This lad (left) and lass (right) were in our back yard yesterday.  How do we know lad and lass?  Well, when discovered they were occupied, but when we ran to get the camera, they got shy – so we had to take individual photos as opposed to, ahem, a coupled one.

Here’s an interesting ezine post from Alyson B. Stanfield, who also writes the Art Biz Blog (and continues the conversation about paying for gallery space at her blog).  If you are intrigued and want to know what others are saying, click over and leave a comment.  And subscribe to her ezine as well.

From Alyson:

Several artists have contacted me recently with the same predicament: Their work is already in a commercial gallery and they’ve recently been asked to pay the dealer to remain part of the gallery. All have recognized the primary benefit: It’s good to have your work in a gallery. And the $200 it cost for one of the artists was a minimum investment when considering what it costs to get a booth and go on the art festival circuit.

At the same time, all of the artists obviously felt something was amiss when they were asked to pay a fee. They were right. Something is amiss when a for-profit gallery owner goes back to his artists and asks for contributions. Regardless of the owner’s reputation, asking artists to pitch in is a red flag that his business plan isn’t sound or that he’s bleeding money. Probably both.

Here are some considerations:

You have no idea how much longer that dealer will be in business. If you pay him $200, what becomes of that money after he shuts down in four months? Do you get it back?

How long is your $200 investment good for? Is he going to come back to you in another six months for more?

As a part of your contract (you DO have a contract), what else are you responsible for? Is he paying for mailings and advertisement? Or are you also splitting those costs? Can anything be negotiated?

What do you get in return? Can you ask him to lower his commission? It sounds to me like you’re investing in his business. All fine and good, but investors should also reap rewards.

What if he never sells any of your work? Heck, what if he doesn’t try to and it sits in the back room and collects dust?

Is it a requirement to remain part of the gallery? Or is it just a "suggested donation"? Is he asking you to pay a fee because he can’t sell the work? If so, your work doesn’t belong at that gallery in the first place.

Will he put everything in writing?

I hope this isn’t a sign of things to come. Gallery dealers do a lot of good for artists. You need them. At the same time, they have very high overhead. And who knows what’s exactly happening with them now that more and more artists are selling directly to the public. Newer dealers are on extremely shaky ground. If you do business with them, you take those risks. That’s why everything should be in writing. If you cave in and pay the $200, at least consider those questions above and add their responses to any agreements. You should also check up on dealers’ references and their standings with the Better Business Bureau.

DO THIS! ACTION STEPS TO TAKE

–KNOW THIS
A gallery that asks you to pay to remain part of a stable is probably not doing very well.

–THINK ABOUT THIS
If the gallery isn’t doing well, how much will your $200 really help?

— DO THIS
Save the $200. Pick your work up and take it home. Tell the dealer to contact you again when things are looking better. Maybe the $200 really will seem more like an investment at that time rather than money down the drain.

This is a fascinating subject and one that’s probably going to come up more and more often. I want to hear your thoughts and experiences about this. I’m sure I haven’t considered every angle

***

I find the whole subject provocative.  I have and do pay for gallery space in for-profit galleries (not $200, generally about $25/month plus commission of around 20-25% and in one I gallery sit as well – that’s a new one.  We’ll see how long it lasts).  While I think it would be great to have gallery representation, I also am interested in getting out in a lot of venues.  My shops I pay 50% –  I don’t sit or pay them.  Since I come out ahead with the shops, they are my favorite place, but if I want to have a retail presence and sell enough to suppot myself, then I have to mix it up.  Some would say I’m not an artist, I’m a merchant.  I would say:  must be nice ot have enough money to support yourself and not worry about whether or not you sell, only whether or not you get in a prestigeous gallery and make a name for yourself (and maybe eventually sell).

This sort of reminds me of the argument between women who work and women who stay at home with their kids.

I say it has more to do with economics than art and we that we all have to deal with economics unless we’re trust fund kids or have a partner willing to pay for our passion.

Still, it is an interesting conversation and I’m glad Alyson brought it up and plan to watch the conversation over on her blog (which is civil and that’s a pleasure in itself).