DAMage Report - Rent to Own ART?!?

http://www.artbistro.com/news/articles/8823-local-artist-gives-customers-chance-to-try-before-they-buy?page=1

http://au.sys-con.com/node/1049946

Rent to Own Art is a new concept that appears to be gaining notice. Elizabeth Darrow in Wilmington, NC sent out a circular letter to her mailing list of friends, fans and former buyers.

That letter began: “Art – Rent With the Option to Buy!” She offered to rent paintings and collages at a rate of $50 per month. (Her larger canvases often sell for $1,000 or more.) After a month, people could turn in the artwork for a different piece, or extend their rental time.

“If you decide you want to purchase the work, we can work out monthly payments that will be mutually agreeable,” Darrow wrote. As in other R2O agreements, the rent would be applied to the final purchase price. “These are unusual times that call for unusual proposals,” Darrow pointed out.

Similar services exist in larger cities, such as HangArt in San Francisco or the Art Rental and Sales Gallery of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

I'm not sure if i think this is a brilliant marketing strategy that will help put much needed money into the pockets of artists or if i think this is a long term nightmare on how art may eventually be perceived and valued, if the "Rent to Own Art" catches on. Fine Art has been long regarded as something unique, special, valuable...an investment. Even the creations of the worst artist are regarded as something with merit. (Maybe not a lot, but there is always the nod to the effort.)

The concept of "Renting" automatically infers disposable, or something of lesser value. You don't rent to own a ferrari. You don't rent to own a swimming pool. You don't rent to own INVESTMENTS. Renting, right or wrong, has connotations of purchasing something of "less valuable." Do we really want fine art to fall into the realm of Rooms to Go and Walmart art?

Many struggling artists already allow their patrons to buy their art in payment plans if the art is pricey. I've done this myself many times, But once you buy it, it's yours. You don't get to swap it out. The owner can sell it to another person if they choose if they are looking to make money or no longer want the piece of art.

Good idea that allows people who often can't afford art to purchase it or bad idea that turns the perception of Art into a cheap commodity?

Guestblogging at Erotic Muses

Join me today over at Erotic Muses blog. I'll be guestblogging about pushing sexual boundaries in writing for the incredibly talented Lisa Andel. There'll be a random drawing from the comments posted for a prize. Winner will have a choice in what they would like. I'll be posting early, then hanging out there all afternoon. (I have to chase a diva with my camera at lunchtime.)

Also - posting a pic of me wearing the uber cool bootz Lisa sent me from England. Wahoooo. I love bootz!

New York, New York

New York keeps hitting my radar lately. My favorite Diva is coming back into town next week and I'll be running around taking pictures of her on Monday with various vip's. I have this sneaky feeling that i'm going to be on call all week long. She is bringing in a bunch of international performers from New York with her to perform at the end of the week.

I got a call yesterday from one of them that I've known for years and I agreed to a dinner date after rehearsals thursday night. Okay - so it is totally a "friend" dinner date but shaddup and let me have my moment of fantasy that i'm going on a date with a famous star. Heh. Seriously, we haven't hungout in over a year and he's one of my drinking pals - so it will be great fun to shoot the shit for several hours and catchup.

Monday I'll be guestblogging for the wonderful Lisa Andel over at Erotic Muses. I think I'll write about exploring and pushing sexual boundaries and how that can impact writing. One of the hardest things to write and keep it interesting and not formulated is sex scenes in erotica. I'm also still taking any questions y'all might want answered. Need them by Saturday so I time to incorporate the answers into the post.

I'll be doing a drawing from those that comment and giving away a prize (any requests on what you'd like as a giveaway?)

Hope you'll join me on Monday and chat. Last time we did this it was a blast! :D

DAMage Report - Public Art... It'll Grow on You

http://www.examiner.com/x-17274-Denver-Fine-Arts-Examiner~y2009m7d19-Notorious-A-guide-to-Denvers-most-criticized--least-understood-pieces-of-public-art-number-one

Public art is one of those sticky wickets that emphasizes the subjectiveness of art.
It is wonderfully cool in that it is art that is completely free and for the public. Usually public art is selected that is symbolic, iconic, makes a statement relevant to the city, or beautifies an area. No matter how gorgeous a piece of public art may be - you will have someone... or many someones that hate it with a burning passion. Art is one of those things that will never please all the people all the time.Granted, there is some ugly ass public art out there. And Denver, which has over 300 pieces of public art definitely has its fair share of eyebrow raising art. Although I suspect that some of it was intended as humorous. Come on, not ALL art takes itself seriously. The raygun and the gumby looking aliens in Denver have to be tongue in cheek, intended to bring a smile more than an introspective examination of "art." http://www.guidespot.com/guides/denvers_ugliest_public_art

One new piece of public art has been hitting the news over and over for the past several months as the controversy over this piece refuses to die down. The Blue Mustang, a 32-foot tall

fiberglass sculpture by New Mexico artist Luis Jiménez, is located at the Denver airport and definitely grabs the eye. Jiménez was known for sculptures that embodied Southwestern and Hispanic themes. "The Blue Mustang was proposed for the airport because of the role it played it symbolized the West and because horses were the original form of long-distant transport."

The sculpture is majestic and its placement carefully planned as it stands guard in front of one of the last remaining open spaces near Denver. “Mustang” has been criticized for

everything, from

its placement near the airport to its glowing red eyes and visible rib cage. The horse’s physical appearance stands to represent wild horses fending for themselves on the plains and the red eyes pay homage to Jimenez’s father who worked in a neon sign factory during the artist’s youth.

Unfortunately the artist was killed while working on this piece, his largest sculpture. Tie that tragedy with the glowing red eyes and the challenging stance and is was probably inevitable that it has been dubbed Satan's steed and Blucifer, among other things.
The outrage over this work of art is puzzling. The sculpture isn't ugly. It is stark, powerful and demands attention. And it does embody the fierce spirit of both the mustang and the old west.

I suspect that over time the citizens of Denver will grow comfortable with their Mustang, much like the citizens of Paris eventually embraced the Eiffel Tower, and Copenhaven their Little Mermaid. Okay - the latter maybe not so much considering they are shipping her off to Shanghai.

The question arises - what should the parameters be for public art? Are they strict enough or too loose? According to one article, 21st century artists are dummying up their public art in order to avoid controversy. Denver has a policy that no public art that has been accepted and displayed will be removed for at least five years to allow the public a chance to become acclimated to it. Controversy isn't a bad thing. It creates dialog, awakens the mind of the public, and creates an awareness of art in lives that are often focused solely on survival... and reality tv shows.

It seems to me that the boundaries to be placed around public art are fairly simple.

Able to be viewed by ALL the public without being demeaning or age inappropriate.