Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

5% Commission to Artists for Future Sales

edited October 2008 in architecture
Great news for the industry prior to the weekend. 5% of all future sales of artwork will go back to the artist........and for 70 years after the artist's death.
«1

Comments

  • edited 4:11AM
    sell your sketches and it works ;)
  • edited October 2008
    ............but isn't the Architecture art? Are those RhinoCAD drawings art if Digital photos are art?
  • edited 4:11AM
    like duchamp, anything's art if you say it is...architectural work is regarded as 'artistic work' under copyright law, but not under this new scheme. it needs to be graphic/visual/sculpture. so built works dont count, but if you exhibit your drawings and sketches it probably counts. but then only if they sell for a certain amount.
  • edited 4:11AM
    So what if the Architect incorporated a mosaic, sculpture and the like into the Architecture?
    If that work, as well as the value of enhancement that work created for the owner, be factored in, why should not the Architect benefit?
    Same thing is it not?
  • edited 4:11AM
    um, mark, i believe the phrase that is appropriate here is 'tough titties'. sorry dude.
  • edited October 2008
    i don't quite understand why the heck an architect should ever get a commission because there is an art project involved i their work?
  • edited 4:11AM
    i think plumbers should recieve 5cents every time someone flushes a toilet they installed for 70 years after their death.
    is something different to an impoverished (in eurocentric terms) aboriginal painter who is exploited by some big city lad who  deals (and in perhaps forges) works without anything every reaching said artist. > which is what this law was about
  • edited 4:11AM
    Andrew, Anderw, Andrew.
    Bollocks.! What! Dot paintings?
    99% of Dot Paintings done by Aboriginal 'Artists' are forgeries.
    Who is exploiting who?
    Mind you, 95% of buildings are forgeries as well.
  • edited 4:11AM
    andrew i don't think this was a serious thread from the outset.
  • edited 4:11AM
    Dav, Please don't spoil it. I did start it as a serious post as it is certainly worth the comparison. Artist/Achitect. I expected Simon Seasons to provide some balanced input.
  • edited 4:11AM
    mark, we get reimbursed plenty for our time and work. you get yourself in a good position and you start charging 14,15,16% on buildings over $1m and you'll be doing just fine. if your work involves designing $300k extensions for 12% and less, then yes, you will starve and wish you were getting a commision.
    artists and architects are not the same thing, we do not work in the same way, we do not sell in the same way. you have to look at the situation differently, and if you can't then you either suffer or you leave and become an artist.
  • edited October 2008
    .................but artists chose the occupation based on a particular earning potential. Now we are giving them a .............gift.
    There are plenty of Architects go through life producing great work, choosing to do low earning projects and come out the other end with nothing in their pockets. How are they rewarded?
  • edited 4:11AM
    this system isnt a new one for artists. i think this has just come in specifically for aboriginal artists (as far as i understand).
    there are also plenty of doctors, nurses, lawyers etc who go through life working with the poor and working pro bono etc etc ending up with nothing in their pockets. if you want to earn more money then earn more money. little things like this are handy for whoever they apply to but you're not going to make your fortune off a percentage of sales - if you're lucky your clients enjoy living in your hosues so much they will never sell!
    if you want more money earn more money and charge your clients what you think your services are worth.
  • edited 4:11AM
    artists are more vulnerable to financial exploitation of their intellectual property than architects because they don't have an AIA or a heavily regulated industry.
    to my original "i don't quite understand why the heck an architect should ever get a commission because there is an art project involved i(n) their work?"
    architect earns 15% on a $10 million project which pays for cost of work: both 'practical' and 'intellectual'. 2% of total budget is put aside (by council or client) for public art project. How much does artist charge? 15% for intellectual and practical work like the architect? I'm not even sure where they turn for advice..
  • edited 4:11AM
    mr seasons would have a field day with you jokers. what is the point of this thread? i heard of an architect in melbourne who was paid more for the 'art' commission on one wall of the project than his fee for the entire rest of the project. is this the idea.....
  • edited 4:11AM
    Hi all! (air kisses all round) I consider myself an artist and retraining as an architect makes me consider that I am getting into a much more useful and valuable art form at last, so there.
    If you do too, then you can go to the Arts Law Council for legal help which I understand charges a small fee but otherwise the show there is run by lawyers on a bro bono basis.
    As for making laws exclusively for aboriginals revolving around "Art", I seriously doubt it is either legally or morally possible. As I understand it, earning money from art is an introduced concept that centres on the fact that art is regarded as largely superfluous to existence and is an added bonus if your wealthy enough to pursue 'culture'. Art for aboriginals is about depicting LAW in the purest form of political and therefore cultural representation.
    It is pure economic nessecity and a sensible choice in the circumstances, for an aboriginal to make money out of what was and often still is regarded as a temporary depiction of a culturally and politically significant event in the religious calender of the people to whom the artist belongs. Traditionally an aboriginal does not paint for themselves or to gain financial benefit but to depict an important spiritual connection to land for the benefit of the whole tribe. The fact that modern political realities make financial gain a possibility and that the art, due to its artistic depth is worth a lot of money to westerners ( and a lot to forgers ) AND the fact that 'aboriginal' art is now created in almost permanent forms means that the aboriginal artists must stand on the same legal footing as any other artist.
    The law is about protecting artists from future sales of thier work (and thus thier cultural importance) that sees thier work sold for hundreds of thousands more by collectors and dealers than they originaly recieved. This is a situation that affects artists what ever thier cultural backgrounds and reasons for creating art.
    There could be room for argueing that as copyright law accepts architecture to be an art form then so too should this new law, because westminster law wieghs heavily on precedent and not intention. Who will be the first litigant, one wonders, to test the law?
  • edited October 2008
    was any law tested on ARM's museum of australia aboriginal exhibition building referencing the Liebeskind berlin jewish museum?
    i don't actually know what the outcome of that was or if it was just a beat-up
  • edited 4:11AM
    latest is that arm are suing big.... for ripping off a photoshop move and using on a building...(so wanted to find a link that worked...will keep looking)
  • edited 4:11AM
    SS, why do you feel the need to fill the page so?
    The royalties scheme that has been introduced is common in many countries around the world and accounts for all artists working in graphic and plastic mediums (the reason the indigenous artists came into is is that every media outlet picked up on garret's example of one aboriginal artist).
    SS i think you will find that modern indigenous art came about as a way of raising funds and proving the worth of the particular communities, like with the Utopia school in NT. Therefore, aborigianl art as we know it is entirely about making money.
    If some jack-ass architect tries to litigate to get a 5% commision on future sales of their work then the restof us should runthem out of town. how embarrassing.
  • edited 4:11AM
    cedric price sold his archive to cca (canadian centre for architecture) to invest in his super....
  • edited 4:11AM
    Aboriginal artist Richard Bell reckons: 'art - its a white thing'
  • edited 4:11AM
    It is a white thing, when art is taken to mean what you think it means. Ask Richard Bell what 'Art' he would prefer if his people hadn't been turfed off thier land by your people and he would say. "If your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle." and something else besides.
    Yes, " it" is a white thing, but that does not mean that Richard Bell can't make it black.
    I think you'll find that "it" is the art market and pretensions surrounding it. Something closely akin to Stylism actually, which is another 'white thing'. Notice how grubby that phrase sounds, 'white thing'. Ironic isn't it?
  • edited 4:11AM
    SS - you're half right.
    Except the likes of Richard have no choice - they have to just make it.
  • edited October 2008
    Ahh Info, you're half right as well.
    An artist just has to be an artist and they have no choice, but it is whether they make art or not. Some don't because the rest of society laughs at it, exploits it or ignores it. Some don't care about the rest of society and just get on with the need to be what they are.
    As a black artist, this 'no choice in the matter' is especially poignant, but a lot of black people had to live a lie for a long time (a deep subject matter of Richard Bells work) and the opposite side of that coin is that a lot of whites 'had' to live a lie too, and there-in was a choice in the matter. A Sophies choice for some, an easy choice for others, but still a choice and by degrees a choice that exposes ones moral fibre for others to pick at. That the likes of Richard Bell have chosen is neither here nor there when it comes to our own choice. He had the same choice to make that we all have. The differance, the real choice, is in whether you want to make it an easy choice or a hard one.
    The beauty of that choice, to be true to your own humanity either as an artist or a black man or white woman, is that 'freedom to be' if chosen, becomes 'duty to be.' and you enter a realm of inter-relationship far stronger and bountiful than the aquiessence to societies and or families derision of artistic people and expectations of the behaiviour of blacks and women, and your moral fibre becomes no-ones to touch at all.
    You can't choose to be black or white or an artist or a man or a woman or gay or whatever, but you can choose to live true to what you have no choice in and die trying, or to live a lie and die having not tried.
     
  • edited 4:11AM
    SS - your posturing on the white and black position of art gives the likes of Richard Bell material to treat with the contempt it deserves - endless fuel for his vulgar one liners. This illustrates that maybe 5% for each onward sale, may not be such a good thing if it is to keep certain jokes alive and running.
  • edited 4:11AM
    I am an artist with black and white heritage and I am a lot of things that have funny names that people call me, but they can all wither away like autumn leaves. I am not posturing. I am simply telling you how it is for me.
  • edited 4:11AM
    SS - your heritage claim is irrelevant to this thread
    (but intriguing none the less - african + european?)

    This thread is about 5% for art on-selling
    And, if you are the artist you claim to be - presumably you would be happy about this
    As artists are remunerated less than landscape architects in this country

    And posturing is posturing.
  • edited October 2008
    My posture is fine. My left hand is Scots, my right hand is German and my arse is Indigenous Aussie. Guess what my posture is just now?
    This 5% thread is for art on selling. The query seemed to be that architecture didn't qualify as art and then the definition of art needed clarification and then the segue's ended up here. Go where you want to go, but I think Marks original excitment isn't missplaced. I think that resale of particularly 'branded' building buildings could include a fresh remuneration, though I can see a whole swag of problems administering it.
    Perhaps it should apply if the architects name is used in the re-sale promotions.
  • edited October 2008
    ................do I here 4% instead? Don't touch my Yellow Trace!
  • edited October 2008
    Alex Tzannes gets the % commission on every resale.
    has been for years.
    didn't need any legislation.

    people believe anything in sydney.

    @ SS.
    god made arseholes in one universal colour.
Sign In or Register to comment.