What Happens to the Winning Entry?
Open Water No. 24 by Ran Ortner (background) and Field of Reeds by John Douglas Powers (foreground). Photo by Brian Kelly
As mentioned in the rules for ArtPrize 2010, the winning entry will become part of the ArtPrize Collection. Naturally, this raises some questions.
What is the ArtPrize collection?
The collection is a tangible way for ArtPrize to be invested in the long term cultural value of the winning works. The works that win form a symbiotic relationship with ArtPrize (it’s hard to remember ArtPrize 2009 without also remembering the image above). The collection is a way to ensure that this relationship is a positive one for the artist, ArtPrize, and the community in the long term.
The collection is very small at the moment (consisting of a single painting), but as ArtPrize continues, the collection will grow.
When and where will the collection be able to be seen by the public?
We currently don’t have our own exhibition space. We’ll loan pieces to reputable institutions, the way a museum manages its collection. In fact, we’re already doing that. Ran Ortner’s Open Water #24, is currently on loan to the Grand Rapids Art Museum.
What happens to the copyright of the winning entries?
This is a tricky question, and one that we approached with a lot of thought and research. We’ve decided to model our approach after our friends and neighbors at Frederik Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park. The copyright of the winning work is transferred to ArtPrize, but the transfer is non-exclusive. While we gain the ability to reproduce images of the work for promotional or educational purposes, the artist also retains those same rights.
What can ArtPrize do with those rights?
ArtPrize will have the ability to use the image of the winning work in promotional material, including items such as posters or books that could be offered for sale. Understandably, this could be a concern for some artists worried about merchandise that would cheapen the image of the work. We’ll work with the winning artists to ensure that any use of this copyright will maintain the integrity of the work.
ArtPrize will not permit the production of anything that would negatively affect the image of the collection. The purpose of the collection is to have a positive long term effect on the artist, ArtPrize and the community.
What happens in the event that the winning art or a portion of it is perishible? I do intend to enter ArtPrize with a cinderella like carriage, the carriage frame and horse to pull it will be sculpted from wood but the frame will be topped with a 1000 pound plus giant pumpkin which will also be sculpted to create the total concept. The pumpkin will only last from one to three weeks before rotting. What happens then? Thank you so much, Ed Moody
ArtPrize fully recognizes that in collecting contemporary art, there will inevitably be complicated variables. We’ll work out exactly what transferring ownership of the winning piece means on a case by case basis.
An artist should NEVER give up their copyright with the sale of their work. Unless one is working commercially or their work is created in-house as a function of their employment, the copyright is always negotiated separately. A non-exclusive transfer is okay temporarily – as long as there is h an expiration date of that copyright – say five years out, max. This is reasonable. ArtPrize ‘sharing’ rights to the work forever, is NOT.
The current ArtPrize group promises certain things regarding merchandising, but who is to say that won’t change five or ten years down the road, should ArtPrize continue as an event? With new people at the reigns come new ideas of what is in good taste, financial needs change and the commercialization of ArtPrize could happen. There is NO guarantee to the artist that their work won’t be pimped in a way that does nothing for their own reputation or pocketbook.
The artist should retain the right to their own image for financial gain, ArtPrize should only have the right to use the image for promotion, and for a limited time.
If the winning artist decides to make quality giclee prints of their winning work for sale out of their own pocketbook, does ArtPrize get a cut? Or do these rules prohibit the artist from such secondary use of their own images? ArtPrize indicates the artist can use their side of the non-exclusion copyright for their own promotion, but what else can the artist do under this agreement? And does ArtPrize have to okay it and vice-versa? If the image is used in a book authorized by ArtPrize, and the book sells, does the artist get paid for the use of the image? Who profits from it? There are just too many questions and the format leaves too much control to an entity, not the artist on whose back this event gets made or broken.
As far as the winning piece be handed over as a condition of winning the top prize – I’d like to know how ArtPrize will handle matters if the bronze living statue wins this year. The requirement is problematic and stating that ArtPrize will handle these issues piece by piece is just going to piss people off. It just won’t work, so don’t get greedy, ArtPrize. Negotiate everything separately and let the prize money stand on its own.
ArtPrize recognizes the skepticism out there because of our newness and sudden popularity. We have made, and continue to make, every effort to follow the protocol of established, reputable arts institutions in regards to acquiring a piece for our permanent collection, which is the protocol laid out in the post above.
Mr. Moore,
I don’t doubt what you say, however, are you following the protocol of INSTITUTIONS or the protocol of other COMPETITIONS? I DO doubt if, in just its second year, anyone yet views ArtPrize as an institution. It seems ludicrous to understand ArtPrize as an institution on the level, say, of Meijer Gardens. How does ArtPrize justify that characterization and further, artists deserve to know exactly what protocol you are following. Just saying it is so doesn’t make it legitimate. Thank-you.
Oh, and I just want to add, your ‘answer’ answers nothing about my concerns. It addresses acquisition, not copyrights.
Well, this certainly puts a monkey wrench into whether I submit or do not submit my piece. I’ve been working on it for 2 years with the intent of giving it to someone.
Please know, I understand and appreciate your rule changes. I probably will not be entering it (unfortunately). This piece was created for someone whose influence and inspiration exceeds (actually, doesn’t even equate) the monetary value of $250,000. Which is a very difficult thing to say considering I’m a single mother of three children. Call me stupid….
All the best with this year’s Art Prize!!!!
Nicole
Wow – there are some bitter ungrateful people posting in this section. I think Jane Vanderlaan needs an ego check. Who is this person to tell Artprize how to run their competition or to speak for other artists ? Over 1700 artists apparently find the rules and guidelines to be acceptable or they would not participate. Many artists in Artprize 2010 have come from other countries and continents to participate. The handful of them that I have spoken with are grateful for the opportunity and experience. It was a logistical challenge for them to get their work into the U.S. in order to participate. From what I have seen, Artprize continues to evolve with the input from those who get involved. They seem to be very respectful of the artists and their work. I would encourage Jane to participate next year and enter one of her coloring book pictures. If the crayola piece wins first prize then worry about the details of copyrighting, merchandising, etc. The real prize might just be the experience, not the cash prize.
Clearly, Jeff with no last name, misses the point. Ego has nothing to do with my comments. Encouraging artists to protect their hard work, does. Like many people who participate in critical discourse, my thoughts are not based on bitterness nor am I an ungrateful person by nature.
Many, many professional artists are of the same opinion as I. That they don’t offer them here is no surprise, when getting clobbered by stupidity happens so often, by people who do so anonymously. I’ll bet many of the artist who entered, did so not understanding or being aware of the rule changes. So glad Jeff based his opinions on speaking to a handful of artists. A handful.
Artprize does many things well. A great many. Removing the rights of the artist to the winning work is not one of them.
Jeff’s encouragement to participate in Artprize and his characterization of what I would choose to enter is uninformed and childish. It adds nothing to his argument, except to paint his opinion as one that can be easily dismissed.
Ah! Another click and there it is. Good. Thank-you.
A solipsist is incapable of participating in critical discourse. That is why they are lonely, sad and bitter. It’s great that Artprize has this website where people can get information about Artprize. It is unfortunate that someone would use it as a platform to feel self-important.