Monthly Question: “What Do You Want From Me?” The Artist and the Gallerist
by artsRambler
The relationship between the gallery owner and the artist is filled with trust, suspicion, gratitude, jealousy, admiration and disappointment. In short, it's like a bad marriage. We at Artsrambler offer our services as your on-line marriage counselor. The central question we would like you to address is: "Gallerists, what do you expect from your artists?"

And vice versa: "Artists, what is it you want the gallery to do for you, your work, your reputation?"

Maybe if we can simply get this out in the open, we can start to address the dysfunction with which art is presented to the world.

Further, perhaps there are other ideas out there about how to present art to the world. The museum/university venue is fine for what it is, an offering to the public to see work they would not get to see otherwise. But for the purpose of this question, let us consider the ways art is offered for purchase, thereby allowing the artist to exist by means of the work. Is the gallery the best way? If it is, what ideas are out there for galleries, to increase understanding, excitement and patronage? Is the artist responsible for some of this?

Enough. Start talking.
[link]
20 Responses to “Monthly Question: “What Do You Want From Me?” The Artist and the Gallerist”

It seems to me that both expect too much of the other.
The artist feels that the gallery is not displaying his/her work correctly, not advertising enough - in short not making the masterpiece visible enough.
The gallery, on the other hand, looks at the work and feels a lack of something in it and expects more originality, composition, etc from the artist.
Most times they (artist and gallery) just ignore the question of what are we (I) doing wrong.
Gallery folks deal directly with the customer and hear what they say and are looking for. they hear the comments on works of art - ggod and bad - and in most cases do not pass this on to the artist. They feel if the artist hears the comments good and bad it could be shattering and creare ill will. In some cases it might, but constructive comments - good and bad - passed on should be accepted by the artist - discussed with the gallery and taken into serious consideration - tis type conversation between gallery and artist aboout work on display is essential to good presentation, better work thus more sales.
This is the techiques I use in the areas I display and my show places (galleries) and I seem to reap decent rewards and the gallery always invites me back.
What works for one Artist may not work for another - working with the gallery and hearing customer comments seems to work for me - it might work for you.
Happy New Year and enjoy a prosperous one
tondeb
2. Administrator Says:
December 27th, 2006 at 10:23 am e

I expect a gallery to believe in what I am doing. Try to explain to people what I am doing. Try to sell and promote what I am doing. For that they receive 50% of any sales. That is fair. They pay rent , salaries and promotion expenses. I also believe that a gallery should pay the artist withing 30 days of a sale. Without hassle. I hope that the level of the other representation is of a certain quality..though I recognize…that they have to pay rent, salaries and promotion expenses. Other work will sell better than mine. I also want honesty from a gallery. When they need to let you go..for any reason..do that as the professional business that they should be. And if they close their doors..return the unsold work to the artist

I am lucky. I am a hard sell. People are afraid of what I do. I fall into the middle..between the representational and work about “great thoughts”, religion, sex and “messages.” My galleries know this and leave me only with the worry “will they stay in business.”

As to the responsibility of the artist to the gallery. Offer work of professional nature. If someone comes up to you..to your studio..and offers to buy a work..refer them to the gallery. And never when someone comes to your studio and says’ “let’s make a deal”… never say “yes.” The gallery sells your work for X amount..and one should never undermine the gallery and earlier purchasers. I admit..I give former students a discount. My Galleries know and allow this. I have no written contract with any that represent me but I have the responsibility not to play one against another in a given area without permission. It is called “Being honorable.”

I must respond with professionalism to a gallery request. Work for an exhibition must be sent in a timely fashion. Material requested must be provided.

We need each other. I give respect and expect respect. They can sell my work and without my work they have nothing to sell.
3. dumay@dumaygorham.co Says:
December 27th, 2006 at 10:20 pm e

many galleries and gallery owners have helped expose artists and their work. many unknown artists have gained a certain popularity and exposure from being represented by or shown in galleries.

that being said, i am totally unable to digest the concept of someone taking 50% for selling an artists work! has anyone ever had a gallery pitch 40% as a selling point?

i am a full-time artist and metal sculptor. i feel lucky to stay busy and have been very fortunate to develop a fairly large client base, a certain amount of notoriety on a local level and a strong professional and creative reputation.

i rent my own studio space. i pay for my own materials. i pay sales & income tax. i have a family and a mortgage + all other life associated bills. i work very hard and i love my job.

my situation as an artist is wonderful b/c almost all of the work i do is custom and commission based. most of my business has been generated through word of mouth and the visibility of previous projects. i have been very lucky to get a lot of exposure through local news and magazines. i also donate quite a bit of sculpture to charities for auction (that could be another topic for discussion).

anyway, i have had good and bad experiences with galleries. all of those experiences have involved sales of my work. the good ones have been professional, mutually respectful and smooth on the part of the gallery. the bad ones have involved dishonesty, lack of or very late payment and misrepresentation of me as an artist by a gallery owner or associate.

although i understand galleries pay rent and are supposed to do some advertising and usually host an opening with food, beverages and some p.r.- i still feel 50% is too much to ask from any artist for sale of their work. why not start at 10% or 15% then move up to a larger cut once they prove their ability to sell? (a lot of work sells itself). having a nail on a wall or a pedestal in a gallery which represents 5 - 15 other artists is nice but not necessarily worth a 50% consignment fee( unless the gallery employees are working hard to make contacts and generate sales opportunities with homeowners, designers, architects, developers, corporate entities etc. ).

some artists who have gained popularity are able to add a gallery’s percentage or at least absorb it in the cost of their work. those artsts worked hard to get to that point and may have had help from a gallery in the beginning. many artists do benefit from association with a gallery.

however, if a gallery wants 50% of my check; it needs to do some serious legwork and spend some serious energy on promotions and networking to sell anything i decide to place in it. sitting at a desk, reading a magazine and answering the phone occaisionally is not worth 50%. hosting an opening & providing a venue is nice, but still not worth 50% in many cases. (i had my first solo show earlier this year. i sold 1/2 the pieces i made at the opening & the host’s take was 20%. they ran the promotions, used their mailing list & provided food & beverages which we split.they took nothing from commissions i recieved as a result of the show. they were awesome!)

regarding exclusivity agreements and referrals: i don’t know any artists who want their work in 3 different galleries in the same city, but many exclusivity agreements are too agressive. i feel those agreements should be limited to local galleries. some galleries want a cut of sales from art festivals or other shows that are non-gallery affiliated. that seems greedy to me.

i had a situation in which a gallery owner (with whom i had terminated my contract months earlier) did not want to give my contact information to someone who asked for it. then- after telling me about this “opportunity”- wanted me to add 50% to my price for the gallery. my response was,” i don’t think a gallery should be entitled to a cut of anything that does not cross the threshold of their building -aside from a minor finder’s fee for the referral.” a 5% - 10% cut for giving someone my phone number is pretty good (especially if it’s 5% - 10% of a $5,000 commission).eventually- the gallery owner gave ME the client’s contact info.

i feel many galleries undermine the artist by not encouraging them to grow as professionals. artists need to develop their own business sense. they need to assign their own worth to their own projects and be proactive in exposing their own work and talking to those people who are interested in their work. galleries can certainly be an integral part of that evolution for the artist- they can also shut that evolution down.

galleries should have their finger on the artistic pulse of the community and know what they can sell at a reasonable price. i realize my philosophy doesn’t apply to all artists. some artists just don’t want the “hassle” of dealing with sales but- if your work sells and you value your work; you should do yourself a favor and sell it yourself.

galleries should be selective in the artists they represent and artists should be selective in the galleries they ask to show their work. as an artist, i want a gallery owner to go to work for me and my sculpture and develop sales and contacts that i may not have the opportunity to generate myself. they should absolutely be rewarded for that. however, their job as gallery owners is to do A LOT more than pay rent and provide a wall or floorspace and answer the phone.

if an artist has never sold a thing and wants to be represented and has quality work - a gallery may be able to open a door for them that was previously unavailable. that relationship can be mutually beneficial. but- can that artist afford to give a gallery 50%? an artist may be well known and already have some name recognition that would help a gallery and would like to exhibit unsold work in a gallery. what is that worth? there is no simple solution or answer. there is room for negotiation & that negotiation process should not start at 50%…
4. Administrator Says:
December 28th, 2006 at 5:57 am e

We sent notice of this quetion to our list of artists and our list of gallerists. True, our list of artists is longer, but the gallerist list is in the neighborhood of 250 email addresses. We hope that we hear what it is they expect from artists.

Also, in our experience, it has never failed to put an art patron into a jaw-dropping stupor, if only for a second, upon hearing the commission rate in the gallery/studio business relationship. Patrons, weigh in, please.
5. Administrator Says:
December 31st, 2006 at 10:35 am e

[Sent to us from Gerry Lynch, Raleigh artist]
Regarding the question, “What do artists want from a gallery?”: I’ve been thinking about this and I’ve decided that what I want most from a gallery owner are mainly two things: an honest assessment/evaluation/criticism of my work, and an earnest effort to try to find a suitable place for the work. I have never gotten either from a gallery. I have to assume that they really don’t care about my paintings; or that they don’t want to hurt my feelings by telling me the truth about why I have no sales; or that they are too busy to talk to me because they have too many artists to consider. - That’s it. I want communication and effort.
6. Administrator Says:
December 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pm e

First and most importantly the gallery wishes to establish a professional relationship with the artist. The gallery expects the artist to be loyal and honest. In the case of my own gallery, we establish parameters in the very beginning with respect to territory covered, how to handle sales from studios, exhibiting in other venues, etc. I have always modeled my policies after successful New York galleries. Standard practices are these: there is only one price for a work of art and it must be the same at studio and/or gallery or in another exhibition venue; artists must credit their home gallery when showing in other venues within the geographic territory (my territory being the North Carolina counties from a line drawn between Chapel Hill and Burlington, east to the sea, north to the Virginia line and south to the South Carolina line. The territory is defined basically as Raleigh’s shopping market.). When an artist shows in other venues, the venue must share its commission 50/50 with the home gallery; the artist gets the same 50 percent as he or she would had the work been sold through the home gallery. The work must be shown and labeled “Courtesy of Lee Hansley Gallery, Raleigh,” in my case. Artists must understand that the gallery is not a retail store and that many collectors (and there are so few!) generally pay over time, meaning the gallery can’t necessarily pay the artist just because a black dot appears at an opening; oftentimes this takes a few months or longer. Artists with gallery representation should not give work to auctions and other events without first disucssing it with the gallery. Artists are always the first to the ask and I feel strongly that there are hundreds of other sources for auction items. There is no benefit to the artist if his or her work does not sell for MORE than its retail value. The gallery expects the artists to support it by attending its functions, participating in its group and theme exhibitions and keeping the gallerey stocked with a good representation of the artist’s work. It is generally up to the artist to get his or her work to the gallery and the gallery’s responsibility to return it–if the artist is not local. The gallery generally pays for all public relations, advertising and printing associated with an exhibition and generally pays for the printing, mailing service and postage for reception mailers. It is up to the artist to keep an up-to-date resume on file for the gallery and to let the gallery director know what shows they are planning etc. In the case of my gallery, I attempt to help my artists locate galleries outside my coverage area–in Charlotte, Richmond, Washington, D.C., Atlanta. Perhaps the most discouraging thing to hear is when an artist has sold work without the gallery’s involvment or knowledge. It always comes back to the gallery; the art world is a very small town.

Lee Hansley, Lee Hansley Gallery, Raleigh
7. Andrea Gomez Says:
January 1st, 2007 at 9:15 am e

Because of the type of artist I am, I have developed a strange and wry appreciation of the predicament of the gallery owner. Indulge me just for a few sentences while I talk about myself. There’s a reason for it.
Although I see my entire oeuvre as all of a piece–that is, an effort to understand movement, color composition and how it all relates to pictorial narrative and temporal signposts–there are few who share my perspective. Instead, the usual comments of those familiar with one or two aspects of my work is utter surprise at other aspects, usually followed with, “is this a new direction?”or”I didn’t know you were a ‘landscape painter’, or ‘portraitist’ [sigh] or ‘watercolorist’ [sigh, sigh] or….” It is easier for the world to box up understandings into neat storage containers. Yet the history of art is replete with artists who jump materials, subjects, artistic concerns, but their life’s work is still all of a piece. And so it is with me; and perhaps with you.
The gallery owner must first understand and appreciate this perspective. I have found some who do. Yet even if they do, in order for them to exist, they must be able to place works. Therefore I am faced with a restricted representation: more landscapes!, no figures! or whatever the corporate or residential requirements might dictate. No, I’ve never been told: more blue! I have been told: less red!–which is a bit like telling me to grow straight hair. I know that galleries are not museums. I know that they are a commercial enterprise, and I respect that situation.
So I’ve been toying with the idea of an Open Studio–that is , a serious effort at self representation, self promotion. A few of us have done it in this state. I’ve noticed, for instance, with writers that self publishing is shaking the pejorative “vanity press” onus and has become a respectable alternative. I’m just wondering if serious Open Studio artists might not consider loosely associating, working towards establishing another alternative for the purchase of art. ( I hear gallery owners clucking and chuckling. Just wait, they’re saying, you’ll see.)
And yet for me, I wonder if it could be any worse than selling 1 or 2 pieces a year through a gallery that restricts my representation to one showplace with 50 miles or 100 miles, and then gives one minor exhibit per year or no consistent floor space or, in some, cases no show per year.
Artists I’d like to hear your responses. Gallery owners, please chime in.
8. FH Says:
January 1st, 2007 at 7:32 pm e

I would love to sit in on a debate between Dumay Gorham and Lee Hansley( both of whom I am aquainted with). They are both strong in their opinions, and complete opposites in those opinions. Is there any way to encourage this interaction?
9. Administrator Says:
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:09 am e

I’m happy to say it’s out of our control and in the the control of y’all. Dumay, Lee, it’s up to you. My wish would be to hear the opinions of more and more gallerists (so far we have one lonely but brave soul) and more artists.
10. Administrator Says:
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 am e

[This is from Mike Roig, sculptor, Chapel Hill.] I’ve been following the discussion about gallery/artist expectations, and I’d like to add my two cents. I’ve made the initial steps with the registration form on the site, but since the password hasn’t come through yet I’ll opt to give you my input here:

Like a lot of artists when I was young I hoped to be a successful artist represented by great galleries that unburdened me of the need to sully my hands with business. Indeed I succeeded in establishing relationships with some very good galleries from time to time who wound up relieving me of the illusion that I’d ever make a living waiting on my half of the commission checks. My best return on my investment wooing galleries was the occasional ego prop as I headed back out in the morning to wear whatever hat I was wearing besides my artiste’s beret to sustain body and soul.

I have always believed that the cost of selling a piece of artwork is at least fifty percent of the cost of realizing any money from its sale, but if any artist believes that means the gallery is going to take on that fifty percent of the work for their fifty percent, well I hope you are lucky and patient - and don’t give up your day job. Problem is that making good art is a full time job, and if you are working full time to support your full time job, you haven’t got much left for friends, or family, or reading a good book. Something will give, and it may well be your ability to be a professional wall stocker for your favorite gallery. Two popular solutions: academia - I’m not knocking it, it keeps you close to your passion and allows for experimentation that need bear no relation to commerce, looks good on grant applications, and provides a built-in adoring public of pliable minds; or, two, marry well - also not without its many advantages.

Although I am completely happy with my marriage, we are working artists who need a real income from our work. Whatever the strategy, a successful artist must make excellent work, build a resume, and be a good business person in promoting and creating visibility for that work. You’re making the work, you believe in it, ultimately it’s up to you to find it an audience. Although galleries have not proven to be helpful to me personally, I think they can be a strategy that works for some. However, pricing your work to accommodate a fifty or sixty percent commission will make it much more difficult to find your paying audience. In my experience, if I establish what I believe to be a fair price for my work - and don’t fall for the fallacy of an hourly wage, no artist sells ALL of their work unless they’re willing to settle on formula output. You’re going to want to experiment and not all of your experiments are going to sell, they’re your R&D - anyway, take that fair price, the one you can actually live on if you sell half of what you make, then double it. I guarantee you the number of collectors who can afford the latter price are rare, but the number who could afford your work at YOUR price are not just double, but many times that number. It does mean you have to find them.

But by then you HAVE built the resume doing those juried shows, invited the masses to your studio at studio-tour time, compiled the mailing list, hauled the sculptures to this venue and that, plastered the restaurant with paintings, thrown up the website and cursed the computer until you figured out how to administrate it, applied for the public art projects and built to more than the budget allowed just to make something that would make a lasting impression, and still found time to regularly go in that studio and push the envelope to make the best art you know how to make. For me, it’s going to take more than a pretty showcase space to make me price my work beyond the reach of 3/4 of the people who have stretched their budget to make a home for my sculpture.

So, in short, I guess I have no expectations or needs that I look to galleries to fill. I didn’t let go of that hope easily, and I still get plenty of requests from galleries that stumble on the website. One of the last promised commissions that allowed me “wide artistic latitude, fair commissions, and entry into a whole new market.” I gave them some pretty specific guidelines about how I’d like to approach new projects, all of which were ignored when two months later the request came back for a duplication of a previous project, placed in a highly problematic setting, with a budget in line with what I’d charged previously - except they’d take half.

There’s a lot that goes into cultivating an audience for art, and patrons buy art for the love of creative expression. I’ve never talked somebody into buying one of my pieces - they either love it, and can afford it, or they don’t or can’t. I love doing what I do, and I’m happy to do what’s necessary to keep this sculptor’s welding cap the only one I wear. - Mike Roig
11. Antonio Rivera Says:
January 4th, 2007 at 2:27 pm e

As an artist and trying to steer an alternative venue more towards a gallery, I add my two cents.

I think artists put to much weight on being in a gallery, that is they expect a one person show 2. also expecting that the gallery devote all its time in promoting them. When typically galleries have twenty or more artist they represent and typical gallery space is a thousand feet or less…neither is likely to happen within the period the artists desires.

Secondly, artists are too quick to accept gallery contracts which impose that hefty commission and exhibition limitations. I am not of the opinion that galleries make Artists. Thus I have not accepted gallery affiliations when offered them. ( have over the last twenty years maintained a loose affiliation with a private dealer, with the commission but without restrictions to my exhibiting when and where I choose). The artists that succeed within galleries at their best do so because they are exceptional (most of us are not, though it is nice to think we are). Or equally successful because they cater to partiicular taste…which is my way of saying they make commercial banal work.

As someone developing an art gallery I believe it best to limit the number of artists I will show…I think maybe ten over a five year period, in order to try to promote them properly. My contract is loose and easy, 40% commission, no promise of a one person show (though I plan to do such shows twice a year, and freedom to exhibit any where they can; with the only stipulation that if they show in Raleigh with a commercial gallery, that we get half of that galleries commission on any sales. (incidentally, this is an arrangement I have with a local gallery when we show one of their artists.)

Every one has addressed real issues and I am appreciative of that, but on my experiences I want to try a variant on existing premises.

Lastly, I agree that a gallery should take an artists whose work they understand, and when feasible be willing to offer genuine critiques, as this will keep the relationship alive and tyhriving. I often get the impression that artist believe they should be privy to the business concerns of the dealer…when that is not what the relationship of artist and dealer are about.

But no artist should go to a dealer for sympathy or therapy…dealers are not part of a personal support system.
12. Tom Starland Says:
January 6th, 2007 at 3:46 pm e

I’d like to begin my statement with full disclosure. I publish a visual arts newspaper which focuses on visual art exhibitions taking place in the Carolinas. Most of the revenue that supports that endeavor comes from commercial galleries. I have owned and operated commercial galleries myself. On a daily basis, I deal with gallery owners and managers about 75 percent of the time. If I sound biased - I just might be. After all - all that Carolina Arts is - is made possible by the support of these galleries and the people that run them. But, if you know me or have read my commentary offered in that paper - you should know I’m not afraid to express my own opinions on any subject and am willing to pay the price for doing so.

So, with that in mind I’d like you readers to indulge me during this statement by allowing me to use a model to help express my views on the gallery vs. artists debate which is going on here.

Let’s say that the artist is the producer - the person producing a product. The gallery is the retailer - selling such product. And, the public is the consumer - purchasing the product - either from the producer or the retailer.

The simple breakdown of this “traditional market” is that there is a very small percentage of consumers interested in the product - in this case - art. And there are more producers than there are retailers. Some of those consumers like to purchase the product through retailers, some like to go factory direct, and a very special group likes to hide behind the guise of helping out charities by purchasing art at auctions. There has traditionally been two modes of operation: producer + retailer = consumer or producer = consumer. This has been the picture, but that picture has changed over the last decade because the world has changed.

It’s easy to see by reading the previous entries that a lot of artists are not happy with the producer + gallery = consumer formula. Some don’t like the financial cut, some don’t feel the gallery is doing what the artists expects it to and some just don’t seem to feel the love.

In my position over the past 20 years I can believe the worst stories I’ve heard from all three sides of this formula. But it can’t be as bad as the impression one might get reading these comments - which do not add up to a scientific study. It’s a slice of “personal truth” but not the whole picture. Hopefully that picture will get more balanced as more folks from all sides of this issue chime in. And, everything here is informative as long as readers are open to listening to all opinions and experiences expressed.

The one thing I do know is that you can’t know what it’s like for the artists, gallery owners or consumers until you have walked in their shoes. They all have a story of how they have been done wrong - in some cases - over and over again. I do believe that some people are followed by a very dark cloud, but as I said before - thankfully this is not the case of the majority of all involved. Many people - artists, gallery owners, and consumers have great relationships with each other.

Yes, we could talk about the gallery in Winston-Salem that ripped off hundreds of thousands of dollars from artists, landlords, banks, and the tax man -over a long period of time. My question to this day is still - If artists were not getting paid for sales of artwork - why did they keep delivering work to the gallery and why were other artists dying to be represented by this gallery? Wasn’t anyone talking about what was happening to them? Are artists that desperate to be represented by high-end galleries that they will walk in deaf, dumb and blind? If other gallery owners knew what was going on - why did they stand by and allow these folks to put a stain on them? And, apparently there were greedy consumers who didn’t care if they were buying art way below the market price. It seems that all three players have to be doing the same dance for such a thing to happen.

And, we could talk about the artist who after every purchase made at “their” local gallery did a major investigation to learn who the buyer was so they could go behind the gallery’s back and offer the consumers a discount on future purchases. This artist didn’t see any problem cutting out the middleman who was bringing the consumers in contact with their art. After all - they got their 50 percent on at least the first sale. It took a couple of years for this practice to be discovered by the gallery.

There just seems to be an overall lack of communication and an overabundance of unvoiced expectations by all parties involved - when the major problem just isn’t plain greed.

When people ask me if running an ad in my paper will bring results. I have to tell them I don’t know. I don’t know what their expectations will be if they don’t tell me. Once they do I can only give them the benefit of my experience based on other advertisers. I’ve learned that there is no instant gratification when it comes to advertising in the visual arts, but that some people can be very pleased where I might not be. It’s all about expectations and what makes you happy - it’s different for everyone. But, I’ve learned that the more you learn what someone expects to get for their efforts - you can focus your efforts to get expected results. And, sometimes, no matter what you do - it’s not going to be a good match - someone’s not being honest with me or themselves. The basic quest is to find what makes us both happy and fulfilled.

Did the new artist taken on by a gallery know how and when they would be paid when artwork is sold? Did they know that if a consumer buys a piece on time-payments that they will be paid on time-payments? Did the gallery owners explain such possibilities or where both parties excited about their new relationship. Much like any relationship - flaws overlooked at first glance are eventually learned with the passing of time. Can the two parties adjust and adapt or will there be a parting of the ways over the first bump in the road?

Did the new artist know that on entering the gallery “stable” that they would have to earn the preferred position on the wall and solo exhibitions by generating sales - more sales than other artists the gallery has represented over time? Did the artist know that the gallery would not be happy that they were donating work to every charity art auction that called for a donation - undercutting the gallery’s market?

Much like two corporations planning a merger - there are a millions little details the two parties need to understand clearly in order to have a productive partnership - and in some cases in writing. All the “t” must be crossed and the “i” dotted. Everyone should know what is expected of them and what they will receive in return.

In my own experience I found that in owning and operating a gallery there was more - much more to it than introducing artwork I enjoyed to the public. There was way too much paperwork, changing of light bulbs, trips to the market for wine and cheese, training part-time workers and then training people to replace them, dealing with insurance salespeople, keeping up with bookkeeping and advertising, dealing with egos of artists and consumers - the list goes on and on. And, at the same time, I had to compete with other gallery owners to keep the better artists and get the better collectors to come to my gallery. I couldn’t make it all work and make everyone happy and make a profit - heck I would have been happy to break even.

Running a true commercial gallery is a lot harder than traveling to art fairs on weekends, opening your studio to the public once or twice a year or when you feel like dealing with the public or selling work on the internet. You set your own schedule, but once you open a gallery - you are locked into a regular schedule of operating hours and you have to deal with everyone who walks through the door or calls on the phone. And, the overhead is there whether anyone does walk in or call much less buy a work of art. Remember, the gallery doesn’t make that 50 percent until something actually sells and the check clears at the bank.

So don’t mock the 50 percent until you’ve tried to earn it or at least understand what is involved in earning it. There are a lot of ways to keep a larger percent of your sales - less taxes, but they are not so easy either. Each artist will have to discover what works best for them and stop wondering if the grass is always greener somewhere else. And, don’t stay in relationships that are not working for you. Leave before you become enemies or bitter about ever entering into another one.

But if you want the status of gallery representation and all the tangibles that go with it - exhibitions, receptions, reviews, publicity, and no hassles in dealing with the general public and all their questions - 50 percent could be cheap. On the other hand - eBay may be best for you.

All other alternatives that artists have been finding to sell their product don’t offer the same tangibles. The mainstream media doesn’t give a hoot about internet stores - especially when they are losing revenue to that medium. The general public still isn’t fond of purchasing artworks they can’t see up close and personal - even if your e-gallery is open 24/7. I can’t remember the last time I saw a review of an on-line exhibit - except on on-line media. And, the more imagery you put out in cyberspace - the more contact it has with the copycat industry - which is growing in leaps and bounds.

I think the artists and gallery owners have a better chance of coming up with solutions to both their problems by working together. Traditional ways of doing things do change.
13. Andrea Gomez Says:
January 8th, 2007 at 8:55 am e

One of the aspects of this question of relationship between artist and gallerist is who has what power and how is it used. Power Struggles.

The most apparent and perhaps expected power struggle is about money. The gallerist controls the purse strings. It is, afterall, the function of the gallery and why the artist comes tothe gallery, portfolio in hand.

Built into this equation is the job description of the gallerist. He makes money, the artist makes art. This begs the question: is art the artist’s power? Well, it is, but I would assert it is a weak power when negotiating with the gallerist. Young artists, embroider this rule on a pillow and sleep with it. Your strong art has its place, but only to a point.

Money makes the world go ’round, and the gallerist has money in his power column. The artist has the art. There is the mutual power of reputation and patronage, These are the politics, the push and pull of the relationship.

There are more, of course. Recently I’ve been made aware of the ageist effect. Can’t happen here? Think again and read What’s Age Got to Do With It? http://anonymousfemaleartist.blogspot.com/

And the collector asserts power, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes very wittingly (is that a word?) The collector, sometimes, is like a 12 year old girl, unaware of the attraction of her own budding body to the world. Naive or not, collectors you wield enormous power.

All of these create politics in the gallery/artist relationship. Oh that it were a pure relationship, but it ain’t.
14. saltzman Says:
January 8th, 2007 at 8:58 am e

A WARNING..I said what I said about galleries/artists..However, a warning. I am disturbed by the comments that seem to imply charity auctions as a “way to go.”..I wish to make sure that any artist giving a work to an auction..as far as the IRS is concerned..may take as a tax deduction..the material and the cost related to transporting the work (about $.34 per mi) Our labor and the result are not cosnidered. Hence..a drawing The cost of the paper and in my case the graphite lead.($1.50) A painting..stretcher bars, staples, canvas and paint..maybe $30.00. Someone donating my work could claim Fair Market Value..$1000,s.
A tax audit could kill you..Please beware
15. Constance Pappalardo Says:
January 18th, 2007 at 6:11 am e

My head is full! Tom, especially has given me much to think about. But as an “Up and Coming” artist I can tell you that all this conflict between gallery and artist has a lot to do with the very “personal” nature of our product. When a gallery approaches me or accepts a submission, a proposal for a show, etc… much flattery , ego, validation is involved. You are like a parent being told how lovely and brilliant your child is. You gush and feel so grateful…. You are eager to please and ready to sign any contract because you are under the temporary illusion that you are finally understood and appreciated. I know it’s silly and some of you who are more established than I, know better. But I am just telling you what it is like for me, at this point in my budding career. I won’t give any name but I was taken into the fold of one rather well reputed gallery (well reputed to the consumer, not the insider artist). I have finally sold a painting there, after 7 months. I gave them what i thought was some of my best pieces only to see that most of them were in the back, stacked up among dozens. I felt bad and resentful because I thought of all the places I could have shown the work. And yet…. I can see that for now, it is still a good thing for me. Art is a lot about “guilt by association” and at least to the world of the consumer… if I say: “I am represented by Blah Gallery”, my stock goes up and I am taken a bit more seriously than in the past when I was just showing in coffee houses and co-ops. It is a sad truth that many a time, the co-ops offer a more dynamic and sincere art than the very commercial gallery I am trying to NOT mention. So… I count my cards and decide to stay in the game. I don’t know how I will feel about it tomorrow, but right now, this early snowy morning… yeah, I’m still in.

From the artist’s side: I have heard all kinds of stories of how they were taken advantage of by galleries. And, I’m sad to say I believe most of them. But the saddest part of all this is that most artists are afraid to tell their stories - point fingers, or even share their experiences with other artists - even close friends - all do to the fear of retribution. We all work in a small community and word of “trouble makers” gets around fast.

Look at our country as an example - protesters are painted as being un-loyal or even subversive - payback is hell.

So I’m not surprised when I learn of people who have read the words offered here, but stand silent in fear of the price they might pay for standing up and being counted. I don’t blame them either. We all have to determine where and when we will fight our battles. A lot of gallery owners and artists are reading the words offered here - some will look for revenge - many others might see things from another perspective and change their ways. At the very least we all learn something through other people’s experiences.

Now in the words of that great philosopher, Roddney King - “Can’t we all just get along?”

My suggestion at this point is to break down some of the grievances voiced down to single subjects - such as how does charity art auctions effect the overall art market - the artists - the gallery - the art buyers? Is there a better way art can be used to the benefit of worthy causes without doing harm to one or any of these three parties? What are the good points - what are the bad points? And, when will the tax-man get his act together on this issue?
17. Administrator Says:
January 24th, 2007 at 1:53 pm e

Sent in by Stan Crocker, of Crocker’s Mark Gallery in Raleigh–a gallerist,collector and artist:
Well, I have donned my three-pointed hat in order to jump into this fray; comforted to know that by doing so I have all the power. I am, after all, gallerist, artist and collector. Or so I say…

* Bring me your best, you know, the stuff you can’t produce fast enough
* Bring me your contact list, the one with the names of people that
buy your work, on a regular basis, please.
* Bring your assurances that your work is popular; that everyone
wants a “insert your name here” hanging in their home or office
* And of course I want a piece of every sale you make everywhere,
what self respecting gallerist wouldn’t
* Oh… and just in case… bring your checkbook. The way I see it, if
your work doesn’t sell, surely you would be interested in sharing
the costs of promotion, the salesperson (at minimum wage at least
please), those damned expensive lights, heat and air, insurance
and not to mention the rent.

Here is the quick breakdown on break-even for the typical 1000 sq/ft facility mentioned in posts above.

Rent- let’s even say really cheap rent $500/mo or $6 sq/ft
Utilities- $200/mo with a careful hand on the thermostat
One mailing to 500 of your favorite collectors $250 excluding design/layout costs
Website-$20/mo if you are your own web guru
Telephone-Pick your poison, but a “real” landline at your address is still about $55/mo
Insurance-Just the basics $150/mo
And that minimum wage salesperson-$6.15/hr x 24hrs that the gallery is open/week $150 x 4 = $600/mo

That gets us up to $2275.00/month. OK let’s fire the minimum wage sales person and just pay the gallerist… or not.. That leaves $1675.00/mo. So, how much art do WE (gallerist and artist) have to sell so that we can do it again next month? Right, $3350.00, to pay expenses excluding anything for the gallerist.

* I want to be in a gallery or sell my work some other way
* I want to pay as small a commission as possible or keep it all
* I need someone to promote my work or do it myself
* I will do my art whether or not it sells but a sale affirms my work
* I need an honest critique of my work. Reactions not necessarily
praise.
* I want to be independent as much as I want the assistance of a
gallery.
* If I could make a living doing art alone, that would be my choice.

As an artist, I don’t really want to have to be concerned about money matters at all. Is that not our curse? I just want to do art. Yes, I want to get paid for it and paid well, but I don’t want to have to ‘work” at that. It is hard to find the time to do both. Or so I say…

* Some of us want an artist who is famous
* Some of us want art that is pleasing to us
* Some of us want a gallerist to tell us what to buy
* Some of us know what we want
* Some of us get home and have second thoughts
* Some of us buy as an investment
* Some of us buy to be charitable
* Some of us will not buy unless we can meet the artist
* Some of us love to look and rarely buy anything
* Some of us are looking for a deal
* Some of us are friends
* Some of us are family
* Some of us understand your art
* The sum of us is less than sum of art produced
* We like lots of choices and there are lots of choices

The way dollars are spent is in the ultimate control of the collector/buyer. What do artists and galleries have to give them in order to get their dollars? They have to give them exactly what they want or the whole system fails. Fortunately, they want a lot of different things and fortunately artists produce a variety of work.

So, at the end of this much too cynical rant, where does it leave all of the players? I think it leaves us with a shorter question than the one originally posed. Perhaps it should be this for gallerist, artist and collector. “What do you want?”

Whatever it is that you want, as a gallerist, artist or collector, you can pursue that thing. As we can see from the posts above, there are successful examples of each, pursuing their success their own way. Good on them.

Is there another way? I hope so. I hope there is a way that each player in this art drama can find a way to make the system work better. That effort will benefit us all. But then that morphs the question once more. Perhaps it should be “What do we want”. If there is a “we”.

The three-pointed hat comes off now. We are starting to sound like I have MPD.
18. newbie07 Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 7:27 pm e

Well as you can see I am new to this area and new to this type of dialog. So here it goes… what I want from a gallery is to sell my work and to educate the public. Not necessarily about me but about art in general… in the attitude…I am struck how it is different here than it is in Europe… In Europe there is a respect for artist there that doesn’t seem to exist here. There they intently ask you what kind of art do you do etc…here when mentioning being an artist I’m often treated like I am a person who hasn’t bathed in three weeks, drives a cab in New York, and comes from Eastern Europe.

It strikes me that is part of the job of the gallery owner. That they have to sell more than just the art, they have to sell the attitude that the artist is a person and that art is respectable and I don’t see that happening.

Maybe the gallery wants to protect their own and all others are Well “I don’t represent (him or her) therefore they’re not any good. Case in point, young man from Texas goes to New York in the 80’s shows hot gallery in So Ho paintings of plates on painting and NY goes crazy and he sell for 100,000, a painting, today he no longer paints and the gallery is closed, but she did sell.

I recently went to a gallery and showed my work I was told when it came to the price that I was asking to much because this was Raleigh and that this was a hard market. The series under discussion is in four different Museums in two different continents, it is also has some age or legs.

I think that galleries need to rethink the idea that artist should sacrifice and sell the work on it merits, there does seem to be a elitist attitude that doesn’t help the gallery or the artist and with the tools of the internet available to the artist and the collector today I see a decline in the gallery which personally I feel would be a loss. So for this artist I hope that galleries will work harder at selling and less in protecting their structured turf.
19. artsRambler Says:
January 26th, 2007 at 7:53 am e

Hey Newbie07,
Thanks for your perspective. Longtime North Carolinians like to get their ire up at comparisons to other places, but it is instructive. It’s always such an eye opener to go elsewhere and see the arts inegrated into the everyday world. Opera in the Streets! I’ll drink to that!
20. AZgal Says:
January 26th, 2007 at 11:38 am e

I’m unsure what I want from a gallery except to say, ‘please look at my work before you say no.’
My personal experiences in appealing to galleries has been frustrating, to say the least. Although I’m no where near ‘well-versed’ in the process, what I have tried so far has been very disconcerting. The opportunities seem endless and my positive attitude abounds, until I make contact with a gallery.
I simply do not know how to continue. On one hand, I consistently hear my buyers and viewers rave about my work. I’m always asked for information on the galleries that exhibit my work. They are surprised when I explain I have not been able to secure gallery representation. People cannot believe it when I tell them galleries won’t look at me, yet they are the same public the galleries try to attract.
On the other hand, when I contact the galleries, the minute they hear ‘faces & figures’ in answer to the question, ‘what do you paint, mostly,’, they typically complain that my work would be, ‘too portrait-ish’ for them to consider.
I am selling my work…why can’t a gallery, which has far more established connections and foot traffic?
So, for anyone who might be reading this little ditty that is connected with or owns a gallery, I ask this question:
If people are already buying my ‘portrait-ish paintings and loving them, WHY am I not worthy of your representation or serious consideration??
You are trying to sell to the same public that is already buying my work…WAKE UP!! Not everyone wants just another landscape, still life or abstract for their wall.
I’ve been told that my work is ‘museum-quality’. I’m not sure if that’s a compliment or not, because it sounds like I might have to die for anyone in the art business to take notice of my work.
What do I want as the artist? Simple…
I want gallery owners to look at my work, give me a chance and understand that people actually enjoy interpreting paintings with actual content and message, not just the ‘pretty pictures’.
The other little nit I would like to address is the snooty-ness of it all. Galleries should understand that artists aren’t performing dogs…we create from our hearts and minds according to our experiences, feelings and opinions. These things should be weighed before you issue a response. Art may have a market value, but it IS personal. When you are turning down the art, you are turning down the artist as well. Be kind…would it kill you?
Maybe I don’t need a gallery, but I would like to expand awareness of my work, which seems to rely heavily upon galleries to do. I get a lot of word-of-mouth for my work, but I would like to expose it to more varied art markets. It’s hard to do on your own. For some reason, to some it’s as if you’re no one unless someone carries your work.
I’ve had to learn everything by trial and error thus far. Trouble is I’m getting a late start and I don’t have time for formalities. Tell me, please, what do I have to do and what am I doing wrong??

All work on this site © 2004 by Andrea Gomez, all rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, republishing, posting or duplication of any of the material on the web site is prohibited without express written permission from Andrea Gomez. The artist reserves to herself all rights of reproduction and all copyright of her work.

Artsramble Archive