.jpg){kind=small}
The landscape of the art world is evolving, and with it comes the emergence of the hyper "pay to play" galleries, sparking debates about the ethical implications of this practice which makes it difficult for emerging artists to afford galleries.
These galleries require artists to pay substantial upfront hire fees for exhibition opportunities in addition to often 50% commission in all sales. This practice raises questions about fairness, transparency, and exploitation within the industry.
As we all know, galleries are "gatekeepers" of success in art for any visual artist, regardless of what the new models are such as online selling and marketing. Research still shows that galleries, especially the right ones are the gatekeepers of a visual artists success in the business. But are emerging artists being pushed out because of the rising costs?
History of Pay to Play Gallery Model
The pay-to-play gallery model, where artists pay a fee to exhibit their work, is not a recent phenomenon. It has been around for quite some time, but its prevalence has fluctuated over the years. Here are a few key points about its history:
- Early History: The concept of artists paying to exhibit can be traced back to the 19th century when artists would rent spaces to display their works independently.
- 20th Century: In the mid-20th century, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, the pay-to-play model became more structured, with galleries explicitly charging fees for exhibitions.
- Recent Trends: In recent years, with the rise of art fairs and online platforms, the pay-to-play model has become more prominent in physical galleries. This trend is perhaps an early indicator of a death knell for physical galleries competing against the online platforms. Online platforms offer artists more opportunities to showcase their work. When physical galleries raise prices for artists to exhibit it raises concerns about accessibility and equity in the art world. Of course the cost of living and increasing rent prices mean galleries may be struggling - the problem will be as cost of living keeps getting worse artists themselves may not be able to afford gallery space to hold solo exhibitions and will most likely find alternative solutions to exposure and sales.
Overall, while the pay-to-play model has long standing roots, its application and impact have evolved over time. But of recent times prices for art gallery exhibition space has gone considerably up and the effectiveness of galleries in bringing more customers and eyes to see the artworks have diminished. Here is my perspective as an artist:
Emerging artists perspective
As an emerging artist in the highest cost of living crisis known to man...I keep asking myself the question: is "Pay to Play" exhibition gallery business model fair?
I recently approached a gallery in Melbourne that offsets their expenses by running a cafe full time. But they still apply the pay to play model of approximately $3500 AUD for me to exhibit for a few weeks plus most likely 50% commission and other fees. This of course could be partly to do with expensive rent but is that all that it is?
According to my Bavarian Art teacher I think galleries used to be just commission based - no Pay to Play hire fees upfront - results based model. She said its still like that for some galleries in Germany. So I kind off feel ripped off by Australian galleries and robbed of the opportunities as an emerging artist on a shoestring budget and virtually no sales.
I think not just here in Australia but elsewhere in the world art galleries have just gotten used to the "Pay to Play" model with hire fees as a means of income but they often output very little advertising in return for those high fees and aren't often open. And when talking to that small gallery with that cafe: The gallery manager said exactly that,.that this helps to smooth out their profit margin.
Perhaps that needs to change in the future and perhaps governments need to support galleries so that in turn they support artists to get started by giving them affordable access to more eyes - in the gallery. At least they are diversifying by running a cafe as well. Perhaps some galleries will get the right mix of ideas to stop charging hire fees for artists to grow and etc?
In the meantime, I think I'll just arrange to exhibit my pieces in local cafes and restaurants and sell my works this way as well as attempt to do it online and any other means I can scrounge. It will enhance a cafe or restaurant in my opinion and it will get them a commission for the sale which I can negotiate on. And its great exposure for me.
Although you need to be careful which cafe or restaurant you exhibit because of the subject matter and the audience you want to showcase your pieces with.
Empowering or Exploitative?
While some argue that "pay to play" galleries provide a stepping stone for emerging artists to gain exposure, others view this practice as exploitative, particularly towards those navigating the early stages of their careers.
The pressure to fill empty CVs (Curriculum Vitae) and the allure of perceived opportunities can lead artists to overlook the financial burden and ethical concerns associated with these arrangements. I think it's not fair on the artist especially emerging artists. I worry about it and have to say no to expensive gallery hire fees to put food on the table and pay for rent using other sources of income.
Financial Realities
The financial demands imposed by "pay to play" galleries vary widely, with artists being asked to pay hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds or dollars or euros upfront for exhibition slots plus commission fees and other charges and they often do very little marketing etc.
Despite justifications for these fees, such as covering exhibition setup and promotion costs, artists often bear additional expenses, including commissions on sales and shipping fees and get very little exposure, eyes and sales.
Navigating Gray Areas
Concerns about transparency and misleading practices are prevalent, with some galleries failing to fulfill promises of adequate promotion and audience engagement.
Artists may find themselves shouldering the responsibility of marketing their own shows and facing uncertainties regarding sales prospects.
The Impact on Artists
Winning awards or competitions, once celebrated achievements, can now come with substantial financial burdens, including fabrication and transportation costs.
Artists may find themselves in precarious financial situations, with limited returns on their investments and increased pressure to cover expenses associated with exhibitions and accolades.
I've noticed another trend that is drawing young men away from making art in many countries is the fact that because of the high costs of exhibiting and access of a male artists to opportunities means they don't end up pursuing that as a career in order to be able to support themselves and their families. I'm not dismissing the issues that female artists are experience but as a ln emerging male artist I'm focusing in this article on the issues I'm seeing in my own view as a male artist. But there are many problems that female artists also have.
And in the modern world, it's sometimes both spouses that end up not getting into art as a means of living because of the prohibitive costs of exhibiting. Is it even worth being an artist these days? Some fortune ones succeed but most fail eventually. I think its partly because of high gallery costs.
A Growing Trend
As galleries and art businesses seek alternative revenue streams, the prevalence of charging artists to exhibit continues to rise and not everyone has access to wealthy benefactors like Leonardo da Vinci had. I personally wish I had some wealthy supporters who will support my art making and support my artworks. I can only hope.
While these arrangements may mitigate risks for galleries, artists bear the brunt of financial investments without guarantees of returns, perpetuating a cycle of uncertainty and financial strain.
Conclusion
The rise of "pay to play" galleries underscores broader issues within the art world, including economic challenges, power dynamics, and ethical considerations.
As artists navigate these complexities, it is essential to prioritize fairness, transparency, and mutual benefit within exhibition practices, ensuring that opportunities for exposure and recognition are accessible to all without exploitation or undue financial burden.
Fair commission and entry fees for gallery for artists don't really exist anymore. Usually the commission is too high and the entry fees too high indicating that some galleries are using that as a means of profit rather than working with the artist to sell the artworks as the product.
In my opinion, I think that's lazy and it's destroying the art industry from within and it is denying emerging artists, many of whom are on a shoestring budget like myself the opportunity to grow.
I think mixed business models with other types of business services or products along with gallery space might be the way to cut higher fees and just stick to commissions. And yes fair commissions would be good - not 50% commission!
NAVA art association in Australia has developed a Gallery code of practice that the Australian federal government agency Creative Australia is trying to support. And aim of the NAVA in the future is to set up a full code of conduct system for galleries to be fair with pricing and not to discriminate against minorities and disabled individuals because that's another problem that I've noticed is discrimination against people with a disability sometimes unintentionally.
I would not be surprised if every every country's art association or government department has an established a code of practise for galleries and for the whole art industry in general. If they haven't it might be good to do that. I also think that galleries don't see any other way but to charge hire fees and high commissions to make ends meet.
And of course some of it is because of cost of living and property prices of gallery space. Perhaps government needs to come in and assist galleries to subsidise them so that artists can access it affordably. I think the ideal thing would be to have no more hire fees and a reasonable 25-40% commission with sales results.
But in the end this may just be wishful thinking - to be treated with fairness?
Until then, as an artist just find other ways to exhibit and perhaps if all artists stop going to galleries and paying hire fees and and hire commissions then perhaps all the galleries might one day rethink their business model and artists can all go back to them, sell art together and make friends. ❤️
References
The Art Newspaper: Pay to Play Galleries are on the rise but how ethical are they?
Australian NAVA Code fo practice - https://code.visualarts.net.au/
Supportive Articles
The Quiet Achiever blog: Upholding fairness and integrity in a world of creativity:
Commentaires