Art Directory

• Browse Art Listings

Eyes more important than fees

I have had two retros in public space in the last few years, one at the Grosvenor Gallery at
Pride
acrylic painting, 20 x 24 inches the State University of New York, the other at a public library that amazingly has a great collection of Winslow Homer works. Neither one paid a fee. The reason I did them was of course to get eyes on work. I have always believed that artists should get their work before the public in any way they can. When I did a painting of Tennessee Williams for a celebration of his writing held in a Newport mansion and was asked where I would like it hung, I said hang it over the commode in the bathroom you're using for the public. It may have seamed a strange request to them but I know my work was well viewed. In the 1960s when I first started out, I used to let my work be hung as part of the window dressing in major 5th Avenue stores, again to get eyes on.

Artist pays—artist loses

Regarding the fee paid by the gallery to you--here in Sydney, Australia, some galleries ask the artist to pay a similar sized fee to the gallery before they're prepared to even consider holding your exhibition. The amount is deducted from the commission earned. If nothing is sold, then the artist loses the money.

(RG note) Thanks Mandy. Many commercial and vanity galleries use the system you mention. What I'm talking about are Public Galleries where there are to be no sales and large volumes of public eyes--from groups of school kids to curious tourists, who come through and see an artist's work over perhaps several months.

'Double dipping' in Canada

As a Public Gallery Curator I have to say that Public Galleries annually go hat in hand to cities and states in order to get tax monies to keep going, keep open, pay their staff, heat the place, pay the insurance and retire any debt they might have. Sometimes Public Galleries can lose focus on performance, traffic and public interest. Many are not the slightest bit interested in paying money to artists in their community. Commercial galleries serve this purpose and in many cases do it well. What you artists have in Canada is a unique and lucky situation—a kind of 'double dipping.' Also, it's my opinion that charging fees to gallery visitors is also not a good idea because then populism gets into the act and shows have to be staged that maximize box office receipts. Ironically, here in the free enterprise USA Public Galleries will continue to be run as sinecures of eclecticism and will seldom be sullied by what artists or anybody else has to say.

Hats off to Canada

I remember as a kid, I was amazed that one got into an art gallery to see a show for free!
AHMAR
oil painting, 21 x 32 inches I would have thought way back then, that you'd have to pay to see, just like in a museum. On this side of the ponds, artists often have to pay the private gallery for a show above and beyond the commission the gallery gets for sales. Many galleries demand that the artist give them a work, including some smaller publicly funded spaces that I exhibited in. There's a rumor going around here that a major public museum did an exhibition of one artist only after that artist's dealer made the museum a serious donation. At any rate, the artist here is often the low one on the totem pole, most exploited for others to make their living and career on the artist's back. So, hats off to Canada for such an enlightened system. We can only pray that other countries will follow suit.

No pay for artists, just big fees

You lucky Canadian artists! You get paid to do an exhibition in a gallery! Here in Israel it
Moon Reflection
oil painting is the other way round! I have to pay and a lot too! The smaller ones ask for $1000 per week and the bigger ones (if they agree to take you, on the chance of selling) they even charge $2000 and more a week. And this is without the percentage they charge when you sell something! However did your association get this agreement done? I want to forward your letter to our association if you don't mind. Maybe this could give them a push to get things done!

(RG note) Thanks Michal. Please feel free. Here in Canada there is a well-meaning desire to be a "just" and a "fair" society. Also the idea is prevalent that artists are perennially broke and need money and that the public needs to pay for culture via taxation. Of course, many of the better artists are not broke at all. On the other hand, much unsalable yet challenging art needs to be seen and the artists who make it need to eat too--so pay-per-view might work for them. If the idea goes anywhere, I'm still liking the idea of charging an entrance fee in Public Galleries and feeding a percentage back to the creators who make things happen.

No admission fee please

The notion of paying to enter a Public Gallery to view an exhibition can become prohibitive. We're finally getting beyond the mindset in some museums that art should not be available to "Joe Public," but rather for only an exclusive club of the elite few. There cannot be too many people looking at art. The more who see the art, the better, in my mind. It seems to me commercial galleries make so much money on the backs of artists, and their costs are simply the costs of running any retail business. Passing those costs on to the potential buyer is not only tacky, but not very smart. Write it off to advertising, or whatever, to make it viable, but please - no admission fee.

User-pay, sponsorship, and advertising

Many museums have an entry fee or a strongly encouraged entry donation. So charging per peek
photograph, Scenic Series is not that novel. Expansion to smaller gallery venues may be, and I agree worth a think. What is not known is what if any fee is acceptable. In the wide world of the Internet there are pay for membership or access sites – newspapers, financial information and porn come to mind. Others make the money through advertising - and further others are paid for by the presenters. I fail to see why Internet art sites, as opposed to galleries that are an extension of a traditional non-vanity gallery, have generally chosen to charge the artists rather than seek advertisements (art buyers have money). Many cultural events are supported tastefully by donations and sponsorships. When is the last time you went to a play, an opera or a symphony? The largest sponsors are mentioned before the event and in the playbill. Rock concerts, motor racing and many other events garner excellent revenue from advertising. Art websites that are not extensions of traditional galleries could also make money on commissions just like any other non-vanity gallery.

Club donated money back to museum

I belong to a community art club and was surprised also when we found that we received a fee for showing paintings at our local museum. It was unexpected and the group will donate the money back to the museum, which has had some hard times lately. The museum still continues to grow and change despite many of the public's apathy to the old building and small spaces it inhabits. We appreciate the venue for recreational artists like ourselves.

Pay for peeking might work

Maybe an online gallery that charges people to look and pays back pennies per peek might work. It might need advertising to support it as well, or else charge the artists to be there in the first place and just "debit" that amount until they actually make more from the "peeks" than they have paid to be there. That would, to some degree cover the costs of the website, and maybe hopeless amounts of advertising would not be needed, but I suspect there might be some good synergy between art supply outfits (who, after all, want artists to know about them) and artists looking for alternative sources of supplies. Those ads would actually help rather than be annoying.

Open studio day not all negative

I have a two-sided-coin vision of paying to see art. On the one hand, I think art should be
Ran
Hand-dyed , -embroidered, -beaded,
machine quilted raw silk for everybody whether you have money or not. We need art in our society and making it a financial privilege is unfair. On the other hand, this last year at my studio building, where many artists are located, we had an open studio day. There were over 200 people who came through. Not one bit of art was bought. Quite disappointing for those who were hoping for sales. Mostly we all took it in stride as part of the life of an artist and we had fun besides. What I'm wondering is if there is a happy medium somewhere. Maybe a donations box, not begging but a show of appreciation for a weekend's entertainment. Those that have a few coins could contribute and those who don't can still see the art. By the way, in spite of the lack of money shown for our open day, there were many good conversations and some wonderful remarks, so it was not all negative. And in fact, I did get an exhibit out of it and made some new friends.

No exhibitor's fees here

I was very interested to read about your experience in receiving an exhibitor's fee. Here
Bocce Bowler
acrylic painting, 30 x 40 inches in the USA I've never heard of this happening with any of our galleries. Where I live, in the Napa Valley, our town only has 3 galleries. That is all that is allowed. And, to add insult to injury, no art is permitted to be sold south of a certain street in town. Apparently our town is flat out opposed to art and artists. (I won't bother citing the number of high-priced restaurants, jewelry stores, chi-chi clothes shops there are). So we show our work in restaurants (not the real pricey ones), banks, and wineries. Actually a few of the wineries have very nice gallery type spaces. But people don't go to these places to look at and buy art. I'd be interested to know if any galleries in the U.S. pay artists an exhibitor's fee.

Against Hummers

Please tell me it was a joke and you weren't really wanting to rent three stretch Hummers. There are so many better and non-damaging ways to celebrate an event.

(RG note) Thanks Russ. Joke it was. Sorry, and I apologize to all the others who thought I might be serious. Hummers disgust me deeply, especially the stretch ones. I am ashamed of giving you the thought and I'm sorry I even mentioned such a disgusting, anti-social idea. Our main car right now is a Prius, so we are quite green here, and smug about it. But everybody thumped me on this one. In the words of subscriber Dar Hosta "I am shocked and repulsed that you would even consider spending any money, much less art money, on the rental of three stretch Hummers. Carpooling and the generosity of paying for the transportation of friends is commendable, but a Hummer is symbolic of so much that is crass, materialistic and just plain ugly in this society. Shame on you."

Plastination of the human body

After reading some of the remarks in the last clickback, and as a physician, appreciator of art, woodworker, metal worker and artist I was quite impressed with the exhibit by Gunther Hagen in Chicago. The bodies used for that exhibition are not from China. From a medical standpoint it is outstanding. A fellow doctor and I wished we had had this type of exhibit to learn from when we went through Medical School. As a person who has held the hand of those who were dying and seen the soul leave, the exhibit is not disrespectful to their life or memory. Those people have given of their worldly self to the advance of science. As to the art, I think one needs to see some of the exhibit to judge that. There was a soulful beauty in some of the examples, especially the ones that depicted action. I too found that the crowd was very respectful. I believe that after the plastification of the body or organ the flesh is totally destroyed and what is left is the plastic. The body is only the mold. People were very curious about what they saw, as to where this and that organ was located. As one who appreciates art in all forms, and as an artist, I found that seeing the body without its covering was very instructive and I thought it odd that some of the artists' comments were against seeing this
The Anatomy Lecture of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp
oil painting on canvas, 1632
by Rembrandt van Rijn exhibition. Are they against life drawings also? Remember the artists of old who did autopsies to learn the anatomy. I agree it is despicable for the exhibits to use Chinese prisoners.

(RG note) Thanks Marshall. It's difficult to think of any letter I've written that has upset people more than that one—and has elicited such a wide range of opinion. Thanks to all who wrote with whatever point of view. It was a learning experience for us all. A very fine overall view of the Plastinated body exhibition business (including the controversy) can be found in the Wikipedia article here.

Give some thought to giving the gift of the twice weekly letter. Andrew has set up a special place for this. You can send the letters to one special person or to as many friends as you wish. We will send these new people a card to inform them of your personal gift--and your good wishes. "The best things in life are free."