Artist should be valued

 rec.crafts.pottery    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content
Subject Author Date
Artist should be valued D Kat 03-03-2008
Posted by D Kat on March 3, 2008, 11:15 am
Please log in for more thread options

>
>>I just heard this on All Things Considered and was excited. Then I
>googled "artist fair value." That was very discouraging. Seems there have
>been lots of attempts to pass such a bill, but I thought folks might be
>interested anyway. This is from the All Things Considered website.:
>>
>>All Things Considered, February 29, 2008 · Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) is
>sponsoring the Artist-Museum Partnership Act, which would allow artists to
>file tax deductions for the market value of works they donate to non-
>profits. As Leahy tells Robert Siegel, artists are currently able to
>deduct only the value of the materials used.
>>
>>The measure has been brought up in the Senate more than once over the
>past several years, but it still hasn't become law.
>>
>>Shula
>>in sunny, beautiful (translated, that means the wind isn't blowing)
>Desert Hot Springs, California USA
>>
>
>I recommend forwarding this to every artist/friend you know. It is the
>squeaky wheel that gets attention and if we all call or email our
>representative/senators this may get passed.
>
>Donna
>

I sent out my request and a friend who is not a potter or artist sent this
link back. It is a real easy way to send in your comment.

http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues/alert/?alertid=9521951&type=CO

Donna



http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues/alert/?alertid=9521951&type=CO






Posted by Bob Masta on March 4, 2008, 8:24 am
Please log in for more thread options
wrote:

>
>>
>>>I just heard this on All Things Considered and was excited. Then I
>>googled "artist fair value." That was very discouraging. Seems there have
>>been lots of attempts to pass such a bill, but I thought folks might be
>>interested anyway. This is from the All Things Considered website.:
>>>
>>>All Things Considered, February 29, 2008 · Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) is
>>sponsoring the Artist-Museum Partnership Act, which would allow artists to
>>file tax deductions for the market value of works they donate to non-
>>profits. As Leahy tells Robert Siegel, artists are currently able to
>>deduct only the value of the materials used.
>>>
>>>The measure has been brought up in the Senate more than once over the
>>past several years, but it still hasn't become law.
>>>
>>>Shula
>>>in sunny, beautiful (translated, that means the wind isn't blowing)
>>Desert Hot Springs, California USA
>>>
>>
>>I recommend forwarding this to every artist/friend you know. It is the
>>squeaky wheel that gets attention and if we all call or email our
>>representative/senators this may get passed.
>>
>>Donna
>>
>
>I sent out my request and a friend who is not a potter or artist sent this
>link back. It is a real easy way to send in your comment.
>
>http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues/alert/?alertid=9521951&type=CO
>
>Donna
>

As I understand it, the old "materials value only" rule applies evenly
to *everyone*, not just artists. If you are a truck driver and agree
to drive the artist's pots to the museum, you don't get to deduct
for your time as if it were a regular paid-for delivery. Nor does a
carpenter who agrees to crate the pieces, etc.

And it doesn't apply just to museum donations, it applies to all
donations. It probably has to be this way to prevent abuse.
Consider the old scam whereby people donate their old books or junk
and claim a hefty market value. If they were allowed to claim a
value for their time, it would be even harder to verify.

And art is in a class by itself as far as being hard to assign
market values. Unless the piece has already been sold, it's not at
all clear what its value is. Certainly *not* the price the artist has
been asking for it as it languished in the last umpteen art fairs,
nor even what the posh uptown gallery is asking.

So, if you are an artist who is affected by this, the solution is
simple: Put your money where your mouth is and *sell* the piece, and
donate the money to the museum!

For the rest of us, the thrill of having a piece in a museum, not to
mention the boost in professional stature and the increase in the
market value of other for-sale pieces, would be more than enough
compensation.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

Posted by D Kat on March 4, 2008, 10:20 am
Please log in for more thread options

>>http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues/alert/?alertid=9521951&type=CO
>>
>>Donna
>>
>
> As I understand it, the old "materials value only" rule applies evenly
> to *everyone*, not just artists. If you are a truck driver and agree
> to drive the artist's pots to the museum, you don't get to deduct
> for your time as if it were a regular paid-for delivery. Nor does a
> carpenter who agrees to crate the pieces, etc.
>
> And it doesn't apply just to museum donations, it applies to all
> donations. It probably has to be this way to prevent abuse.
> Consider the old scam whereby people donate their old books or junk
> and claim a hefty market value. If they were allowed to claim a
> value for their time, it would be even harder to verify.
>
> And art is in a class by itself as far as being hard to assign
> market values. Unless the piece has already been sold, it's not at
> all clear what its value is. Certainly *not* the price the artist has
> been asking for it as it languished in the last umpteen art fairs,
> nor even what the posh uptown gallery is asking.
>
> So, if you are an artist who is affected by this, the solution is
> simple: Put your money where your mouth is and *sell* the piece, and
> donate the money to the museum!
>
> For the rest of us, the thrill of having a piece in a museum, not to
> mention the boost in professional stature and the increase in the
> market value of other for-sale pieces, would be more than enough
> compensation.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Bob Masta

The problem is Bob that few artist can afford to sell the piece and donate
the money earned. Even when they donate the piece they are not getting that
price in return in their taxes. We are talking about a deduction not a
credit - so if you are in the 20% tax bracket then you get 20% of the
estimated value of the item taken off of your salary that is taxed - then
add in the lovely AMT which limits even that. As far as scamming goes -
they are now pretty ridged about what they allow - you have to document your
donations and something such as this would have to be valued by the museum
not by the artist.

When I volunteer my time at the crafts studio, I would never dream of trying
to take a tax deduction for that time. That is something very different
from a piece of art that will not only hold its value but increase in value
over time. The museum if it needed the money could sell the work of art.
It cannot sell the crate it was shipped in or the time I took building that
crate.

Apples and Oranges. Donna




Posted by Bob Masta on March 5, 2008, 8:27 am
Please log in for more thread options
wrote:

>
>>>http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues/alert/?alertid=9521951&type=CO
>>>
>>>Donna
>>>
>>
>> As I understand it, the old "materials value only" rule applies evenly
>> to *everyone*, not just artists. If you are a truck driver and agree
>> to drive the artist's pots to the museum, you don't get to deduct
>> for your time as if it were a regular paid-for delivery. Nor does a
>> carpenter who agrees to crate the pieces, etc.
>>
>> And it doesn't apply just to museum donations, it applies to all
>> donations. It probably has to be this way to prevent abuse.
>> Consider the old scam whereby people donate their old books or junk
>> and claim a hefty market value. If they were allowed to claim a
>> value for their time, it would be even harder to verify.
>>
>> And art is in a class by itself as far as being hard to assign
>> market values. Unless the piece has already been sold, it's not at
>> all clear what its value is. Certainly *not* the price the artist has
>> been asking for it as it languished in the last umpteen art fairs,
>> nor even what the posh uptown gallery is asking.
>>
>> So, if you are an artist who is affected by this, the solution is
>> simple: Put your money where your mouth is and *sell* the piece, and
>> donate the money to the museum!
>>
>> For the rest of us, the thrill of having a piece in a museum, not to
>> mention the boost in professional stature and the increase in the
>> market value of other for-sale pieces, would be more than enough
>> compensation.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>> Bob Masta
>
>The problem is Bob that few artist can afford to sell the piece and donate
>the money earned. Even when they donate the piece they are not getting that
>price in return in their taxes. We are talking about a deduction not a
>credit - so if you are in the 20% tax bracket then you get 20% of the
>estimated value of the item taken off of your salary that is taxed - then
>add in the lovely AMT which limits even that. As far as scamming goes -
>they are now pretty ridged about what they allow - you have to document your
>donations and something such as this would have to be valued by the museum
>not by the artist.
>
>When I volunteer my time at the crafts studio, I would never dream of trying
>to take a tax deduction for that time. That is something very different
>from a piece of art that will not only hold its value but increase in value
>over time. The museum if it needed the money could sell the work of art.
>It cannot sell the crate it was shipped in or the time I took building that
>crate.
>
>Apples and Oranges. Donna
>

It's not at all clear why artists should receive special treatment.
Consider the carpenter who builds a house for Habitat for Humanity.
All the same arguments about holding value apply here as well, and
the value is easily verified. Yet the carpenter can't claim that
value, only materials.

Having a piece in a museum is a benefit for the artist, much more
so than a Habitat for Humanity house is for the carpenter, since
the museum exhibit will be a continuing advertisement, with
prominent attribution. Any artist who feels they need added financial

incentive is being a tad greedy, IMHO.

I also wonder about the premise that few artists can afford to sell
the piece and donate the money. If your work is so good that
museums want it, you can't be hurting too badly.

Forgive me if it seems I have my hackles up over this, but I do
not think artists should be placed on any sort of pedestal.
If they can't succeed at doing the thing they love as a business,
they should find another line of work and do art as a hobby,
just like everyone else. Nobody owes them a living just because
they hang out a shingle and proclaim themselves as artists.
If a carpenter can't make houses that people want to buy,
he can change careers or starve... but he sure can't expect
charity just because he is no good at his proclaimed profession.


Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

Posted by DKat on March 6, 2008, 10:47 am
Please log in for more thread options

cutting school programs, it seems to me that
> competitive sports should be the first thing cut. I don't think
> schools need to teach competitiveness, and there are much better
> ways to teach teamwork. Arts, crafts, and music are things that
> will benefit people throughout their lives. I think one of the hidden
> benefits of art, in particular, is that it encourages people to be
> creative, by which I mean "think outside the box", not just "make
> something pretty". It seems to me that the vast majority of people
> are afraid to try different approaches to things (even music and
> crafts!), apparently from lack of self confidence. "What if it turns
> out bad?" With art, "turning out bad" means you learn
> something about what works or what you like, and you can always
> try something else the next time.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Bob Masta

Exactly! I am hoping that we are moving in that direction - Oddly Bush
meant to bankrupt the government out of social services (has said so
directly), but he may have bankrupted us out of the warrior mentality.
Physical activity that kids enjoy is great and important for their health -
resources to beat the crap out of the rival school... not so much. Donna



Similar ThreadsPosted
Next Star Artist 08 - The Search Begins... March 20, 2008, 11:24 pm
Artist forms place along highway (Half Moon Bay Review) April 10, 2007, 4:16 am
Need to ID this Artist of a high quality ceramic pottery of a young girl August 27, 2007, 10:23 am
Studio Art Pottery Porcelain Ceramic Created by Artist in Jingdezhen,China March 4, 2008, 7:56 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map
Contact Us | Privacy Policy