Re: Pay to show in galleries? When to make that choice if at all....

That's a good question Christopher, I would love to know how other artists
make it all happen. Is it about flooding the market with your images? The
reason we take the risk is to create exposure for our space. Can we promote
an interest in photography, if people see the type of work we bring in, will
they keep coming back? I think it's all about creating a buzz, about your
images, about your gallery, whatever. Getting your name out (without huge
expense!), having access to other opportunities. I've also wondered how
galleries can show the more conceptual type of art and make enough money to
pay rent. I guess some of these shows are sponsored, or maybe these types
of shows are paid for mostly by the artist, just to get noticed?

I think your point about the saturation of galleries is valid, and you could
also say the same about photographic images in general, their availability
on the internet and directly from the photographer. From my own experience,
fine art photography seems to be all about promotion, and not necessarily
the imagery. How is your money best spent? If a gallery can get some media
attention, how much is that worth? Spending money on a website is a great
idea, but you still need to find a way to promote it.

I see it as "pay for promotion", with a gallery show being one outlet,
websites another. I would be interested to hear from other members what
kind of sales their websites generate, and how they compare this to paying
for exhibits? Do any of you belong to the gallery type sites that promote
your work for you?

Claudia Lorenz

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Lovenguth" <chris@chrisportfolio.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: Pay to show in galleries? When to make that choice if at
all....

> Thank you for your perspective Claudia. I meant this in no way of slamming
> galleries that charge. I have been aware for galleries charging various
fees
> from all of the costs to promotional items to juried competitions, etc. I
> also know in this day in age many galleries barely stay afloat due to
costs
> of running a gallery. I guess I'm trying to address the myth of
"discovery"
> that many artist I think have. I don't think it exists if it ever did
> because you can be someone who all the critics rave about and galleries
keep
> showing, but if you're not selling, why would a gallery risk putting your
> work up? That's what I don't get about many installations I see. I love
> them, don't get me wrong and they are very important to have galleries
> showing. But I feel when a gallery shows a pile of TV's on the ground
(again
> this isn't a comment about art, it's about the business) how and where are
> the galleries offsetting the cost of that show? I mean they aren't selling
> that projection of an artist eating dinner on the well, right? So I can
see
> why artist taking some responsibility for something that in the long run
is
> a benefit to them.
>
> So I guess my original email was more about wondering if people on this
list
> (I know many here are from all different art related professional areas)
> think the "pay for gallery" is a new reality for emerging artist? There
are
> many factors that contribute to this. I know there are way more artists
> trying to "make it" out there then in the past. You rarely see the idea of
> "patron" anymore, where some rich person has taken an artist under their
> financial wing to commission work. And I also think the saturation of
> galleries also might have something to do with this.
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
Received on Fri Feb 6 11:21:15 2004