Vanity galleries...
A vanity gallery is an art gallery that "rents" its space to artists in order for the artist to have a show. Thus, the main driver in having a show at a vanity gallery is not necessarily the quality of the artwork, but the artist's ability to pay the gallery to host his/her artwork.
New York is crawling with vanity galleries, and the vast majority of European galleries are vanity galleries. In the US however, vanity galleries are often looked down upon by everyone, since they are essentially a "rental" gallery. A knowledgeable art critic or curator knows which galleries in his/her town are vanity galleries, and often ignore them, much like book critics ignore most self-published writers, who use "vanity publishers."
An interesting fact, at least here in Washington, DC, is the fact that (being on the inside), we often see "reputable" galleries which sometimes cross the line and become "charge the artist" galleries or vanity galleries once in a while, as the mighty dollar calls.
Sometimes we'll get a phone call from an embassy, or from the agent of a Hollywood actor who's also a "painter" or "photographer," and they'll ask us how much would we charge to host a show by their "artist."
When we inform them that we do not rent the gallery for artists to have shows, they thank us and hang up. Then a few months later we see that "Hollywood artist" or "embassy artist" exhibiting in one of our local "reputable" art galleries, and immediately recognize that - at least for that month - that gallery is making ends meet by renting the space to someone while pretending that it is part of their regular schedule.
While I understand that most galleries are labors of love, and often run by the skin of one's teeth, I still find it somewhat distasteful, and dishonest - to appear (on the surface) to be a gallery that shows work based on merit, while at the same time showing work based on an artist, or a corporation's ability to pay.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Duane
Hmmm. Just last weekend I visited the Berkeley Art Museum, which is funded by donations for the most part it seems. Hanging on the wall was a piece o' art that consisted on three adjacent black rectangles, with slight differences in the shade of black (or else it would have been one giant black rectangle). I will admit to being ignorant, but this seems a little ridiculous. Maybe the space was rented. I could live with that, because if the BAM is saying that I should spend time pondering the rectangles to obtain some deep insight, then I suspect that they're in trouble.
2 - Susan Jamison
Lenny,
What is it called when an artist with lots 'o bucks opens their own Self-named gallery space for the sole purpose of displaying their own work. Is this called a Vanity gallery as well or is there another name for it? Just curious.
3 - A Gallery Owner
What you don't realize is that running a gallery is a BUSINESS, and there are expenses. If you had a full list of patrons and a CONFIRMED sales track, you'd be able to show anywhere in the world free of charge. If you're NOT going to sell paintings, a gallery still needs to pay its operating expenses. Upcoming artist need to gain EXPOSURE before anyone will buy their paintings.
If you are a NOBODY, no gallery will show your work. Show me a list of patrons who regularly BUY your work, and I'd invest into your career. It costs upwards of $40,000 a month to run a commercial gallery. If a gallery only showed UPCOMING artists with no fees, they would go out of business. My gallery shows one established artist a month, and has a few unknown artists.
If I ONLY made $20,000 from the established artist, I'd be $20,000 in the hole EVERY MONTH. Why should I take that burden to promote your art. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT!
You are DELUSIONAL if you think that I'm going to go broke promoting you for no financial reward!
You folks need to reevaluate the BUSINESS that you have chosen. When I go to Red Dot or Art Miami, I have to pay upwards of $20,000. EVERYONE has to pay to show work! You need to join the real world. A gallery falling in love with your art and selling out of an UNKNOWN's paintings is a fantasy. It doesn't happen. You need to be FAMOUS before you make money as an artist, or you can paint "hotel paintings" and sell them for $1,000 a piece. The choice is yours...
4 - ahhh....
#3, Just so you know. Lenny is and has been a phenomenal art dealer for quite some time. He knows it's a business.
5 - artPark
#3 - Yes, a commenrcial gallery is a business, but it is a particularly unique business. It requires a great deal of passion, insight and stamina to be even moderately successful. Selling art is not the equivalent of selling widgets. From what you have said, it sounds like you would be more satisfied selling hammers or maybe managing a local CVS store.
6 - Kemit
if the artist had a track record of sales and regular clients, why the hell would they need a gallery?
7 - An
From what I understand through my experiences and that of my artist friends, a gallery should and will spend money on an "unknown" (ie. an artist who has a list of shows, grants, etc. but no representation) that has solid work (high level of craft and creativity, good reputation, etc.) and is professional in their dealings. Without galleries doing such, we'd see the same "acceptable" artists over and over again. Do we really want to see nothing but Hirst shows?
Sounds like this gallerist wants to reap the benefits of everyone else's work (the artist, who has built a reputation and has a record of sales, and the galleries who previously showed their work).
Yes, art is a business. Running a gallery is certainly a business but to do so with an all business attitude andh no passion for the artists and their work is just misguided. If all you see is dollar signs, then the art world is not where you belong.
Being an artist is also a business and we cannot afford to do everything for free. We also cannot afford, or have the time, to do the gallery's job for them. Part of the gallery's job is to promote their artists, not just sit in the back and count the money. Likewise, part of an artists job is to self-promote when applicable and to move to another gallery when their present one is not doing what they should.
I wish I knew who that poster was with their all caps attack style rant so I could avoid them in the future. It was unprofessional and I wouldn't want to attach my good name to them.
8 - Pru
To A Gallery Owner:
Your comment is a little disheartening. It's true that commercial galleries are a business first, but in every business integrity & passion must trump greed. I understand there are bills to pay. If major galleries don't expose emerging artists, those artists will never be 'famous'. There's only so much self-promotion an artist can do. And what's wrong with selling hotel paintings; art is, and should be, everywhere. The super-rich shouldn't be the only ones who can afford it.
9 - shanghaicharlie
SDSers certainly have a lot of passion. Thugs and murderers have a lot of passion too. Evidently, Bill Ayers has a good deal of integrity, as a "distinguished academic". And he certainly had an abundance of passion too. I'm sure, very soon, there will be a William Ayers Award for Excellence in the Arts and Humanities given to worthy art school graduates at a school near you. Funded by some billionaire lefty. The criteria for worthy candidates will be the about reaching out, and demanding the trumping of greed!
10 - john
I've worked for a couple galleries. Their monthly operating expenses were far less than 40K/month and all of their sales were not from the "current exhibition." Both galleries have been around for upwards of 20 years. #3, I believe it is time to rethink your business strategy.
11 - shanghaicharlie
If #3 wants to sit back and take the money that's between him and the people he works for. I can just about picture if I try really hard a Hollywood agent pleading with his clients how passionate he is about his work. How he must uphold his integrity! The spiel in this article and some of these posts is too unintentionally hilarious.
Visual artists need to start looking at themselves as talent, a commodity. Galleries are not there to hold their hands. They are one in a number of venues where a talented professional can market himself.
If you don't like the idea that some competing and larger group represents this or that artist or agenda then be honest, Lenny, and not selective about it. Down with the Annenberg Foundation! Down with The Ford Foundation! Down with The Soros Foundation! Stop the NEA! Either that or quit whining if you can't stand the competition.
12 - artPark
Gallerists and the artists they represent are business partners. They share (in most cases) 50/50. It is not an adversarial relationship.
13 - Paul Baines
I have so far been offered a chance to exhibit my work at Gallerie Gora at a cost of up to $2500 plus promotional expenses for a solo show and have my works printed in the International Contemporary Artists 2009 edition at a cost of US $ 2,265.00 for 5 pages. I think I would rather send out printed portfolios to agents and galleries worldwide (at the same cost) or exhibit locally and in London.
14 - Anja Flower
Okay, I realize I'm drudging up a kind of old post here, but - SDS? Bill Ayers?
First of all, Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground were not the same thing. Secondly and much more importantly, what in the hell does hard leftism have to do with the ethics and best practices of gallery management? I admit I am confused.
15 - Eddy
F. Lennox Campello:
What is worse?
a) A Vanity Gallery that sells/exhibits art based on how much it gets paid in advance rather than based on the quality of the artist/work, or
b) A "regular" Gallery that sells/exhibits art based on how known an artist is rather than based on the quality of the artist/work?
The answer is: all of the above.
Both run for the money rather than for the quality. One steals in advance, the other one later on. You critics are so fake.
In fact, most of you should be categorized by being "Vanity" critics.
16 - jim w
It's a fine line between selling your space and keeping integrity, but a gallery is a business in the end i think. if the occasional exhibit helps keep the gallery open then maybe it's a necessary evil?
17 - WG
Some of the money being mentioned is crazy...
18 - tmara carson
i don't think, number 3, that most artists would have difficultly dealing with the hard facts as you present them, IF the vanity gallery would indeed present them..it's the smarmy "you have been selected"...and "a collector has recommended you" that people take issue with. in other words, the gallery CANNOT be respected if they are NOT HONEST with the artist from the outset. you don't seem to deal with that aspect of the vanity gallery experience.
on a lark, and just to go on a little trolling expedition myself, i contacted Agora Gallery and after merely sending my web address was immediately "accepted". just to see how open and honest this gallery would be to deal with, i feigned ignorance and asked a lot of questions. initially she responded, but when she claimed not to know how many artists her gallery "represented", because "it was changing all the time" (!) it was a claim i found ridiculous and unbelievable. when pushed to answer, she stopped responding and dropped contact with me. she would not be completely transparent at the onset of a business relationship, so future dealings would always be doubtful. THAT'S what artists have against vanity galleries, they are misleading at best and taking money without having any intention on providing REAL representation at worst.
now on the personal side, number 3, if you ever read this, i want you to know that your posting reveals a vile contempt for both art and artists. no one is "expecting" ANYTHING of you, and if the financial demands of running a gallery are too much for you perhaps you need to find your life's work. is it possible that you too have taken money for "representation" without doing any real work on behalf of the artist? is that why you are so defensive?
i am lucky enough to be represented in my hometown by a wonderful woman whose gallery os small choice and funky...she too is dealing with economic hard times yet she has continued to look for the best art she can find (be the artist an "UNKNOWN" as you so graciously put it or not) she goes for the art, her gallery is true to itself, and the results show.
19 - sarah
I hate to say it, but vanity galleries may end up being the only way a gallery can survive...ugh, I don't like it either, but I think they might end up being a necessary evil. Especially in our present economy, a lot of galleries are just barely hanging on.
I have to agree with the person who wrote that a gallery takes money from an artist one way or another, either paying for space or a commission for a sale. What I do find has been difficult with Vanity galleries, is the thin line between who is representing the artist ? I was told by one Vanity gallery owner that each artists both is like their own store front. Then I asked, can each artist decide if say they want to do payment plans for high priced art ? The answer from the gallery owner was No, the gallery had ultimate control on those decisions. So you see the break down here, and wonder how are the gallery owners and the artists going to work together??? If you are renting a store front (basically) and then your told how to sell your commodity...something is not kosher here.
I'd appreciate anyones thoughts on this and wonder if others have experience something similar?
20 - sarah
P.S.
A after thought I had, re-reading others posts, is the luxury that Vanity galleries have in taking a risk on new, emerging artists.
Actually, it's not even really a risk, because they are going to receive their rent money up front.
So, vanity galleries can take on artists who the big galleries can't afford to represent and who knows, maybe the vanity gallery will find the next Mondrian or Monet...who knows?
I still have a bit of dislike for the Vanity galleries, but there does seem to be some positives as well.
21 - Maeve
I found this site after being contacted by the Agora Gallery (mentioned above) by email to put me on their links page and to ask me if I wanted to submit for representation. Of course the red flag went up, but as an artist with just one market in a small country in recession I have to admit that it looked interesting. But in reality what is important for me is a good relationship with my gallery - I am in for the long haul. Who knows, maybe my work will hit the big lights someday, but I would hope it would be on it's merit.I have no problem with paying commission as I know the expenses involved, but I am wary of galleries that show no quality control and have too many artists on their books.
22 - ArtDude
Regardless of the kind of gallery 'vanity' or otherwise, all these spaces have an operating cost. This cost needs to be met in order to stay in operation. Art dealers, commercial galleries and vanity galleries have money as their primary and most important motivator. Judging by the quality of art I see out there I can't but feel extremely disappointed. There are very few bright lights out there.
How do these dim lights become brighter? Through experience of course! You cant become a better artist without gaining experience. This is the reason why so many are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a formal education. We pay universities and colleges to learn to become better artists. Colleges and Universities are a business as well, but no one is complaining about that.
With every single exhibition you have you learn something. A commercial gallery will ignore emerging artists doing experimental work, even if it's high quality and with merit. Commercial galleries and dealers MUST sell artwork to stay in business.
Museums don't really care about emerging artists either, because they have budgets to meet and they want to attract numbers to pay the ticket price. They will rent exhibitions from famous dead artists to make mucha moolah to supplement their government subsidies and patron donations to continue focusing on showing dead famous artists.
Now, any business that has money as it7s main motivator will always compromise. They have salaries to pay, unless of course we find it necessary to force gallery assistants and support staff to go volunteer.
When a gallery focuses on quality and a clear mandate things change. When the quality of the art is the primary motivator things change for the better. You start seeing art that has commercial appeal, you also see art that is significant in exploring certain themes and issues. You see artists being able to use that space in the way they want to use it and break free from restrictions.
You also find both the artist and the gallerist working harder to achieve goals.
One thing no one has mentioned yet is what happens when the market goes comatose as it has in many countries in the last two years, forcing hundreds if not thousands of galleries around the world to close. How do you get to see art? How does an aritist show their work?
It doesnt matter if you rent your space or not, what matters is the focus on quality. A benefit of an artist renting a space is that they can actually demand more from the gallerist as they are also a customer. They can have higher expectations and more legal protection than someone being picked up.
Nearly all galleries rent their space at some point, so there idea of a pure benevolent rent-free gallery is a myth, a romantic illusion at best. Artists want to associate with winners, that is why they want to be showing at famous galleires in famous places. When thay are not picked up, they can pick up a space.
While the traditional model of a gallery makes it (the gallery) a patron, the rental spaces make the artist the patron. Man! that is a lot of power! That is a lot of control for an artist to have!
23 - Jamie
Vanity critics! Haw!!!
24 - she who draws
The bottom line is: no artist becomes famous overnight - it takes time, dedication, and often a primary means of support, unless you're lucky enough to have a financially supportive spouse/significant other. Vanity galleries and publications are not the way to go. I made that mistake once when i was just starting out, because I didn't know any better and i would NEVER do it again. Just my 2 cents.
25 - Bill
Interesting how some of the comments tried to turn the commenting around to attack the guy who wrote it - who's not only apparently an experienced art dealer (and thus qualified to deliver his opinions) but also an artist.
He's dead on!