please empty your brain below

"It's a pretty fascinating process" - so, so sad we missed out hearing more about that...
I think in some cases you are being a little harsh (though admittedly not to Henry!). Surely telling people about something is a valid way of letting people know something is happening?
"We had a conversation" - I bet you did. ;-)
Awesome!
What's especially nice is how you're not at all sanctimonious about your stance.
I've got this great idea for your blog: why don't you write about what ever the hell you want to - tea, buses, counting obscure things, your local park, things that annoy you, even a not-very-eventful weekend in Norfolk?
Hey, you might even invite people to comment.

Just keep on doing what you're doing DG.

If it's any consolation, these marketing people are only composing these things in order to earn a crust, and probably hate doing it as much as you hate getting them.

(Oh, and Lee - the only time I "check out" is when I have had enough and want to leave.)
Hi Dg, I'm Casandra and I was wondering if you could give us a mention on your brilliant blog. We have a great ------. On second thoughts lets just forgot all about it.
Gosh - do we have to guess which 2004 blogpost Simon was referring to? Perhaps he will link to it anyway?

Was it the meridian series? So something related to longitude, perhaps?
Well, if you will write such an interesting and informative blog, DG . . .
And how about those initially silent calls that then start "Hello, please listen for an important announce...." Hang up.

Hopefully they've been charged the roaming rate 'cause I am in the middle of Saudi Arabia at the moment.
The one positive about Simon's email is that I've thoroughly enjoyed re-reading the posts in your 2004 link!
I wish DG's statement below was actually true.

I NEVER BLOG ABOUT ANYTHING SENT TO ME IN A PROMOTIONAL EMAIL.
...then again imagine a world where one is not sent any e-mails. none, zero, nada. a inbox empty...always. not even "spam". still...one would still be able to write about not getting any e-mails.
invitation to watch an artist paint - "It'd be like watching paint dry"

Ah, so it would, so it would.
It is not clear whether all these invitations asked you to blog about their event. If they didn't and just invited you along then it would seem churlish to name and shame them for inviting you to something that may interest you.
@ Messiah

I kind of agree...if one has a (sucessful) blog on the InterWeb (as I call it) then one must come to expect this sort of thing. May be similar to driving a very flash car in public and complaining people keep taking pics/videos of it...
Poor Simon, so close to being an appealing offer until the bit where he asked DG to do lots of work for free.

And looking at those posts from 2004, while DG the blog is still going strong, how many people still remember DG the TV show.
Having read some of 2004 - I remember Letraset, and Dymo labels (used to label school things), and fountain pens and I had a John Bull printing set - indeed it may even still be up in a loft somewhere.
Tell us a little about the ones that do prompt you to do something .... R
Pinging?!?
Given the topics of October 2004, I suspect this is : http://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/exhibitions/future/ships-clocks-and-stars

As an RMG member, I feel that I should apologise
sorry - this http://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/exhibitions/future/ships-clocks-and-stars is the exhibition angling for DG content
LOL

You pay a price for your popularity :)
One of your funniest, and cutting, blog entries was the one about poor, deluded Heather McKay (20 April 2013). A bit of Googling tells me she's moved on from Render Positive (www.gertrudeandivy.com/team).
Ollie did a great job, but...how about a guest blog from Heather? I wonder if cats with slices of bread around their heads still seem as hilarious in 2013.
DG, I think I should tell you a couple things about artists.

I have seen artists who go and work for companies referred to as "sellouts" in a few blogs recently.

Artists when self-employed have lots of expenses that people employed by companies do not have. For example, rent of studio space or storage space; heating and electric for those spaces; buying supplies and materials; transportation of artworks (petrol, shipping costs, etc.); advertising or booth expenses at art shows or trade show; buying art tents for outdoor shows; and in the U.S., artists must pay for their own health insurance and expenses, plus twice the federal social security tax (15% of income) than employees of companies do. This is just a partial list.

Also, artists get hit up to make donations for "good causes" at a much higher rate than you get asked to do things by the PR people you mock. And unlike you, artists rarely get offered any recompense for their expenses, let alone extra perks. The artists are not even allowed to deduct the value of the artwork off their income tax; they can only deduct the value of the materials used in the making of the art.

While your reference to the car company artist as being a sellout was humorous in the context of your "watching paint dry" reference, I wanted to be sure you know that making any sort of decent living as a self-employed artist is nearly impossible.

I can think one one time when, during the 2012 games, I quite enjoyed the results of artists who had sold out to a car company.
http://londoneer.org/2012/07/icas-art-drive-bmws-turned-into-works-of-art-great-eastern-st-car-park.html
One of my colleagues at work is a highly talented artist.

The fact that they work with me, rather than pursuing a career as a highly talented artist, is a source of considerable disappointment.

DG, tell your colleague that artistic talent has very little to do with being a self-employed artist.

Most of one's time is spent managing, marketing, and transporting the artwork, not making it.

Also, much time is spent having to listen to members of the public telling the artist how much they want the art and how good it is, but how they simply cannot afford $20 (as they drive off in their Jaguars).

No shame at all in working for a salary with one skill set, and making art in spare time with another skill set, IMHO. Being self employed gets harder and harder as one gets older, especially if an unexpected problem shows up and causes inability to produce or market.

a person who was once a professional artist wrote "The artists are not even allowed to deduct the value of the artwork off their income tax" - I am confused why this is a 'not even'. Basic common sense on the way we get taxed - ie when we trade we get taxed on our trading profits (income less expenses).

Also "but how they simply cannot afford $20" - I am surprised by the low amount of $20 for any professional artist's work based upon the price of some absolute tat that you see for sale.

The "not even" comes from the fact that people asking artists to donate tell the artist that the charity is a "tax deductible" charity, and that donations to it are tax-deductible.

In other words, what I meant was with respect to *donated* artworks, the people asking for donations constantly tell artists that the art the artists donate will be tax-deductible for the artists, which is not true... the artists cannot deduct as a donation the full value of the finished piece; they can only deduct the cost of *materials* used to make the piece; their time is not deductible. Their time spent making and transporting the artwork is sheer donation on the part of the artist, with no recompense or benefit to the artist, save name recognition at an auction or in a charity's catalog.

[And, of course, in order for an artist to deduct things, he has to have a certain amount of sales that year to deduct it from in the first place, or it's just a business loss. Strangely, a lot of people think there is some sort of fairy there to pay for an artist's materials expenses, sort of like a company petty cash box, but the fact is that a self-employed artist IS the company, and his petty cash withdrawals comes from his profits/bank account.]

So, the point is, when the people asking for donations dangle the "you can deduct it because we are a tax-deductible charity" carrot in front of an artist, they don't understand that the artist can only deduct the cost of materials, which he would be doing anyway. He has to give the labor away for no recompense. It is the person who *buys* the artwork at the fundraising auction who is allowed to deduct the value of the artwork from *their* taxes.

The only real advantage for an artist donating something is any advertising effect that comes from the art being auctioned off, which usually wears off after the charity event is over and people sober up and toss the auction catalog in the rubbish bin :).

There is a good NY Times article all about this, see here; you have to go a few paragraphs down to see the topic I was referring to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/arts/design/28kino.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I don't know how it works in the UK.











TridentScan | Privacy Policy