Would you sell your work to decorators?

[Duane Polcou]

Call me a whore

Aren't you in Nevada? I believe they're called hostesses.. .

[vinny]

My dream has always been to flick on Archie Bunker and have my B&W's gracing the walls in those movie sets. Call me a whore but if someone pays for a print from me I don't care if they put it out in the garage floor for the British car to drip oil on.

"One of these days, Jim, one of these days!"

[paulr]

Actually, it is not uncommon for high end art galleries to sell only to the "qualified" buyers. The thinking goes like that: as a gallerist with long-term thought, you want to help your artists increase their reputations. One's reputation is enhanced by placing art in museums and prominent collections. Since gallery prices are fixed (unlike auction prices), there is no point of selling to a "decorator" if you can sell the same piece to a collector. Some pieces are in such high demand that you will sell them anyways. There are even waiting lists.

QT, I suppose anything's possible, but I've never in my life heard of anything like this. In cases where a piece is actually in such high demand (and these are very rare cases), the market price takes care the dilemma elegantly: only collectors are going to spend the big money on art.

It's true that most high end galleries put their resources into selling to collectors, rather than to decorators or walk-in buyers. But that's just smart business. They got to be top galleries by knowing their customers, and at the higher levels that's going to be collectors of one kind or another.

To a degree, I understand the dilemma posed by the original question. Artists often care about their work beyond its value in commerce. There is a difference between art and decoration, even there is often a big overlap. I'd rather have my work on the walls of someone who gets it and loves it, rather than have it on the wall above a couch that it happens to match.

And as someone mentioned, artists often care about sales for career reasons ... a sale to a collection is worth a line on the resumé; a sale to Motel 6 probably isn't.

Still, not too many of us have the luxury of being so picky. If someone wants to buy one of my prints to decorate the doghouse, I'm in no position to argue. Yes, I'd rather be selling to the Whitney or the Tate Gallery. Yes, I'm going to keep my mouth shut, except to say, "thank you."

[paulr]

The art world is certainly full of contradictions. No wonder there are so few photographers who make their living strictly off of sales of fine art photography.

No surprise that there are apparent contraditions, since there's really no such thing as "the art world." There are many, many art worlds, some of which share a few inhabitants, some of which barely know about one another.

Michael Kenna is not in the same world as Andreas Gursky. And he's not in the same world as my Aunt who sells paintings at art fairs and at shows in health clubs. These are all art worlds. They don't all follow the same rules.

[QT Luong]

> QT, I suppose anything's possible, but I've never in my life heard of anything like this. In cases where a piece is actually in such high demand (and these are very rare cases), the market price takes care the dilemma elegantly: only collectors are going to spend the big money on art.

Ah, but like all galleries and artists are not equal, so are collectors, and money is not everything.

> Then are galleries doing a disservice to a photographer by over-qualifying potential customers?

As I wrote, this strategy is rarely, if ever, applied to living photographers, because the supply is not scarce enough.

> If I want my photography in as many homes as possible, but my dealer refuses to sell my work to just anyone, how do I make money?

Find another dealer

> Would there be more "rich" photographers if galleries sold a photographer's work to anyone who wanted to buy it?

No (see above).

> And does status matter when you have enough money to pay off your mortgage in 10 years because of all of the photography you've sold?

If you are a true art world star, you'll buy your house cash.

[pablo batt]

photography is not art

[paulr]

QT, can you show me an example of this practice? I'd be curious.
Especially with dead photographers; they don't have a resume to build, and any issues of scarcity will be reflected in market price.

In my experience, the galleries that specialize in the Famous Dead are more purely intrusted in money than those who take risks on the fickle, the not-yet-famous, the living.

[CG]

Some "A list" artists have more buyers than art and have the enviable conundrum of choosing which buyers to favor with a deal.

Some canny, or conniving, depending on one's point of view, galleries make quite a big thing out of having a waiting list for certain artists works. With some artists and their galleries, you don't even get to choose what work you will get, if you want to stay on the buyers list, unless you are an especially active buyer. No matter how much the system stinks, it does exist at the very high end.

At the low end, where I live, I'll sell to a decorator, and I'll be grateful. An artist who argues about what sort of individual is buying on some lofty artistic/moral grounds sounds immature and self absorbed.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

No surprise that there are apparent contraditions, since there's really no such thing as "the art world." There are many, many art worlds, some of which share a few inhabitants, some of which barely know about one another.

Michael Kenna is not in the same world as Andreas Gursky. And he's not in the same world as my Aunt who sells paintings at art fairs and at shows in health clubs. These are all art worlds. They don't all follow the same rules.

What's with the Michael Kenna knock?

[Stefano]

I say only Yes....


Stefano