Thursday, March 20, 2008

Prices

I've just had an interesting email exchange with a very well-known artist, whose work I have sold many times in the past, and whose work I hope to sell again soon.

She was giving me prices for her new work, and checking up with me and all her other dealers I assume, because she noted that some galleries were selling a particular older limited edition etching for $3,000 each, when the gallery price should be $5,000.

I've never seen this work listed for under $5,000, but I digress.

She affirmed that the gallery price for that particular work was $5,000 and that only she could sell her own work in her own studio for $3,000.

What?

This is a harsh lessons that most artists need to learn very quickly: An artist cannot afford to compete with him/herself when it comes to prices.

The exact same editioned work can't be sold for $1000 in DC, for $4000 in London, for $300 in Brazil and for $500 bucks in your studio. The same size painting cannot wonder all over the price scale depending where it's being sold.

See what that does?

1. It can damage the reputation of a dealer. Imagine the collector who pays $4,000 in London when he sees the same work for $500. The immediate reaction is "that dealer ripped me off," not realizing that the artist is the one who is ripping everyone off by creating price confusion and trying to pass the gallery commission off to the collector. A good artist and gallery relationship is a symbiotic one, not a money struggle.

2. It will damage the reputation of the artist and will always bring the "real" price of the work down to the lowest price, when the idea is for art dealers and artists to work together to raise demand and thus prices; not have prices wondering all over the scale.

This is very different from the secondary art market, where auction prices can wonder wildly all over the place.

But artists must be consistent in their pricing and swallow the bitter pill that if they are going to work with an art gallery or art dealer or many of both, then they can't have them competing with each other and also with the artist, because a good art dealer's job is to protect both the artist and the collector.

Of course there are nuances to this process... both dealers and artists should have a specified leeway to give collector's discounts to ahhh... collectors, and also offer discounts to multiple buys when someone buys several works at once.

But not discount your own work by 50% just because it is being sold out of your studio.

That just drags your prices down and will cause your art dealer to scold and educate you, or even drop you.

Of course, like some artists that I know, if you do not need an art dealer and can sell your own work all the time, then -- since you are the only one selling it -- you control prices and can do whatever you want, and hopefully won't be having art "sales" where you'll be "discounting" the work that you sold to collectors a week earlier for a specific price, to a much lower price.

It's a little complicated at first, but once you truly examine the issue, then it should be clear to see that the idea and goal is to expose your artwork, get it seen, commented upon and -- if that's your goal -- sold for a fair and reasonable price, and letting the laws of economics take it to where it should be.

But definitely not under the "blue light special" of your own studio.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This is so right on! Artists never seem to get the picture that prices must be the same no matter where it is being sold.