AR & Sistino firings?

[See Newsletters Here]

Name: E-mail:

See Newsletters Here

Owly Posted by NanEngen

[Today]

• VOTE in the HAIR competit... by dinkledorf [Today at 02:58:01 AM]
• Sale at IK by WatercolorsbyKarsten [September 08, 2010, 10:18:10 PM]
• Imagekind improvement sur... by Sarah [September 08, 2010, 10:16:42 PM]
• SMELL (visual representat... by Sarah [September 08, 2010, 09:16:40 PM]
• Membership Levels & Benef... by Sarah [September 08, 2010, 09:08:07 PM]
• New Member~ Karsten...Wat... by WatercolorsbyKarsten [September 08, 2010, 06:22:57 PM]
• New Member! by aknbean [September 08, 2010, 06:38:32 AM]

[Arcturus]

You know, when I signed up for Art.com, I don't remember a choice saying "Golden Goose".  Did I miss something?  I remember " Open, Select, and Premium Studio".  I would definitely have gone with Golden Goose.

[Arcturus]

I have an idea why Natasha's sales have fallen off. I just went to Art.com and you find her art only if you do a search.  I can remember a time when I would do a search for art of any kind and her art would appear. On the page of your search results it has a place that says "Artwork that is similar..." and her art filled the choices.  Even when I would pull up my own art the "artwork similar..." would have her art in the selections.  My art and her art are not alike.  I do Classical Realism and she does Abstract Whoopdedoos in the Gustav Klimt tradition.  Her sales have tanked because she doesn't appear on every page you look at now.  Another example of Art.com's unfair business practices.  How many sales would any of us have made if every page you looked at had your art on it at least somewhere?  If nothing else it gives the impression you are a highly sought after artist.

[Andy Mercer]

I think we are all aware of Natasha's "golden goose" position at art.com. That's why its all the more remarkable she has chosen to go public in the way she has.

I think its a compliment to this forum that she has chosen to go public here. Personally I'm interested in hearing what she has to say.

[JohnRizzuto]

wow.....You can see how much time I spend on a/r and sistino.... I had no idea who she was ....  I sort of remember the contest way back so I assume she is the person who won.... I read her post and none of what she said surprised me....  I remember way back their marketing people used to call me to do stuff but I told them I wasnt interested....  then I started writing the support email and complaining and then I noticed that my works dropped like 5 pages in search results.... even though for the longest time they always showed up very high.... after that I knew it was B.S. and that there were only promoting a select few and the "stooges' who promoted their product on the forums.... that was way obvious....  basically if you went along with them you got a high placement.... 

[Sarah]

I do Classical Realism and she does Abstract Whoopdedoos in the Gustav Klimt tradition. 

Arcturus, Natasha is a member of this forum, and here we don't diss each other. So please take care with your words.

I totally share your frustration with art.com; they did the same things to all of us there. So you can diss them all you want, but not other individual artists in this community.

[Arcturus]

Sarah,
  It wasn't a diss it was a description. If you are into show cars and car detailing "whoopdedoos" is what we call the curling flairs that are part of a show car detail here in the South.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I will edit and say "abstracts in the gustav klimt tradition" but better yet I will just leave.  Peace to you.

[bjdavey]

At the start of 2005 when I wrote my book, How to Profit from the Art Print Market, I did research to find out which artists were doing well on eBay. Natasha was one of them and I included her in the book. I blogged about her earlier this year when I saw a press release on her. It was obvious she had continued to do well for herself and I wanted other artists to notice and be encouraged by her success. Still, I hadn't been paying that much attention to the goings on at art.com. Frankly, I was putting off studying the whole online thing till later this year when I plan to put out a 2nd Edition of the book.

If it weren't for this board, I would still be fairly clueless to the what's happening at art.com other than I noted in an earlier blog it was in a pre-IPO stage set to bring in millions should it become a publicly traded company. I did mention art.com again in a blog pointing out its mass layoffs from the AR and Sistino operations and wondering if there was a corrollary with the rapid decline at the Decor Expo shows. Again, courtesy of this board, I was better informed about art.com than I could have been anywhere else

Back to Natasha, IMHO it was not dumb luck that art.com chose to promote her. It was the residue of the hard work she put in long before that happened. She came to art.com with an established online presence and collector base. If I'm an exec at art.com, that would get my attention. It is analogous to an established artist getting instant star status when she joins a print publisher with a current stable of artists while newbie unknowns struggle to get known and marketing effort put behind them. It may not be fair, but then life isn't either or I would be far smarter, taller, richer, funnier, sexier and better looking with a zero golf handicap.

Natasha and I have never talked, but I'm still quite certain of some of the reasons for her success. First, she makes art people want to buy. Second, she continues to make art in the same recognizable style to brand herself and her look. Third, she is a savvy self-promoter and tireless marketer. That she accomplished these things on a shoestring budget as a self-representing artist makes her story more absorbing. As with any success story, there is much more to it than described here. But if any artist is serious about figuring out how to create their own success, emulating these things I point out about Natasha would be a great start. It takes more than technical artistic talent to develop a compelling style that buyers clamor to own and to build a business based around it.

As far as art.com goes, one can only wonder what is going on in the ivory towers. The outpouring of discontent regarding its handling of self-repped artists here portends trouble over there. Either the company has internal strife causing it to become dysfunctional or it has made the decision to abandon the self-repped market and is in the process of dismantling the business on that side. It is hard to figure though because other sites are making a go of POD for all kinds of things, IK and Cafe Press to name a couple. Or my book printer, Lightning Source Inc. It prints 100,000 books every week at its initial plant. Things are doing so well, it's built another to make three including one in the U.K. From LSI, I can order one or one hundred books for the same low price. I pay an even lower price for printing when an online store like Amazon sells my book. In fact, I quickly realized I did not want nor did it make economic sense for me to do my own fulfillment. In other words, if promoting, printing and fulfilling the work of self-repped artists was a priority, it seems inconceivable \art.com with its resources couldn't easily make it happen.

So, now I'm waiting to see how long it will take the new owners of Art Business News, ArtExpo, Decor, Decor Expo and other assorted properties to jettison that business, and I'm waiting to see how long it will take art.com to get its act together or how long it will take for a competitor to either of these 800-pound gorillas to get enough traction to cause them to change their ways, sell or get out of the business. All the while, it makes things more difficult and unsettling for artists who are just looking to get their work to market efficiently and effectively. To be fair, these big companies are dealing with the same changes and issues effecting businesses of all sorts whether it be China, Web 2.0, changing demographics, unfocused management and more, but, they are not an excuse to do less than the best either.

[Sarah]

Arcturus, thanks for clarifying. I can see now that you intended no harm, but since I'm not into car detailing and not from the south, and unfamiliar with the term, to me it sounded derogatory. We always need to be careful when commenting on others' work, because as artists, we often have a lot of ourselves invested in our art.

Nevertheless, I hope you will reconsider leaving, and stay with us. Peace to you either way.

[bluerabbit]

"Back to Natasha, IMHO it was not dumb luck that art.com chose to promote her. It was the residue of the hard work she put in long before that happened. She came to art.com with an established online presence and collector base. If I'm an exec at art.com, that would get my attention. It is analogous to an established artist getting instant star status when she joins a print publisher with a current stable of artists while newbie unknowns struggle to get known and marketing effort put behind them. It may not be fair, but then life isn't either or I would be far smarter, taller, richer, funnier, sexier and better looking with a zero golf handicap."

Uh, well, I would buy that--if the strategy you cite had worked for Sistino, or art.com, for that matter. For a long time it looked as if the site represented only a few people, all with a very similar "style". Buyers who liked that particular "look" bought it, and many others simply went elsewhere. It is a fact that people have different tastes. That's why there's room for all of us. If somebody doesn't care for a particular color scheme or painting style, they will not like it, no matter how many times it is presented to them (in fact, in the case of art, they might be less tolerant each time they see it it). Publicity is a two-edged sword. For example, who else is sick and tired of Brad and Angelina??

I sure that Natasha is a very nice, hard-working person, but, as a fellow artist member of a site, I don't know why I should be sending her sales. She isn't my sister, or even my cousin, and I am a painter, too. Come on, be honest, don't you like your own work best? If I liked Natasha's better than mine, I'd write her a fan letter, buy her posters, and put away my brushes. Of course, I'm not going to do that, LOL!!!!! And I don't think anybody else here is, either. This is not an insult. I am also sure that Natasha doesn't expect anything like that from us. The favored status wasn't her idea (and I'm not sure it did her much good, in the long run--but I could be wrong).

As for other sites, I am sure one or two of them will emerge as winners, in the future. For now, I am getting checks from microstock and original art at absolutearts.com, but the only POD art site that has posted significant sales, for me, thus far, is art.com. I am glad that my more successful pictures will remain there. I think it is too early to make a judgment about sales. I am going to add a few things that seem to have potential and see what happens. I am also going to build portfolios elsewhere. By the way, if any other site has only one artist's work on the first five pages of a search, no matter WHO it is, I'm going to cancel my membership. What's the point?

[pissedpoet]

Why anyone would sell their work on art.com or any of its bastard children escapes me. Any gallery that thinks my effort is worth 10% of the sale price is out of their tree. Sorry but I have a higher value of self worth than 10%. But I guess to each their own. 

[EyeSpy]

Why anyone would sell their work on art.com or any of its bastard children escapes me. Any gallery that thinks my effort is worth 10% of the sale price is out of their tree. Sorry but I have a higher value of self worth than 10%. But I guess to each their own.

I couldn't agree more.  A few years ago, when I'd just started selling online, the suggestion to sell at Zazzle and Cafe Press was tossed at me from every direction.  For a fraction of the profits?  Why would that ever seem like a good idea?

Admittedly, I've had my art printed on novelty items from both, which I resell, with an appropriate markup, at shows -- small items like magnets, keychains, etc.  Also, Zazzle does gorgeous, archival-quality, large-format prints on a variety of papers; I use them, frequently, as a printing service.

But, to set up a public gallery there, or Art.com, or anywhere else, and hand over my work for pennies on the dollar?  Let me think . . . . . . NOPE!  I'm sure some artists have found their niche this way, but I just don't get it.

[JohnRizzuto]

I have no problem with the top artists receiving a higher commission or even higher placements in search results.....  my issue with art.com is that they "choose" who gets the higher placements and commissions based on personal decisions not based on sales - which is entirely there right as it is their site....   my issue is that they do not clearly state that this is going to be there practice.....  they said that the placements would be based on sales/visits.....  well I can tell you a few things.... the biggest thing is that the folks at art.com do not like me for numerous reasons (which is fine with me) - the biggest reason being that I will speak the truth on the forums and not just be a patsty for them who says everything is fine....  secondly, I do not promote there site (on my web page I have no links to art.com - for 10% commission they pay me, they can do their own marketing) and lastyl, they do not like my work.... thats cool its a personal decision... 

I have no problems with Natasha.  I do not know her and I have maybe glanced at her works.  I am sure based on what I have read about her that she is very talented.  If they offered me higher commissions and placements, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. She stated on the forums that she makes about $30,000 annually on art.com.  Good for her and I hope she makes a lot more!  My issue with art.com is that i make a little more than $50,000 annually on there.  That is a 67% increase over Natasha's sales.  So my issue is why does my work not shower higher in the search results or why do I not get top placement on the home page?  Forget the marketing campaign piece because you want someone presentable and who is going to say nice things and can be the "face" of your company.  That is not me.  You don't see ugly dudes like me doing commercials and dropping the F-Bomb all over the place....lol 

So what it has come down to over there is that if they like you....they promote you and you will get higher placements on home pages and search results....  my issue was that is used to be based on sales/visits in the old OAP days and since they changed over way back.... that is not the case anymore... 

[bluerabbit]

"So what it has come down to over there is that if they like you....they promote you and you will get higher placements on home pages and search results....  my issue was that is used to be based on sales/visits in the old OAP days and since they changed over way back.... that is not the case anymore..."

Yes! I agree, John. I think that this was one of the major reasons their big changeover failed--playing favorites is not good business, which is the best reason not to do it, and that practice, for that reason, might not continue after this shakeup. I'm going to wait and see what happens. I did not agree with the VERY strong taste bias of the people who were making the choices for Sistino, before they departed. All of the top-listed works had a similar "look". Clearly, a few people were making the choices and they had a strong idea of what was "good" and what was "bad". I still contend that a successful art business must be more diversified and open-minded, because, if you have walked through galleries, you will notice that there are a LOT of VERY different "good"s and "bad"s. People who adore one kind of work turn up their noses at other types, and feelings tend to be mutual. For example, I don't care how many zillions of dollars a certain very famous person makes, I can't stand cute cottages with lights in the windows--and people who love those things have nothing but scorn for my work--surprise--LOL. My point is that the first pages in a search, unless it is a search for a particular artist, should contain a variety of styles. As a buyer, I would like to have choices--then a "see similar" feature could lead to more that matched my taste. (By the way, John, I like your work, and I have not visited Natasha's, either)

[Amie]

It seems to me that art.com has always been pretty open about making curatorial choices in what they promote. One glance at their print catalog shows a fairly homogenous group of work. That doesn't mean that I agree with their lack of promotional diversity, but one sees it all the time when visiting places where prints are sold, and even in brick and mortar galleries. It's always been a rule of thumb to check out a gallery before submitting slides to be sure your vision is in tune with that of the gallery director, rather than wasting your and their time with work that is an obvious mismatch.

Again, not being an apologist for art.com or the other taste-makers out there. Just sharing the insight that this is nothing new. In the end of the day, they want a unified brand that sells to the right sub-set of people and is easily marketable.

[MonikaS]

I agree with John and BlueRabbit's post above.(including the candle lighted cute cottages).
It escapes me why is so hard to do a fair search result. I don't know how many of you have Netflix. I think their website should be an example for art.com(and maybe for others too) how to find artwork online.
(btw. talking about their search... My 2 dog drawings I have w/art.com - uploaded b4 Jan 25.. does not show up when you search "drawing" or "drawings". I renamed, re-tagged those dogs, but still...no show. They only show up if you type their title in the search - both has "drawing" in the title) IHO art.com has more than they can handle and I seriously doubt their competency how to do business with contemporary art/artists.

(Sarah  I just noticed we have spell check in our post now..great! Thank You)

[JohnRizzuto]

It seems to me that art.com has always been pretty open about making curatorial choices in what they promote. One glance at their print catalog shows a fairly homogenous group of work. 

I hear what your saying Amie but at what point does one of the "rhodes scholars" who are making the selections realize that what they are choosing is not selling and that they are not promoting artists who have more sales than the works they are showing?  That's just called bad business plain and simple.  Just because someone can "talk the talk" does not mean they can "walk the walk".

[Amie]

It seems to me that art.com has always been pretty open about making curatorial choices in what they promote. One glance at their print catalog shows a fairly homogenous group of work. 

I hear what your saying Amie but at what point does one of the "rhodes scholars" who are making the selections realize that what they are choosing is not selling and that they are not promoting artists who have more sales than the works they are showing?  That's just called bad business plain and simple.  Just because someone can "talk the talk" does not mean they can "walk the walk".

Well, a bunch of people *did* just get fired

And to address another post that spoke of how art sites post search results: our search tool shows ALWAYS items in order of most recently added to the site, period. If you see a bunch of similar things in one block from a single artist, it's because that artist was industrious one day adding a lot of new work to the site at once.

[bluerabbit]

Thank you, John. My point exactly. Amie, you're right, and I would agree, but we're talking about a FAILURE here, not a success, and I was referencing choices at Sistino, not art.com, which is diverse, but the marketing and search order did not always make sense, even there. They have been shooting themselves in the foot, and we would like to see them make better business decisions. I agree, it's great to have new uploads appear up front, and change every day. That did NOT happen at Sistino etc.--we had to look at the same palettes every day for months. Go to an interior decorating store. Do you see those colors? I don't think so!

[Andy Mercer]

Is it too late to say.. my visitor numbers at Sistino are running at the same level as art.com.

I'm starting a new campaign.. SOS

Save Our Sistino

 

[natashawescoat]

ohhhh yes. The catch 22 of being an artist. You want to stay true to the genuine artistic inspirations in yourself, but you want to make a living at it. I along with many artists have gone through so many phases, theories, and plans on what it is we want to create, and what we want to sell. Trying to do both? Well, that is a gift, or maybe hard work. Everytime I wanted to sell a painting I created in the throes of anger, or to offer something of a genre not entirely popular, I never found one person who wanted it. My portrait painting, "Lyrical Glance" which I created in 2005 has been auctioned over 15 times both on ebay and overstock, and has been listed online for sale on many reputable artist sites and art.com even. Noone wants it. And to think that its my FAVORITE work! omg. I am ready to paint over it and forget I ever made anything like that. But that is just the thing.

Being a "business artist" (as andy warhol called it) requires a compromise or if you really don't want to, maybe the hardest work you have ever done marketing and shoving the stuff in people's faces. You just need to make what sells. Like a product. And not make what others can sell, make what YOU have proven to yourself sells the best out of all the work you have done. Mine evolved along with the process of learning what sold. My abstracts began into geometric works, and those geometric works evolved into more representational lines and circles until they became something of their own, (i.e. the Juicy Blossoms and Jeweled Trees). You could wait on God (as my mom used to tell me) and see if the "spirit draws the people to your work" or something to that effect, but usually in the end, its either going to sell or not. Being scared of selling your work on eBay or other "detestable" sites is another way to not make anything. If you want to stick to galleries go ahead. I've said this enough in my book "Passion of Art", that it will be draining and sometimes suffocating, but you have to find the compromise.

After a few years working on this issue, I came to the point where I painted just what worked. I'm not entirely giving in to being "sellable". I have my other projects (fairymisfits.net, whimsy and want) for example that are not anything like what I do. What I think Art.com turned me off to, right from the beginning was this "idea" that they could start ArtistRising.com and that everyone would profit. They may have given us tools to list art for sale, but they gave us nothing in experience and knowledge when it comes to web presence, marketing, design, and niche market, etc and so forth. It's like they throw you a raw steak and say, "There you got the food! Now you can cook it!" and we think to ourselves, "God, how the hell do you cook a steak?". And that's when the raw steak sits on the top of the stove, rotting, and getting yucky until the company says, "Hmmm, well the meats not cooked and we're hungry." and they just drop us like a deadbeat husband. They stick to the "trophy wives", the older more established art that has proven to make them the bread and butter.

What's sad is that much of the way that american culture has been going, we've been experiencing this "walmart effect" where everyone just wants something cute or nice to go above their sofa. And they want it now!

They don't value the process of creation, the quality of handmade things, the story behind the work. That's how its been for buying everything from simple clothing to food! I have to say though, that because of the uprising of the DIY (do it yourself) community in the online and offline market, as well as the awareness of an ecological responsibility, that we are rediscovering the interest of artists and craftsman, and the like. How we present this to new potential customers and collectors-to-be is the key. ArtistRising.com and Sistino.com could have been a great idea, but they left it unfinished and unrealized. They simply slapped on a site and named it something attractive.. and all of the sudden - they don't even want to attempt to put alittle work into it. We don't know what happened, but we do know it sucks and its stupid. (how simple can it be said, right?) It's just stupid and really sucks!!! (I can be such a dork.. anyways)

I think I totally went off the point here. Just from experience during my years of starting out, it's really hard to get the exposure you need unless you really work at it yourself and find ways to get your name out there, via marketing, selling works, offering something new, etc. Art.com has to be seen as a "frosting" on the cake deal, not something to depend on.

And like other people have said, we'd make so much more profit on our own if we were doing the prints ourselves. For a time, Art.com was trying to convince me to put my Trees on the originals pilot instead of the work I have on there now (which is stuff of mine that is harder to sell). I make my living off of those paintings, and so there was no way I'd let them earn a fat sum by getting to have my paintings on there. It's harder enough that they are getting the meat of the profit I could be making on my prints.

We will always deal with companies like this. But if we really wanted to, we can learn how to work with the evolution of the internet (web 3.0 anyone? woo!) and the uprising of consumer based marketing, we can find new and better ways to approach the world with our original creations. Maybe we will never make it, but everyone surely has a chance to inspire someone and find people who love their work, and if they can.. make something from it. Not everyone can make $3000 off an original, and its not always sensible either. Learning to really objectively price your work, consider a plan on how much you can make, where you can sell, how many, and how far you can go, then there you go. You're on a good start. If you want to be a serious gallery/museum artist, then you probably might do better staying off the net. Its really hard to sell art on here, where people can't experience the work in a 3 dimensional environment.....

man, I've written so much just now I don't know anymore what I've said and I probably drove you into boredom. My apologies. lol ;P

[revad-via-proxy]

I am intrigued that someone apparently so successful only rates their work worthy of a meagre 10% mark-up on IK.

[natashawescoat]

It's about creating awareness. A type of marketing. There is no devaluation when you see the bigger picture.

[LukeT]

http://emptyeasel.com/2007/07/09/changes-in-the-works-for-artist-rising/
Dan from emptyeasel shares his thoughts (and gives a nice suggestion of imagekind for prints and boundlessgallery for originals.)

[bluerabbit]

I like Absolutearts.com for originals. If you sell a certain amount during a given time period, the premium, unlimited portfolio is free. I use the credit card service and don't have to worry about scams. There are SO many dishonest "buyers" out there. It is possible to lose your shirt by making an unprotected "sale" from a personal site. (I have not bitten on these, but I know that others have.)
I do not sell in brick and mortar galleries right now because I live in the sticks, but we artists have always had to pay high commissions. I tried selling through studio shows, outdoor shows, cafes, co-op galleries, and dealers. Dealers were by FAR the best for my paintings, even though they took 40-50%. They earned it. They had a base of collectors, decorators, etc. They knew these people's homes and tastes. They paid gallery rent in high-end neighborhoods and paid pretty ladies to stand there all day. They hosted wine and cheese openings and sent out postcards. They invited the press. I am a very shy person, and I am just awful at sales. I would rather spend my energy finding the next level in my work. 
Selling online is a different thing. I like these POD sites because I can sell experimental digital work without having to make a stack of expensive prints. I really don't care whether I sell them or not. It is encouraging me to add a new medium to my bag of tricks. Besides, it's fun. Working with new media keeps the "child" alive in my work. As for pricing work, I have recently realized that I no longer need to give my work away, and I have raised all of my prices. My works are rather unconventional relics of my unique creative journey. When they are gone, they are gone. If people want them, they will have to pay. If they don't want them, that's fine. If people who sell original art match me with appropriate buyers (rare--winks), they will have earned their money.
I will be interested to see the search engine on the new combined site. To see a terrific art search, take a look at absolutearts. When you upload a new piece, it is featured in several places all over the site. The works are extremely diverse in every way. I wish that the new AR site would include a similar setup. (By the way, absolutearts works are all accessible via Google and other major search engines.)

[JohnRizzuto]

I think that graphic on emptyeasel about traffic to the sites really sums it up and also why we take so much crap from art.com .....  today, there is no ball game besides art.com for decent traffic.... the other sites dont even register basically.....  art.com knows this.... they are basically a monopoly since traffic is the game.  Without traffic no admin tools, excellent layout or search functionality really matters.....  you can not multiply or divide by zero

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Official Forum Business - Read Only ----------------------------- => Forum Policies - Please Read Before Posting => OVA Terms of Service => OVA PRO membership => Forum Announcements => Board Modifications ----------------------------- OVA Art Competitions ----------------------------- => SMELLS (visual representation of) => HAIR => SCANNER ART => Sounds - visual representation of => Previous Competition Topics ===> "Water" Competition - May 2008 ===> "FACES" June 08 competition ===> "MACRO" Competition ===> ABSTRACT ===> BLACK & WHITE ART ===> HOLIDAY MACRO ===> MUSIC ===> MATERIALS ===> EMOTIONS ===> MOVEMENT & TRANSPORTATION ===> COMPLEMENTARY COLORS ===> WILDLIFE ===> HOLIDAY COLOR ===> BIRDS OF A FEATHER ===> OVERDONE or CLICHE => Competition Rules - Please READ before entering images => General Competition Topics => FOOD ----------------------------- General Category ----------------------------- => Welcome New Members! => Calendar Events ----------------------------- Online Art Selling Sites ----------------------------- ===> artbyus.com ===> Art.com ===> artwanted.com ===> Boundlessgallery.com ===> cafepress.com ===> Deviantart.com ===> ebay.com ===> EBSQart.com ===> etsy.com ===> Imagekind.com ===> Lulu.com ===> RedBubble.com ===> UK and European Sites ===> yessy.com ===> zazzle.com ----------------------------- Critiques, Feedback, BRAGS ----------------------------- => Great Artists Discovered by Us ===> May 2010 Critiques ----------------------------- Marketing ----------------------------- ===> Art Blogs ===> Search Engine Optimization ----------------------------- Great Links & Learning ----------------------------- => Painting Resources => Photography Resources => Master Classes => Location, location, location  

Advanced search

Baseball, Beer and a Hot Dog... Paradise! Posted by Buckwhite in SMELLS (visual representation of)

[Current Competitions]

Competition Rules
Competition Topics

Current Competitions

HAIR -
VOTE!

SMELLS - Entries open
Discussion & Details

Upcoming Competitions
Mega: BIG things
Creepy Crawly
Doorways
Speed
Your Idea of Heaven

[Official]

•    Official
•    Forum Business
•    PRO & Amazon
•    Sell on Amazon
•    PRO membership
•    OVA on Amazon
•    Submit Art
•    Competitions
•    Calls for Art
•    Show your work
•    Discovered Artists
•    Critiques
•    Saturday Show Your Stuff
•    Critique Panel Events
•    Individual Critiques
•    General
•    General
•    Welcome New Members
•    Art-Selling Sites
•    Art Sites & PODs
•    Marketing Your Art
•    Marketing
•    Selling & Publishing
•    Resources
•    ARTIST RESOURCES
•    Outstanding Links
•    Image Editing
•    OVA Galleries
•    Winners
•    Member Gallery 2010
•    Member Gallery 2009
•    Member Gallery 2008
•    All Galleries