Posts
9 months ago a gallery contacted me (I'd never heard of them) from across the country suggesting that I might want to exhibit at their gallery. they were looking for around 20 very large prints (the bigger the better), colour landscape only and were pretty firm about which images they wanted - reasonable - it's their gallery - though I did wonder about some of the choices.
They explained that the images needed to be framed and offered to do it at a good price (it was reasonable and certainly solved the freight problem). They wanted to display the images in frame but without glass - a little nerve wracking since unlike oil or acrylic paintings, the least finger print or paper scratch would ruin an inkjet print - but they're right the prints do look better without glass.
In the end I made 24 prints. At their request I borrowed (rented) an Epson 9800 to produce four 36 inch square prints (which really did look gorgeous). two 44 inch rolls of Entrada, purchase of some ink and recompense to the owner of the printer and I was out $500+. Total cost for producing the prints for the show was probably $1500 all up (all you need is one blotch of ink on the white border of these large prints and you have to start over). Framing and other gallery costs for the show came to $5100 which broken down was competitive with framing done locally. Costs for advertising and invitations and so on were shared with the gallery, my share was about $1000. I had elected not to travel to the opening and spend the trip money on the advertising.
SO, before the show opens, I'm out about $6000. I write them a cheque for half ($3000), the rest is going to hopefully be made out of sales. the good news is as of this month I'm down to owing them $800 which with a few more sales will be erased.
Sales for the show and after were a grand total of 3 prints, none of which were the biggest prints. The only image that has sold from the show is 'Peggy's Cove' about which I wrote a few weeks ago under the title 'Photographing Cliches'. The prints sell for $900 plus frame, are approx. 24X36 including white border.
So, I still owe the gallery $800, I paid them $3000, I spent $1500 making the prints so my net income for the show is a minus $5300. The odds of me breaking even with the gallery are slim at best.
Welcome to the real world of gallery exhibits.
You might wonder if I'm bitter, or if my experience is unusual, if the gallery ripped me off or if this is what should be expected.
Let me make it clear - I think the gallery was entirely reasonable. They have ongoing expenses in rent and staffing, they shared in some of the advertising and opening costs. They did the work of the framing and supplied the framing and matting material (not inconsequential). Their income had to come from the sale of those three prints - they can't afford to be especially generous to photographers without a huge reputation.
I know that this experience is similar to that of many other photographers working with galleries and better than some.
I would remind you that being known amongst photographers doesn't count - photographers are generally not purchasers of photographs - now and then - sure, but the number of photographers who have spent over $1000 in their entire lives acquiring photographs is miniscule and not enough to fully support even the Barnbaums, Sextons, kennas and so on.
Burtynsky does well as do a limited number of others, because they have caught the public eye and offer a product that is different, topical, even controversial - no one has made a movie about my work - Burtynsky has - and it's quite good by the way.
His images tie in closely to current environmental concerns and even political ones with his images of China and Bangladesh, photographs of massive junk piles and old tires make a strong statement about our consumerism and waste and recycling and the environment which are hard to ignore and receive a lot of press.
One of the more successful photographers in the fine art world is ALain Briot but he works extrmely hard marketing his work, teaches workshops, writes books and spends considerable time doing mundane stuff to support his creative work.
One reads of gallery owners being crooks but frankly I'd not want to run a gallery - looks like a very risky business, subject to fashions and the whims of the public. In Calgary right now the economy is booming but oddly all that money isn't being spent on the arts - Winnipeg which is a working class town with a tough climate and lots of mosquitos has been a huge promoter and incubator of the arts for years. Go figure.
I think this is simply the reality of gallery work.
Did they pick the wrong prints - well the 4 extra that I sent them didn't sell so I'd guess not.
A novice photographer with some original ideas had a show in Calgary. She had the idea of hiring a publicist. She got on breakfast shows and talk shows and in the newspaper. Her show was such a success she paid off her costs the first night and made several thousand dollars by the end of the show.
You may get lucky, but I'd not bet on it. Many photographers cannot afford to take such a huge loss so gambling on suceess isn't even an option for them. For me it means one week of holiday a year (I can't afford more) and it means I won't be trying such an experiment again any time soon.
What can you do about it? Well, I have a friend who is displaying his images of France at a local French Cultural Institution. They mailed out very nice invites and are hanging a number of his images. The prints though aren't huge. He's buying frames in bulk - all the same size - and matting them himself. The show is local so there are no shipping costs and he will hang the show himself. The wall space comes free so his costs aren't huge and even though he stands to lose money, it will be a good experience and it won't take that many sales to even more than break even. The prints will be inexpensive and because of the cultureal tie in, he might just sell well.
You might find similar modest displays just right for you - a restaurant say, who can't afford to buy your prints but is happy to give you the wall space in return for decorating their establishment. A local movie theatre we like has original art on the wall - same idea.
So, consider relatively small prints in a standard size frame you can purchase in bulk cheaply, do your own matting and get your images hung locally and inexpensively.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
A local Borders hosts photos and art prints in the stairwell to the second floor. I haven't timed it, but it seems to be on a monthly basis.
I hate to tell you this, George, but it sounds as though you've been had. You're a photographer without a huge reputation? A gallery from across the country contacted you out of the blue? You'd never heard of them before? They asked you for money up front, and you paid them? You didn't go to the opening in person so you can't personally verify that they actually even had an opening and sold any of your photos (or even paid to frame any of them for that matter)? You still owe them money? Sounds like it could easily be a scam.
I read somewhere on the web (sorry, I can't find the site anymore; it was a while ago) about a photographer who had been scammed by a "photo gallery" owner and was really upset. He was trying to sue the guy, but the "gallery" had gone out of business and he had trouble tracking down the owner. I would never send my photos to some unknown gallery to be shown without having a personal recommendation from someone I know who has shown their work there and knows the owner to be trustworthy.
I have to admit that I don't have much experience showing in galleries, so I don't know whether being contacted by a gallery out of the blue should raise a red flag (does that ever happen to anyone?), or whether giving them money up front is the norm. The only time I've ever shown in a gallery, it has been a local gallery where I know the owner, I got all the framing done myself at my own expense, and there was no money exchanged between me and the gallery until after the exhibit when one of my photos sold. The gallery kept a percentage.
Hi George,
I know what you mean about the unexpected expense. I had a small show downtown with 20 images framed 16x20 that cost me close to $2000 in costs and gallery setup. If I had stopped to figure out in advance what the show might cost me, I don't think I would have done it. But it was my first one and I was honored to be allowed to show...
---jerry grasso
The only part that seems a bit questionable to me is the gallery charging FULL retail for framing services. In my experiences, framing and matting markups approach and often exceed 200% of actual costs, which if I understand George correctly equates to a net profit for the gallery of $2500+, not including their 50% sales commission.
As for photographers buying art, George is correct that we, as a whole, suck. Brooks Jensen had a pretty sobering rant about how much we like to charge for our art compared to how much we're willing to pay for that of others. Since that rant, I've made an effort to purchase reasonably priced, high-quality photos from photogs whom I respect. I have prints from Jean Miele, Brooks Jensen, Maureen Gallagher, Clyde Butcher, and a host of other less-known shooters. I even have a George Barr print. I'm nowhere near wealthy and have a frugal wife to answer to, so I limit my costs to a max of about $100 per print (rare exceptions), and try to buy a couple per year.
So, get off your collective butts and go buy something!
p.s. For the past 15 years I've used American Frame for all my frames and mattes. They have an automated online ordering system so things get automatically sized for you. Prices are 1/2 to 1/3 retail (Nielson metal frames!), but for those savings you have to put the frames together yourself. Easy, though. This is not an ad, it's a hearty endorsement.
www.americanframe.com
Your experience certainly resonates with me. My one and only large exhibition turned out in a similar manner. I framed and matted them all myself, which was a considerable amount of work. I sold a few, but no where near enough to justify the work or the costs.
In contrast, I have sold 100X the amount of work through my website. Perhaps not as elegant as an exhibition atmosphere, but certainly a better arrangement business-wise.
And I think people are lowering their guard a bit to buying art over the internet. A lot of artists are quite well known simply from their Ebay activity. I am sure galleries will always be there, but certainly there are a lot more ways for people to get their work out there than ever before.
I doubt it's a scam - first off the gallery does exist, one of my contacts did visit it and did see my images there. I did check into the costs of framing - remember that we are talking Canadian costs here which are a bit higher and we are also talking large prints - as large as 5 feet long and 4X4 feet frame size - you can't pick those up in bulk and shipping framed images would have cost several hundred dollars - so no, this was not a scam.
Perhaps I should have refused to do large prints and insisted on a common size frame which I could have purchased in bulk and at discount, done my own matting and kept the cost dramatically lower - I went with their suggestion and it hurt - that's life, it might have been a brilliant success.
George,
I didn't mean to imply it was a scam, just that the framing costs should have done at a much reduced rate to help split the overall costs/profits between you and the gallery.
Someone just sent me this blog. Interesting story, George. At this point, I would have to agree with Rosie above--that "you've been had."
I have been an exhibiting photographer for 25 years. I have never been represented by a gallery (though certainly not from lack of trying). Wait. I take that back. I was represented by a local one a while back-- for about 6 weeks. Turns out the guy who owned it was certifiable, and I got out as quickly as possible.
Nevertheless, I have had so many bad experiences with commercial galleries-- beginning with the sale of a print (from a very reputable local gallery) which I discovered purely by accident. When I inquired about the sale, the gallery owner told me that he would pay me when the purchaser paid him. Was I to believe that he let the person walk out of that gallery with my photograph and hold on to it for 5+ months without paying him? I don't think so. With a little investigative work, I found out that this person had paid him the same day the print was bought. When I finally got my check from him and deposited it, it bounced a week later. I finally did get my money (plus reimbursement for my bank's bounced check fee), but it took many many months. And--after the gallery owner's 50% take, we're not talking a lot of money here. Then there was that other commercial gallery that sold 3/4 of my work one week after I took it in and never told me about it until 3 months after the fact. When I finally received that check and realized the work had sold rather quickly, I asked if they'd like more (seems like good business practice to me). The gallery owner said "no," then relented. I took the work up there, but she put it in "storage" (ie, the back of a closet, where, many months later, she couldn't find the never exhibited work). Oh, and then there was the gallery owner who had a great reputation, showed the most interesting work in my area, and was opening up a gallery in the Atlanta area. Though he didn't show photography in his gallery in the local area, he was going to add photography to the Atanta gallery. He was very reputable, and his local gallery had been in [successful] existence for 10+ years. He met with me; loved my work, and spent 2 hours with me. He pretty much said he'd like to represent me in the Atlanta gallery. 3 months later, and still no word, I contacted him and had to leave a message. No response. One month after that, I contacted him again. No response. Suddenly, not long after, he sent a mass email to his entire mailing list. With no explanation, rhyme, or reason, he says "good-bye," basically, and that he's closing down both galleries "immediately." And he did, even though artists had current exhibitions hanging in both. Weird.
I have more stories, but suffice to say, I'm confident there are honest, smart, and reputable commercial gallery owners out there. Obviously, I haven't found them to date, but hope springs eternal.
That said, I have exhibited in some wonderful non-profit places over the years (and continue to do so)--places that have very helpful and honest curators/directors. And many of those places seem to pull in real collectors, and prints do sell. Even when they don't, the exposure tends to lead to other opportunities. And at non-profits, they usually take 30% or less commission.
I will also add that I have never been asked to pay for my own advertising, post-cards, announcements, nor to share that cost. That would have been the red flag for me in your situation, George.
I do think that with the Internet (and the exposure an artist's work can gain from that), the landscape for commercial gallery owners has changed and will continue to do so. I can honestly see all of them going out of business once and for all, in the not too distant future.
Anyway . . . I could go on and on about commercial galleries and their sometimes less than honest behavior. Frankly, I think most of them are running on a shoestring and can barely make it.
Although I do purchase other photography, I really think that's neither here nor there when talking about the "business" practices of commercial gallery owners.
Finally, I've always done my own matting and framing. I can't imagine paying someone else to do that--plus, matting and framing are so individual and specific to the images that I wouldn't trust that to anyone else. I also give a plug to American Frame-- relatively inexpensive, reliable, and fast.
On the "George has been had" posts: Given the size of the images, assuming 8-ply mats and sturdy frames (again, given the size of the images), and assuming the gallery doesn't qualify for the higher volume materials discounts (which tend to activate in the thousands of sheets/sticks), the quoted prices probably represent a discount from retail framing prices.
To clarify, it wasn't Chuck who mentioned scam, it was Rosie and her comment was very reasonable, frankly I was very concerned that it was a scam even before signing up, but I did my homework - I checked framing prices, I confirmed the existence of the gallery which had been in business for some time and had run a number of shows including photography. I talked with the curator and subsequently the owner of the gallery.
I think that for better or worse, this reflects not a scam but fairly common gallery costs and normal and reasonable practices, which unfortunately probably means that all of us will have to think very carefully before going the gallery route again.
Matting and framing aside, I would not have said that making you share half the costs of announcements/postcards/advertising was normal and standard practice for any gallery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least part of that 50% commission a commercial gallery takes should cover the costs of all announcements and advertising. Again, in my experience, in 25 years of exhibiting in both commercial galleries and non-profit, not one has ever asked me to share that cost. And I can't think of any who haven't done a great job in terms of creating great looking announcements and extensive advertising-- including (and especially for those non-profits), getting reviewers to come out and do a write-up.
I can safely say that any gallery owner/curator (commercial or non-profit) who took the initiative to contact me for a show, would not get a penny out of me to share the costs for announcements, etc. This is especially true of they were also taking a commission on any sold work. (Perhaps this is standard practice in Canada??)
Thanks for this most recent entry. I think that this whole discussion is very informative and all your efforts much appreciated - I think it will be helpful for others considering the gallery experience.
The latest issue of the Luminous Landscape Video Journal (Issue #16) has an excellent 20 minute video on how to set up your own gallery and the (not very encouraging) economics of running one. This gives a lot of insight into the whole discussion on this post. Gallery owners don't tend to make money themselves, so if they are going to make money, they either have to supplement the exhibits with something else (like offering classes in the space), or really stick it to the photographers who exhibit there. Exhibiting your work in galleries is not a money-making venture, unless you're someone like Art Wolfe.
I had my first (and so far only) solo exhibition in a cafe a couple of months ago. Did all the matting and framing myself at home, so it was just the cost of printing and materials for me (and the cost of my mat cutter up front). But I didn't sell squat. That's to be expected. People don't generally buy artwork off the walls in a cafe. They just enjoy the ambience while they're eating. However the experience of having the show and talking to all the people who showed up for my opening was very encouraging, so I still think it was worth doing. And now I've got some great framed work up on my (previously empty) walls at home. :-)
I agree about the advertising. If the photographer/artist is bearing more of the risk up front, the gallery owner should receive less than 50% in commission. The size of the commission reflects the risks/expenses borne by each party.
I think that almost all exhibits--whether in a large city or a small town, hanging on the walls of a well-known gallery or a small cafe-- reach only a regional audience. That said, exhibits are a great way to get your work seen, and if the space advertises well on the Internet, the exhibit can reach a wider audience. And, as mentioned before, even if nothing sells, the exposure can often lead to other opportunities.
I do think, though, that an artist --at some point--has to look at what's being offered (the space; the exposure; the commission taken; any extras-- like a catalog produced?-- how much advertising will be done; will there be an opening, etc) and determine the benefits compared to the costs to the artist. I've certainly turned down opportunities (not many, but a few) to show my work when the hassle and expense of putting together the work far outweighed what the exhibit might do for me.
While that may sound a bit selfish, I do believe that as artists, we are often the worst when doing what's best for our "careers." We're often so desperate to have our work seen, and so flattered that someone would ask-- that we won't question a gallery's demands or business practices.
I do think we all need to learn to ask the right questions and understand that we can "demand" a gallery treat us fairly and with respect. This would be most especially true for a gallery what has approached an artist, not the other way around.
I do think that being an artist is, in part, a business. We all need to think more like business people, while still being creative, working artists. One doesn't cancel out the other. After all these years, I'm still working on this myself, but I'm getting much better at it.
;)
Thanks for this blog entry, George. I do think the topic--and talking about galleries and exhibits-- is worthwhile and informative.
For a good perspective on the gallery 50/50 split from a gallery owners point of view check out this post at Edward Winklemans blog. An excellent blog for regular reading as well for a perspective on the new york gallery/art scene. http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2007/06/logic-behind-5050-split.html
Post a Comment