I guess I’m more like “between serious galleries” than truly creative with a new alternative-to-galleries-idea. I have several galleries where I show regularly, and importantly have several private dealers who sell my stuff regularly. I have a certain freedom because I get regular curator visits and get into museum group shows a lot. The galleries that have approached me for the last while simply haven’t impressed me. They seem less interested in building a real relationship in terms of building (both our) careers and reps, than in simply getting “my” curators and collectors to come to them. I want someone who, first, I have FIRST found to be a person I like, at least enough to want to work with them, and second, one who will invest in my career (and their own) as much as I do — catalogues, fairs, “haunting” curators, “appreciating” collectors, etc. If you know what I mean. And gallerists who know about and love art as much as I do. I don’t have the time to babysit mediocre minds with little drive. I was impressed by your knowledge and commitment, let me add, so I’m certainly not dissing all galleries. I know several others who impress me too. I’m not (or at least not ONLY) egotistic; I just think you gotta do more than just rent a space. I’m still open for some new galleries, if they fit my small yet serious concerns I wrote above. Unfortunately I see these little met. I guess it is like relationships as you age. I have a wonderful wife and am in love, and have been for some 20 years. If that went sour, heaven forbid, I would not just rush out to anyone interested in me, which is what it appears to me so many artists do. I have seen and had great gallerists — it is getting more and more difficult to be one, though, I think —. I have had terrible ones. I’m going about it slowly. I have many shows, but until some of the gallerists appear to have what I’m seeking, I’m being a bit guarded. Yes, that means I don’t get as much attention as I feel my art deserves, but I get a lot of attention anyway. I suppose I’m kind of like a Cub outfielder, unfortunately. In the majors, but just a wee step above Triple A, in an artworld that (at least at this point in time) wants to push all midcareer artists (especially women) back down into the minors. So perhaps my approach puts me in a precarious position. But if I don’t see someone with strong commitment, strong personal drive, knowledge of art, and a real positive, pushy hutzpah, I don’t see the point in a “serious relationship.” I suspect that will change, but I’m not pushing it, I’m letting it happen. I’m more focused on my work at the moment, and have the luck to have the curator connection (unbelievable, if you know about my articles in both English and German criticizing curator dominance of the artworld — some hate me but a bunch still like me, or at least my art).

I hope I see you in October!

I think in the US we forgot what a carrot even looks like some days.

http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2008/08/selling-solo-vs-working-with-gallery.html

One thing that would be nice, Lisa (or Chris H), would be if you would put your name clearly at the top of the post, so it is obvious who and what it is (not a news piece, whatever). Such as “Lisa Boyle: What Have You…” Or in the first line or something. That way I know I would be certain to read them right away.

Why don’t you become one of “those curators” Lisa?

Please don’t lump “Europe” all together, though — there are good places and bad. Most of Switzerland, large parts of France and Spain, the whole UK ouside London, e.g., are almost identical to Chicago (i.e. typically provincial — not the artists, the scene: few collectors, no interest by curators, one or so dictatorial “entities”, etc.)

When a place is GOOD here, for artists, it is exactly for the reasons one would guess and for a few additional possibilities:

Curators who regularly make studio visits. I get them ALOT. That happens seldom in Chicago.
Collectors who also make studio visits and buy regularly. It happens frequently to me too (thank God).
Public entities such as the Kanton (State) buying works, or the big banks (to whom I have sold) or the big firms, such as the chemical/drug corps in Basel, who buy lots of Basel artists.
Germans can be very nationalistic — prefering to buy Germans (I think that can be quite good too).
We Euro artists often refuse to sign exclusive gallery deals. I personally now go show-to-show. Around a show or sales that result from contacts made there, I share (even out of the studio). Others sales such as between shows to my “stable” of collectors” or to a museum or so, when it had naught to do with any gallerist, no way in Hell do I share. 0%
In general 50/50 % IS actually the rule, but only when galleries do LOTS — catalogues, ads, career building, getting other galleries to show you, etc. etc. Otherwise, less. And “Otherwise” is indeed often.
In general, here in Europe, for better or worse (often worse), curators are far more important than galleries than in the US

The building of a community at Pierogi and many others does indeed seem to me to be the main point.

I think Wesley’s point about big shows being done by Lisa-types, in lieu of galleries, is indeed a far too unexplored area.

What any place needs to be a thriving art place is, first great, serious artists, but afterwards: curators who show artists of high quality WHO LIVE NEAR THEM; collectors who buy artists WHO LIVE NEAR THEM; critics who write about those shows and artists.

And yes, I do have some great Porters. I have sold all the works from the mammals series and horse series and no longer have the birds. But I have a gallery full of monkeys- the larger pieces. E-mail me if you want more info.- better images, etc.

ljboyle@mac.com

I’m not saying that the value isn’t there. I just don’t know what it could be.

Just checked her out. Wow. Thanks Tony.

>In essense what I am saying is that the artists should be able to price their work based on what the artists need to cover their costs and profit, not on what the gallery/dealers need. That only makes sense. If a Chicago dealer needs a 2.00 mark-up because of their high overhead, that isn’t the artist’s fault. Nor is it the fault of another dealer that has decided that they only needs a 1.33 mark-up.

Oh come on now, you sly territorial silverback. Can’t you enter into a discussion without heaping personal insults upon others? Your ability to out-caterwaul and out-insult everyone on this board isn’t an indication of your wisdom, or your understanding of the art world, or even evidence of your innate superiority. Your behavior simply reinforces a tired cliché of artist-as-enfant-terrible, the Promethean, Pollock-ian ur-creator who explodes conventions and immolates bourgeois sensibilities.

Well done, sir. Congratulations on believing your own conventional mythology. You’ve even bestowed a superhero name upon yourself: The Shark.

Your behavior doesn’t change the way people think. You’re not shattering cherished beliefs with your views because you’re not engaging in a well-reasoned discussion. Through bellowing and nutsack dragging, you’re discouraging the growth of a community you claim is so frail: the Chicago art scene. Who wants to but forth any effort to discuss ideas–let alone attempt to implement them–when the get yawlped down by one of the higher-profile members of they same community?

Tell me what I should think about that. Explain my faulty reasoning. Shout me down, you mighty cartilaginous fish.

And as far as profiting- an artist can then arbitrarily set the amount they need to profit, which in the case of some artists is way under or way over. It wouldn’t sell in the gallery. I have had the experience of asking artist to contribute to ideas about prices and it is often completely untenable.

One thing to look deeper into is what “profit” is for a gallery. There is this idea, I think that if I sell something, I, as a dealer, am free to use this money to purchase any manner of fancy dinners and expensive clothing with it. I have not ever seen Tony Wight wearing Prada.

If you sell the $6,000 sculpture, the artist leaves with $3,000.(subtract cost and time, pobsibly studio rent) The gallery leaves with $3,000, but will likely need to use it to place an ad, pay the rent on the gallery, take the work to art fairs, staff the gallery all days and a whole other host of things that leave the gallery with nothing even close to a profit. They certainly don’t make even a tiny salary for their efforts, at least not in the first many years. Even the ones who’ve been named here as having the right kind of program.

So, while I appreciate that an artist should be involved in pricing, (I always talked with my artists about it, and arrived at an agreed upon number), if they’re working with a gallery, it has to do something for the gallery as well, or it just wont stay open.

Tony, you might be good to answer this–I know that Pierogi has an exceptionally large group of artists listed. And that he splits with you 35/65, as you said. He also has a flat file program that I understand he makes a lot of sales with. Do these artists have solo shows too- the flatfile ones?

The reason I ask is that if Pierogi, for example, is developing a way to sell work without exhibitions and with little resultant overhead, is this what helps buoy the operating costs? Do the artists mind being sold out of a drawer, without an exhibition?

Maybe I have it wrong with Pierogi, but he has no outside financing and he’s doing well with this model- but can anyone say a little bit about the programs that are successful doing different percentages, and what they are doing differently that allows this to work well?

The only way to determine what the true market value of a dealer’s services is to let collectors decide.

If a dealer wants to monopolize an artist’s work all they have to do is buy it. How do you split promotion costs. Easy. The artist promotes the artist. The gallery promotes the gallery and its services (like return policies, framing services, provenance tracking, etc.) Dealers shouldn’t have to worry about artists selling from their studios if collectors are seeing real value for dealer services. (And if they aren’t offering any identifable value then maybe they should worry!) If the artist thinks the dealer is making too much profit, he can raise his prices, but if he raises them too much he might lose buyers in secondary markets.

Just my thoughts on possible solutions.

As for art fairs — I have mixed feelings about them — they are the current model — and I would be lying if I said they weren’t a good thing for me — I’m one of thse who has benefitted immeasurably by having a presence in art fairs — My career has fairly been made by them . I do , however , think they’ve changed the way the public views art and artists — I think that the discourse has been devalued by proliferation of unnecessary fairs…. they used to be fun — now– for an artist– they’re more than a little creepy– being in the maw of the market-place is kind of like watching your parents have sex . Nowhere in the world is it easier to hate art dealers than at an art-fair — It is in this setting one realizes just how unctious and annoying these motherfuckers are. These things are prom-night for these douchebags– it’s like highschool with money.

Also, this:

>I would say that another problematic area is the insistence by dealers that an artist’s work be priced uniformly across all markets. Functionally, this means that the price of an artist’s work is determined by the market area with the highest cost-of-living. In effect, collectors in Des Moines end up paying New York prices.

True, but I can’t think of a single way to solve this issue. This model supposes that yes, an artist’s market price is set by the place with the highest cost of living, which in effect means is that if you’ve “made it” to a gallery in NY, then your market price should be higher anyway.

Which is weird and arguable, obviously.

Word.

So this leads me to what is the general feeling from artists on the role of art fairs? I feel like the mode of dissemination has shifted, and that some dealers think that rather than spend the money on printed material and ads, they would rather spend it on art fairs, where the artists work will be seen by a higher volume of people at once.

Unfortunately, even though there feels like a big bang for the buck (10,000 people will see you art this weekend!) fairs don’t last, like a good catalog does. And the work is being seen alongside a trillion other things, so that sucks.

Tony, and if there are any other artists insisting on more than 50%, do you think emerging artists (or established ones for that matter) should routinely insist on more when working on finding a gallery, and not work with the dealer if they don’t agree?

However, it becomes a problem as the artist grows and the dealer doesn’t continue to take the artist’s career to new levels. If that artist is constrained to an agreement where they can’t sell through other local dealers or the studio and owe 50% to someone not moving that person to the next level (major museum collections, major private collections, the history books), then it’s time for the artist to move on.

A dealer can do just fine collecting 50% from a wide stable of artists and not work on building any careers. An artist working through a restrictive agreement like above can’t do anything and has to rely on day jobs. The work suffers. The career suffers. The artist winds up in the dust bin.

No big deal for the dealer, because there is another sucker to take that artist’s place. If a dealer can’t do right by an artist in continuing moving someone up the ladder, perhaps a sliding scale of percentage works. I’d imagine that a successful artist whose career a dealer more or less created could still net that dealer a tidy profit at 10% .

An artist/dealer relationship needs to be under constant scrutiny by both parties. It’s not a marriage until death do you part.

That could definitely be a solution.

Do you think it was the 50% issue that acted as the strongest deterrent to a healthy, prosperous relationship? Can you name maybe two other specific sticking points that you have experienced that make traditional representation a pain?

I dont disagree with you about dealers Tony -and have had any number of very good ones- though at this point in time whenever I do show/discuss what I’m doing with a Chicago dealer -it always comes with the disclaimer -that I am not looking for local representation -which I believe is your position as well-

I think my idea of one time group exhibitions -with ads taken out in say, Artforum/Modern Painters might offer people like Lisa to play at a higher level than what she describes, while ameliorating some of the negatives-

It really is a great word.

That’s true, and it causes all sorts of asshat behavior. It would be hard for a small gallery like the one I had, to introduce collectors (or would be collectors) to Tony’s work, for instance, at $10,000. for a small collage. I think we can agree that the work is well worth it, but a collector has just discovered my humble space, just learned my name and is not ready to drop that kind of money at my space. The collectors who are coming to spaces like the one I had are looking for artists who have little or no exhibition history because those are the artists they can afford.

So, dealers who don’t have an eye on the long term do what I mentioned in the article. They skulk around MFA shows trying to spot newly forming talent and they regenerate their roster of new offerings rather than try to introduce the other artists to new collectors. It’s a very frustrating vortex.

Strike that thought. That would never work.

Oh my god, I hope that’s not how I came through. I hope the message is that neither side better feel entitled, or the relationship will aggravate the shit out of both the artist and the dealer and neither of them will get anything out of it,

If the artist is expecting the gallery to cure what ails them, what a disappointment that will be, no doubt. But if the dealer, who, as Theo puts it, doesn’t work his ass off to support his many wives, then he is a letch and a bastard, as far as I’m concerned.

It actually begs the question of whether a dealer, ANY dealer who is starting a ground up operation without additional funding is actually equipped to work on behalf of any more than a few artists.

Maybe it should be, the more artists a dealer proposes to represent, the lesser percentage he/ she can fairly take from each one when a sale occurs. How much, afterall, can I really say I am doing for twenty people?

In my book, an A+ for any piece of writing that alludes to the notion that we artists might be a pack of parasitic milksops, and thus at fault for our predicament. We’re institutionally bred with a sense of passive entitlement, and your harem reference is most appropriate — too often we concentrate our talents on looking pretty, in hopes that a handsome Moor will sweep us away to life of happiness.

I think it’s great if hard-driven artists can turn their art into a living (with or without the help of talented professionals), but I’ve never believed that anyone EVER deserves a living simply because they work hard at their art. Living an artist’s life in the U.S. is the blessing-to-be-counted in itself. It’s a really weird yet fortunate privilege to be capable of supporting oneself with an outside job, and then to possess a cultural role at the same time. I know this is just an ASSUMED perspective, but it’s so much more useful than any self-centered perspective that prevents artists from realizing the folks they work with also have financial needs and personal goals.

I often think of artists as sex-starved single dudes at the bar. They see their own lives as incomplete and missing something important, rather than standing firmly and confidently in their bachelorhood. Single ladies I know have a rough time with this — she may take one of these dudes in and cure what ails him, but that doesn’t necessarily create the sort of environment where she can personally flourish. Likewise, gallerists/dealers who could be crafting their practice into an interesting enterprise (whether it’s centered on business or aesthetics) must waste energy contending with a climate of neediness being incubated among artists.