This has happened to me. If a painting is hanging at a gallery, and someone comes directly to me to purchase, I send that person to the gallery. I’ve sent an uncle of mine to the gallery to buy the piece! The gallery has taken on the time and trouble of hanging the piece and trying to sell it - they deserve their commission. I just sent a collector of mine who already has 4 “Julies” to Legacy to buy a piece, even though the collector learned about the painting from me. He had also previously purchased a piece of mine from Legacy.

I think the whole pricing issue also deserves its own blog post and thread - I’ll try to get to that next week.

“I know it seems like a lot of things are on a rollercoaster right now – the stock market, the economy, and this election season. What you as artists need to remember is that your art provides a respite, a place of calm for people who view it, during times like these.”

Don’s response reminded me of a topic I’ve been wanting to blog about - so see next post.

My personal answer has to be- just to make art. I dont mean that to sound somehow self-righteous. I cant say that I wouldnt like to have a steady collector base. Over time, the discovery I’ve made about myself is that it doesnt matter if I sell anything or not. I just paint. Now I have a collection of my own work that sits on shelves in the studio. So, what to do with it? I give it to friends, trade with other artists, submit it to shows. I realized the other day that I havent hung in a gallery for almost a year (the old one closed), but it hasnt bothered me, to speak of. Guess I should probably contact a few, though, just to get some of my inventory out of the house.

I don’t think cutting prices or eliminating gallery representation is a good idea for many artists, but everyone’s situation is different. Galleries do a lot more for the art community than just sell art. I’m happy to give my galleries their 40% because they earn it by further exposing the general public to and endorsing fine art as a whole.

I think with the downturn in the economy we could see a resurgence of the print market, including giclees. If this is what’s necessary for artists to stay afloat then so be it. I could be totally wrong though. The approach I plan on taking is to keep working really hard to improve my paintings. I hope to further increase my sales in that way. If your art is good enough, it probably doesn’t matter what’s going on in the economy, you’re going to sell some of it. The businesses that are the most successful are those that can adapt to different economic situations, and that doesn’t exclude artists. We all need to constantly evaluate what works and what doesn’t work for us, now and in the future.

In response to Paul’s comments: I agree that Bush hasn’t been anywhere near perfect but when comparing his administration to Clinton’s I think you have to mention some major events that had drastic affects on the numbers you mention and were out of the president’s control. Clinton benefited from a huge explosion of growth caused by the introduction of the Internet and e-commerce. It could also be argued that he benefited greatly by lagging affects of Reagan policies that were introduced during the 80’s but took time to work their way through the system. In Bush’s defense, he had 9/11 to deal with, which could have totally destroyed America’s economy. I think he handled it pretty well and for many people it’s hard to find any major lasting economic affects. If a major terrorist attack like 9/11 happened during Clinton’s watch, I’m sure the figures would be quite different.

I was simply using the affect of trickle down economics on professional artists as one example of different issues that can affect us. I admit that my opinions are based on my own self-interest. I don’t think either candidate’s policies benefit everyone in the country. If a business relies heavily on the middle class as their customers then they may benefit by policies directed towards those people. I was simply using high-end collectors as one example. Art isn’t the only thing wealthy people spend money on. They buy a lot of things and inject a lot of money into the economy, which in turn creates a lot of jobs. Whether you’re an artist, work in a restaurant, or build luxury homes you benefit when the rich are spending.

It’s true that CEO pay is outrageous, but who are we to decide how much they deserve. Their pay and bonuses are decided by the boards of their companies, who are elected by their shareholders. If people truly care that much then they should stop investing in and buying the products of those companies. One of the best things about America is that we have that choice. Plus, high CEO pay may not have trickled down to the workers in that particular company, but certainly those CEOs spend that money somewhere. Every product or service they purchase creates jobs somewhere.

Larry, I’m putting a painting in a local show tomorrow of a Jack Russell terrier. I have a call in to the person who owns the dog to give her first crack at it. If she says yes, then I will still work out some kind of commission for my gallery since they will be showing the painting and they may use an image of it for publicity. Seems only fair to me.

Julie:

It was not clear to me that that was what you were talking about and I apologize if I misrepresented your words. I agree that selling the painting independently when the gallery had already found the buyer is sleazy.

But as with everything else, there are “gray areas.”

For example, what if I had a painting in a gallery that was not selling and someone saw it on my website (ie, not at the gallery) and inquired about buying it? In that case, the gallery has no claim to any of the profit as far as I can see. Perhaps i am wrong, but I can certainly envision a gallery getting ticked off if they found out I took a painting out of their gallery to sell it independently. I am sure the obvious question from the gallery would be “Did they see it at our gallery?” and not sure that the answer “No” from me would be acceptable to all galleries.

Incidentally, another artist that i know has indicated reservations to me about selling paintings independently at lower prices because he thought his galleries might “find out” and be ticked off. So I don’t think my impressions are completely in left field.

Susan asks: “Why shouldn’t I pocket the extra 40-50% if I make a legit direct sale?”

Far be it from to tell you how to sell your paintings! I don’t know much about this stuff and what i said above was basically thinking out loud.

Don was asking about ways to get those with less money to buy art. “Charge less” is the obvious answer. Many people can simply not afford to buy a painting for over $1000 (not even a small one) but if the price is cut in half, they might be able to.

But you could be right about it affecting the value of the paintings you have already sold. I really don’t know.

So, now I will shut up.