Fine Art- For Free!

July 29, 2006 1:10 PM

The Fine Art Adoption Networkworks to "place artworks by committed artists into deserving homes and institutions, as well as to offer a channel for new audiences for contemporary art. It is the intention of FAAN to engage art enthusiasts who never thought of themselves as art collectors, and to introduce them to the experience and pleasures of owning and caring for contemporary art." Amazing. via Gothamist
posted by ThePinkSuperhero (14 comments total)

I love this one.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:16 PM on July 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

Cool idea. Unfortunately, most of this art is quite bad.
posted by stenseng at 1:25 PM on July 29, 2006

(Check the stuff that's already been adopted).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:29 PM on July 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

Yikes! It really is bad. What's really weird is how conservative so much of it is. Many of these look like somehting you'd see hanging in a corporate lobby.

I like this:

http://www.fineartadoption.net/artworks/show/146
posted by Tuffy at 2:22 PM on July 29, 2006

Quite a nice little cartoon flower pic is adorned with these comments:

The artist, Heather Lowe, writes:

My wish came true. A complete stranger wants to adopt my work. I will let Leslie add more details, if she wants.
This is a favorite of mine and since it is so difficult to assign a monetary value, it's almost all or nothing (I am sure artists will understand this attitude.)
Anyway, her genuine interest makes me realize that it is going to a good home.
meow, meow, meow

This artwork has been adopted.

Er, meow? Hello, I'm human, and you?

I love this too:
The idea was to stare at the picture for about 40 seconds and look at a white wall to see the contrasting image.
So the original image is poor then?
posted by magpie68 at 4:22 PM on July 29, 2006

The art is mostly rubbish, and it's shocking that these people have been invited to contribute. What happens when it goes to open submissions? And have I missed something or is there anything in it for the artist? Should I sit tight and wait for "Adopt a BMW" or "Adopt a 42" television" where other people can toil to provide me with free stuff to enhance my lifestyle?
posted by fire&wings at 5:02 PM on July 29, 2006

The art is mostly rubbish, and it's shocking that these people have been invited to contribute. What happens when it goes to open submissions?

Wow, shocking, huh?

I'm always stunned when this is the only thing that people can come up with to say about a new art site. I mean, I'm glad to know that you so detest such a wide variety of work -- remind me not to visit any galleries with you.

Sure, there's a lot of stuff there that I'm not interested in. And I think it could be curated a bit better, to eliminate a few overtly bad pieces. Overall, though, I'm just happy to see some people trying something new, and it seems to be working.

And have I missed something or is there anything in it for the artist?

Exposure. #1 concern of most artists (yes, above and beyond money). Made abundantly clear on the "about" page.
posted by medialyte at 6:48 PM on July 29, 2006

Yikes! It really is bad. What's really weird is how conservative so much of it is. Many of these look like somehting you'd see hanging in a corporate lobby.

You know, it's really interesting that with art (moreso than most other fields I can think of) exposure is equated directly with [monetary] value. Coming from a family and community of working artists, I'd say that this is generally not the case. I feel that decreasing the implied value of art by "adopting" it does a disservice to the artist and doesn't do much to help the world of art collectors either. If this art were being donated to charity, that's one thing, but private collectors saying that they want artwork for free is not (iny my opinion) helping artists very much.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 7:27 PM on July 29, 2006

I think it's a good idea for gradstudent types who have a bunch of work they don't feel is up to snuff to sell outright, but they don't want destroyed and they don't want sitting around with them forever. Obviously, really good works will get sold.
posted by beerbajay at 3:28 AM on July 30, 2006

"One Art, please!"
posted by Eideteker at 8:09 AM on July 30, 2006

Interesting - artists have always done this (the usual euphamism is asking people to 'look after' work, ie getting to keep it forever on the understanding that it's available to the artist for future shows, &c.) but I like that this site is expanding the sphere of people getting to do the looking after.

That said, I like actually paying for the stuff: I have a few pieces bought at degree shows or from emerging artists and I like that I had the chance, albeit to a small degree, to contribute financially to the future practice of those artists (or at least keep them in food and booze for a few weeks!) and in one case persuade an artist who was disheartened after their degree show that they should continue working.

Also, I don't get the hating on the work up for adoption - a lot of it is really weak, but there's some great stuff in there. I bet that over the course of a few years you could adopt yourself a pretty decent collection of work. In fact, I just joined and am filling out an adoption questionaire right now!
posted by jack_mo at 9:33 AM on July 30, 2006

medialyte, I am a painter and I get exposure through my website and by exhibiting my paintings. I don't have to give them away for nothing to gain limited exposure on this website, in fact I often sell one or two doing it the traditional way. I would have absolutely no motivation for engaging in this project - not all artists are desperate people who will give away creations they have worked very hard on, for exposure. Not that much work went into a lot of this art. This idea has received the content it deserves - some of that stuff looks like leftovers and studio floor sweepings. By no means all bad though.
posted by fire&wings at 2:18 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]

OverlappingElvis said:

"decreasing the implied value of art by "adopting" it does a disservice to the artist and doesn't do much to help the world of art collectors either."

It's amazing how eagerly arts-and-hum folks embrace nonprofit programs that undercut the notion of objective standards. I used to work for a program that taught police officers and teenagers how to do improv. Needless to say, the results were not entertaining. Even so, I had to sit through countless public performances. At least I was getting a paycheck -- I'm not sure what the paying audience got out of it, except a sense of self-congratulation.

The art adoption thing is the same. Not only does it remove the closest thing to an objective measure of the art's worth -- its dollar value -- it puts the artists in the position of doing would-be collectors a favor.
posted by Tuffy at 9:25 PM on July 30, 2006

Just in case anyone is still watching this thread: I'm adopting a small sculpture, and the whole process has been fascinating - talking with the artist about why I want the work, where I'll place it in my flat, the other work it will be sitting near, &c. So, yeah, thanks, ThePinkSuperhero!
posted by jack_mo at 4:23 PM on August 8, 2006