<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are Underachieving Artists Simply Underpricing?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/2008/04/28/are-underachieving-artists-simply-underpricing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/2008/04/28/are-underachieving-artists-simply-underpricing/</link>
	<description>Because the killer app is us.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:16:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Olivier</title>
		<link>http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/2008/04/28/are-underachieving-artists-simply-underpricing/#comment-29342</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Olivier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 07:19:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/?p=419#comment-29342</guid>
		<description>Hi
I found the article on art interesting as I own a commerical art gallery and also consult with RO and capability -  the majority of artists I believe are comfortable with Work Level II and those who make a reasonalbe living have mastered and regularly experiment with pracital skills.
Those whose work goes on to be traded on the secondary art market and who have art books written about them are normally the higher modes since they use their art to interpret and reframe.
The other thing is those with capabilty develop (without knowing it) tactical strategies for marketing themselves in different markets and those with the capability (potential) to move into the cogintive capabilty associated with Level V and beyond, redefine their art and their positions as artists within a broader societal context - here lies a true art strategy...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi</p>
<p>I found the article on art interesting as I own a commerical art gallery and also consult with RO and capability &#8211;  the majority of artists I believe are comfortable with Work Level II and those who make a reasonalbe living have mastered and regularly experiment with pracital skills.</p>
<p>Those whose work goes on to be traded on the secondary art market and who have art books written about them are normally the higher modes since they use their art to interpret and reframe.</p>
<p>The other thing is those with capabilty develop (without knowing it) tactical strategies for marketing themselves in different markets and those with the capability (potential) to move into the cogintive capabilty associated with Level V and beyond, redefine their art and their positions as artists within a broader societal context &#8211; here lies a true art strategy&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn Mehltretter</title>
		<link>http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/2008/04/28/are-underachieving-artists-simply-underpricing/#comment-29341</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn Mehltretter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/?p=419#comment-29341</guid>
		<description>Hi Forrest,
Going back to some definitions: CPC and CAC.  In your comment Ã¢â‚¬Å“If youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re know the numbers, she coded as 4L at 32.Ã¢â‚¬Â  ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s referring to CPC or Current Potential Capability: what you could do if 1) you valued the work and 2) had the full load of knowledge, skill, and experience, to work at your current potential.
CAC, or Current Applied Capability, refers to what you bring to the situation today.  The idea being somewhat less than your potential due to a shortfall in either valuing of the work or knowledge, skills or experience.
With these two things in mind the underutilized underachiever question may reduce to fit and coaching.  Fit, from a values standpoint Ã¢â‚¬â€œ can I find work that lights a fire.  Coaching from a skill development standpoint.
Since the GO conference last year four of us have had the benefit of personal coaching.  We have all found it of significant value.  As a general statement that value came through knowing ones-self better and, with that making adjustments around what we valued, and how we defined our work.
Best regards,
Glenn</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Forrest,<br />
Going back to some definitions: CPC and CAC.  In your comment Ã¢â‚¬Å“If youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re know the numbers, she coded as 4L at 32.Ã¢â‚¬Â  ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s referring to CPC or Current Potential Capability: what you could do if 1) you valued the work and 2) had the full load of knowledge, skill, and experience, to work at your current potential.<br />
CAC, or Current Applied Capability, refers to what you bring to the situation today.  The idea being somewhat less than your potential due to a shortfall in either valuing of the work or knowledge, skills or experience.<br />
With these two things in mind the underutilized underachiever question may reduce to fit and coaching.  Fit, from a values standpoint Ã¢â‚¬â€œ can I find work that lights a fire.  Coaching from a skill development standpoint.<br />
Since the GO conference last year four of us have had the benefit of personal coaching.  We have all found it of significant value.  As a general statement that value came through knowing ones-self better and, with that making adjustments around what we valued, and how we defined our work.<br />
Best regards,<br />
Glenn</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

