$200 per print from a pen plotter?
I'm sorry but unless each print is hand-drawn or something, then $200 is a bit much. Especially if there's masters sitting on a hard drive somewhere.
I'm sorry but unless each print is hand-drawn or something, then $200 is a bit much. Especially if there's masters sitting on a hard drive somewhere.
Can we get platinum editions with famous computer scientists (besides yourself, of course) playing Donkey Kong? I want the Don Knuth edition!
If this is the bazaar, maybe cathedrals ain't so bad...
Art is subjective, of course, and an artist is free to ask whatever they want for their work. I am unimpressed and probably not the target audience (as other comments allude).
So there is a very small market for these prints, and the artist can charge what they want because they won't really be making this a business anyway.
They'd probably buy several, frame them nicely and put them in an obvious place in their house. Then when they're entertaining a large VC or banking crowd someone will notice them and ask WTF they are and he'll have a nice story to explain them and how unique they are. Golf claps all around and my buddies will enjoy having something their other rich friends don't; and of course the short lived adoration of his dinner guests, which is almost better than money.
Intrinsic meaning the investment of individualized effort, which include what we might call "set up costs," and extrinsic meaning: can this artist command some multiplier based on their name?
$200 suggests a modest return on modest sales by an "unknown" whose work will be primarily valued by people with a personal interest in it.
$400 framed would be reasonable as well.
For art world definitions of "reasonable" of course :)
That is: I do think that so long as you assume someone isn't for more complicated or personal reasons distributing their work at a loss, there are really intrinsic costs... and hence arguably an intrinsic value. Assuming that your market agrees that you've done more than ruin the materials as materials.
BUT I agree with you, these costs are usually immaterial in most art world attributions of value. That is, who cares if a De Kooning consumed $400 in paint on a $400 canvas.
My interest was that in most industries, e.g. non-consumer hardware electronic goods, it's an industry standard to charge something on the order of 4:1 or 8:1 over the material costs, to account for all the less tangible costs: and provide a "healthy" profit which is liable to not also be so high as to invite competition.
In this case then it'd be expected that the cost of tangible material investment was around $25-50/work, which seems the right ballpark at least.
QED IMO anyway those drawings aren't "overpriced," quite the contrary. :)
Also, you should probably expect to pay more for the five seconds where Jumpman actually rescues Pauline.
Cool, he has an instrumented emulator, but really, does playing a retro game for five seconds have ANY intrinsic value beyond worthless nostalgia?
In art all that matters is creation and output. A piece of art should not have to come with an explanation or hidden information in order to justify its worth. While it is important to fuel inspiration and artistic experiences, it's a fucking joke that I am expected to pay extra for the "experience" that lead to producing the work when it has no value to me, and especially when said experience isn't as unique as it is being made out to be.
Out in the real world people will judge art way more harshly than I. Real artists don't mind that.
Aesthetically they are nice posters and art-pieces. It's just that some of us are unmoved by the accompanying story.
If it has no value to you, fine. You are free to critique, but calling someone else's work a 'fucking joke' is not exactly highbrow commentary. On the other hand, I'm sure as a real artist the author won't mind your comments at all.
If you are really buggered, compete.
Well, you are paying for the uniqueness. Doesn't sound too bad.