pay to play

[bribrius]

so I picked up this mornings newspaper (you know the real print one) and found this on the bottom of front page. Thoughts?

New gallery draws competitors' ire by charging artists for exposure - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

 

[bribrius]

"Pay-to-play galleries, often referred to as vanity galleries, are becoming more common, said Joanne Mattera, an artist from New York who blogs about art trends. While still a small part of the art market, they are more prevalent in major cities across North America now than they were five years ago. When she blogs about vanity galleries, Mattera said she receives a tremendous amount of feedback. She is not surprised the Portland Art Gallery has caused a rift."

"“It’s not curated. It’s based on your ability to pay,” he said. “Most people who come to town to visit in July or August will see this bright, well-lit place in the Old Port and think, ‘These guys must be somebody.’ They are trying to become the face of Maine art. But their artists may not be the best and the brightest. They just have the ability to pay.”

 

[tirediron]

This is becoming the new norm in galleries, especially in areas frequented by tourists.

 

[runnah]

To hell with the old port. Back when I lived there it wasn't as much of a tourist trap.

 

[HaveCameraWillTravel]

At least with it being a tourist trap you can feel relatively safe going down there. I seem to remember it was not really someplace you wanted to be after dark when I was growing up.

 

[Forkie]

Music venues [in London] have been doing this for years. There are a lot of "promoters" who say to bands, "Bring in X amount of people to the venue and you'll be paid X amount of money per head after that, but if you don't bring enough people in, you owe us money".

If the venue is popular enough it's often worth it for the exposure if there is a guaranteed audience, but if it's a pokey little dive, it's not so good for the artists and could verge on exploitation of the vulnerable or naive. Unless they have money to burn of course, In that case, no harm done to anyone.

 

[bribrius]

i was thinking about this. On one hand it does seem sort of a insult to curation and talented artists as if you have the money your work gets showed. ON the other hand, galleries have to pay bills and survive. If they aren't making revenue and shut down how does that promote the art world this is a guaranteed revenue stream..
There also seems to be a significant difference between what Is considered excellent art and what actually sells. Apparently the curated work wasn't selling enough but the pay as you play uncurated work not only sells but they get paid by the artist as well just for showing it?

Maybe it shows a lack of knowledge and taste among the general populace if a curated gallery cant survive on sales? Perhaps we all were just dumbed down a notch.
Discussing this with my wife, and she was amazed the artist wasn't paid to show their work rather than having to pay. It is sort of bitter sweet in terms of art valuation as well. "the art is worth so little you have to pay us to show it"

 

[bribrius]

you get a similar methodology with some art associations I gather. you have to pay to be a member and support the association but in return you get some exposure for showcasing your work.

 

[runnah]

I know the gallery and I can't say I am surprised.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Do those 120 artists all have 'sucker' tattooed on their foreheads or what?!!

I don't know of anything like this in my area (yet anyway). I thought they'd be likely to attract people whose work may not be good enough yet to be accepted into art fairs and shows and galleries, etc. After reading the article, I guess it attracts people who aren't aware that this is probably taking advantage of them, or maybe think this will be easy money? or don't want to bother to learn how to sell their work (and have plenty of money to spend??).

I figured that an artist would be paying from $1800-3600 per year in fees. If work was priced at for example $300 it would be necessary to sell more than 2 a month (because that may not even cover fees and costs of framing and printing) to break even. The gallery would take in $18,000-36,000 - per month - just in fees. I've done submissions to juried exhibits, the fees usually are about $25-40 and the percentage is usually around 40%.

The difference I think is with art associations being nonprofit, usually if you're a member you can sell your work thru them and a smaller percentage of sales might go to the association than for nonmembers; or as a member you might get a discount on classes and programs and events etc. I've done submissions to juried exhibits and there's a fee to enter and a percentage of sales goes to the gallery, but the fee is maybe $25-40 and the percentage is usually around 40%.

I think it's necessary to get informed and know standard practices, and safeguard your work and be sure you're being compensated fairly for your work.

 

[dennybeall]

A gallery has to make money to stay in business. If the art is sold they get a percentage. You pay them up front and you show your faith in your talent by taking the risk. If you have proven talent they can, and often will, take the risk of waiting for a sale to get their money.
Both business models are valid.

 

[Village Idiot]

Music venues [in London] have been doing this for years. There are a lot of "promoters" who say to bands, "Bring in X amount of people to the venue and you'll be paid X amount of money per head after that, but if you don't bring enough people in, you owe us money".

If the venue is popular enough it's often worth it for the exposure if there is a guaranteed audience, but if it's a pokey little dive, it's not so good for the artists and could verge on exploitation of the vulnerable or naive. Unless they have money to burn of course, In that case, no harm done to anyone.

Depending where you are in the US, there are venues similar to this but they take it one step further. As a band, you have to purchase tickets to sell so you pay upfront for your tickets and if you don’t sell enough to recoup your money, the promoter doesn’t care and they’ll still have you back because you’re paying them. I know there are places in Baltimore that do this and probably DC, two major cities in MD (Yes, the city of DC technically is inside of MD). When I was playing in a band a while back, we would get paid $300-$500 a night to play at local clubs, but that was about 60 miles+ West of either of those cities.

 

[bribrius]

sounds like they just want to make money. like before they curate and choose to back certain artists. But even if the artist is good the chit don't sell. On the other hand they have to explain why a suckier artist has more popular appeal and they take that persons work Instead in the next open slot. which requires some explaining to critics perhaps "the other guys chit just don't sell so we took this person on instead because the images have more popular appeal people buy this chit" kind of thing.

in his model, they are paid no matter what and have less explaining on why they chose to back a certain artist as you know this all turns into a gallery critique as well and people can be harsh...

just thinking out loud..

 

[bribrius]

A gallery has to make money to stay in business. If the art is sold they get a percentage. You pay them up front and you show your faith in your talent by taking the risk. If you have proven talent they can, and often will, take the risk of waiting for a sale to get their money.
Both business models are valid.

I disagreed with this, as I wonder if talent actually equivocates to sales.

 

[gsgary]

It's simple if you don't like it don't pay