I was just looking at a contract sent to me by an artist. The contract was in response to a "portfolio review" for a group show in a New York City gallery.
The "curator" for the group show was very complimentary of this artist's work and selected a few pieces for the show. So far so good.
The contract details the following (somewhat edited to avoid court costs):
* Press Release will be written for the NYC group exhibition project and distributed via e-mail to World Art Media mailing lists consisting of select museums, galleries, curators, dealers, collectors, writers, art publications, artists, and art fair organizations around the globe. This release will be posted on www.---------- and other websites such as ......... to announce the event.The hefty $1,900 fee to exhibit immediately makes this gallery (and this show), a "vanity gallery" and certainly a "vanity exhibition" as the artists that will eventually end up in this show will be there based on their ability to fork $1,900 each to cover the costs of what are essentially the normal costs associated with running an independently owned commercial fine arts gallery.
* ------------ Newsletter Listing announcing the ------ Gallery group exhibition mailed to subscribers in the U.S. and Europe.
* ------------ Daily Newsletter Listing announcing the group exhibition mailed to subscribers in the Far East.
* 500 invitation cards designed, printed and distributed for the show.
* Reception hosted by ------- Gallery.
* Artist’s Reception hosted by -------- Gallery.
* Review / Article: Selected writer will view the exhibition and write an essay on the participating artists’ works and the exhibition. This article will be published both online at ---------- and in print in --------- Magazine.
* Complimentary copies of the magazines with the feature article mailed to artist’s address.
Schedule & Payment Options
Total of $1,900 includes all features listed above. A deposit is due upon acceptance and signing. The payment can be made in full latest by --------.
That makes this a vanity show. This by itself is not illegal and there are dozens and dozens of vanity galleries in NYC operating mostly on the dime of the exhibiting artists.
But what caught my eye was the fact that the contract claims that a "Selected writer will view the exhibition and write an essay on the participating artists’ works and the exhibition. This article will be published both online at ---------- and in print in --------- Magazine."
The magazine in question is what (until now) I thought was a reputable NYC-based art magazine. I am puzzled as to how the organizers of this show, months ahead of the exhibition itself, already know that a writer from ------------ Magazine will write an essay about the group show and publish it both in the magazine and the magazine's website.
Words count. The contract never says "review." Instead they use the words "essay" first and then "article." So it appears that the author of this "article" or "essay" is in fact being paid by the organizers of the show to author the piece.
Paying someone to write an essay for an exhibition catalogue, or an essay for an artist's book, etc. is an ordinary event and happens all the time and I myself have been paid to do this dozens of time.
Paying someone to write an "essay" or "article" for a magazine devoted to write about art and artists and art reviews is (in my opinion) something else and I feel dishonest. The fact that the piece would appear in print in this magazine immediately relays to the readers that the author is writing about the show because of its merits (or because it is a bad show) but in all cases from a critical or examinatory viewpoint.
Not because the organizers paid him/her to write about the show.
Makes me wonder if (a) is this a common practice at ---------- magazine? or (b) if not, do the editors know that this writer is doing this?
Only way out of this mess: That the "article" or "essay" is a paid advertising page, and "boxed" in by a line all around it that says "paid advertising" as some newspapers and magazines do when someone takes out an ad and the ad looks like it's an article.
Makes my head hurt... any comments?
Update: The artist in question just discovered that the "curator" actually works for the magazine!
I don't see many reputable magazines with paid "advertorials", but it's unlikely they put it in the contract unless they have some setup. There's a fair amount of unethical behavior in the art world--which somehow surprises artists. As if art is all sweetness and light.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be shocked if a couple hundred bucks got you some kind of placement, but being in the contract--it's probably something less sinister. Maybe a routine placement on a calendar page? The gallery obviously isn't strong in the ethics department, so I'm inclined to believe the weaselly behavior is on their part.