The Scheme of Things
Concept as Format
1. Every man is an artist
2. Redistribution of wealth
3. Value of art as idea
4. Patron as artist
5. Small grants to anyone
6. Participate & fund simultaneously
7. Ponzi scheme – investment opportunity
Exchange as Format
8. Incentives?
9. Objects?
10. Message: recorded answering machine. Overall message/theme/strategy
11. Flowchart to map conversations – if, then statements
12. How to visually represent the networks
IDEAS:
1. Relational model:
Definition of “friend” in virtual vs. real world networks – Friendship/ personal appeal: personal loan for non-profit, art-making space without involving the government (i.e. without applying for 501(c)3 status)
“I am a working artist, have a gallery space, trying to keep it going. Can you provide me a small loan and I will pay you back with [these] conditions.”
OR
“You can give it to me as a donation and I will consider it an artist grant from a patron.”
Either way, you will be directly participating in the art that we’re doing. You have our word that you can get it back at any time you ask.
2. Socialist model:
Every man as an artist: redistribution of money with artist as intermediary: examining the mechanism of the artist grant.
This is purely about fluidity – not accumulation. If it worked in a pure sense, there would be a 1:1 transfer and we wouldn’t make any money – but we need to figure out how to funnel some of that into the project itself so that we can keep it running. 25% to OAF, the rest to artist/ everyman?
Or does this mean writing people a check they don’t necessarily want to cash because it is:
a) validation of themselves as artists ala Beuys
b) an art document in an of itself
c) an investment – low risk, low yield
(c) leads to:
3. Banking/Capitalist model:
Art-making as Ponzi scheme. This would be an opposite appeal to #1: greed vs. altruism: or the pure support of art as idea.
4. Micro-patronage model:
I, as artist, will allow you access to the glamorous world of art (via my connections, my education, etc). Thus, you, as patron, will have access to specific formalized art events/objects (such as the re-performance of the cut piece, or making the pixel paintings) You, in effect, are paying for access to participation/creation of “art”. The idea of sponsoring a single brushstroke instead of an entire painting.
–> But then how is this changing the dynamic of patron/artist other than by degree? It still remains a primarily elitist proposition. <–
Comment on the socialist model: The Paul and Kate Project illustrates that normal living can be a work of art. If this is the case for two people, then by extrapolation, the life of any person, couple, group, becomes a work of art. Everyone becomes/is an artist. To suggest that the exchange of money (better term “assets”) would be 1:1 suggests that the work of each artist (individual, couple, group) is equal to the work of every other artist. Is it?
Bill Hobson
December 12, 2009 at 11:02 pm
That depends. Are we talking about “work” in terms of labor, or “work” in terms of artwork? Or is there another way that we can think about work?
oafactory
December 13, 2009 at 12:43 am
In this context, your distinction is artificial. Normal living is both the labor and the artwork.
Bill Hobson
December 21, 2009 at 12:41 am