open discussion:gallerists and artists

Add a Comment

19 Comments

Comment by Marie Kazalia on October 23, 2009 at 1:38pm

'Off The record' in 'ArtReview' sounds like an interesting article--I'll have to look for it. BYW Do you have a link?

Comment by Kelvin Harvey on October 23, 2009 at 7:44am

Galleries, lack of interest, no surprises there, in my experience most are nothing more than shopkeepers with minimal interest in either art or artists. They see artists as an expoitable resourse, free stock and the kudos of self elevation in the business community of owning a "Gallery". In recent months I have been contacted by galleries from Madrid, Moscow and Florence who wish to take my work, upon investigation into the contracts ofered, they actually wanted money from me!, amounts from 420 to 1500 euros. For an insight into the more established smart end of the gallery scene, read the slightly tongue in cheek monthly piece called 'Off The record' in 'ArtReview' that really shows the galleries for what they are. I'm sure there may be some genuine owners and operators out there, but my experience and the evident lack of presence in this group speaks volumes. At the end of the day Artists must take responsibilty and open up their own routes to market, by forming cooperative groups, artist led initiatives linked together to form a cohesive partnership to lobby goverment and regional funders for direct access to fiscal funding and cut out the Quango's that currently exist to 'manage' the so called 'creative sector'. That's me on a soap box, anyone else got any thoughts....

Comment by Hubert Cance on October 22, 2009 at 9:25am

Thomas is fully right, and I see one more reasons (if they are like the editors and publishers that I am knowing so (too) well: the worried about to be over-solicitated. I mean, they receive plenty offers from artists and either they choose to read all and to try to see if one of the emails, letters or files correspond to what they are searching for, either they decide to consider all as spams and to search by themselves... This is a shame, as they could miss someone, but have they any choice? Until now, all my publishers, and the gallerists who publish or show my art had been contacting me by themselves after having see my art somewhere else (I start to be published in fanzines for free, far before having a website to show my art), except one that I was calling about news concerning his magazine and who was amazed that one of his "favorite" artist could be affordable for his publishing house... He is now my main publisher.
Well, this is probably why I am not good to sell myself and my art to galerist: I just don't know how to do, having never had to do it before, and the Fine Art world being even more difficult to penetrate. Myabe would I just need a dynamic agent to do it for me... If this is existing...

Comment by Thomas Hodges on October 22, 2009 at 9:10am

This Group has become static, and the reason is obvious, it is dominated by artists, with zero gallerists ! Is there a way that b-uncut can identify and communicate with gallerists, encourage them to become part of this network ? As always, gallerists generally tend to run from this kind of site, not wishing to put themselves into an ambiguous situation. What a pity !

Comment by anil kumar kohli on October 21, 2009 at 11:14pm

Hi...friends ,Many greeting from INDIA ,I hope we share goodness and kindness each other.Lovely to meet u all.

Comment by kara cardinale on August 5, 2009 at 9:01am

I think it was in the painters group yesterday that someone was commenting that Picasso's work was geometric in scope and lacked soul and here we're using Warhol as example of talent, art versus materialsm. Whaat's interesting is that even the most ardent Pcasso lovers would agree that he became a machine in his later years producing for profit. And Warhol well he never pretended not to revere money, fame and materialism its what his art was about.

Comment by Hubert Cance on August 3, 2009 at 12:45pm

Hello!

I just succeed today to find time to upload photos on my page, and would be happy to read your comment.

Hoping that you would like it,
Friendly,
Hubert.

Comment by Thomas Hodges on August 2, 2009 at 2:21pm

I totally agree with Kelvin. Art comes first, and if it's good and marketable (and marketed !), sales will follow.

Comment by Kelvin Harvey on August 2, 2009 at 11:18am

Maybe creating a picture with the aim of selling it, reduces art to mere commodity with doubtful artistic merit. Andy Warhol made art to sell, but since his death his success has only profited dealers, banks and collectors, most of the work is basically mundane and in saner times would not rate much above commercial graphic art, akin to travel posters or communist polictical art. If art is to have soul and integrity that will last long after the act of making, then the sales will come with an established reputation for quality work and not from a cynical hack producing work for just the money, if thats the motive go work as an illustrator or graphic designer, a true test of commercial metal.

Comment by Joe Scotland on August 2, 2009 at 5:24am

Whats more important creating a picture or selling it? I think the latter

• 1
• 2