5 ms·
Inversion Art is trying to become the YC of the arts world
- collegeburner 3y ago...isn't this just a techbro restatement of how many art dealers operate? full article is paywalled but gagosian seems to have grown big enough people ignore the primary market and how it promotes artist discovery. this is not necessarily to say it's a bad idea or that modernization is unwarranted but it's not quite as revolutionary as they think
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- foobiekr 3y agobasically, someone in tech trying to crapify another adjacency amazing that the rest of the culture doesn't think tech people are skeevy
- highwayman47 3y ago> amazing that the rest of the culture doesn't think tech people are skeevy They do
- foobiekr 3y agoI was being facetious. The only thing amazing is how few tech people understand how close the industry is to the people involved becoming pariahs.
- coldcode 3y agoAssumes an artist has existing success, so they only want people who already don't need them much, unlike YC which often takes on people with no existing business.
- swayvil 3y agoI noticed that too. I know a lot of artists. None of them make 50K off their art. 10K is amazing. So hmm.
- paulddraper 3y ago10K is respectable not amazing... If you have the money and time to do summer art festivals
- stubish 3y agoWhat are summer art festivals? I suspect you are advocating that artists become performers, entertainers or sales people in addition to the 'making art' bit. But I don't think we have that sort of festival over here so do not know.
- paulddraper 3y agoFestivals, shows, fairs, farmer markets, etc. There are a tons of these throughout the US, depending on weather and time of year. Some examples: https://www.artfaircalendar.com/art_fair/west-coast-art-fairs.html https://www.artfaircalendar.com/art_fair/west-coast-art-fair... Top-of-line, you can make quite of bit from these + commissions that come from them. Though turning a significant profit is a lot harder. > I suspect you are advocating that artists become performers, entertainers or sales people in addition to the 'making art' bit. Yes on the sales part. Making art without selling it won't get you much revenue. Yes, there are galleries or co-ops that in theory can do your distribution...but in practice that's very fickle.
- pavlov 3y agoI don’t think this “YC of the art world” program is trying to target artists who sell their work at fairs and farmer markets. That’s a very different scene from career-oriented contemporary art. It would be like applying to YC on the basis that you’re good at computers and a lot of people call you up to fix their Windows installations. That can be a profitable skill, but it’s not what YC is looking for.
- willmeyers 3y agoFrom their about page (https://www.inversionart.com https://www.inversionart.com): Who Is Eligible? artists who consistently earn at least $50,000 in income from their practice but on average $100,000 or more promising early-career artists who are gaining institutional recognition and commercial traction mid-career artists who are looking to make changes in their practice or professional situations artists who want to scale their studio (or post-studio) operation but don't yet have the capital or know-how to do so artists who understand the importance of defining goals and planning to achieve them artists of ambition, generosity, and intelligence artists who want to define their own success and have leverage over their own careers
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thro2way 3y ago[dead]
- eschneider 3y agoI've done this sort of artist support work in the past (it's something of a family trade) and it's hard to tell if these folks are clueless about what artists need or if this is a straight-up scam. The "here, you can use our lawyers" "service" is just flashing red flags.
- highwayman47 3y agoI don’t disagree with you, but why is this a red flag specifically?
- eschneider 3y agoInversion's interests and the artist's interests aren't always aligned. Think of it as a founder using their VC's lawyer for everything. Not. Smart.
- mighmi 3y agoWhat do artists actually need?
- beezlebroxxxxxx 3y agoAccess to patrons, good representation, good publicity, good exhibitions and gallery showings, good sales. "Good" here, of course, means more like "important and to the right people." That's if they want it as a career. To go at it like a career is really to become something of an actor or a professional athlete. If not as a career, then mostly mentorship, access to a studio space, financial support for supplies, and free time.
- earbitscom 3y agoWe do not offer artists to use "our lawyers". We have engaged a law firm that specializes in working with artists to help them with contracts and consultations on IP law, etc. They represent the artists' interests and we simply pay the bill. We do not support litigation and the lawyers do not advise them on their agreement with us. In the event that the artist has legal issues which could be a conflict with Inversion, they would be referred to another law firm to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest. If you look at our board of advisors, you'll see that we have top artists, top business people, respected gallerists, curators, and studio directors, all of whom know plenty about what artists need. Every single one of them has an incredible reputation and supports Inversion because they believe in both the mission and that we founders have integrity about our approach to achieving it.
- Rodeoclash 3y agoI don't think this is it but I love the idea that billionaires would invest more money directly back into art and artists. In Australia we have David Walsh who made a lot of money in somewhat ...dubious means, but has invested what he has made back into "MONA" – Museum of Old and New Art in Tasmania and made it available for everyone to enjoy.
- user_named 3y agoThat model is far more applicable. Buy an artists works or set up a foundation and give grants. In the process it provides exposure that builds the artist's brand.
- earbitscom 3y agoInversion founder here. We invest by buying artists' work. One of the reasons they work with us is they are tired of relying on grants, which sometimes take weeks to apply for and can provide as little as $1k in funding. They are entrepreneurs running high-earning studios and they are tired of being looked at as charity cases. Given the people on our board, being involved with our company definitely adds to their brand.
- nmfisher 3y agoThe money he made was above board, the tax that he failed to pay was the real issue.
- user_named 3y agoYou cannot apply the logic of tech vc on cultural production. Artists don't need studio management services. They need a profile in NYT. If you actually gave them a gallerist and a dedicated pro agent, then yeah that could launch some careers. But that would need to be non public information, because that type of manufacture goes against authenticity. Art is nothing more than branding and social connections. Absolutely nothing more.
- jrsdav 3y ago> Art is nothing more than branding and social connections. Absolutely nothing more. Do you mean, in the context of pursuing art as a profession? Or just generally? Curious to learn more.
- user_named 3y agoIn terms of gaining success. Artists are chosen by galleries, media reporters based on their story, ie their brand, and how the could be represented to clients, readers. Is there anything interesting to be said or are they just another mfa graduate? That's why you see the crazy antics of ie a urinal as an artwork, taping a banana to the wall, and the insane art writing that come with an artwork. A piece of art is not bought for its craftsmanship or what it looks like. It is bought because of the story of the artist, the fact that other people know the artists story, so hanging it on your wall means something. It is part of culture. A Picasso is worth a lot because of its part of art history.
- yieldcrv 3y agoMy kneejerk reaction was agreement with you But looking at their website, they’re mainly trying to add some much needed standardization in how to deal with artists and its totally fine for them to burn their own capital to do that the friction they are trying to solve is how to close a deal better artists frequently aspire to make money, and are wholly unprepared on how to. these are the people running around worried that venmo is going to snitch on them for taxes, a concept that requires complete segregation from being a merchant with any semblance of organization this trickles down into other things, is this commission work for hire, does the commissioner or buyer own it? for existing pieces, what? and many other issues that can completely wreck a deal just by presenting a contract to an artist at all so they want to incorporate all the artists and give them legal counsel and CPAs, and then their network this is logical, it might not work out for this firm. one way to make it more likely to work out is getting a Techcrunch article and people discussing it. the artists will reach out themselves.
- d--b 3y agoOk, the website looks totally ridiculous, but this kind of patronship have existed since artists are a thing, so it’s not completely out of whack. It’s a bit of a mixture between an art residency program and an art gallery. Residencies usually provide a place to live/work for a given period of time, as well as some social circle (fellow artists, curators, collectors) for the artists to meet, and sometimes some money. They usually are charities and artists don’t give them anything. Galleries usually provide upfront money to produce work as well as connections to collectors and a place to show their work and take a cut in futures sales. The main issue is that the art world is allergic to the language these guys use, so they’ll likely attract not-so-good artists and may not be able to connect artists with the people who actually matter in the art world. Also giving artists 30% of what they earned the year before is a really bad idea: 1. Because artists’ income is very unstable, so people won’t apply if they had a bad previous year. 2. And because it’s not life changing. An artist who earns 50k will be happy to get 15k, But it’s not going to allow him to invest heavily in his art. An artist who earns 300k is already well established and doesn’t need those funds really to produce whatever they want. Also 3 months is very short. My guess is that these guys will attract early-retired-tech-millionaires-turned artists, who aren’t turned down by the language, and who sell stuff to early-retired-tech-millionaire-turned-art-collectors. Expect a lot of AI-based work!
- user_named 3y ago>The main issue is that the art world is allergic to the language these guys use, so they’ll likely attract not-so-good artists and may not be able to connect artists with the people who actually matter in the art world. Exactly. No proper fine artist will be part of this because it would be embarrassing.
- earbitscom 3y agoSee my comment above. We are already working with seven highly regarded artists. Their works are in the collections at The Whitney, MoMA, LACMA, SFMOMA, the Smithsonian, etc.
- earbitscom 3y ago
- killjoywashere 3y agoModern art exists for the rich. They use it for mind games with their colleagues and to launder money. If you can figure out how to scale the production of money-laundering schemes without being an auction house, LMK.
- roomey 3y agoIt would be more true to say art is paid for by the rich. It isn't specifically for the rich. Most art is about reflecting aspects of people's lives, the artists mostly. Often this view is an extreme close up, so to an observer or viewer it looks like something else entirely. Most artists aren't rich, so their art isn't really about being rich. Getting paid for by the rich, well, it has been this way looooong time before modern art, see the Medici Family for example.
- motoxpro 3y agoHere is another article without the paywall https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/tech-accelerator-for-artists-inversion-art-1234671996/ https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/tech-accelerator-for-a...
- roomey 3y agoGood art isn't defined by how much people will pay for it. That is fashion. Some artists are lucky, some are good at kissing ass and schmoozing, some are very talented and are recognised by people with money. But that is all fashion. If you want to buy some art, see some new stuff, or ask questions, find your nearest art college and go to the end of year show. The only problem if you will have to decide yourself what you like!
- imgabe 3y agoBeing successful as an artist has very little to do with making good art. It's much more about getting picked up by one of the handful of major galleries that will promote you to collectors as the new "hot" artist.
- gilleain 3y agoThere's a talk by Albert-László Barabási about this : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RfgjHoVCZwU&pp=ygUUYmFyYWJhc2kgYXJ0IG5ldHdvcms%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RfgjHoVCZwU&pp=ygUUYmFyYWJhc2k... "The hidden networks of everything" (7-8mins)
- roomey 3y agoWell it depends what you mean by successful. If you mean earning a lot of money by selling art, then yes, it's all about playing the game, and who you know. The vast majority of artists don't do this, many make a living through more regular jobs like teaching for example, and the art is a passion project. For many, having to make a living from their work would spoil their reason for doing it in the first place even!
- _glass 3y agoWell, art is just embedded into society, akin to is JavaScript the best programming language. Art means the art market. A lot of art, like performance art, is really a hard sell. That's why painting is still thriving. But there is also the correlation of that if some artist gets famous in art circles because of the quality buyers will want to play cool and buy stuff. Another complication is that there are two types of artists, a very small percentage that sells well, and then there are the ones that just live from the next art residence, to the next Biennial. The latter are plenty and not really commercial in the first place, because committees are deciding. If this is then the same as your personal taste is questionable. Bonding with artists and supporting them is most likely the best way to go, as you implied.
- earbitscom 3y agoHey all, Inversion founder here. Nice to see some interest in what we're doing. Given the TC paywall and other misconceptions about how the art world and Inversion work, I thought I'd clear a few things up. There are many different types of artists and many routes to success and monetization. We are initially focused on fine art because you cannot start out in other artistic fields and then be taken seriously by the fine art world. Also, the appreciating potential of fine art creates a VC-like opportunity, where a small handful out of 1,000 works will achieve unicorn multiples and return the whole fund many times over. We added an income sharing component to reduce our risk, but also to finance the offering of services that artists desperately need. As artists achieve some success, the burdens of the studio become increasingly more difficult to manage. Things like invoicing, contract review, exhibition logistics, shipping, insurance, hiring assistants, managing payroll, etc., are all a distraction from their creative work, and most artists are not good at managing their business affairs. There are many, many companies that try to help brand new artists achieve sales, etc., but there are no scalable companies which help artists who are already making sales bridge the gap between earning a living and making enough money to hire a full time, competent studio director - to say nothing of hiring accountants, tax professionals, lawyers, etc. Our goal when starting out was to invest in artists under a YC-inspired model. Right now, their only options for funding are mostly grants, which are time consuming and often provide very small amounts. The most equitable way to invest in contemporary fine artists is to simply buy a significant amount of work and hold onto it. Taking an equity stake in their studio would not be of interest to them, and there would be no liquidity events. So, we buy work and that is our "equity". On that work, we pay them a 10% resale royalty, donate 10% of our profits to charity, and other guarantees that are far more generous than 99% of collectors. After many conversations with artists, it was clear that they are hamstrung by operations as much as they are by funding. Investing in them and letting them make terrible business decisions, or waste hours each week managing their own invoicing, would be a bad investment strategy. So, we added the studio management services as part of the value we bring. In the VC world, that's called Platform, and most great VCs provide some services to their portfolio in this way. We also needed to have an income sharing component to reduce risk, and offering services during the income sharing period ensures that artists are still seeing value as they pay back our investment. Eventually, we hope to offer programs for commercial artists and other types of artists, but for now the unique dynamic of fine art appreciation and the branding requirements to enter the fine art market make that our beachhead market. We focus on artists whose work is likely to appreciate, which is a narrow group and requites solid traction to identify. We already have 7 artists we're working with. Their works are in most of the prestigious US art museums (The Met, the Whitney, LACMA, MoMA, SFMOMA, The Smithsonian, the Guggenheim, and others). Some of them earn our $50k minimum, or less in cases where we made an exception, and others earn very solid six-figure incomes. We have been providing all kinds of services to them - exhibition logistics including communication, creating 3d models of exhibition spaces to ensure proper installation, arranging shipping, and contracting with past collectors to borrow works, filing insurance claims for work damaged in transit, responding to inbound sales inquiries with marketing materials and invoices, monthly accounting reconciliation, and tax consultations, securing coverage by critics and publications, contract management, editorial direction for high profile grant applications, and contract enforcement. These artists have joined us because we are super transparent about our model and our goals, and because our advisory board is highly regarded. They also join us only after 3+ conversations with our founding team, and sometimes after we have provided value to them before they even joined. We supported some of our artists for many months for free before we asked them to sign any agreement. It seems most people in this thread don't really understand how the fine art world or our company operates, or how artists' careers tend to progress, but that's okay. I am happy to answer questions.