More on "Achilles Heel"
On my post Achilles Heel a few days ago, I noted the below comments by gallery owner Carrie Horejs:
My good friend and terrific DC area artist John M. Adams, whose show opens at the Greater Reston Arts Center on April 25 added some excellent comments on his blog:"I often wonder how other galleries are dealing with artists who have gallery representation but continue to self-promote. I have been known to secret shop gallery represented artists. I contact them through their emails on their personal websites and inquire as to whether they have any studio pieces available. Not once has an artist directed me to his or her galleries for purchases.The above from comments by gallery owner Carrie Horejs. Read them here.
I fear galleries will dry up if they don’t smarten up. Then where will collectors go to see art in person?”
"She has good point, but I have a few questions about her perspective.John is of course, right on target.
I checked out the gallery website, and it is a "membership gallery" - where the more you pay per month, the more you get to show.
That doesn't seem to indicate that it is traditional commercial gallery representation, and yes you have to be accepted, but it does seem to be more of a vanity gallery.
Why would the "rules" of traditional gallery representation apply to them if it's a pay to show situation? As an artist, it seems strange to "pay" for exclusive gallery representation.
My first question is what does their artist contract look like? Does it state that once you join, that all work sold from any venue must include their commission? (It does look like that from their website) That does not seem like a good deal and far from the norm of most exhibition contracts.
In addition, they have over 100 artists on their site, so really how much effort are they putting forth to promote each artist, other than putting them on their website or hanging a piece of artwork in the corner of a jam packed gallery? That's not real promotion. Artists work incredibly hard to publicize their own work. In the bulk of the places I have shown, I brought in the crowds, They are my connections and patrons that have been following my work for quite some time. I have looked around the gallery and realized that 95% of the people there were people I emailed, sent postcards to , etc. These are the people who buy my work.
Now I don't undercut or by-pass the gallery that is showing my work, I want to sell it there. (my experience has mostly been with non-profits and art centers). Most Artists would love to have gallery representation with a Gallery that actually did all of that promotion, I would.
I can understand why she is ticked off and no doubt in a "traditional" gallery representation setting that kind of behavior is just wrong and undermines the artist/gallery relationship, but really, given the structure of her gallery, if someone actually found the person's work in another venue that has nothing to do with her gallery, would the artist be so far off base (once again, I would like to see the contract)?
I would never undermine a gallery owner if I had traditional representation, or created a bunch of work for a show at a venue but then sell the work behind their back, I would of course direct them to the gallery, it only makes sense. Any thoughts? "
Some comments of my own now... these only apply to the traditional and reputable commercial gallery model, not to vanity galleries, which are in a league of their own.
The key to all secrets here is the contract and how well artists and galleries communicate with each other.
The relationship between a gallery and its artists should always be a complimentary relationship: they both need to work together to ensure that both the gallery and the artist succeed.
An established artist who "hides" his established collector base from his gallery and the gallery which does not give the artist the name and contact info of new collectors who acquire the artist works are really saying to each other: "I don't trust you." The artist is saying "why should I pay you a 50% commission on a sale to a collector that I bring to you, when I can have him come directly to me and I keep the full 100% of the sale? The gallery is saying "why should I give you the name and address of the client that I sold your work to, when all you're going to do in the future is approach him directly to try to sell work to him and bypass me?"
That's a relationship doomed for failure and constant suspicion.
There are galleries which demand citywide, statewide or even worldwide representation of the artists' works. In return the artist should be able to ask the gallery: "what are you doing for me and my work in between the 2-3 years that I have a solo show with you?" The answer for most artists may be a combination of things, such as placement in group shows in other venues, web development, alternative marketing, taking the artist's work to art fairs, etc. For a small group of artists the answer may be that the solo show every 2-3 years does so well in sales, that it keeps the artist a wealthy and happy camper in the interim period.
I know many artists who voluntarily give their art galleries a 10% cut of all sales made by that artist, regardless of the gallery's involvement in that individual sale. In the positive angle for gathering the logic for this scenario is related to the excellent work that the gallery has done over the years in building up the artist's presence in the arts community, is adding to the artist's resume, in placing the artist's works in known collections and/or museums. The opposite would be a gallery which demands a 10% commission on all sales made by the artist, when that gallery does nothing to promote and disseminate the artist's work. See the difference?
That's why contracts and communications are important.
Imagine that you (the artist) gets picked up by the gallery and they offer you a solo show. The gallery then spends a considerable amount of time, effort and money (if they're doing their job right) in promoting your work and giving you and the art an opening reception and then manning the space for a month while your show is up, taking care of rent, salaries and continued communications and arm twisting with curators and newsmedia critics to come see the show. Let's further imagine that, especially in this austere fiscal environment in which we live these days, that nothing sells. At the end of the month, the artist walks away with all his work, and perhaps (if the stars have aligned and the gallery has spent a couple of golden bullets) with a review. In any event, the artist walks away with at least one more line in their resume. Plus all the "invisibles" that are so hard to account for, but also so important in developing an art career. Key amongst these invisibles is the exposure of the work to a diverse set of eyes which otherwise (had it not been for that gallery show), may not have been exposed to the work: collectors, writers, curators, etc.
The potential pay-off (a sale, a review, etc.) may still be years in the future, but the seed has been planted into what at first sight appears to be a failure of a solo. It is only a failure in sales; no solo show is a full failure; it is always in fact, a positive accomplishment - even one with a bad review.
Let's make the above scenario a bit more complex. Now let's say that a couple of months after the solo has closed, a client comes in to the gallery and is still interested in the artist's work, and so the gallery either refers him to the artist's studio or has the artist bring some work to the gallery in order to show it to the client. What happens as far as commissions in either of these two cases?
See what I mean about contracts and communications?
It gets more complex as the degrees of separation between the sale and the relationship between gallery and that sale spread, and that is why it is important for communications to be clear and constant, but more importantly trust.
Years ago, when I was a Sotheby's Associate Dealer, I managed a sale of a painting by a Louisiana artist to a collector in Texas. This all happened online and I never met the collector or even saw the painting in person, but the artist was under contract to my gallery and understood all the various parts of that contract.
Months later, someone visited the collector, saw the painting that I had sold, and liked it. He then contacted the artist directly and explained that he had seen the painting at the Texas' collector's home and was interested in seeing more work.
Question to the readers: If the artist makes a sale directly to this collector, would the artist owe me a commission?
Post some comments and thoughts and then I will tell you what happened and why.
