What does Gallery representation cost?

Jorge - I agree 70% is not just unfair but should be illegal. As for the mom & pop shop comparison. Most gallerys schedual their exhibits at least a year in advance and work and planning for that artist begins then. They are more often than not located in the more high rent areas of a city. ( the landlords see to that once the gallerys start to move in- a good example of this is Chelsea area of NYC where ten years you could have rented a space for under a $1.00 per mo. per sq foot and now can not touch a space for less than $4 -5.00 psf. ) There is no worse feeling than sitting in a gallery empty of clients, with work on the wall that is not selling and knowing that $10 - 15,000 rent is due in a week. With most gallerys 1/3 of the exhibits they hang are what are called lost leaders. Shows that are expected to loose money, but are necessary to display to either support local artists or the present the gallery as a serious exhibit space. Artists have a choice - they can show in the gallery or not, they can open their own gallery by themselves or w/ others. I have yet to show in a gallery where I have not gotten the $ I felt my work was worth. If they wish to tack on 100% and can sell the work, why should I care? Artists have a history of not understanding the market vakue of their work which is why gallerys, reps and professional auction houses exist.

mvjim,
My retail experience is with stores in the high rent districts. When I was in college (the first time) I managed independently owned fashionable shoe and clothing stores in Birmingham and West bloomfield Mi. The comparison with galleries is legit. I am pretty sure the expenses were the equal and more likely greater than most of the Galleries in town.

It is all relative, smaller rent, lower prices -- the risk has the same proportion.

As I mentioned, I don't blame the galleries, They set the rules. Artists let them, Artists may need them to do it and the market is not so grand as to allow for there to be much of a challenge to the galleries.

I'm just offering my perspective.

mrcallow said:

It is the American Aesthetic . We don't get or cannot be bothered to try to understand nuance. We sure as hell are not introspective. We like sports simple, easy to follow, no problems understanding the ending -- hell our president at the debate Thursday sounded more like a football coach prior to the big game then the "leader of the free world."

Click to expand...

I would disagree with your premise there MR. I think we do take great effort to understand the nuance and we are our greatest critics, which is introspective. Sports may be easy to follow to one that doesn't pay attention to the nuances. There is a clear-cut beginning and end to a game. But sports like football and baseball are quite complex. There are a few basic fundamental upon which distinct types of plays are choreographed, But once the play begins, the choreographed ballet breaks into a highly-improvisational jazz piece, with the rest of team supporting the one who is paying the lead. So you see, our two most favorite sports are quite similar to two forms of high art - jazz and ballet. And by the way, the ones who excell at those sports are quite often highly intelligent. Especially those who do the coaching and managing. They are the coaches and managers because they understand the game so well. And its still based on a few fundamentals. It looks simple because they do it so well. Watch Joe Torry in the Yankees dugout sometime. Talk about a master of nuance who can watch the current play yet be thinking two or more innings ahead.