[earbitscom]

Inversion founder here.

Most galleries do not provide production capital, and when they do, there become arguments about who owns the work produced. It's a very bad idea and the savviest artists we've worked with don't let their galleries pay for production.

We already have 7 artists we work with. They joined us because the language we use on our website is totally transparent about our plans and incentives. One of them is a Guggenheim Fellow who has had two institutional solo exhibitions just in the 6 months we have been working with them. One of them invented the NFT and has work in the Whitney collection. Another has works in the Smithsonian, the Guggenheim, LACMA, MoMA, and nearly every other major art museum.

Regarding 3 months being very short. We work with each artist for 5 years. It's only the residency that lasts 3 months.

[d--b]

Look, I am not your harshest critic here.

It is great for you that you work with famous artists. I don’t why you’re being secret about who they are. I have a feeling that these famous artists did not enlist in your program but are advisors in your program. My guess is one of them is Dmitri Cherniak who’s really good and also the nicest guy on the planet, and he happens to have been through YC twice before becoming a generative art guy. So of course he’s going to try to help other fellow artists.

My general point is that with that kind of language, you will be appealing to tech-oriented SV-friendly artists, which is somewhat niche. If that’s what you guys want, then it’s all good.

Also: you’re wrong about galleries upfronting the production money, it is very common for pricey projects.

[earbitscom]

We're not secret about the artists we work with. I just didn't much care to use their names in a forum where people are being unnecessarily negative. We see it as our responsibility to protect their brand, not the other way around. I'm happy to answer questions, so instead of having "feelings" about who is involved and how, why not simply be curious and ask?

I like Dmitri's work and agree he's incredibly nice, but most "SV-friendly artists" are not going to see their work appreciate over time. Dmitri may be a rare exception but he's not one of our clients.

We work with traditional fine artists. Five out of seven are painters. One does conceptual work. Only one of them has anything to do with the tech world, and that's Kevin & Jenn McCoy, who minted the first NFT back in 2014. They, too, make mostly physical work. Our website shares two case studies.

I understand where you're coming from about the language. It has been a balancing act speaking transparently about the business and appealing to the sensibilities of traditional artists. But the program and the way we speak about it appeal to them because we're transparent, which is refreshing, and because our terms are very fair, thoughtful and equitable. We guarantee we'll hold work for five years, we pay royalties on profits, we promise not to take their work to auction unless their work is already auctioned regularly, and so on. These terms were all designed based on conversations with fine artists and a deep understanding of what's important to them. It's true that they are not used to seeing people talk so openly about the art market and financial incentives of art investing, but they are also not used to people taking such great lengths to design something that works for them. They appreciate our candor and it builds trust. Some artists are turned off by it, there's no question, but many find it a refreshing change. You have to consider that most are tired of the way the art world functions currently, and artists today have very different ideas about how it should work than artists even 10 years ago.

As for galleries funding projects, it happens, but most galleries except for the Gagosians and Paces of the world cannot afford that at all. Either way, it's rife with conflicts of interest and most savvy artists avoid taking gallery funding for production.