Anyone can have a show (?)

[bob carnie]

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.

They make their money with their inventory, the shows are usually loss leaders to keep interest in the Gallery.

[bob carnie]

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.

my point exactly Vaughn, very few galleries can say they sell well from the show hanging on their walls, if of course if your name is Ed Burtynsky and like Ed you spent 25 years pounding on doors to show your work its different kettle of fish, He now sells out each time he shows , but he is an extreme rare case and someone to take note of...

[Corran]

Galleries have shows to make money. You can walk in with a portfolio of exquisite images, and if the gallery owner doesn't think he can sell them, you are out of luck.

This is not universally true, at least down here in the deep south. Most art galleries I know of do not sell much work. At the bigger galleries (including one I had a show at) the money comes from rich donors and such, and the shows are a social event. This is the problem - artists, no matter who, do not sell their work because the rich folks simply weren't buying. I was told this explicitly by a gallery director. There's also lots of smaller galleries I can think of that are what I call "vanity galleries" - a place for well-heeled spouses to show their "art" from paint parties and such and pretend they are important or cultured.

And this is why any artist trying to make it selling work moved out of that particular area ASAP.

Perhaps things are different elsewhere. I'm still trying to figure things out myself.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, Bob, except for certain dealers who acquired "A-list" inventory way back when it was cheap, or else had a direct family connection to famous vintage works, I'm extremely skeptical of your statement. Perhaps you know of cases - I certainly don't. Again, folks, 'scuse my geography or demographics or whatever. Sure, there are all kinds of temporary warehouse setups, art colonies, firetraps, and so forth, showing starving"art", if you want to call it that. But any kind of serious effort is an extremely expensive undertaking if you don't outright own a prime location. Selling even an expensive print here n there out of inventory won't begin to do it. Labs (don't get upset, Bob) have a different angle entirely, so do framing operations; the "gallery" is just another form of business card. I had some nice gigs, but in the long haul did better selling right out of my house. That's not really convenient to do anymore. And every time I find a cute space that would make a nice gallery, the hazmat cleanup alone would bankrupt me - or else poison me! Cute old industrial spaces around here are full of flaking lead and cadmium paints, sometime even worse things, esp given the frequency of our earthquakes! Yeah, there are slippery venues over at Fisherman's Wharf, etc; but that kind of game has no interest for me, nor would I ever pay the necessary protection money to the gate-keepers. So for the time being, I just ignore the whole problem and do what I want to do - make more prints just for the joy of it, without worrying about compromising anything for the sake of marketing purposes. I paid my dues already.

[Jim Jones]

There are the big galleries for those with big budgets, there are venues for those who love photographs for their beauty or impact, not for their price tag, and there are people with money who genuinely love beauty. This is the first year in decades that I haven't exhibited photographs in the local arts & crafts fair. A few are still available in a local gallery for $90 in 16x20 frames, which more than covers the gallery's 30%. This is the way many people work with friends and neighbors here on the boondocks. Cooperating with neighbors is necessary among those with small farms. That attitude spills over into churches, schools, and what art exists around here. Therefore we have a well-supported county library and museum, and a building devoted to art exhibits and classes. It's not all about money.

[Tin Can]

+1.

[Corran]

Jim, I have to push back a little bit here. $90 for a framed 16x20 print ($63 after commission) is very low. So low it would barely cover the materials, if even. This is an unsustainable model, IMO, and devalues the very art you are making. It says, to me, that your photography is worth $0 after the material costs.

So what is a photograph, or "art," worth? Well, that is for sure the tough question. But it shouldn't be zero, should it?

"It's not all about money."

The question is, should an artist be able to make a living from their art, given that they sell it? Leaving aside the obvious conundrum of finding someone who wants to buy your work, the purchaser should also believe their purchase helps the artist continue to make art, no? As we all know, there are many costs involved with making a photographic print, other than just the materials - be it cameras/lenses, film and paper that was used but not necessarily printed / work prints, your very time and effort, etc. When I sell a 16x20 print, I want to be able to use that money to buy a box of 16x20 paper at the very least, to make more prints.

A lot of people these days say, "get a job, and keep your hobby." Is this truly "supporting" the arts??

[Tin Can]

No.

But Jim has a point. How much do small farmers make?

How many things do many of us do that has no monetary worth?

[Jac@stafford.net]

No.
But Jim has a point. How much do small farmers make?
How many things do many of us do that has no monetary worth?

The underground economy is priceless. Food for art is part of it. Don't let the secret out.

[Corran]

How much do small farmers make?

I have no idea, but I assume/hope the farmer is charging more than the base material costs for what they farm.

From a "basic needs" viewpoint, art is definitely low (or non-existent) on the scale. That doesn't mean it should have no value attached to it though. Most things that people buy have little to no implicit value from this viewpoint.