Very Clear Opinion from Adam Roussopoulos

Views: 133


You need to be a member of International Union of Mail-Artists to add comments!

Join International Union of Mail-Artists

Comment by De Villo Sloan on October 11, 2019 at 7:45pm

Adam, I'm glad you have stated your views. Whether I agree with you or not, I think the dialog is the most important thing in this forum.

But in fact, I tend to agree with your views about mail art, consent and resale.

I just use the occasion to lament the deplorable treatment of visual artists across space and time.

Just to clarify: I did not take a personal stand against Mr. Soylent Green Burger trying to turn a buck on his Richard Canard postcard collection.

I re-posted the Ebay listing here at Yoma via a Jon Foster post on Facebook where I believe others expressed horror at seeing Dare Richard hawked on Ebay along w/ used socks and fake watches.

I was simply - as they say - The Messenger.

Thanks Adam! Your comments are excellent imho

Comment by Adam Roussopoulos on October 11, 2019 at 6:40pm

De Villo Sloan,  I would like to clarify one thing and respond to your comment as well. When i made this it was in direct response to a blog that had started on this site about the sale of mail art on Ebay. I fully understand that most "mail artists" don't think money should be involved with mail art. I actually agree with that "mostly". My commentary on that though as Richard Canard put it is "Simple and Logical" All i am attempting to say is that once it is sent out, you/myself as the artist can no longer be"entitled" to a opinion. The way i see it, it doesn't matter who i mailed it to, who they give it to, who they sell it to, for how much, it simply no longer belongs to me. I no longer get a say in it (unless i have specifically stated otherwise). For example i have received multiple items/letters that do indeed say "not for resale" and "not to be published anywhere" but in those cases, my opinion would be significantly different.

As a mail artist the "art" in my opinion is less to do with what is created but mostly to do with the actually act of sending it out in the universe. If i send a work to you, i don't "expect" to receive anything in return (i hope to!) But the (funny to me) reality of it is, not only are you not paying for it, but i am paying you to take it (i.e. postage costs)!!

I do believe though that this follows right into your comments on Jackson Pollock. I do believe it is f***ed up that Pollock only received $100 for a work that is likely worth multiple millions now (i realize i am likely in the VAST minority here)but, i don't necessarily have a issue with it. It is the same idea as mailing a envelope/artwork out. Pollock chose to sell that piece to the person for $100, he must have been fine with it at the time, because he did indeed sell it. So why does it matter if that price inflates later in life, and why would that buyer have any obligation to the family? If it was determined that the painting was only worth $2 now, would the family be liable to pay the buyer back $98 in order to make it "fair"?

Never the less De Villo Sloan, i hope this does not come across as attacking your opinion because i GENUINELY love that you've taken the time to even comment on it and share yours!

Also, i sent out 10 of the cards and included everyone who had originally commented on the Ebay blog, so yours should be arriving any day now as i put them in the mail early last week.

Lastly, De Villo Sloan, I LOVE YOUR WORK that i have seen posted!!!!!


Comment by De Villo Sloan on October 10, 2019 at 4:51pm

Wait! I know we are talking about mail art here, and mail art is not made for financial gain and will likely never have financial value (but who knows?)

But there is a larger issue about exploitation of artists.

True story: A man bought a painting from Jackson Pollock in the late 40s or early 50s for $100. JP was thrilled to make a sale.

In the 60s or 70s the man re-sold his JP for $15,000. (He should have kept it longer!)

(We know the art world is full of these tales and many far more dramatic.)

Is it fair to Jackson Pollock (or his heirs) that someone else made an immense profit because JP was not yet famous and struggling? 

The art market depends on this kind of exploitation.


Comment by Richard Canard on October 8, 2019 at 8:44pm

08.10.19  Dare Heide Monster, ...this is too logical  & makes perfectly reasonable sense. It probably also has your name on it  (Proof positive that you can do whatever you wish with it) but it  is (in most cases) not ever likely to be sold except maybe to some highly eccentric collector who has sensibilities similar to your own. I would hang on to it as well if I were you. In fact , I admire the piece & I'd even be happy to make an offer but the budget here  would only permit an inadequate  modest offer. Thanx for  posting & sharing.  SinCelery, Richard Canard   



Want to support the IUOMA with a financial gift via PayPal?

The money will be used to keep the IUOMA-platform alive. Current donations keep platform online till 1-oct-2020.   If you want to donate to get IUOMA-publications into archives and museums please mention this with your donation. It will then be used to send some hardcopy books into museums and archives. You can order books yourself too at the IUOMA-Bookshop. That will sponsor the IUOMA as well.










© 2020   Created by Ruud Janssen.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service