ArtFaceOff Is About Whose Art Is “Better”

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. Marshall Kirkpatrick
   

   November 22nd, 2006 at 5:01 pm

   Mike, neither of those pieces of art would match my couch. Couldn’t you have chosen a better set of images? lol.

2. Eric Jackson
   

   November 22nd, 2006 at 5:46 pm

   I’m more used to an NCAA bracket, but this is certainly more interesting to look at…

3. kim
   

   November 22nd, 2006 at 6:26 pm

   prefer the one on the left for its depth, although I love the movement of the one on the right . . . don’t know which to choose.

4. Will
   

   November 22nd, 2006 at 6:53 pm

   The one on the right looks like it describes heaven and hell; how one can’t live with out the other; showing two conjoined twin angels that are joined at the wings.

5. PosiGuy
   

   November 22nd, 2006 at 7:05 pm

   What a fascinating way to get people to look at art. Very cool implementation and concept.

6. PosiGuy
   

   November 22nd, 2006 at 7:07 pm

   By the way, HAPPY THANKSGIVING everyone!

7. Anthony
   

   November 22nd, 2006 at 7:16 pm

   This will be great for the art community as it will involve people who might not usually look at art.

8. Harish Babu
   

   November 22nd, 2006 at 7:25 pm

   Isn’t art better off in its original format rather than on web ?

9. Marshall Kirkpatrick
   

   November 22nd, 2006 at 7:31 pm

   See also http://kittenwar.com - same concept but for kittens.

10. Berlin
    

    November 22nd, 2006 at 7:58 pm

    I’m just waiting for this site to get $2 Trillion in VC funds.

11. Matdredalia
    

    November 22nd, 2006 at 8:43 pm

    I think the whole idea is absolutely disgusting. It completely undermines what art is meant to be. Art is meant to be admired and enjoyed for what it is, not compared to someone else’s piece.

    What may look like a complete clusterfluck to one person may be life changing for another person.

    For example, while I appreciate Picasso’s depth and originality, the work doesn’t speak to me as much as say, Van Gogh. On the other hand, my best friend idolizes Picasso and is completely enamored in his work.

    I, personally, believe that this sort of competition is just another way to cash in on a niche. It has nothing to do with real artistry.

12. keanu
    

    November 22nd, 2006 at 9:28 pm

    every artist thinks self works unique and uncomparable. do they care about the $1,000 award? for amateurs or graphics designers, it’s not a bad idea.

13. Adam
    

    November 22nd, 2006 at 10:50 pm

    Isn’t art about creating something original. How poetically ironic that this site isn’t.

14. Pramit Singh
    

    November 22nd, 2006 at 11:51 pm

    Face-off sites are a big hit in the web 2.0 sites. Amihotornot is the most famous of these. Google fight may also be considered.

15. Say No to Crack
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 12:03 am

    How does a site like this make money? Or are they just looking to get popular then create ads, featured artists, etc?

16. Sarah Meyers
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 12:16 am

    Art makes you feel.

17. Leon
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 12:30 am

    I love art (and kittens). In terms of business though, I’d like to ask how big the market might be. How many people have the pain of not seeing starving artists competing for $1,000?

    If there were a face-off between artists and kittens, who would win? Which site will have a bigger following?

    (If you wonder why I mentioned kittens, you haven’t read Marshall Kirkpatrick’s comment above.)

18. WS
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 1:44 am

    Though (as an artist) I appreciate the idea that it’s getting art into the mainstream a little more, It does smack a little of survivor.. I agree with Matdredalia; it cheapens the experience by requiring a numerical value from the viewer.

19. John
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 2:44 am

    Artists who are concerned that competition will cheapen their work shouldn’t post to this site. It’s not for everyone, but it sounds like fun.

20. Zac
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 3:20 am

    Why not just showcase art for what it is - and bring it to the people? That’s what we do at our site. Forcing comparisons doesn’t sit right with me at all…

21. Mário
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 3:37 am

    Talent is not a democratic thing. I dont like the concept, although it can theoreticaly make people look at art, i think it makes it for the wrong reasons, like any other competition. The only competition art has it’s against time.

22. Steve Macdonald
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 7:18 am

    Beneath contempt.

    Revealing though of the rampant philistinism and shallowness characteristic of the post-modern “educated” person.

    Also unsuprising from a culture which considers “death metal” and “Piss Christ” worthy of inclusion under the rubric of art.

23. Say No to Crack
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 8:27 am

    I think the reason they don’t showcase art is because it wouldn’t draw a huge number of people. This is why survivor (or at least was) is a top rated TV show and PBS is always low in the ratings. Most people don’t want to browse through tons of art online, so this really is an interesting way to bring it to them. However, I still wonder how they’d make money.

24. Stan
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 10:33 am

    Off the subject comment: Happy Thanksgiving Mike, Marshall and all the TechCrunch crew. Keep up the great work guys!!

    From a loyal reader.

25. Michael Arrington
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 10:39 am

    Thanks Stan, Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

26. Kelly Smith
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    I hate to make a shameless plug but it certainly is relevant. We submitted Imagekind (unsuccessfully) to TechCrunch about 3 months ago when we launched and frankly I was a little surprised to see this post on ArtFaceOff today. In the three months since launch Imagekind has grown into the top site for “print on demand” art selling. If an artist really wants exposure, I argue that it is about giving them the technology platform to set their own price and fulfill orders from digital files…NOT from competing with other artists to try to figure out what expression is better than another. We get way more traffic and provide real tools to let customers actually consume an artist’s work without the artist having to invest thousands to build their own website, print, frame and ship all the purchases etc. I’m all for competition in general but I’m at a loss to understand how this site is really going to be all that useful to people interested in buying this artwork or for artists looking to make any real business gains. On ImageKind, there are enough print sizes, papers, mats and frames such that a customer has nearly 5 million ways to order the digital file submitted by an artist. I think that’s a real business. I love reading TechCrunch but it is hard for me to tell if “business potential” is an important criteria in evaluating these sites. Still, its a good daily read nonetheless…

27. dave
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    i’m with matdredali up above, this is absolutely total shit and teaches people exactly the wrong way to thing about art, or how to internalize it…before i sold out, i was a bfa doing work in stone, and painting for a decade before that…can’t imagine ever caring at all about ‘a shootout’ because i can’t imagine placing tremendous value on the umediated opinions of random site visitors…

    get me the same site, same idea, but only art historians, art appraisers or something a little higher up the bullshit ladder (namely those who generate values for art in the bloomberg index style) and i’ll appreciate it…until then, i might as well be posting pictures of clouds asking people to discuss what they see - i’d get much more out of that, at least it would force people to tease out meaning instead of visual scanning and clicking in seconds…

28. Chris Matthieu
    

    November 23rd, 2006 at 8:27 pm

    Don’t forget to copyright your art at Numly before posting it to this site!

29. Peluche
    

    November 24th, 2006 at 4:15 am

    the vote system is not good !
    as a competitor I can vote 1 for each other work than mine

30. anonymouse
    

    November 24th, 2006 at 6:23 am

    ignoring the disrespect for art, this site also sucks because it’s a rehash of a completely overdone idea. giving coverage to these kinds of hobbies kind of dilutes the influence of this site as a web 2.0 business blog. whatevs. happy day-after thanksgiving!

31. Corpsegoddess
    

    November 24th, 2006 at 9:55 am

    As somebody who’s been drawing since a kid and suffered through a year as an illustration major in college, I actually really like this idea. For me, at least, it posits the chance to examine exactly *why* I like one piece more than the other. Because let’s face it—everyone has an opinion about art; that’s the beauty of it. Mine tend to be very strong, and this makes me stop for a moment and think, “Okay, WHY do I like that piece more than the other?”.

    It’s a nice refresher in art history/fundamentals/appreciation—at least for me.

32. Jim Richards
    

    November 24th, 2006 at 1:42 pm

    This website is obviouly controversial, but as a disabled artist, I’m going to sign up. It seems to me this is a fair way to get people to look at art and interact with it.

    It also seems to me a great way for artists to get out art out there.

    It seems like people like Matdredalia sure dont appreciate change that helps people in a niche market ‘the visual arts’.

    I think this site has the potential to do some real good for our industry. Check me out when you go there.

33. Steven Ochs
    

    November 24th, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    Mike-

    Thanks for posting on Art Face Off. I am glad to read all these comments, it is giving me a real food for thought as we work out the kinks and try to cure the issues from people in the industry who are displeased with the idea.

    I would like to make a note for the artists protrayed on your blog.

    The artist on the left is: Ryan Dobson, “A Time to… die”- Hand Signed, Limited printing of 100 © 2004 and his website is http://www.NoumenaArt.com

    The artist on the right is: Ansen Seale, “Temporal Form no. 11″ © 2006 and her website is: http://ansenseale.com

    That’s if anyone is interested in getting to know those artists in more detail.

    Thanks again-
    Steven Ochs

34. Nation
    

    November 24th, 2006 at 8:40 pm

    I just wanted to say that finally there is a site that gives artists, viewers and collectors a way to merge with one another as one. I can’t say how many times I thought about what would be a great way to give artists all over the world the exposure they deserve, and a fun competition does add a little spice! Thanks for thinking up such an innovative idea! I understand there are people who disagree with this site. I believe the true reason for this site is for the viewer to see into what a piece of art means, it’s emotional content. ArtFaceOff is a means for that. Why can’t real people judge real art? Does it have to be only gallery owners and curators? What pompous reasoning! The competition is to see what the artist did to strive to convey a message or feeling, not whether it is ‘better’ than another piece of art or not. Perhaps those who don’t understand the purpose of ArtFaceOff don’t understand the purpose of art. It is here to teach and as they say: Any exposure is good exposure’ LET THE RACES BEGIN!!!

35. scott
    

    November 24th, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    I am a photographer. As I ready many of the comments, I don’t notice many artists speaking. So I thought, I better add my “voice”.

    As an artist who loves photography–particularly my own photography, I am constantly challenged to promote my work and “share” it with the world. In the past, I have had to “sell” to galleries (post cards and phone calls) and stock photography companies–to pay the bills. It is simply a part of being an artist in this era…we all have to pay bills.

    So frankly, I am very happy that ART FACE OFF will give me another way to connect with more customers to share my work and hopefully find new customers. I really don’t care if I win the competition or not, either way, I will be seen by people–some of which may appreciate my work regardless of my “competitive status”. In other words, I don’t have to win to find people (e.g. some buying customers) who value what I do.

    So hip, hip, hurray to ART FACE OFF for creating a fun community that I can use to promote my great photography and hopefully find some new customers (many of which that don’t go to galleries–I hope:)). I truly hope that there are more ART FACE OFFS that appreciate the importance of art in our society and that the internet–as well as healthy competition–can provide me with new ways of sharing my work and, at the end of the day, paying my bills, so that I can continue to do what I love.

    I don’t have a friggin trust fund, so a little money is the difference between me working at Starbucks or focusing on what I love–photography.

    So please, remember, I want exposure, and places like ART FACE OFF are an easy means for me to meet new prospective customers.

    I do have issue with the main blogger (Micheael Arrington), who mentions that it “leaves a bad taste in his mouth.” He is obviously not a “starving artist” who would delight in having any “taste in his/her mouth” than none at all.

    Last time I checked, we are not a social politik (though sometimes I wish we were). Thus, I need to put food on my own friggin table which means I need to sell my photographic work or get back to “tending cattle”.

    It must be nice to critiize an art web site when you are not an artist, nor one who needs to eat:)

    In short, I am delighted that ART FACE OFF exists as a new tool for me to share my work with others. It may not be perfect, but it’s intentions–as far as I can tell–are good. I simply want as many tools as possible to promote my work and find customers that values what I do–whereever they are.

    Thanks,
    Scott

36. Arun
    

    November 25th, 2006 at 2:02 am

    It is always good to ask ‘good’ or ‘bad’ than asking about 100s of quality attributes. Advantages are multifold - thats wisdom of crowd.

37. Nation
    

    November 25th, 2006 at 12:46 pm

    Good job, Scott. You know, a thousand dollars is not going to buy a luxury condo, but I wouldn’t turn my nose up at it. You know why? BECAUSE I AM AN ARTIST. As an artist in this world, one must rely on galleries to judge whether or not your art is acceptable and sellable. If they deem it unsuitable, the artist is left silent (because a great many curators are very set in their ways and overly concerned with what will generate a dollar for them, not what will create good exposure for the artist) If art could be judged by regular folks on a regular site, it would be great. Oh, wait… it is!

38. Blaze
    

    November 25th, 2006 at 11:15 pm

    Why is this even on TechCrunch? There’s a million other “versus” or “war” or “face off” websites like this not to mention you can go create one in under a minute with ning.

39. Steve
    

    November 25th, 2006 at 11:39 pm

    Sounds a lot like http://www.likebetter.com

40. Vytas
    

    November 27th, 2006 at 10:07 am

    I’m and artist, and IMHO, it’s pathetic. What a sad, uninspired, reflection of our culture-poor world; hungry for the next reality-based thingie. This site tries to jump on the “Hot-or-Not” bandwagon and doesn’t even carry that off well - from a usability point of view. Voting is unclear and the postcard popups are irritating. Advice: Consult an interaction designer/UR specialist. Better yet, find a better modelm, since at the core that’s the issue.

    The exposure of art is fine, but it pits one artist against another. That is not what art is about. Please don’t cheapen the one good thing we have left in this crazy, O.J.-intoxicated, world.

    Matdredalia articulated it well. And I agree with Michael, it does indeed leave a very bad taste in the mouth.

    Just my .02

41. Vytas
    

    November 27th, 2006 at 10:19 am

    Before I get stoned for my horrid grammar and spelling above, I will publicly flog myself for hitting the Send button before scanning the post. Now where’s that coffee…?!

42. alan patrick
    

    November 27th, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    I blogged about Web 2.0 / broadband and the art market and linked to this post, my article is here

    Essentially my argument is that Web2.0 and broadband has not yet impacted the Art market as much as the audio and video markets, but it is coming and these guys are part of that invasion

43. Benny Harris
    

    November 27th, 2006 at 7:17 pm

    Yeah! Lets leave things as they are, where an artist has to hand out sexual
    favors to get their art in a gallery. Or how about we make artists dole out the last of their hard earned cash for a “featured” piece on some obscure website. How about we have them send $35 in entry fees to competitions all over country, juried by random people they don’t know.

    At least Art Face Off is honest about what they are doing. Its a
    level paying field as far as I can tell. Its easy to complain about the commercialisation of art when you’ve got a decent paying day job as a web programmer or some such nonsense, but if you had to rely on the art market for your income, you wouldn’t be so quick to freak out about what Art Face Off is doing.

    Art Face Off is offering a FREE service to artists. They’re giving any artist that wants a free online portfolio and exposure that they might not normally be able to get on their own. I don’t know how anyone who is serious about trying to promote the arts who would argue that this is a bad thing.

    A tool that doesn’t cost artists anything and just helps promote
    art…. Perhaps you are complaining because you’re worried about change, you’re happy with things remaining the way they are. Unfortunately, there are plenty of artists out there who need some sort of change! There are artists out there who deserve better than what the sometimes sexist, racist, or classist art world can give them. There are vast numbers of artists who are talented enough that they deserve to be able to make a living, and Art Face Off is trying to help them do that.

44. catjoy
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 9:14 am

    I am in it for exposure and curiosity. I get myself onto as many free art websites as I can in the hopes that this new wave of art on the net actually evolves into something. I must admit though I am dissappointed with the low numbers of people who actually vote in the one on one Face Offs. Considering how many people have portfolios on the site + their friends who vote, I would think the votes would be in the thousands, not the hundreds.
    Another flaw I see is that the Face Off is based on one art piece versus another rather than Facing Off on the entire portfolios. The latter would seem like a far better way to weigh in on the quality of the work.
    The other thing that I can not figure out is what happens with the numbers - as in if a person has a large portfolio versus a smaller one. I think the number of pieces in a portfolio should be standardized so that everyone has the same number of pieces to be voted on. Ten seems like a good number.
    And my last point for now - who is voting? By the number of representational/realism pieces that are getting into the bracket in the painting category - I would say it is not serious artists and cutting edge curators.

45. Geef
    

    February 19th, 2007 at 9:12 am

    People who don’t want art to be judged haven’t thought through how art is created and don’t have a practical notion of how to deal with it.
    An artist is uses judgment at every step. Philip Larkin was writing a poem a year in his last decades. A non-judgement view would perhaps have watching tv for 364 days and then writing in a blur for 5 minutes on the last. The reality is that he spent his time making revisions, rejecting, reconsidering- making judgments. Beethoven had scripts all along the margin of his works. Michelangelo studied and pondered for long periods before carving. Nabokov worked on individual index cards so that he could easily rearrange and modify them. Artists engage constantly in judgment- in deciding that one idea is better than another.
    As part of this they are taking into account the works of others as well. They place their work in this context and may decide to move towards or away from other works.
    The practical problem with the non-judgmental view is that it gets nowhere. You can’t make art, you can’t have a museum, you can’t have a real discussion. The real problem with it is it’s a lie. We all engage in judgment and believe certain works to better than others.
    The judgmental way has its difficulties- works rightly and wrongly become considered worse than others. Both of which are painful. The judgment itself is difficult.

    Disclaimers- Much better thinkers and writers have sounded on this before. I just finished an essay which touches on this called Education by Poetry by Robert Frost. A more concrete one called Good Readers and Good Writers by Nabokov touches on how we should read.
    The details on the artist methods given above are based on half-remembered scraps.