Comments on: Deep Thought(s) Thursday: Do you owe your gallery?

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 04:46:58 +0000

I agree with Keith. This is pretty much exactly what I was about to write after reading about half of the comments. It’s tempting to sell on the side, but you have to remind yourself that the offer most likely would never had arisen if it weren’t for the gallery creating some sort of legitimacy for you, in essence, “branding” you as Keith says. It seems to me that many art buyers want confidence that you’ve achieved a certain level of success by getting gallery representation. Some buyers might be looking for a deal buying direct, but you have to think that if they are looking at original artwork in commercial galleries, they can afford to pay full price. Don’t worry about losing the sale, if they really like your work they will pay for it.

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:17:15 +0000

This discussion is interesting but it does not touch on the question of the role of a gallery in enhancing the value of an artist’s work. The people who market everything else from baked beans to Bentleys get their contracts by asserting that they do just exactly this better than anyone else and its hard to see why art should be different. It is all about added value. Every artist is in effect a brand and the value of that brand is set in the buyers mind on pretty much the same way as anything else. In my experience self representing artists who do not sell through galleries obtain lower prices and have to do a lot more work. Galleries feel hard done by therefore when artists sell direct and they either see nothing or a pittance and the artist trouser pockets considerably more than would have been the case if galleries had not structured buyers expectations.

By: Alyson Stanfield

Alyson Stanfield — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:25:02 +0000

Phil: Thanks for sharing your experience here. I tend to agree that most artists who have had longstanding relationships with galleries would better understand the need to pay a finder’s fee to the gallery.

I wonder what you think about a time limit? Or if an artist leaves the gallery?

By: Phil Harwood

Phil Harwood — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:02:39 +0000

There has been a lot of sense written in this particular Blog regarding the artist/gallery relationship. As a gallery owner/curator I seem to spend a great deal of my time explaining to artists the real contribution a professional gallery can make to their career. Any resentment of gallery fees/commission usually comes from artists who are at the beginning of their career, wheras the more successful and established painters tend to embrace the idea of the artist/gallery partnership and work it to their advantage.

Self-reperesenting artists will often sell work direct to buyers at a hugely discounted rate to account for what they don’t have to pay in gallery commission. All this does is devalue the work of that particular artist and, in my experience, news of the sale always trickles back to the gallery. Trust & integrity are important qualities, and working against galleries in this way will only lower the respect and reputation they are able to build for themselves within the industry.

By: Alyson B. Stanfield

Alyson B. Stanfield — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:24:56 +0000

Count: If the person found you in the gallery originally and the gallery remains in business (AND you still want to have a good relationship with the gallery), you continue to owe the gallery. In fact, you should just refer sales to the gallery in the first place if they represent you. Once you sever ties with the gallery, you are probably released from future obligations.

Treat your gallery as you would like to be treated. Gallerists know one another well! If word gets out that you are making sales that should have been the gallery’s, you will be ostracized from other galleries.

By: the Count

the Count — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:59:45 +0000

I agree with the paying of commission as a recognition of the gallery’s input and work. At a lower rate as several have suggested. My question is however, do you think this commission at lower rate as a referral fee should have some time limit on it. What if someone contacts the artist directly after say one year, two years..ten years. Might it be an idea to have a set time limit on how long this duty of fee should be paid? If this is open ended then the artist could be paying the gallery forever for many works just because the buyer first became aware of the artist via walking into the gallery…

By: Lauren

Lauren — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:28:15 +0000

I think No for the first one and yes for the second. If the client told me they had come from my gallery and now wanted to buy from me… that would cause me to send them back to the gallery. A lot of times people will deliberately try and side step the gallery to save some money, especially those familiar with the art world. It’s a stab in the back of the gallery to sell to someone on the side. I would talk about their needs etc and if they saw a painting they liked in my studio I would probably arrange to take it to the gallery and let them pay the gallery directly. I wouldn’t sell to them from my studio in that case.

By: Bobbi Walker

Bobbi Walker — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:28:07 +0000

I have operated a gallery for 8 years in the most challenging economic period of our lifetimes. Ultimately it is up to the artist to decide on a business plan that works for them. You may not “need” a gallery if you have been successful marketing, selling, and creating work simultaneously. But if you choose to work with a gallery, percentage of sales is the cost for that marketing. My full time employee and I work 8-10 hour days marketing our artists into every possible channel of distribution; art consultants, designers, architects, developers, collectors, and least of all is walk in sales. The hardcost of the overhead of a gallery includes, rent, insurance, advertsing, exhibit promotion, and oh yeah, lightbulbs. Average $10-$15K/month. The soft costs are the gallery owner’s time in attending all museum lectures, trade and neighborhood association meetings, city meetings, public art meetings, all in efforts to reach the buyers in a given region. Additional is the gallery manager’s time to run a continually churning press machine to get the artists names in every possible publication. To keep the website current with available inventory, and linked to as many other web and social networking passthroughs. Chances are pretty high that someone has hit my artists name thru gallery effort. Most galleries have statewide exclusives because they could not recover the cost of promotion and exhibiting if someone can pick up the phone and buy a piece of art direct, hoping for a lesser cost. Collector education and programming to build loyalty and keep them coming back to see All artists latest work costs money. I have annual artist meetings with my artists where we discuss gallery marketing planned for the year, and what the artists career goals are. Our relationship works because we have agreed that we want the same business plan. They create art for 3-4 gallery exhibits nationswide, and I promote them in this region. The gallery splits are under the Ethics Clause of my contract. There’s a new book on Amazon for Artists that details the different business plans available – “Art/Work”

By: Ann Marie Scott

Ann Marie Scott — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:20:15 +0000

There are lots of great comments to this. If they saw my work in the gallery and contact me because of that then yes, but not 50/50. There is also the sad truth that many people will think the artist will give them a “better deal” if they contact the artist directly. My gallery works very hard for me and I respect his efforts far too much to mess with that relationship. I don’t do festivals so can’t speak to that and don’t do commissions but people often come to my studio and buy directly from me. If it’s a piece that was in the gallery within a year (that’s our agreement) then I would send my gallery a cut of the sale and I would never undersell them! It just so happens that the work I sell directly from my studio has never been in any of my galleries. There was an incident some years ago with a gallery in my building that carried the work of a number of us and one of us was wildly underselling from his studio. The gallery found out and politely returned all his work.

By: Princess Rashid

Princess Rashid — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:20:10 +0000

10-20 % would be appropriate (as a courtesy). Since he found you though the gallery (website). Not 50/50.

2 Again not 50/50. But definitely some compensation would be in order (as a courtesy).

I think 50/50 is only fair when specific works are on the gallery premises, in their possession and/or have been set aside for them as specified in your written contract and only for the duration of the period set aside in the contract. If the gallery arranged the commission between you and the client, they should get the full 50/50 for the custom work.

That being said, it is a matter of relationship building and mutual trust. I think it’s a positive thing to encourage win-win situations. For the gallery artist, the artist and gallerist need EACH OTHER in today’s market. So ethically, if the prospect finds you because of the gallery representing you, then the gallery should be rewarded for having the good sense in seeing you as an asset. Sending the gallery a percentage of a sale you closed on your own (that in some way they influenced) would go a long way in encouraging your relationship to blossom. If the percentage is reasonable, both the artist and gallerist win. If it is not reasonable, then bitterness and resentment leading to distrust could eventually develop. Not a win-win!