And it's not just commercial art spaces. A while back, a story by Robert Lalasz in the Washington City Paper even exposed a local non-profit which admitted charging a multinational corporation a hefty fee to put up an art show at the "reputable" non-profit art spaces.
One can even make the case that even some museums sometimes cross the line and become "vanity museums." A few years ago I was astounded when a Culture Minister from one of the embassies in our city told me that they had finished a deal with a local museum to host the first ever retrospective of one of that country's artists for a fee of four million dollars! To him, it was "business as usual," while to me it was distasteful and dishonest and since then has left a bad taste in my mouth about that museum.
Article comments
1 - 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.