I’m fascinated by how we all see things just a little bit differently from each other and this of course is very much the case with art. Everyone will respond to an artwork in their own unique and very personal way, which is influenced by likes and dislikes, past experiences, knowledge etc. I wanted to find a way to tap into this and then somehow enable the viewers to engage with artwork in new ways and to easily leave their own interpretations and comments for others to read, think about, discuss etc.
Mission accomplished: With the help of Augmented Reality my new paintings can be scanned with a smartphone to be “brought to life”, also enabling viewers to upload their own ideas and interpretations of the artwork for others to enjoy... or debate. Read what others have said about these paintings or make your own contribution. Whether you leave behind a few words, a short story or your very own epic novel, I’m looking forward to your imaginative pieces! Find out more about writing your own story or view the picture gallery to begin.
"An artist is not paid for his labour but for his vision." ~ James Whistler
Pricing your art can be a bit of a minefield, especially at the beginning of one’s career, and it’s very easy to get it wrong. Below is a list of things to think about when pricing your work. After going over these suggestions feel free to continue on to the story of James Whistler suing the art critic John Ruskin for libel after Ruskin slated one of his paintings and the amount Whistler was charging for it. Did Whistler get his pricing wrong? I don’t know; but it's quite the sad story either way.
10 things to think about when pricing your artwork:
The Ruskin trial
In 1877 Whistler sued the critic John Ruskin for libel after the critic condemned his painting Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket. Whistler exhibited the work in the Grosvenor Gallery, an alternative to the Royal Academy exhibition. While Ruskin had been a champion of the Pre-Raphaelites and J. M. W. Turner, he wrote a scathing review of Whistler's work in his publication Fors Clavigera on July 2, 1877.
For Mr Whistler's own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into his gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of willful imposture. I have seen, and heard, much of Cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face. ~ John Ruskin
Whistler, seeing the attack in the newspaper, replied to his friend George Boughton, "It is the most debased style of criticism I have had thrown at me yet." He then went to his solicitor and drew up a writ for libel which was served to Ruskin. Whistler hoped to recover £1,000 plus the costs of the action. The case came to trial the following year after delays caused by Ruskin's bouts of mental illness, while Whistler's financial condition continued to deteriorate. The lawyer for John Ruskin, Attorney General Sir John Holker, cross examined Whistler:
Holker: "What is the subject of Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket?"
Whistler had counted on many artists to take his side as witnesses, but they refused fearing damage to their reputations. With Ruskin's witnesses more impressive and with Ruskin absent for medical reasons, Whistler's counter-attack was ineffective. Nonetheless, the jury reached a verdict in favour of Whistler, but awarded a mere farthing in nominal damages, and the court costs were split. The cost of the case, together with huge debts from building his residence bankrupted Whistler, resulting in an auction of his work, collections, and house.