably cheap. I have only bought a few pieces in my life, but in no case did the cost of the art exceed the cost of framing it. In fact, I had an interesting discussion at one time with an artist whose parents had collected Southwestern art and she claimed that it was rare indeed for the cost of the art to exceed the cost of the frame. I think this is an interesting comparison because the cost of the frame is based on time and materials, whereas the cost of the art is not. Most of the artists I know are not supporting themselves on the sales of their art. They teach, work in retail stores, etc. But they are very committed to their art, and participate in shows, enter competitions, apply for grants and residencies, in the hopes of finding an audience for their art. At present time there does not appear to be an audience of people buying and appreciating the work of lace artists. The general art buying public who may be schooled in perspective, and chiarscuro, who have a vocabulary and aesthetic criteria for appreciating art, do not have any information about what to look for in lace art except that it is a novelty. And novelties don't really last very long. So, if we were going to educate the public about what they should be looking for in lace art, what would we tell them? I notice that Ulrike Voelcker's name has been mentioned as a teacher/designer who is an artist. I would agree. She actually has design training as a landscape architect. I have noticed, though, that the works that she enters into shows are not the works that later become patterns. For some reason I am very drawn to a piece she did called Aufbruch which appeared in a book called Aufbruch. All the works are on this theme which means departure, starting, break-up, and crack if google translate is to be believed. The piece has a jagged/elegant crack in it. I also looks egg-like. It has graduated density in a curving ground, juxtaposed with a ground that is entirely straight. It is worked more or less in the Rib and Roll technique. But, when she put out her book on Rib and Roll the pieces in it were beautiful, but floral, and the sort of decorative item that people would be able to reproduce from her patterns. Mass appeal to hobbiests, and techniques that correspond to the skill level of hobbiests are paramount for a good pattern book. But, presumably when Ulrike makes art, she can do things technically that she could never really explain in a class or write in a pattern, and she is responding to the concept that "art is supposed to be about something". So, assuming we lived in an alternative universe where we bought art and some of our gifted designers were artists, not teachers and pattern makers, what is it that we like to see? What is it that differentiates between a piece of lace art that we like, and one that we don't like? What do we like, and what do we like about it? Devon
- To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [email protected]. For help, write to [email protected]. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
