|Sent time:||Friday, October 14, 2011 10:59:41 AM|
|To:||Frank Shifreen <email@example.com>|
|Cc:||firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; occupy wallst <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Subject:||[GlobalRevolutionMedia] Re: UPDATE: No Comment Art Show|
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, Frank.
Regardless of the expenses she has to pay the fact remains that she made a written agreement with the artists and then saw fit to change it at the last minute without consulting anyone.
As far as giving her a chance to apologize, we gave her a chance last night and she responded by threatening to call security to have us removed from the building. Again, 5 or 6 witnesses to her behavior.
Artists are not beholden to cover the costs of shows that are badly publicized or poorly organized to the point where the organizer losses money. Artists already did their job by the time the art reaches the gallery. We made art. We used our talents, skills many of us are still in debt for acquiring through expensive art schools, materials, we paid rent for studio spaces to make art in and we put our hearts into our work. We don't ask the gallerist to pay our debts. Just do their jobs, show our work and respect contracts they make with us regarding terms of the sale of our work.
I'm sure you can see my point having shown your work extensively around the world. Contracts are the only protection we have against getting totally ripped off.
Thanks for listening
On Oct 14, 2011 11:31 AM, "Frank Shifreen" <email@example.com> wrote:
I shared with Lopi that I thought Marika was wrong to create that agreement and have artists sign it. I am on the Arts and Culture committee as well as being one of the curators of the "No Comment" Show. Lopi LaRoe has the expenses all wrong. It cost far more to stay open. The show has an agreement to clean up the entire space as well as take down
all Sheetrock walls by tomorrow morning ( that is Saturday morning) and take the show to the Chelsea Museum. The Museum will not pay moving expenses. Marika put herself out on a limb for many thousands of dollars and the only one hurt by her misquided artist contract was her, since few works were sold. It was a mistake. Lopi's anger goes over the top in my view. Her call for a boycott is very excessive without the facts. Let us be different
than those we oppose, not mimic the same tactics. Give Marika the chance to apologize for her mistake and explain herself. That is the least we can do
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM, lmnop <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Last night, at the tail end of the closing party for the No Comment Art Show , I and some others from A&C and OWS entered the building at 23 wall st.
I had several exchanges with Marika, the curator of Loft in the Red Zone during which I let her know in no uncertain terms the I was very angry at her unethical handling of the terms of the artist agreement myself and many other artists had made with her upon submitting work to her show which had been originally presented to the OWS community as in support of this growing movement.
Her initial reaction was feigned surprise that I would be upset that she had sent out an email a mere two hours before the closing party and silent auction that she had changed the artist agreement, thereby essentially cutting the artists share of sales by 20%, increasing her gallery's share of sales to 50% and cutting OWS & FGF to a vague promise of an undisclosed share "after loft in the red zone recouped their costs" aka a zero guaranteed share of sales for OWS & FGF
This was an obvious power play on her part and completely unethical.
It was also revealing of her ill intentions and lack of true solidarity with the OWS movement. The new agreement not only cut the artist's share, cut out OWS and FGF, but also requires the artist to agree that any future sales of the pieces in the exhibit, seeming for the life of the work, will result in an additional 15%, going to loft in the red zone, taken out if the artist's share of sales, thus reducing it to even less than the industry standard (that must be changed btw) of 50%. Cutting artists share of their own work to 35%!!
She is a dishonest person, the sort that would prey on idealistic artists. She is presently preparing to move the entire exhibit to Chelsea museum. This carrot she is dangling for the artists to chase is diseased. It is poisoned. If you eat this carrot, dear fellow artists you are endorsing her treatment and disrespect of artists and the perpetuation of the old paradigm where artists are expected to compromise their integrity in order to be in galleries.
At the end of the discussion, between Marika and myself, when asked how she justified changing the artist agreement, at the last minute like that, her response, in front of at least five witnesses, was to say that the original agreement lasted "only one day". Dear reader take note: no where in the original agreement was this absurd statute if limitations written.
This is her ethical stand point. She apparently can cancel and change signed agreements at her discretion with no regards to the contract or rights of the artists.
I am calling for all artists who have work in her show to remove it at once. She does not represent or stand in solidarity with the OWS Movement, but instead is attempting to co opt the name and spirit of it for her own gain. We need to stand together to boycott this gallery and this curator.
Thank you for listening,
Lopi LaRoe"No great art has ever been made without the artist having known danger"
Rainer Marie Rilke
ps The bit about recouping their costs is utter bullshit. They received a $5000 donation on Sunday to cover rent for the week. They also received, from the general fund of OWS, at least $650 if not $1200 (someone please enlighten me to the actual amount that was given to help defray costs for the show.)
pss. Several of us from the Arts & Culture Working Group will be composing an official letter to the GA about this issue to be brought up in general discussion. I do not have a copy of the original agreement, but Johnny from A&C does. On it Artists were guaranteed a 70% share in sales of their work. The remaining 30% was set up as a donation. The artist was asked to choose two out of three possible recipients. 1. Loft in the Red Zone 2. Feel Good Foundation (to care for firemen who were first responders to 9/11) or 3. Occupy Wall Street. I chose the latter two.
On Oct 13, 2011 6:53 PM, "Paddy Johnson" <email@example.com> wrote:The whole thing sounds sketchy, you're right. Most galleries I've worked at would certainly go under with a 30/70 split, but perhaps that's a hair to split another day.p
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:39 PM, lmnop <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Ps on Sunday, when I went to pick up my work because that was when I was told the show was ending, I was told that they had received a 5000$ donation from an anon source to pay for rent for an extended week
I also witnessed, during the opening on saturday, a lot of tips being collected in a large plexiglass box.
I am sure they are misrepresenting where the money will go.
On Oct 13, 2011 6:35 PM, "lmnop" <email@example.com> wrote:
Just want to say that I'm well aware if what the norms for % in gallery shows. I think its unfair. I've always felt it was unfair. I think a 30/70 split is fair.
We are trying to change the old paradigm to one that supports the artists first and foremost.
But all if that aside, the fact remains that this gallerist is changing the agreement two hours before the closing party of this show. She is attempting to pull the rug out from under us.
It's not legal. It's not ethical. It's certainly nothing I wish to endorse by having my art be included in.
By giving such short notice, they are also tricking the artists into having their art remain in the show
It stinks on so many levels. I'm furious. Both for my work and my fellow artists
On Oct 13, 2011 6:28 PM, "Paddy Johnson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Most commercial galleries take 50 percent. Non-profits take between 10-40. In this case the higher end makes sense if they have overhead. Does anyone know how the $5000 spent?Loft In the Red Zone Gallery says that after recouping their expenses, they will split the proceeds with Occupy Wall Street or Feel Good Foundation. That split should be specified as half, but it looks like they are donating 25 percent of their net to Occupy or Feel Good.15-20 percent is a standard fee for a gallery to take on consignments but since the gallery is not representing you, they really can't make that claim. Plenty of artists participate in group shows that then lead to other group shows. Unrepresented artists don't have to pay a long line of galleries every time they show in another.Paddy
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:19 PM, lmnop <email@example.com> wrote:
Alma please email a copy of the new agreement and the original agreement if you have it.
How are they claiming they need to recover the cost of the event?
They got 5000$ bucks donated to cover that.
Plus ows gave them how much from the general fund?
So, not only do they have a totally vague "cost of the event " clause to fulfill before they donate to ows or fgf, which, I can almost guarantee won't amount to a hill of beans, but they further rob the artists of 15% of their measly 50% cut of artwork we made, bought materials for etc? (Personally I'm still drowning in student loan debt from art school, but that's another issue )
I propose that we disrupt their closing party tonite. This is illegal and totally ripping us off both financially and artistically and co opting the name of ows
The curator marika, I actually gave her a ride home the other night and got an earful from her about her negative perceptions of the movement. She was adamant to me that this movement would fail without a leader. She also was disdainful of our brothers and sisters that have been sleeping at the park for a.month.
On Oct 13, 2011 5:57 PM, "Alma" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I've got a copy of the agreement sent to me via email. They also
50% of proceeds go to :
• Loft In the Red Zone Gallery to recover the costs the of the Event
After recovering costs further revenues from 50% commission will be
shared between LOFT IN THE RED ZONE and optional either OCCUPY WALL
STREET or FEEL GOOD FOUNDATION.
***The artists commits: Art works not sold in today’s auction, RED
ZONE IN THE LOFT will receive 15% commission of artists revenues if
this art piece get sold in other venues/galleries, etc.
I want to know in particular, what's up with them receiving 15% if the
piece gets sold elsewhere???
On Oct 13, 5:53 pm, Paul McLean <artforhum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ARRGH! that is HEINOUS!
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Erin Sickler <erm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Lopi,
> > Did you see this article/review about No Comment that came out earlier
> > in the week? Kind of rambling and incoherent, but definitely
> > alarming.
> > Artists should be aware that their enthusiasm can also make them
> > vulnerable to people who want to exploit the moment for their own
> > profit. I don't know the full story, so maybe there is a
> > misunderstanding here, but if it is true, it is truly sad.
> > Sorry about your works. I wish I could get them for you, but I am not
> > in the area.
> > Erin
> > On Oct 13, 5:16 pm, lmnop <artist.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello all.
> > > I wanted to quickly shoot off an email to the group to inform us about a
> > > treacherous turn of events involving the No Comment art show.
> > > I'll try to be brief. I'm writing this on my cell phone
> > > As many of us, I was excited to participate in an art show featuring work
> > > from ows movement. I brought 4 small oil paintings of the civil rights
> > > movement and two large stencil paintings directly inspired by ows.
> > > When I arrived, I signed an artists agreement that 30% of the sale would
> > go
> > > to two out of three choices to donate sales too. They were: loft in the
> > red
> > > zone ( curator
> > > ) the feel good foundation ( an org devoted to the health of first
> > > responders to 911, mostly firemen) and third choice was ows general fund.
> > > I chose ows and feel good foundation.
> > > I felt good about this
> > > I just recieved a call from a volunteer working for loft in the red zone.
> > He
> > > informed me that the artist agreement has been changed and that if I want
> > my
> > > art to remain in the show, I needed to come immediately to the gallery
> > and
> > > review this new agreement. If I did not it would be removed from the
> > show.
> > > I am up to my ears I'm commitments which prevent me from dropping
> > everything
> > > to rush down there.
> > > I asked him to review the new agreement over the phone. He readily
> > complied
> > > The new agreement gives the artist no option other than giving loft in
> > the
> > > red zone HALF of the sales of work. Out are the options to donate to OWS
> > and
> > > the Firemen fund. Also instead of a fair, 30% cut, they upped it to
> > 50%!!!!!
> > > This is sheer sabotage! This is co opting on a grand level! This is bait
> > and
> > > switch!
> > > I told them, remove my work. I wish to have nothing at all with such
> > > dishonest and sleezy practices
> > > Need I remind you thatoft in the red zone purports to represent the voice
> > of
> > > ows?? And that they got money.from the general fund plus a 5000$ donation
> > to
> > > keep the show open??
> > > I ask you do we support this?
> > > Lopi LaRoe
> Paul McLean
> Lead Artist ART FOR HUMANSwww.artforhumans.com
Editor, Art Fag City
http://eepurl.com/fP33 (Sign up for the AFC Newsletter!)
Editor, Art Fag City
http://eepurl.com/fP33 (Sign up for the AFC Newsletter!)
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|