Anyone can have a show (?)

[Ben Horne]

I have a message from a late middle-age amateur photographer who is a billionaire living in Monaco. The photographer had previously informed me of local shows, some of which were of remarkable 'name' photographers from all over the world and also shows of nonsense amateurs with just plain nothing worth viewing; their social position, wealth, made their shows happen, which turned at best to wine tasting events which are stupid but a suitable analogy. The message included, "Anyone can have a show here." Yah, I suppose,

Trying to be relevant, I look to the Internet and the same seems true. The very difference seems to be the profitability of the show in terms of popularity if it becomes a financial advantage, for better or worse. Is the 'net a leveling influence?

I think not.

Yes, anyone can have a show. That is the beauty of art. People create it for a variety of reasons, and it is often quite personal to the person who created it. Referring to some of the people as "nonsense amateurs with just plain nothing worth viewing" is counter productive. You might not understand it, or it might be a departure from established norms, but that doesn't make it any less valid. One could even argue that an established full time artist might be less willing to take risks, or experiment beyond what they know sells well.

[bob carnie]

If a private gallery's operating expenses are not paid for by sales, it's not a "legit business". Private business is about profit, not art. Art just provides a "legit" façade. The gallery owner's trick is walking the tightrope between the two.

Most galleries do not rely on re couping their money from shows, in most cases these shows do not make immediate $$.

[bob carnie]

Yes, anyone can have a show. That is the beauty of art. People create it for a variety of reasons, and it is often quite personal to the person who created it. Referring to some of the people as "nonsense amateurs with just plain nothing worth viewing" is counter productive. You might not understand it, or it might be a departure from established norms, but that doesn't make it any less valid. One could even argue that an established full time artist might less willing to take risks, or experiment beyond what they know sells well.

I agree with Ben... there is a place for everyone in this business.

[Rick A]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qpVyMxA0jo

[Drew Wiley]

That's an odd comment, Bob. A gallery either makes a profit or it doesn't. I've known of a few ritzy photo galleries which were basically either some rich guy's tax writeoff or an expensive hobby to get his wife out of the house with a business of her own. You've got a lab spinoff. But most galleries actually have to make a profit on shows or they won't be around for long (which tends to be the proverbial case). Eighty percent of restaurants don't last more than two years, and probably only half that number of galleries. So they're either going to charge artists up front for display space (a trendy business model), or else bleed them to death for anything that does sell if they can rope the gullible into a lopsided contract. In my experience, work turns mainly at an opening or soon thereafter. Been awhile since I went public; but the break even point tended to be in the first twenty minutes. Gravy was everything after. So it better make a genuine profit or they won't be interested next time. ...
But nah, the net is a minor factor. Web surfers are one kind of animal, serious print buyers another. Maybe if someoneone
has been dead long enough to become a mere commodity, then on-line auctions could come into play. But only a fool buys
something sight unseen. If somebody just wants a quickie wall print of a web image, well, that's more like an online pizza
delivery service, not a real restaurant.

[jnantz]

But only a fool buys
something sight unseen. If somebody just wants a quickie wall print of a web image, well, that's more like an online pizza
delivery service, not a real restaurant.

not really drew
lots and lots and lots of people buy images off the web sight unseen
maybe you woudln't but there websites galleries that have agents and staff
that market the work LA NYC LONDON and other major cities
they are put on walls and people are paying a premium for them.

[Vaughn]

One point that I think Bob is making, is that a gallery does not live show to show. It might be those that do that fail early. Continuous sales from a stable of artists, workshops, framing...however the business is set-up to keep operating. The risk of showing a talented unknown artist is lessened if the show brings people and positive attention to the gallery.

[jim10219]

Art is a business. It’s just as important to know how to market yourself and build a following as it is to be good. If you have a following and sell lots of works for good money, most galleries will be glad to have you. If you’re rich and all of your rich friends buy your work, you’ll go far in the art world. If you’re an amazing artist who does stuff that’s so avant-garde that it doesn’t fit into a scene, have only poor friends and don’t market yourself well, you’ll be lucky if your works will sell at a thrift store.

Just look at Van Gogh. He didn’t sell crap during his lifetime because he was terrible at marketing himself. The only reason he’s famous now is because his brother’s wife had connections with influential people and was very good at marketing. And thank goodness for that, because it would have been a shame if he was never “discovered”.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know what you mean by "paying a premium" means, Jnanian, but it probably wouldn't be enough to keep the doors open very long at any real gallery. The old adage "location, location, location" is hard to get around; but it is synonymous with "high rent, high rent, high rent". There are some very well known photographers around here, but I can't think of a single one that could actually make a living just selling prints. And online sales have not only tanked the
value of certain genre, but collapsed the stock image market too.

[jnantz]

I don't know what you mean by "paying a premium"

paying a premium means not selling a print for what "smug mug" might charge
there is a corporate art place in boston who leases large panels to corporate spaces .. they get paid thousands
and the people who make the art get paid like $1 royalty payments.. that's not a premium. LOL

im pretty much out of the loop drew
i don't pay attention to "big name photographers" because most of what is popular now ( even going back 30 years ) i
find to be kind of boring,
a lot of the names dropped at places like this im clueless, am not excessively impressed,
IDK maybe its because i don't see the stuff in person because im uneducated or clueless.
even when i was at the boston MFA and saw an exhibit with all the heavies i wasn' t really impressed ...
and the person i was with was like, really this work is "famous"
OTOH i saw the penn exhibit a couple of falls ago and it blew mysocks off..
.. so forgive me for asking but
what exactly is the "certain genre" that has tanked because of the internet .. ?
i know stock tanked IDK 20 years ago but what else cause stock really isn't a genre, and again, im clueless.


and what exactly is a "real gallery" ? i thought a gallery was just a place that had art on the wall and sold it
there was no criteria between a gallery where everyone wore black and drank espresso with a lemon twist and one with a someone wearing cutoffs and a tie dye shirt
and i seem to remember for a while there were pop up galleries in hotel rooms ...

sorry again for my confusion i haven't had any coffee yet today and im sort of not getting it ..

I agree with Ben... there is a place for everyone in this business.

ditto