Rules of Professional Art Photography [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Mark Sawyer

28-Aug-2005, 17:30

Don't know whether this thread will fly, but here goes...

For many photographers, the dream is to make a living doing their own creative work. Few achieve this, but many of us flitter around the edges or think of making the plunge in the future. It's something I think of, and hope the list will be added to.

Up for discussion then are the "Rules," the facts of life and responsibilities of the working fine art photographer trying to make it in the world of the private gallery, public museum, critic, collector, publisher, and grant-awarding art foundation.

(General disclaimer: all rules are up for discussion, and just because I started this mess doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about.)

The Rules:

Rule: If you're going to show in a private gallery, your work must meet the approval of the gallery owner/director, and be marketable to a buying audience. The gallery is theirs, not yours, and they have the responsibility of keeping it financially viable and aesthetically sound.

Rule: If you are represented by a gallery, you will not sell your work in that gallery's area (geographic area, audience area, etc.) except through that gallery.

Rule: A 50% gallery commission is the current standard, but by long-standing principle, a gallery should never take more that 50%.

Rule: When a gallery accepts you as an artist it will represent, you have accepted a continuing responsibility to produce new work in cohesive bodies that is both critically successful and saleable.

Rule: Work produced for sale will be archivally processed and mounted, whatever that means to the gallery/customer.

Rule: Only your very best prints will go to the gallery. If it takes 100 tries to get the best print, they get that one, not a near miss, even if you're the only one that can tell.

Rule: You must promote yourself to galleries, publishers, etc., especially as a new artist. No one will seek you out.

Rule: Grants to support your work from art foundations will not come until you are already an established and published artist.

Rule: You will produce substantive artist's statements, and articulately explain and defend your work. You should be able to converse in the language of the art-literate if you are to build and keep the relationships necessary to success.

Jonathan_5775

28-Aug-2005, 18:11

So - you feel you've made a series of contenious statements and we should support or deny them? Not TOO clear on what you're looking for.

Brian C. Miller

28-Aug-2005, 19:24

Looks like reality to me. The alternative is to open your own gallery.

But what you really want to do is sell your prints. Let's explore that instead.

#1: Your prints need to be viewed by the public.

No matter what this entails, you need eyeballs looking at what you produce, and the more the better. There are blank store fronts. There are places where people can hang advertising posters. You could rent bus advertising. You could rent open space in a mall and hang prints there, and redirect the customer to a web site.

#2: The public needs its questions answered.

A knowledgeable person physically on the spot is the best option. If you can't afford that, then a computer kiosk could suffice.

#3: You need to exchange your prints for the public's money.

Either a person to collect checks and hand over the print, or payment via a web site and then ship the print.

Of course, what I outlined here is targeting the average consumer. Selling to the freaking rich who will shell out $10,000 for a picture of a guy staring blankly will require time with galleries and shows and all of that.

Brian C. Miller

28-Aug-2005, 19:55

I just did a Google search for "fine art photography" and I looked at what came up in the sponsored links. On the second page there is a link to a guy who is on the Starved Artists (http://www.starvedartists.com) web site. Now that's an interesting concept, but it seems hard to stand out on the site. Apparently the artists set their own prices. Too bad the search engine is limited.

Kirk Gittings

28-Aug-2005, 21:05

"Rule: Grants to support your work from art foundations will not come until you are already an established and published artist."

I don't think that is always true. I received far more grants when I was something of an emerging regional artist (say late 1980's, Polaroid Artist Support Group, NEA, Getty) than I do now as an established one. But the mitagating factor is that in the 80's there was far more money around for photo grants. Now I make enough from commercial work to fund personal work out of pocket. Grants take an enormous amount of work to get and sometimes if you look at how much time you put into them they are hardly worth it. Grants also have strings attached to them which may limit your freedom with the final project. They have benefits like prestige and money of course but they come with a price.

Mark_3899

28-Aug-2005, 21:08

How about:

You should go to graduate school and obtain an MFA from one of a handful of Universities deemed important at that time by the "art world"

After you get this graduate degree you should get a faculty position at one of these chosen schools.

Finally you must go to every opening at all the important galleries in your city and shmooz relentlessly.

paulr

28-Aug-2005, 22:36

Without fussing over the details, I think those are some good generalizations. I'd like to add that while very few people support themselves completely through fine art work, there are a lot of people who support themselves partially through it. They have "art businesses" (the IRS's term, not mine) that are profitable, even if the profits don't pay for their whole lives. This allows them to get by doing their personal work and some other kind of non full-time work. It's not a bad life, and it's within reach of a lot of people who have talent and energy.

On the grant question, I think your chances are better in general if you're well established. There are a lot of reasons for this. But I wouldn't make it a rule, because I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from applying for them. Especially the people who need them the most.

And Mark Steigleman, there are certainly people following the path you describe, but it seems like it's far from the easiest, most likely, or pleasantest path someone might take.

Jonathan_5775

28-Aug-2005, 22:45

Actually, Mark - it's the other way around! It's very difficult - if not next to impossible to actually get on the faculty of a decent art school unless you are ALREADY a big name - at least regionally.

Mark Sawyer

29-Aug-2005, 00:20

"So - you feel you've made a series of contenious statements and we should support or deny them? Not TOO clear on what you're looking for."

Looking for a dose of reality for someone thinking of going that route. As a high school/community college photo instructor and photographer-in-general, I deal with, I see quite a few young/new photographers who think of going this route, but have an idealized fantasy of what's involved. We have photographers here who are accomplished in this field. (I've floated distantly around the edges, but for nearly three decades.) What advice is there for the reality of the situation?

I threw out a few ideas, but it hardly scratches the surface...

Mark Sawyer

29-Aug-2005, 00:34

"You should go to graduate school and obtain an MFA from one of a handful of Universities deemed important at that time by the "art world" After you get this graduate degree you should get a faculty position at one of these chosen schools."

The university teaching route is a different, though closely related, area. Jonathan's right, you need an MFA (of course) AND a reputation to get a university position. The short list of rules here is "publish, publish. publish, exhibit, exhibit, exhibit, and network, network, network."

Mark Sawyer

29-Aug-2005, 00:51

"I'd like to add that while very few people support themselves completely through fine art work, there are a lot of people who support themselves partially through it. They have "art businesses" (the IRS's term, not mine) that are profitable, even if the profits don't pay for their whole lives. This allows them to get by doing their personal work and some other kind of non full-time work. It's not a bad life, and it's within reach of a lot of people who have talent and energy."

Agreed; offering workshops seems to be a big part of this, and a positive contribution to the community in most cases I've heard of. Near-continuous talent and energy could be hard to sustain, though. Hence:

Rule: Without passion, vision, and a drive to do your work regardless, disillusionment and burnout is virtually assured. (Well, that's depressing...)

julian_4860

29-Aug-2005, 02:51

only one I'd disagree with is the 'mounting' part. I send mine as bare prints, they mount/frame, but I pay for it. I've also got a deal where I get more than the normal 50%. I'd also check that gallery promotional materials don't come out of your cut, and that opening night drinks etc are covered by the gallery. I'd also find out exactly how they are going to promote you

Ellis Vener

29-Aug-2005, 11:30

You should go to graduate school and obtain an MFA from one of a handful of Universities deemed important at that time by the "art world"

Proveably false.

After you get this graduate degree you should get a faculty position at one of these chosen schools.

See my first comment.

Finally you must go to every opening at all the important galleries in your city and shmooz relentlessly.

Getting to know and occassionally socializing with the people who you are trying to do business with is always a grand idea but i know lots of up and coming artists and established artists who rarely go to openings and others who are terrible at shmoozing. More deals and general business gets done over quiet little lunches and during visits to an artist's studio or the gallery you are intersted in then at openings for other artists. Drinking all the bad wine in the world and eating lots of cheap brie and even sleeping with people who you think might help your career move forward doesn't help if the work you produce isn't up to par. Bu you will definitely develop a reputation and cement an impression i nthose other people's heads. . In the end the work either speaks for itself to an individual who is considering it or it doesn't. But I'm not sure you'll care for that reputation or the impression you've created.<P<>Mark's list of ideas is pretty sound. I would add: try to do art business with people you like and whom you trust.

Mark Sawyer

29-Aug-2005, 14:01

"only one I'd disagree with is the 'mounting' part. I send mine as bare prints, they mount/frame, but I pay for it."

True. More galleries are doing their own matting and framing today. That way they can assure quality of materials and workmanship, compatibility with other works, etc. "Archival" was the key part of the rule. If you sell a print and three years later the customer brings it back because of sulfiding, it makes the gallery and all its artists look bad...

Mark Sawyer

29-Aug-2005, 14:11

More a hint than a rule: Joining an artist's cooperative gallery can be a very big boost for less-established artists, and quite a few well-established artists also participate. This means applying for acceptance, paying dues, perhaps helping out with receptions, paperwork, and gallery sitting, but you gain by participating in group shows, eventual solo or two-or-three person shows, and maybe using it as an entry point to out-of-town museums and galleries. Looks good on a resume, too.

Gregory Gomez

29-Aug-2005, 17:31

I would also add the following to what has been stated above:

1. Develop a really good artist's resume and statement.

2. Create appropriate stationary with distinctive flare, including envelopes, stationary with letter head, and business cards.

3. Develop a wonderful and extremely easy-to-use web site of your work, including your biography, etc.

Graeme Hird

29-Aug-2005, 17:59

While I do not follow the traditional artists' route for selling my art, I do make substantial amounts from my art photography. So, if you are prepared to listen to a different perspective, here goes:

Rule #1: Present only excellent photography. Consistency sells. Impact sells.

Rule #2: Research the market you intend to sell to. If selling to the general public (as I do), set up a stall in a local market once a month and see how well your work is accepted. This stall will form your market research, rather than an income source. Don't judge on sales figures but on general comments. Enthusiastic comments are very useful - words like "nice" are a sure sign your work is not good enough. If you ever hear "I could have taken that!", it's probably true and your work will not sell.

Rule #3: Foolish art buyers are few and far between: trying to sell to them is a mug's game. As Brian said, not many people are willing to shell out $10,000 for a photograph. You'll do better selling higher volumes at lower prices ($100 to $500). Most of my sales are in the $250 to $500 range.

Rule #4: After establishing an understanding of your market, open your own gallery. If you are serious about selling your work professionally (ie. making a living from your art) you need a full time retail outlet for your work. Four weeks in a private gallery at a time does allow people to establish a buying pattern. Owning your own gallery provides your customers with a known location to visit when they are ready to buy your work. Once again, Consistency sells! Being in a consistent location helps establish your bona fides with the buying public ("This guy is serious - he owns his own gallery! He intends to be around for many years .....").

Rule #5: Concentrate on local subjects - they form the bulk of sales.

Rule #6: Gather personal details from your customers to continue a relationship with them: direct marketing to previous customers is much easier than trying to get new customers. Owning a gallery allows you to establish a relationship with your buyers: private gallery owners will never furnish you with details of people who have bought your work.

Rule #7: Stay away from the "Art Scene". "Art Photography" as a profession should be treated like any other business - you need to sell enough of your product to support you after expenses have been accounted for. Sell your work to your buyers, don't schmooze with struggling artists (they won't be buying your work .....)

Rule #8: Drop the pretencion. Be yourself and enjoy the interaction with the people who enter your gallery.

Now, I'm not the definitive expert in this field: there are many other photographers in Australia making a lot more money than I am out of their art work. However, I am selling two prints a day on average and bringing in a consistent income from my art. With a bigger market, I'd be making more money (I live in a town with only 26,000 people in it), but I know this market well and sell into it without too much effort. I have plans to open other galleries in the Australian state capital cities, but that is for the future - until then, I keep gathering names and using my database and gallery to sell more work.

Cheers,

Graeme Hird

29-Aug-2005, 18:03

PS - if you think opening your own gallery is a risk, you don't have the required confidence in your own ability to make proffesional art photography your career. In that case, my advice is to enjoy your art and forget trying to make a living from it.

Cheers,

Mark Sawyer

30-Aug-2005, 10:50

Observations on Graeme's route:

It would be feasible to keep a small stall filled with your work and rotate/renew fairly regularly. But filling a gallery and keeping the work reasonably fresh would be hard. Then again, it would give you the chance to show others artists, and maybe bring in sales that way. Maintaining a gallery (rent/utilities/sitters/framing/insurance/receptions...) is not cheap. As Graeme noted, big risk, big committment, but perhaps big rewards, especially in terms of showing and interacting with an audience.

Starting/joining a cooperative gallery would be more practical, and puts you in a (hopefully constructive) artists' community. But that's only my take...

paulr

30-Aug-2005, 19:12

"PS - if you think opening your own gallery is a risk, you don't have the required confidence in your own ability to make proffesional art photography your career. In that case, my advice is to enjoy your art and forget trying to make a living from it."

Opening any gallery is a risk. It's also a full time job. The only galleries that I know of that are actual profitable businesses (and I don't mean ones that are fronts for profitable frame shops) are ones that were started by people with years and sometime decades in the business. A gallery isn't a store; it's a private dealership that happens to have a storefront. The lifeblood of a gallery is the very long list of collectors that make up the clientelle, and that the owner has worked like crazy to cultivate relationships with. This is as much work as being a photographer, so I don't see the wisdom of tyring to do both jobs yourself.

The most succesful photographers I know (succesful at art, not at running a commercial studio) all understand the value of a dealer who is dedicated to selling their work. Not that they all have one all the time--but they put their work into finding such a person, not into trying to wear both hats.

QT Luong

30-Aug-2005, 20:12

Of course, operating a gallery is a full time job. But nobody said that the photographer should be
the one operating it. I tend to agree that many photographers that are very successful at selling prints
as "decorative art" to the general public seem to do so through their own galleries. However, in general, this is not the case of "art photographers", who require a more, shall we say "connected" means of representation.

paulr

31-Aug-2005, 08:39

That's a good distinction, QT.

Graeme Hird

31-Aug-2005, 17:31

Hi Paulr,

You stated "Opening any gallery is a risk. It's also a full time job." I thought the question was referring to "Professional Art Photography", implying the photographer should be making a living from selling his/her art. A full time job is the point of using the word "professional". But as QT so rightly points out, nobody said the photographer must man his own gallery - he or she can employ somebody to do that while they do what they are good at - making photographs.

You also stated "A gallery isn't a store; it's a private dealership that happens to have a storefront." Maybe that's why many of the galleries you know of aren't profitable: they are not selling anything. A store is a place where people go to buy things, however the common perception of a gallery is a place to visit to admire art. When I use the word "gallery" to describe my operation, I am perhaps being misleading: it really is a store, because I'm set up in a retail area (surrounded by other shops) and I'm actively selling a product.

"The lifeblood of a gallery is the very long list of collectors that make up the clientelle, and that the owner has worked like crazy to cultivate relationships with." That may be the case in your area: my experience says the lifeblood of my business are the people walking in off the street who love my work, often buying on the spot (or returning later when they need one of my prints). I don't run my gallery like other galleries I've seen - mine is a retail outlet for my own work, and I treat it as such. Yes, it is as much work as "being a photographer" (in fact it's much more work than making the photos), but that's how it is in most professional photography fields - the business of photography takes twice as much time as the fun bits do. I am talking about professional art photography, not part time photographers who display their work in galleries or on the internet, hoping a picture will sell itself.

If you would like to see an example of a person who is extremely successful at selling their own art work, look up Ken Duncan (www.kenduncan.com). He employs more than 50 people to sell his work and run the various aspects of his business. He started out with a gallery of his own. He has a seven figure personal income. He sells his own art.

PS - I don't frame my work: a nearby framing shop does that for me (I don't have the time).

Cheers,

QT Luong

31-Aug-2005, 18:48

Graeme, I am curious if you know of other very successful photographers in the same category. In the US,
Tom Mangelsen comes to mind, as well as Peter Lik (who is Australian). Interestingly, they all use 6x17 for their landscapes.

paulr

31-Aug-2005, 19:23

Graeme, I think the confusion is over the distinction that QT made a few posts up. There are different markets that call themselves "art." This is a point that could spawn a lot of threads and debates, but the basics of it are fairly simple. Someone like Ken Duncan is serving a market that does indeed walk in off the street, say "oh, that would be pretty up above the couch," and buy it. This is a decorative art market--people buying things they like to decorate their homes and offices with. It's an almost completely different clientelle than what gets called the fine art market, which is populated by collectors (who tend to have more specific and more educated tastes).

In that market, all succesful galleries that I've ever heard of operate as described above: as private dealerships that happen to have a storefront. This is not because they don't know how to sell. It's because decades of experience has taught them exactly how to sell. Specifically, they know that their market is not comprised of people wandering the web or wandering in off the street and buying something they think is pretty, on impulse. This does happen from time to time, but it doesn't pay the rent.

I certainly agree with you that the business side of photography can take more time than the fun part. I also know that someone in my shoes wouldn't have a prayer of sustaining sales to my particular market without excellent representation. Because I have spent my years developing my work, not developing relationships with collectors internationally. I have to work hard at finding representation and finding shows and finding curators who want to show my work, but once I find them, I can rely on their professional experience.

A lot of this is because I do not do work that is going to bring someone off the street who wants to hang it above the couch. With a very small number of exceptions (friends and family, and someone who bought something online once) everything I've sold has been to a private or public or corporate collection. This is who galleries in the fine art market are selling to also, an overwhelming amount of the time.

To get a look at the fine art market in photography, check out photography-guide.com (formerly Photography in New York) and also photoshow.com (association of international photography art dealers).

Graeme Hird

31-Aug-2005, 21:11

QTL, there are a few other Aussies doing what I do, and as you have noted, they are mostly using the 6x17 format cameras. Gimmick? Who knows ...

Some others:

Christian Fletcher is a fellow Western Australian with three galleries in the SW of the state. (http://www.christianfletcher.com.au/)
Damon Smith: http://www.damonsmith.com/
Alex Bond - another Western Australian running a gallery in WA. He uses a real LF camera. (http://www.alexbond.com.au/)
Nick Rains is a NSW photographer. (http://www.genesisfineart.com.au/)

These guys and others are selling their own work. There are too many for me to find all of them, but it seems this market works in Australia.

Cheers,

Graeme Hird

31-Aug-2005, 21:28

Paulr,

True, we should not get into a debate about what constitutes the distinction between "fine art" and "art" - that's been done elsewhere with no side winning the debate .....

I was not trying to make any distinction in the various art market segments myself - I was simply putting forward my own views on a particular model of the "art photography" business. My model allows me to work as a professional art photographer. My sales do sustain my work, and I will leave it up to others to call my work "art" if they want to (I call them "over-sized postcards" ....)

The market for "fine art photography" in Australia is way too small to make a living solely making fine art photographs. Something to do with a population of only 20 million people, I suppose. But I see no reason why the model I use would not work in the States, given a smart business person who runs the "gallery". (QT's example of Peter Lik is the perfect one - he is an Aussie with 2 galleries in Oz, and one in LA.)

Cheers,

paulr

31-Aug-2005, 21:43

Graeme, my only point in making the distinction is that you have to know what the market is for your type of work. The work that the market calls "fine art" isn't necessarily more fine than anything else ... but that's the name we're all stuck with for now.

I don't see why someone couldn't do what you're doing in the States. But they would have to be doing work that is saleable to the market shops for art that way. Not that many people stop by a storefront gallery and walk out with just the perfect Joel Peter Witkin print for their office waiting room ...

There's also no reason why someone in Australia couldn't sell work that's geared toward the fine art market in galleries in Tokyo, Paris, London, or New York. Where you live is more important to where you do your work than to where you sell it. As Lik demonstrates.

Brian C. Miller

31-Aug-2005, 22:06

Let's take a quick look at economics. A fine art web site (http://www.paulraphaelson.com/Contact.html) lists B&W quadtone inkjet prints for $400. Nick Djordjevic (http://www.genesisfineart.com.au/secure/digital.asp) sells his prints ready to frame for $40AU ($30US). This means that Nick Djordjevic needs to sell 14 prints to have the same income as the fine art site. Now, how many "oh, that would be pretty up above the couch" people are there compared to the number of collectors buying the fine art? 10 to 1? 20 to 1? 40 to 1? More?

The scale of the market more than makes up for the price difference.

QT Luong

31-Aug-2005, 22:26

If your work doesn't appeal to a wide audience, then it's clear that in general you need (a) to find more connected people that can find an audience for your work, (b) price higher to account for smaller sales and higher commissions. Note however, that some of the "decorative art prints" fetch quite respectable prices.

paulr

31-Aug-2005, 22:35

That's exactly right, Brian. And it's one reason why a gallery based on a store (or web store) can be effective at selling work to one market and not another.

I think there are other differences, though ... I'm sure you could find some work aimed at the decorative market that's priced above a lot of work aimed at the fine art market.

A big part of it is just esthetics. Work made for the decorative market tends to be based on principles of picture making that go back to the 19th century, and in some cases much farther. The esthetic is a familiar one ... one that most people recognize as beautiful. Work made for the fine art market will more often be grappling with newer ways of putting pictures together ... ones that reflect contemporary ideas and trends. They often strive to be challenging rather than comfortable. This automatically limits their audience.

These are generalizations, of course, and I'm sure you could find quite a few exceptions and a lot of overlap between the two worlds. But in general I think it's true that the decorative art market is represented by a broadly accepted esthetic, while the fine art market is represented by many, widely scattered, individual esthetic, each one likely to be suited to small numbers of afficionados.

Graeme Hird

31-Aug-2005, 23:07

Paulr and Brian - I am in total agreement with this summation. There are many more "couch critics" than collectors of fine art. I don't think your wildest ratio of 40:1 is even in the ball park. 500:1 is probably closer to the mark, based on my own experiences, but even that is likely to be underestimating it. A bigger market (in absolute terms) means there will be more people who are willing to pay a given price. (I've got to move to a town with more than 30,000 people!)

I price several of my lightjet prints at more than $600 per print and couch critics are the buyers for those prints. These prints are numbered but are not limited editions - they are not aimed at collectors in any sense. I've learnt (and I'm still learning) never to underestimate the power of aesthetics in a print.

Personally, I would not buy a print for AUD$40 - there must be something wrong with it to be valued so cheaply. Ken Duncan told me he had problems selling his work for AUD$200, but as soon as he priced it at AUD$1000, he could not keep up with demand (he is currently marketing one particular print for $60,000). Isn't psychology interesting? I need to put my prices up!

Cheers,

julian_4860

1-Sep-2005, 00:48

Paul,
I'd not seen the prices from your website that Brian mentions. I think your inkjet prices are way too low. How can you afford to sell through a gallery (50% commission, plus framing)? Or are you keeping the inkjets for direct sales only?

Brian C. Miller

1-Sep-2005, 07:24

Kodak has an article in their professional section about pricing wedding services. If I can paraphrase the article correctly, jack up your business image and your price and the money will flow. I saw the reference to the article on photo.net, I look it up later.

paulr

1-Sep-2005, 08:35

Julian, you could be right. I have yet to sell an inkjet print. to date I've only made about a half dozen finished ones. One of my goals was to make edtision sizes much larger than I was able to with silver, which would allow me sell for less. Framing is not included in the price. And I plan to use the old scheme of upping the price as editions sell out, if i should be so lucky.

Time will tell ... if that price ends up feeling too low I'll raise it.

julian_4860

1-Sep-2005, 08:48

http://www.polycolor.de/variochromat/ (site_ref) getting slightly offtopic I know, but I've just seen some samples from these guys. Seems to have higher res than the devere, and the 8x10s on warmtone FB I saw looked good

Mark Sawyer

1-Sep-2005, 11:47

"Someone like Ken Duncan is serving a market that does indeed walk in off the street, say "oh, that would be pretty up above the couch," and buy it."

For years, I've wished photography had names for its print sizes similar to the old art portfolio sizes- Emperor, Antiquarian, Elephant, Double Elephant, Grand Eagle, Royal, Super Royal...

My wish finally comes true, and what is it named? "Sofa-sized..."

paulr

1-Sep-2005, 12:00

or for gursky, "double elephant sofa sized."

those names are great ... i've never seen them before. when were they used, and for what?

tim atherton

1-Sep-2005, 12:15

i've always been fond of the term "Mammoth Plate" size

Mark Sawyer

1-Sep-2005, 12:55

"those names are great ... i've never seen them before. when were they used, and for what?"

Here's a website that lists quite a few of the sizes:

http://www.baph.org.uk/general%20reference/papersizes.html

This "system" was popular in the 18th/19th century art academies, and was used for prints, large art books, and artists' canvases. (Most of Audobon's bird prints were done as "Double Elephant" portfolios, I think...) A wonderful little slice of history, now used pretty much only by a very few in the more arcane corners of the book printer's world.

Really, who among us wouldn't want to print in "Double Elephant" (26½" x 40") size? I'm considering converting my 20x24 (currently under construction) to "Royal" size, (19"x24"). Then again, maybe "Foolscap and Half", (13¼" x 24¾" ) would be more appropriate for me...

paulr

2-Sep-2005, 10:44

Another take on rules for artists:

http://www.nyfa.org/level4.asp?id=161&fid=1&sid=51&tid=169

Mark_3899

2-Sep-2005, 18:56

You should go to graduate school and obtain an MFA from one of a handful of Universities deemed important at that time by the "art world"
Proveably false.

Of course I'm being facetious here, but there is more truth in that statement than you realize.

After you get this graduate degree you should get a faculty position at one of these chosen schools

See my first comment.

Well I know three artists that have done just that.

Finally you must go to every opening at all the important galleries in your city and shmooz relentlessly.

Getting to know and occassionally socializing with the people who you are trying to do business with is always a grand idea but i know lots of up and coming artists and established artists who rarely go to openings and others who are terrible at shmoozing. More deals and general business gets done over quiet little lunches and during visits to an artist's studio or the gallery you are intersted in then at openings for other artists. Drinking all the bad wine in the world and eating lots of cheap brie and even sleeping with people who you think might help your career move forward doesn't help if the work you produce isn't up to par. Bu you will definitely develop a reputation and cement an impression i nthose other people's heads. . In the end the work either speaks for itself to an individual who is considering it or it doesn't. But I'm not sure you'll care for that reputation or the impression you've created.Mark's list of ideas is pretty sound. I would add: try to do art business with people you like and whom you trust.

Before the quiet little lunches or studio visits occur there needs to be an introduction. I imagine I'm making people angry here, but this is what I see. I'm in New York City. Where are you Ellis?