Artist absent at gallery opening

[John Kasaian]

If the purpose of art is beauty, then I think an artist would want to be there.

OTOH if the purpose of art is self expression, the artwork alone should be all that is neccesary. Having an artist present might just make people feel awkward.

But if the purpose of art is to sell prints, the ability of a potential buyer to schmooze with the artist "in the flesh" might make for a "value added" experience. Years later while showing off your original Ansel Arbus print of "Twin Moons Over Hernandez" you might recount how you and Ansel Arbus got drunk together and shot out all the street lamps in Afton, Wyoming....or something like that

[Paul Kierstead]

If the purpose of art is beauty, then I think an artist would want to be there.
...

Not sure what the intersection of art and gallery openings is

If I were to attend an opening, certainly part of the idea would be to take measure of the artist. However, I will say that in the past I have occasionally wished I hadn't; it can irrevocably tinge your view of the work.

[paulr]

It really depends. For someone at my level (the "who the hell is that?" level) a solo show is a pretty important event, and the artist likely to be heavily involved in planning and executing it. Not showing up in this case would indeed be like the groom not showing up at the wedding.

But for someone who's already a major player, shows often get planned and taken care of by other people. In these casse the show might be of even more benefit to the institution that's hosting it than to the artist. And it might be schedulied according to the institution's needs, rather than the artist's.

And even more importantly, there could be several events involving the artist's work going on simultaneously. Suppose he's got a show opening at a commercial gallery in Berlin the same week that he has a show opening at a museum in NYC? It might be too hard to be at both.

[Capocheny]

I've been to numerous openings (not limited to photography) and at some shows, the artist was present; at others, the artist wasn't present.

Having the artist present is, in general, a good practice because many patrons enjoy speaking with the artist about their work. So, in many cases, it's good marketing by the artist in generating sales of their work.

I recall two shows in particular that were nights and days apart in my mind. In the first show, the artist was clearly interested and enthused about discussing her work with the audience. She even gave an impromtu lecture about her techniques and discussed the history of her journey into photography. Great show and it resulted in great sales! She understood how to market herself during the show.

The other was a solo show with a photographer who seemed to resent being present at the opening. When asked question, his answers tended to be mumbled, quck, one-worded responses. Clearly, he simply didn't want to be there and being asked a question about his work was more of an annoyance to him.

In the first case, the presence of the artist benefited the gallery by. In the latter case, the photographer's presence did not and might have even hurt sales.

So, in addition to what was agreed upon with the gallery, it also depends on the artist him/herself. Some people enjoy interacting in crowds while others prefer one-on-one types of situations.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Cheers

[Michael Alpert]

Have you often seen/had gallery openings for one-person shows where the artist did not attend ? Is it bad ?

QT,

Why are you asking? "Bad" in what sense? I am sure the absence of the artist would be disappointing to people who had gone out of their way to be at a gallery at the time of the opening. If that's what you are thinking, then there is an ethical component at play here. People's expectations should not be toyed with. Otherwise, it is always a balance between the anxiety created for the artist (who, like Josef Sudek for instance, might be a very private person) and the social/community aspect of the gallery world. I've had five one-person exhibits since 2001, with a sixth coming up; although I am somewhat quiet as a person, I have enjoyed and learned from each of the opening-receptions to my shows. To answer your first question, I have not been at many contemporary-art openings where the artist was not present.

[QT Luong]

Michael, my wife runs a gallery and has many decisions to consider, whether to represent artists that live abroad or far from the gallery, whether to make reception attendance a contractual obligation, whether to organize traveling exhibits that are far. "Bad" in the sense that it would hurt the reputation of the gallery and/or the artist.

[vinny]

I think having the artist in attendance is a good idea but I could see how making it mandatory could have it's problems. I had my first one man show this summer and attendance was mandatory. More work sold because I was there and the gallery rep introduced me to nearly everyone I didn't know. It's usually obvious but not always clear who the artist is and potential buyers have questions they'd like answered by the artist.

[Michael Alpert]

Michael, my wife runs a gallery and has many decisions to consider, whether to represent artists that live abroad or far from the gallery, whether to make reception attendance a contractual obligation, whether to organize traveling exhibits that are far. "Bad" in the sense that it would hurt the reputation of the gallery and/or the artist.

QT,

If I owned a gallery, I would be hesitant to have a one-person show for an available artist who could not (or would not) be in attendance at an opening. Still, if the artist has an International reputation and is not easily available, a good option might be to have an articulate scholar introduce the artist and the show. If your clients know what to expect in advance, the reputation of the gallery and the artist would, I think, remain unblemished. Sometimes, in fact, visual artists are horrible speakers; an introduction to their work is best left to others.

Having attendance at an opening as a contractual obligation might not be such a good idea. It is important to work with artists who understand that exhibits are successful only when everyone is rowing in the same direction. Artists who need to be dragged into working with the gallery are really not worth representing. At least that's how I feel about this sort of thing.

[Bosaiya]

Not shown up? Hell, I've been asked not to show up to some of my solo shows!

[Clay Turtle]

Michael, my wife runs a gallery and has many decisions to consider, whether to represent artists that live abroad or far from the gallery, whether to make reception attendance a contractual obligation, whether to organize traveling exhibits that are far. "Bad" in the sense that it would hurt the reputation of the gallery and/or the artist.

Oh, thank God I was wondering if you were on the outs with your other half about not showing to your own show!