Add Extra Value To Your Art Work - Part One

Hello everyone! I just want to say again thank you for your patience and for viewing my blog! I greatly appreciate it! I hope you enjoy this blog and other blogs coming in the near future. Happy Reading!!!!!


There are several things that you might not have thought of, that add extra value to your artwork and can make it worth more money when you come to sell it. I'm not talking here about reworking pieces you feel haven't come up to scratch. Yes, it is sometimes possible to rescue a less than perfect watercolor by using a pen and ink technique, and you can paint right over parts of an oil or acrylic painting to in effect completely rework the area, but here I am talking about techniques that don't involve changing your artwork in any way.

Sometimes you only need to put a cardboard mount around a painting to bring it out of the doldrums, and there is no doubt that the right mount and frame can do wonders for a slightly mediocre piece of art. For a sculpture, or a piece of ceramics, the right stand and appropriate lighting can make a big difference to the way it displays, but after you've made sure that your artwork is being displayed to its best what else can you do to add to its worth?

The first and most important thing you should do is make sure that your artwork is signed legibly. It's surprising how many people forget to sign their art, but it makes a big difference to the buyer. A signed piece of work is worth more money than an unsigned one, and it doesn't matter whether you sign it on the front, at the top or bottom, within the composition, or even on the back, just as long as you sign it. If you have an illegible signature spare a thought for future generations trying to make out what it says and wondering whether they have a piece by a famous artist. The first thing almost everybody wants to know about any piece of artwork is who made it, what's the name of the artist. If it's unsigned it's almost as though you didn't rate it enough to put your name to it, and if you don't rate it no one else will either.

The second thing you need to do, in order to add value to your art, is to give it a title. Now, some people don't like titling their work because they feel that it pigeonholes it and in some way restricts the viewer to seeing it within a particular set of conceptual boundaries, so if you are one of these people then you should really consider calling it 'Untitled'. Even with the title that says 'Untitled', a piece of work is worth more money than if it doesn't have a title at all. Artwork without a title leaves the potential buyer wondering whether perhaps it had a title once that has been lost, it leaves the buyer with an unanswered question and means they are less likely to buy it and more likely to move on to another piece instead.

Along with the title, your artwork would benefit from a short explanation about it. The more a buyer knows about a piece of work the more likely they are to buy it. If you think about it by putting yourself in the buyer's shoes for a moment, if you're faced with two pieces of work which are similar and you like them both, but you know nothing about one and quite a lot about the other, which one would you buy? Of course you would be much more likely to buy a piece of artwork that had information about it, because you'd feel more involved with it, you'd understand something about its history and about the person that created it, so it has more meaning for you and you feel a connection with it right from the start.

The short explanation or description about your piece of art can say whatever you want it to, there are no rules, but it's useful to tell people either what it's about or what it means to you. One thing you don't want to do is tell people what it should mean to them, the viewer or buyer of your artwork wants to be able to decide for themselves what the piece means to them, and it doesn't matter if it's something entirely different from what it means to you.

Most people buying artwork do like to know what it was you meant as you created it, or what drove you to create the piece the way it is. This can mean telling them something about you, your thought processes as you were beginning and working through the piece, or maybe what was going on in your life at the time you were creating this piece of art. You might decide to tell them about something you'd seen or heard that affected you in a particular way and that prompted you to express something specific with this particular medium. You might be telling them that this particular piece of art is one of a collection from your 'blue period', or your 'impressionistic landscape period', or whatever.

If you don't really want to give this information away, then perhaps instead you could describe the medium you have used, the particular techniques you've employed in using this medium and even the length of time it took you to create the piece. Really any information you give about the piece is better than no information at all, and it doesn't matter whether the potential buyer understands your concept or not, it still makes it more attractive to them to know that there was an intention of one sort or another behind the original idea.

Why Art And Science Are More Closely Related Than You Think

Hey everyone! Thanks for taking time out of your day to read my articles. I greatly appreciate it! in the future, I will be publishing step-by-step articles for the basics, advanced, special occasions, and  more! Enjoy the article and have a fabulous day (summer for some)

Happy Reading!!!!!


Quora , CONTRIBUTOR

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

(Image: Creative Commons)

Has an art ever become a science? originally appeared on Quora - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights.

Answer by Dave Featherstone, Professor of Biology and Neuroscience, on Quora:

Science = art. They are the same thing.

Both science and art are human attempts to understand and describe the world around us. The subjects and methods have different traditions, and the intended audiences are different, but I think the motivations and goals are fundamentally the same.


I think one of the most primitive innate needs of humans is to understand the world around us, and then share that understanding.

We need to understand because we are terrified by things that are unpredictable, that don't make sense. I don't care how crazy you say you are, how much you think you like adventure. Unpredictability and senselessness are stressful. They drive people to suicide. It happens in war. It happens as a result of neurological diseases like schizophrenia. Scary movies are all about unpredictability and things that just cannot be real. We crave order. We crave predictability.

We share because we are social creatures. The success and failure of others is meaningful. We are bound up in this world together. All in the same boat, so to speak. Thus, when we have information, we like to share it. Even if it's trivial. Who doesn't gossip? Who doesn't like to be the bearer of news? Who doesn't like to show off some new insight? Everyone loves to talk about themselves, share their viewpoint, make their opinion heard. Quora and Facebook and telephones and books and movies are all about sharing our points of view and seeing the world through another's eyes and experiences.

At this point, I could make up some evolutionary 'just so story' about how sharing our perceptions with others made us successful as a species. And you would like it, because it would make sense. And you would like it because I shared it. And we would all feel good about it, even though it's complete nonsense that I just pulled out of my ass.

So ... does that make it science or art?

It doesn't matter. Both artists and scientists strive to see the world in new ways, and to communicate that vision. **

When they are successful, the rest of us suddenly 'see' the world differently. Our 'truth' is fundamentally changed.

Both scientists and artists with nothing new to reveal are failures. Scientists and artists who cannot communicate their insights are failures. It takes both skills to make a successful scientist or artist. Scientists who can communicate but have nothing new to say are frauds and hype-sters. Artists with new views of the world but who cannot communicate them effectively are crackpot fringies.

Scientists tend to struggle more gaining the new insights. Artists tend to struggle more with the communication. Both often work hard to gain the background and skills that will help them be successful. That's why there are prestigious schools of science and art.

Scientists do experiments over and over and over, trying to pin down some new aspect of reality. Once they have their new understanding, there are pre-arranged traditional modes of communication that make that part easier.

Artists often start with the new vision, then work through 'periods' in which they explore how best to get the message across. They have shows. They seek feedback to help them understand what works.

Artists and scientists often need to invent new concepts and technologies to accomplish their goals.

Both science and art have useful spin-offs. Applied science is technology. Applied art is decoration. Technology and decoration are applications of science and art for practical purposes. Technology and decoration make life easier. But they don't change how we fundamentally perceive what is around us. Science and art do.

Art = science.

** I used visual art analogies, but I think this is true for any art medium, including music, written word, spoke word, dance, mathematics, and cooking.

This question originally appeared on Quora - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:​

Science: Is there a "right side up" in space?
Fine Art: What are some of the greatest wildlife photos?
Life: What is the best habit you've taken up from another person?

Abstract Art And The Spirit 1

Hey there fellow artists! Thanks for visiting my blog and you are welcome anytime.

It has been a long and raging argument that the abstract expressionists of the 50's, 60's and 70's were very busy contemplating their own navels and trying to find the "zen" in everything they did. 

I would argue that they were in fact just one very important example of the hungry sleep-drugged soul seeking a way to be heard. However, many artists of those times, and indeed today, would flatly deny anything remotely to do with spiritual things - or worse still - religious things.

Take, for instance, one of my favorites - Mark Rothko. This tragic artist committed himself to the task of producing massive canvases with many vaguely resembling the outline of a window - especially an after image once the eye has closed. His vast expanses of color seemed to hunt out a corner or edge in a desperate attempt to complete or conclude, the picture. Not satisfied with that he went on to give up titling his work saying that he did not want to influence the onlooker in any way. Ironically he failed ... and sadly took his own life. For me, his works speak of wonderful tantalizing clues visually demonstrating the struggling spirit seeking (and succeeding!) in revealing herself - now that is real influence! Let me explain by an apparently unrelated route:

I seek to assist my own spirit in attempting to make manifest even the tiniest, most pathetic, weakest fact that the spirit in us all is not only just trying to communicate with us - but is in fact actively seeking to set the whole human balance right ... which is the spirit leading the mind and body back to her source - not the other way round - the mind and body leading the blinded soul to ... well, eventually death.

Not so long ago I came across the writings of Meister Eckhart, a fourteenth-century Christian mystic. His words amazed me. He described in his many sermons what he believed to be the truth as to why we are here. He also revealed many tantalizing "images" of the spirit from the least angelic being right up to God Himself. His descriptions were ... how can I put it simply? ... abstract!

In one of his sermons, he described God as ... "unknowable" ... "not able to be understood" ... "undefinable". In another, he made a statement (one of many which may have contributed to him being accused of heresy!) "People say God exists ... God does not exist ... " left out of context that would be a truly blasphemous assertion. But he went on to say that "... God is far greater ... God is beyond existence". These and many other controversial sayings have impressed me so much that I have come to "see" God as an abstract entity - not, I hasten to add, an anarchic abstract form - but rather a God far more powerful, far greater - than I can imagine ... in other words totally undefinable. Rather than this putting a distance between me and God, it has done exactly the opposite. And when Eckhart began to describe the life of Christ in an almost completely abstract way - Eckhart said that Christ's life was the greatest example of the seeking and finding the uncreated source of the pure soul - my imagination began to run like a film of frenzied obscure visuals. Eckhart has become, to me, the patron saint of abstract artists.

The beauty of Eckhart's enigmatic words is intensely inspiring. What better way to illustrate his poetic writings than to describe Gods "isness" in the very basic form of a gigantic flat area of one saturated color untainted by anything else. Strangely enough, this could be part of an exact description from one of Rothko's immense, sometimes almost monochromatic, paintings.

But this is by no means the whole story ... one of Eckhart's contradictions said that on the one hand, God is totally unapproachable, yet at the same time, God is actually very, very approachable ...

However, that is another article...

Be sure to tune in next week because I will be sharing advice for 
the art lover's who are just beginning their journey in this wonderful and exciting world of art.

Hope to see you soon and thanks again for stopping by!

A Look At The Crystal Bridges Museum of Art

*Hello everyone! I would love to say thank you so much these past few months and that I'm truly sorry for the delay! Here is an interesting articles that you can to your hearts content. Be sure to stay tuned this Wednesday for the article Art and the Spirit 1. I sincerely hope you enjoy this one the next one to come. Happy Reading!!!!!*

Hey there fellow artists! I wanted to share some info on the Arkansas based state of the art museum Crystal Bridges with information on opening dates and works on display. I really hope you enjoy!

Some critics might say Jasper Cropseys The Backwoods of America, part of the Crystal Bridges growing American Art Collection, is a symbolic icon for billionaire Alice Waltons passion for the arts.

Designed by world-renowned architect Moshe Safdie, and funded by billionaire Alice Walton, the 50 million dollars that is just the cost of the facility and does not include the artworks Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art opened in 2009, in Bentonville, Arkansas. It was two years ago this month that the daughter of Sam Walton, Founder of Wal-Mart, made the controversial announcement.

The museum was to house a permanent collection of signature works from American artists along with galleries dedicated to regional art and artists including Native American art, but oddly enough, this monumental task is not making everyone happy.

The depth of the museum is indicated in a purchase from Christies America's auction house in New York City in 2004 of Charles Wilson Peales portrait of George Washington for $6.1 million. This is causing some critics to puff up, believing that the artworks are being snatched from their own backyard. No need to worry, collaborating with other institutions will be an important focus of Crystal Bridges, even before the museum opens, and they can also rest easy to know Bentonville does have an airport.

A number of the works from the Crystal Bridges permanent collection are already on loan at various museums throughout the United States including The Hudson River School masterwork Kindred Spirits which was loaned to The National Gallery in Washington, D.C. for public viewing from 2005 - 2007. It is currently on loan to the Brooklyn Museums exhibition by the same name featuring the works of Asher B. Durand. The same exhibition will also travel to Washington D.C. and San Diego.

Thomas Eakins Portrait of Professor Benjamin H. Rand is currently on loan to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Jasper Cropsey's majestic depiction of early American frontier life, The Backwoods of America, is now featured in the American galleries of The Nelson-Atkins in Kansas City, and the most extensive surviving group of Colonial American portraiture, the Levy-Franks family paintings, is currently on loan at The Jewish Museum in New York City. Also, the distinctive painting George Washington (The Constable-Hamilton Portrait) by the American painter Gilbert Stuart is currently on view at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston.

While the puffers puff, others admire Waltons passion and dedication to the arts and recognize the fact Crystal Bridges will be the premier American Art Collection, once it is in place. The collection is headed up by Bob Workman, formerly associated with the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth, Texas.

When completed, the museum complex will encompass approximately 100,000 square feet of gallery, library, meeting, and office space, a 250-seat indoor auditorium, areas for outdoor concerts and public events, gallery rooms suitable for large receptions, as well as sculpture gardens and walking trails. Walton is building this American Dream on 100 pristine, wooded acres her family owns in Bentonville.

If you are evver in the Arkansa area, visit the museum. I would love to get your feedback.
Hey thanks guys for the visit and I hope to see you again soon!