Artist Co-ops

[PixelRabbit]

Hey all, I'm working on and submitting proposals for galleries and I've come across the "artist co-op" structure. Basically you pay a fee for the year and become a member and display your work for sale. I've come across various structures, some require you to also contribute time to the running of the gallery, additional fees for display, some only membership etc...

I've received some replies on inquiries I made to some co-ops and all have offered space, I'm assuming they don't curate? If you pay you are in? Not positive if that is the case though.

I'm going to do my own research on specific co-ops that are responding to me including contacting some current artists to see what their thoughts are on return for effort/investment.

Wondering if anyone has any experience with this structure or just thoughts?

Looking forward to the discussion!

 

[Vince.1551]

If it's not curated it's difficult to sell tbh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Light Guru]

If it's not curated it's difficult to sell

Yup. I visited one once that let would let anyone willing to pay and put in time and the quality of what was offered was poor. And poor quality stuff means they don't pull in enough potential customers.

 

[The_Traveler]

I've looked at two of these and, although the places were nice, they both seemed like vanity plays.
Ask to see the sales and visitor records.
It's ok to pay for exposure but if they don't get lots of walk-throughs it's a waste of time and money.

 

[Light Guru]

Ask to see the sales and visitor records.

Good idea.

 

[keyseddie]

Over the years I looked at a few with similar impressions as the above replies. To add, a couple of galleries that had excellent artists in affluent areas happened to be poorly managed. Websites out of date, half-ass advertising, and nobody answering the phone. IMO co-ops of artists don't work. Somebody has to be in charge and they should be paid to make it work or be replaced until someone makes it work.

 

[PixelRabbit]

I've looked at two of these and, although the places were nice, they both seemed like vanity plays.
Ask to see the sales and visitor records.
It's ok to pay for exposure but if they don't get lots of walk-throughs it's a waste of time and money.

Thanks so much for your thoughts so far all! It's pretty much in line with my own thoughts, if it isn't curated then there is no set standard.

Lew I'm curious why you say it's a vanity play? I ask because the "ego" aspect of it is a bit of a struggle for me, questioning driving factors in what I'm doing. Now I'll say that most if not all people who put their work out there have a certain amount of vanity/ego, it's part of the payoff, but curious why you mention it with the co-ops specifically?

 

[The_Traveler]

Both were in a fairly upscale county (4th highest avg income in US) but weren't in a place where they would get any amount of walk-in traffic, certainly no tourists
The paintings weren't exciting and the photography was bad , both technically and conceptually yet everything was framed expensively.
Neither would show me their sales figures and got defensive when I asked. They both got a bit ruffled when I paged through their visitors book to gauge visitors.
Yet, on any individual's list of accomplishments and shows, the name of the gallery was prominently mentioned as if it was meaningful.
I know two of the photographers from the one place and they are well off but incompetent.
I see it like belonging to an expensive country club that doesn't care if you are a terrible golfer as long as you can pay the dues.

 

[keyseddie]

I've looked at two of these and, although the places were nice, they both seemed like vanity plays.
Ask to see the sales and visitor records.
It's ok to pay for exposure but if they don't get lots of walk-throughs it's a waste of time and money.

Lew I'm curious why you say it's a vanity play? I ask because the "ego" aspect of it is a bit of a struggle for me, questioning driving factors in what I'm doing. Now I'll say that most if not all people who put their work out there have a certain amount of vanity/ego, it's part of the payoff, but curious why you mention it with the co-ops specifically?

In Manhattan, considered to be the top of the mountain for serious art collectors, you pay to play if you're an artist. Galleries will "represent" you, for a very hefty fee. Consequently, some artists with deep pockets and shallow talent can buy their way into an esteemed gallery. Hence the term "vanity gallery" came to be. The best galleries accept the best talent, but even for them the temptation of a profitable sale to an artist exists. You have to assess the various galleries to see where you want to be if you go that route. The thing to know about selling in NYC is that if accepted, your work will be for sale for big money, and you will be paying big money to show it. One of the galleries I'm considering is here: Agora Gallery - Contemporary Fine Art

I'm considering 18 month representation and I have been accepted. Still, there are those displaying photography, as well as paintings, that I'm thinking don't belong in a top gallery. So were they products of the "vanity gallery" scam, or is my own assessment of their worth lacking? I don't know but that's what I'm scratching my head about before I fork over many thousands of dollars. They do have a good record with the BBB and consumer groups in NYC. Hope this gives you some insight.

 

[The_Traveler]

I've been to Agora, I think, when Limr and SO and I did a gallery tour.
Lots of traffic for sure.
Good luck.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Thanks so much for expanding on that thought Lew, makes sense!
Thanks for that info Eddie!

Great input guys, it would be very easy to get out there the "wrong" way, these co-ops have all replied with offers for space but from the research I've done on each of them the space isn't the right place for me to be. I think for now I will stick with the non co-op approach.