ot semi Rave re artwork i just got

I just bought from this woman and I LOVE this artwork, I cant eblieve
why on earth she sells them for this price, but she gave me this coupon
code for next time and I thought Id share since she is also nice and Id
liek to give her some more business
10% off all items at Lynne French Designs (excludes shipping which is
low) use the coupon code FOOMA and ask for your discount, or take it
off yourself clearly adding code when paying (they take paypal) here is
the site
http://stores.ebay.com/Lynne–French–Designs
This is NOT spam I am active in the groups and wanted to share this in
hopes someone may like it and help her out. Thanks :–)

"ninatheresa137" <ninatheresa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1105858312.743435.31...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
She probably sells them for "this" price because that's all the market will
pay. People are notoriously cheap when it comes to valuing certain types of
talent/labor, and I would think that original art––especially when it is
created by a woman––is not very rewarding on a financial level. There are
other categories of creative work on ebay that are poorly compensated;
there's a lot of handcrafted jewelry that goes for a song. And
handknitted/handsewn items can often be grabbed up for less than the cost of
materials. It's sort of sad, really. No, it's *really* sad.
(I remember many years ago when the Smithsonian decided to create a line of
"American" quilts to sell to the public. The quilts were based on
traditional American quilts––Amish, Appalachian, etc.––a true American art
form. There was quite a stink when they decided to outsource the labor to
China, where the laborers were basically slaves, rather than paying more for
the work to be done in poverty–stricken parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, etc.
The final product, "an American art form", bore a label, "Made in China".
It was a sign of things to come.)
The artist you recommend is fortunate to have found a fan/patron in you.
You might want to consider buying things from her to give as gifts. That's
what I do when I "discover" someone whose work I want to promote. It's like
the Peace Corps thing: Buy a gift for yourself and the artist eats for a
day. Buy some and give them to acquisitive/generous friends, and you've fed
the artist for a lifetime! (I *love* turning people on to my discoveries,
whether it's makeup, clothes or art.)
cofarb

cofarb wrote:
market will
types of
is
There are
compensated;
cost of
line of
American art
labor to
more for
etc.
China".
Just to put this in a little context: due to the reaction of the
quilting community, the Smithsonian did not renew that contract.
Also, the museum was selling reproduction American quilts, not American
quilts. This may be a case of my fellow academics having their heads
in the clouds, but reproductions are not, and are not meant to be,
original artwork. They are copies, and their price tags reflect that.
And this was a point which was very clear to those in the museum
world––they just didn't anticipate that the public would not see this
very clear distinction. (There's an excellent book about the mania for
reproductions and the semiotics of authenticity at the turn of the last
century, but I can't remember the title and I don't have time this
morning to search my bookshelves for it...but clearly the folks at the
SI should have read it before embarking on that course! But try to get
them to read history...;–) ).
p.s. FWIW, I am 95% sure that the original message is SPAM. It could
be a coincidence that the poster is actually posting from AOL and that
the seller uses AOL. But this poster has only posted 4 messages to
USENET, all yesterday: 2 SPAMS for this eBay store and 2 hastily sent
messages to a.f.

"jjjjjuliep" <jjjjju...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1105882046.117580.214...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Spam aside, it was the quilting community––not necessarily "the world"––that
had an issue with the outsourcing of the quilts. At the time, there was a
huge resurgance in interest in the American quilt as an art form. The
outsourcing was perceived by quilters (like my mother) as a huge slap in the
face to the poverty–stricken American communities where many of these quilt
designs had originated. People––like my mother––were trying to have this
interest translate into living wages for American quilters. Technically
speaking, if the Smithsonian had contracted with quilting guilds in
Appalachia and the Ozarks, the quilts would not have been "reproductions";
they would have been American quilts, albeit not antiques.
At about the same time, vintage and antique quilts were being "slaughtered"
by various American clothing designers to make vests and jackets. My mother
and her friends felt that if Americans truly supported the American
quilt–as–artform and respected the historic examples of the artform, the
quilts themselves would have achieved a sort of "protected endangered
species" status. Once cut up, these artworks were gone forever. Though the
owner of the garment may have loved its background, many quilters were
appalled by the process.
cofarb, who is not trying to start an argument, but who was just pointing
out that many artists––particularly women––are grossly undercompensated for
their talents and skills.

cofarb wrote:
world"––that
I'm afraid that I wrote my reply in haste before I left the house
yesterday morning and so I may not have been as clear as I would have
liked to be, and I apologize if I caused any confusion. However, I did
state exactly that in my response: that it was the quilting community
which raised the questions about the outsourcing of the quilts.
The
in the
quilt
this
Technically
"reproductions";
That's true. But museums are generally not in the business of selling
original items in their gift stores. Instead they are generally (but
not exclusively) concerned with selling reproductions; that is
mass–produced copies of individual works of art. Galleries and other
entities are probably more likely to sell individual works of art or
crafts, but that is not generally the aim of museum gift stores.
Secondly, I am not sure that it is the purpose of a large museum to
embark upon social or economic projects such as this. Generally I
think they are better served, and better serve their audiences, by
sticking to art (although of course I know quite well that nothing in a
culture––not science, not fashion, not popular culture, not high
culture––exists outside of its discrete political, economic, cultural,
and social context. But this is all a discussion for another newsgroup.
;–))
pointing
undercompensated for
Indeed, in that women still earn much less than men do, I think we
could say that many women in any field are grossly undercompensated for
their talents and skills. Again, this is a discussion for another
newsgroup, but there is also a position which argues that in a
capitalist society, one trades some economic security for artistic
freedom, especially if one is going to concentrate on selling one's art
or craft and if one does decide to participate in that particular
marketplace then one also accepts the possible limitations on one's
income. It doesn't meant that art or craft isn't important; just that
every type of society values different things, and to deny that reality
is to basically beat one's head against a wall. ;–)