|
Post by epicfai on Oct 22, 2011 22:04:32 GMT -8
I had been in contact with the new sales director over the past year or so, and although he made it very clear that I would never have a chance at an in demand artist unless I ponied up large amounts of money (for less demand artists works). how did that come about in conversation? i'm curious because while I could certainly believe it to be true i'm surprised they stated it so obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Oct 23, 2011 14:18:59 GMT -8
I also don't understand how it could ever serve a gallery to treat anyone poorly, and I've had similar experiences. I'm sorry to hear about all this insomniac. I hope that you're having fun in NYC in any case. It's a great city, and October is one of my favorite times to be there.
My only minor defense of Levine, giving them the benefit of the doubt, is that openings are frenzied events, and maybe in that sense poorly conducive to the kind of relationship-building you'd hoped for. If you're still in NYC next week and go to the gallery a few days after the opening, after things have died down, you may find the staff more receptive to you. I kind of see this situation as akin to a friend who asks to come early to a dinner party and "help" when you know it's going to be crazy and should say no, but don't want to say no to a friend, particularly coming from out of town perhaps. Then the friend shows up early and wants to visit and command your attention while you're frantically preparing to pull off a dinner for a bunch of guests in addition to your friend, so you're distracted and focused on other things. The friend might take this as being ignored or wondering why you told them it was fine to come over. Once the party starts, then you're focused on being host, spreading your attention and focus liberally among all your guests, increasing the umbrage of your friend. If you and your friend really wanted to spend quality time catching up, though, both you and the friend would've been better served by suggesting that you have coffee together some other time. In this example, Levine's failure is that what they did is like telling the friend to come over early and then slamming the door in the friend's face when they show up. They also should've known that things were likely to be frenzied before the opening and suggest that you stop by a couple of days later when things were quieter. They should've said they were sorry but there was just too much going on to prepare for the opening and while they told you to come earlier, they just can't accommodate that given where things are on the prep and could you grab a drink somewhere and wait until the opening start time.
Epicfai, I think gallerists should use candor in explaining to a potential customer who may not otherwise know that a particular artist they're showing is in very high demand and the number of existing clients and important institutional collectors interested in the work make it highly improbable that the potential customer will have access to the work. Understandable, and respectful of that person's time and attention. A potential customer can respond to that in two ways: go away and seek another artist to collect who is less in demand or determine how to become someone who would have access to the work.
Not being a person who gives up so easily, I've contemplated the latter response and the following is my current takeaway from my experiences and thinking (noting these are limited and therefore I'm interested in any corrective thoughts or inputs).
What's interesting about art is that although it's a business, it seeks to insulate itself from the market with odd results. In the face of extreme scarcity of supply of an artist's work, prices should theoretically rise to get it into the hands of the person who's willing to pay a dollar more for it than the next guy. A way to do this would be to sell work by auction. If you're interested in Keyes and you think you love his work so much that you'll pay more for it than the next guy, you show up with your checkbook and bid it to a price that nobody else wants it but you. That raises question of utility: an interested party who has a lot of discretionary income will weigh his opportunity cost of spending a marginal dollar on art differently from someone who loves the art 10x more but each marginal dollar being more dear, causes him to give up earlier in the bidding than the other guy because he values the ability to eat with that marginal dollar much more than owning the art. But that's still an efficient outcome in terms of allocating scarce resources, as everyone is maximizing their utility. I also see this as smart because there are often A and B pieces in any show, and yet the pricing is often determined by objective measures like size of the canvas. Although what makes something an A or B piece is subjective, an auction would sort out appropriate pricing for A and B work based on demand.
But buying art in galleries isn't generally done by auction-- although I've read on this forum about galleries not listing prices for the art, which seems a clear opening for Dutch auction pricing, which works best for a buyer who knows the market and is able to quantify his passion for a particular piece. For the most part, though, galleries seem to want to obscure market signals and avoid setting prices based on supply and demand, not from what I can tell to get the highest prices, as an auction would do, but to justify and preserve a pricing ratchet, meaning art prices can go up, but they can't come down below the existing floor set by galleries. The desire of gallerists to maintain a pricing floor means that prices are kept artificially far lower than demand would dictate when an artist is really hot, and results in shows not selling out when interest wanes below the existing floor.
When you throw supply and demand out the window to price work where demand is high, galleries have to determine other means to allocate scarce supply. If it's not about who's willing to pay the most, it's gotta be about connections, past patronage, your prospects for future patronage, trusting that you're not an arbitrage purchaser, or the gallerist liking you and/or your passion about the artist, etc. (I note many of these non-market decisions are not any more "fair" than the marginal utility of a dollar for richer and poorer bidders in an auction context).
Non-market allocations of art, such as connections and past patronage can have varying results for individual collectors. They can often act to exclude new collectors or potential new patrons to a gallery who come in the doors principally because of a particular artist, which is a wall I've faced and is incredibly frustrating. But allocating access to in demand artists by non-market based means access can also work to the benefit of a fortunate new collector or patron because if they ultimately do get access to work based on a contact or relationship it can be a win for the person because they avoid paying more for the art to outbid others at auction and they didn't have to have invested in previous purchases at at the gallery as a ticket to such access. The challenge there is that for artists in very high demand there are a great many passionate collectors, collecting for all the "right reasons," have lots of discretionary income to buy art and are highly promising potential future patrons, and so choosing who, among such persons, might have access is challenging for the gallerist and the likelihood that it's you, narrow. If demand is high enough, even if you're a past patron of the gallery, it may come down to your relative spend at the gallery, how early you indicated your interest, etc.
At the end of the day, because non-market based access puts the power of deciding who gets what access in the hands of the individual persons, it can result in power-tripping arrogance and poor manners by gallery owners and employees, which in my view makes the gallery seem tawdry rather than exclusive, and alienates potential patrons, particularly as purchasers of works who may not be in as great demand. In any event, the non-market allocation of access makes the art world very, very clique-y outside of those galleries that I'd call "purely democratic" in that they're first come, first serve, which also is not perfect because it rewards only the fastest mover/decision-maker and often is based on luck.
What I find somewhat frustrating about ignoring the market in this way is that what it seeks to preserve is mostly optics: okay, a patron is going to be upset to know he spent $100K on a piece of art that's now selling for $25K, but that doesn't change the simple fact that he's got a piece of art with a market value of $25K, even if the gallery is still putting a $100K list on similar pieces in the next show and privately discounting them to clearance prices. At the end of the day, the monetary value of art should matter only if and when you seek to monetize it, which is typically done in some kind of auction, whether at Sothebys or on Ebay or by gallerists pinging potential interested parties on behalf of a seller. By preserving a floor in a down market the gallery is selling at list to dupes who are ill-informed about demand and who should've been able to negotiate a much lower price. Even when buyers do negotiate discounts to the list price, it's done quietly so as to keep the $100K buyer in the dark about the true market value of the work he owns. The art world is interesting in this regard: people buy expensive cars that typically depreciate rapidly, and only if it's a "classic" would you expect there to be future appreciation. But people still buy expensive cars. In that sense, art is more akin to housing, which people also expected pricing to operate like a ratchet. In housing you see people sometimes irrationally refusing to monetize the asset because they don't want to accept a market price that's less than what they paid or what they think it's worth, so I get that the psychology around pricing can be powerful and that ignorance during the period one is not seeking to monetize the asset may be bliss. Still, if the reality is that value will be set by the secondary market, why not accept reality and sell by auction at both the front end and the back end and live with the vagaries of demand?
The only aspect of throwing supply and demand pricing out the window that makes sense to me from a business perspective is to get pieces to "value adding" collectors, whose purchases of art create important signals to the market about the quality of work and the value of an artist's contribution to what's out there. In short, they can create demand that raises prices or preserves at least a market floor. And they're often incentivized to make purchases earlier in an artist's career by having first access to work and at the earliest price floor (and thus massively discounted to the existing market, much less the market that will exist once the collector increases demand!). This makes sense to me, because it's win-win all around for the artist, the gallery, the buzz-creating buyer, and everyone else who has access to the work. The loser is the person with money who's willing to pay more but doesn't have the access.
Even as I get all this, what I find unappealing and frustrating is that if you're not a demand creating collector, it suggests you're best chance of having access to an in demand artist is if you're a regular patron of a gallery (a reward for being a repeat customer-- and maybe you'll not blame the gallery that they sold you a $100K piece now worth $25K if they give you access to an artist starting out and selling at $25K and quickly rises to $100K). It's a challenge to be that repeat customer at a large enough number of galleries that it will allow broad access. There are a lot of galleries one might do business with. The challenge for a new collector is that in respect of some galleries, he might only be interested in the one artist they're showing, and I'm not sure it's worth it if the price to getting access to the artist one wants would've required him to purchase a lot of expensive art he doesn't want, from artists whose work is not in as high demand (and thus potentially not as good an investment) from the gallery. There are a lot of galleries out there, too, and I'd imagine most collectors have only so much capacity to collect in terms of wall space/storage and cash. I'd rather just allocate my money in an auction to get the work I do want than spending money on work I don't want in order to patronize galleries with the hope of future access ("hope" because the gallery isn't giving me any guarantee).
Even with regard to galleries that consistently show great work including a number of artists one is very interested in collecting: you may buy a few works that give you certain access to in demand artists, but at some point you've got the artists you want and the benefit of having that access diminishes unless the gallery can keep things fresh with new artists and keep pulling a rabbit out of the hat in terms of what you're interested in. Even if I'm crazy about the works of a particular artist, I'm unlikely to want more than a few of his works. Those galleries exist, and I do think about that when I'm doing business with galleries, but those relationships unfortunately don't help at all if you want to go outside that circle for another artist.
I can see that this patron access model does provide incentives for collectors to buy from a limited number of galleries in order to benefit from that access. That creates barriers of entry to new galleries, too, who have to build their own client bases.
Given my diverse tastes in art, and how this all seems to operate, I'm often very frustrated but I refuse to buy work that I'm not in love with to gain access to in demand work at a gallery. So I guess this means it will be hard to build diversity in my collection. I also need to build relationships with galleries who may be showing art I like in the future and encourage the galleries I have relationships with to keep pulling rabbits out of the hat with fresh work and keep me interested.
I still think the auction concept is superior-- if an artist produces interesting work of high quality, demand will support high pricing, even if it waxes and wanes a bit, and the level of interest in the work generated by high demand at auction will increase general awareness of the work and draw in new potential bidders and demand to support prices.
My final point to make is that I also find myself frustrated by the non-market allocation of high demand artwork by galleries NOW, in this economy when one would assume demand for art work as a discretionary item would be much lower than in ordinary, much less boom, times. In that sense, I'm glad I've been buying so much art during this downturn because I'm very likely not to have had access to some of my pieces during an art boom. My personal prediction is that the economy will be very weak for the foreseeable future, with art demand also being soft. All the more reason for galleries to treat all prospective patrons with decency.
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by oldfartatplay on Oct 23, 2011 18:24:08 GMT -8
Sorry to hear of you bad experience insomniac.
Damn Weezy, you've got this down to a science. I understand that gallerys will give previous clients preference, but to tell someone they have to spend a lot of money first in order to purchase a piece by high demand artist later is just bad. My several encounters with JLG left me with a very bad feeling. I know that they at least will double the price for art shown in their gallery. I have 2 pieces in my collection by one particular artist that I bought from other gallerys. Recently the artist had a show at JLG and I was shocked to see the price jump two fold, for the same sized pieces (within a year). I was in contact with the sales guy (who was pushy) and I had the unmitigated audacity to lowball them. I was informed that that was not an option because the show was about to sell out. A few weeks later I had spent my art funds on something else and then got an email from the sales guy who said they were willing to "negotiate". I said "sorry, but I spent my $ elsewhere" and attached an image of the piece I bought from Copro Gallery which I have done tons of great business with for years. I recall a few years back a "hot" artist did a show with them and they jacked the prices so high that maybe 1 of 15 or so pieces sold (this was back when their website displayed what pieces were available and the prices). When gallerys do this it's not always good for the artist either.
On a side note, is it spelled gallerys or galleries?
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Oct 23, 2011 18:32:09 GMT -8
Yeah, you'll see that I've even proffered a "scientific explanation" of the moral hazards that cause some gallerists and their staffs to indulge latent tendencies to be power-tripping jerks. No comment on Levine. Insomniac's and your experiences are definitely a "note to self" in my dealings with them, but I have to judge others based on my own experiences, not hearsay. And to me, so far, they've been okay. Weezy
|
|
|
Post by COOPER COLE on Oct 23, 2011 19:41:23 GMT -8
On a side note, is it spelled gallerys or galleries? You would use gallery's in the first person if you were to say something like, oh I don't know "My gallery's the best". You would use galleries as a plural if you were saying something like "I dont like buying art from any galleries except COOPER COLE"
|
|
|
Post by juggernut3 on Oct 23, 2011 20:53:11 GMT -8
Weezy, Thanks for taking the time to write down your observations on your experiences and insight into the business. I tend to agree with most of what you said. Especially the dilemma of building relationships by purchasing what you don't love and also the auction option being an ideal way to judging market worth for the piece. But one issue with the auction model are with most of the artists on this board (non bluechip) which we collect/discuss don't have much if any auction record or sale. The auction houses tend to deal with artists that have developed a following among a certain threshold of galleries/popularity. So in Josh Keyes' example the auction record we can go to is only eBay. I have issues with using eBay as a bell weather indicator as it's easier to manipulate than the traditional auction houses. Also they have a limited audience that doesn't consistently check in. (I am not one that checks all the time). While the auction houses send me the catalogs and have set times during the year to hold their annual offerings, so the art collecting public has more of a schedule to adhere to. Which brings me back to eBay and it's lack of steady scheduling or public advertisement (vs. catalogs) can lead to art collectors missing out on artists/pieces. Thus it most likely not a consistent indicator of market value for said artist. Yeah, you'll see that I've even proffered a "scientific explanation" of the moral hazards that cause some gallerists and their staffs to indulge latent tendencies to be power-tripping jerks. No comment on Levine. Insomniac's and your experiences are definitely a "note to self" in my dealings with them, but I have to judge others based on my own experiences, not hearsay. And to me, so far, they've been okay. Weezy
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Oct 23, 2011 21:57:44 GMT -8
Juggernut, I was thinking more of an auction process for artists the galleries know are in super high demand (e.g., shows selling out far in advance of the opening). The gallery could send around digital previews with an opening ask price, maybe even a sky high buy it now price, and then do the opening and have people come see the work if they want to. For say five days from the opening, patrons could bid on the work, online or otherwise, and allow the price of each work to rise-- or not-- with demand for it. At the end of the period, the piece goes to the highest bidder if nobody paid the buy it now price (e.g., double the initial ask). The gallery could report the winning prices or not, perhaps only indicating pieces that remain available because nobody bid even the initial ask (but one would expect the show would sell out). I'd think that could work at any pricepoint, but I agree with you that it doesn't make as much sense if the gallery doesn't see interest in the work far outstripping the number of pieces. From this forum, I'd thought Keyes or say Tauba Auerbach would have that level of demand.
Insomniac, that's a great story about your Viveros from Copro. That kind of treatment makes all the crap one goes through as a collector worth it. I've been so bitter about my treatment by some galleries, so it's really the great relationships with gallerists and the art community that keep me collecting, period.
Would love to hear gallerists' views on all this... I'm just reflecting from the customer side. I know that pricing strategy is one of the key roles in addition to marketing and placing the work, and an auction would seem to undermine this a bit, ceding pricing power to the patrons.
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by origo on Oct 23, 2011 22:50:48 GMT -8
Great thread insomniac.
First of, sorry to hear bout your experience with Levine but it´s not the first time I´ve heard bad things about them, definetely poor form what they pulled off.
I would like to vouch for Joshua Liner Gallery. I have been dealing with Josh over the past few years and he has always been amazingly helpful, both with previews and purchases. I have done the payment plan occasionally and it has been no problem.
Kudos to David B. Smith gallery as well, always a pleasure dealing with Dave.
|
|
|
Post by epicfai on Oct 23, 2011 23:28:34 GMT -8
If it's not about who's willing to pay the most, it's gotta be about connections, past patronage, your prospects for future patronage, trusting that you're not an arbitrage purchaser, or the gallerist liking you and/or your passion about the artist, etc. Weezy that was a very thoughtful response that you posted above. You've clearly given this some thought. I would also have to say that I love your new term for flippers - they're not flippers, they're arbitrage purchasers!
|
|
saint
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by saint on Oct 24, 2011 4:55:10 GMT -8
Great thread, and some insightful points raised. I've never once dealt with Levine, although I have tried on occasion. I'm not at the level of dropping bombs on crap to build a relationship with a gallery, cant see any point...
Funny that Copro get good reviews, I have emailed them more than once regarding pieces never to hear back. Nothing more annoying than not responding to emails IMO, i was tempted by some not particularly cheap pieces, but i'm not gonna keep chasing someone in order to spend my own money....
Probably not on everyones radar but having just spent some cash with WWAgallery I have nothing but good things to say about them. Prompt responses, polite, chilled out, and very easy going. I hope to do more with them in the future.
Gallery 1988 is another one i really like, Insomniac I hear the odd show choices and agree sometimes they dont work but they are a great gallery IMO, and at least they try different things and try to push boundaries. Also they have a pretty amazing roster of artists there (again just my opinion).
I've also got nothing but good words for Joshuar Liner, nice chap, very helpful over the years and always good to chat to, as is Andrew at Thinkspace.
|
|
|
Post by juggernut3 on Oct 24, 2011 5:51:51 GMT -8
Weezy,
Ah, I misunderstood you before. Thanks for the detailed explanation. It makes sense from a "here and now" point of view to judge current price via real time supply and demand. You're basically making this a micro economic occurrence based on a specific artist; based on a specific show/body of work. It presents a fair way to give the buyers a fair "financial" way to acquire the artist, by putting your money where your mouth is. But taking a moment to think about it, I think it presents several issues:
-Focusing the bidding on a specific body of work, ignores a steady consistent price point that an artist has worked to achieve. Say artist x has 10 shows and each show he/she has raised 10% since starting off at $1000 dollar, then at the end of 10 shows (assuming they sold consistently) they'll arrive at a price point of approximately 25k. But with an auction they'll be taking an alternative to a steady career improvement and salary promotion. A gambling factor is introduced into their career. Not only is the artist literally putting their career progression into the collector's (often times speculator) whim. What if that show doesn't sell well because they tried a different direction? Mass market psychology could take this as an end of a "run" and potentially lead to a downward cycle in an artists' career. So the next show may have a built in stigma that people shouldn't bid high. Or even worse, maybe the gallery decides there's no demand to warrant an auction scenario. Then you're giving the market a clear signal that said artist is no longer "hot" or in demand.
-Also when people buy artwork early as your stated, they're often rewarded with lower price points for collecting and backing an artist. If prices fluctuate due to the whim of the market, then people may look at art as stocks and just wait for the normal business cyclical behavior of supply and demand to occur and make their purchase when an artist cools a bit. There won't be any incentive for collectors to get in early and support when they can get something cheaper down the line.
-Back to the gallery discussion, but galleries then lose a lot of client leverage in building a stable client base. They become like auction houses. Patrons that consistently support the program would end up as another bid paddle. People would fly from gallery to gallery bidding up what they want and only what they want. As you stated, this auction suggestion would only be initiated with hot artists. But sometimes these hot artists function not only as a representative of a certain gallery in their direct relationship, but they serve as a signal to the direction of the gallery and the type of artists they show. These flagship artists draw interest to the gallery's program and attention to the lower level artist they are (hopefully) fostering.
To wrap this up. There are artists that auction off their works, but they don't do it at galleries. Damien Hirst recently auctioned off an entire body of work over 2 days at Sotheby's and bypassed his galleries. That of course hurt his galleries and also hurt his market in the aftermath. There was not regulation in who bought the piece as the galleries could not properly place it with a collector that could further the artist's development. This placement (assuming the gallery is worth it's salt and of course if there is a high demand in the artist) is a major reason why the gallery makes 50% of an artist's hard earned money.
Some factors considered for placement (often in this order) by the gallery: -Museums, artistic institutions and their directors/board members - as you noted: "value adding collectors" (i.e. Obama, Steve Jobs, Brad Pitt, Leonardo di Caprio, Susan Sarandon... insert name of some cultural influencer) -patron of the gallery and their program (people who buy a lot from the gallery) -Then to anyone who wants to buy -people that don't resell and destabilize the market.
Ultimately this is what a good gallery should do for an artist. In Hirst's case he bypassed the Gagosian and sold his works directly to million/billionaires who did not go through the courting process with the galleries to earn their place to purchase, so many of the pieces he auctioned off in 2008 came back on the market (like stocks due for a correction) and thus hurting much of Damien's market to this day. Pieces selling for millions are going for mid to high six digits.
Art is not the stock market. (although it may feel like it)
Obviously, I think supply and demand is fair for pricing hot works, but purely in the secondary market. That's why there's established auction houses. If prices are tinkered with in the primary, there are many factors that my long winded babble hasn't even scratched.
|
|
|
Post by thejoker on Oct 24, 2011 9:03:13 GMT -8
I would agree with much that has been written here. The gallery experience can make one jaded towards collecting. In the past, I have picked up pieces too quickly because of the preview window. I like the way Andrew at Thinkspace works with respect to previews...even though it's meant missing out. I understand I may not be on the top of a list for some artists but I figure something better will come along. There are a lot of underrated talented artists and others will do commissions. In keeping with the thread, I would say some gallery experiences have been great. I have not bought anything from Corey Helford yet but Jan has been extremely helpful. When the right piece comes along I am sure I would buy from CHG. Some may find surprisingly I would also rate Lazarides and especially Victoria. The service I have found extremely good and again it was some time before I bought a piece from them. Not a great fan of the pricing of some artists but in terms of how they treat people, in my experience it's been good.
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Oct 24, 2011 21:37:55 GMT -8
Focusing the bidding on a specific body of work, ignores a steady consistent price point that an artist has worked to achieve. Say artist x has 10 shows and each show he/she has raised 10% since starting off at $1000 dollar, then at the end of 10 shows (assuming they sold consistently) they'll arrive at a price point of approximately 25k. But with an auction they'll be taking an alternative to a steady career improvement and salary promotion. A gambling factor is introduced into their career. Not only is the artist literally putting their career progression into the collector's (often times speculator) whim. What if that show doesn't sell well because they tried a different direction? Mass market psychology could take this as an end of a ; and potentially lead to a downward cycle in an artists' career. So the next show may have a built in stigma that people shouldn't bid high. Or even worse, maybe the gallery decides there's no demand to warrant an auction scenario. Then you're giving the market a clear signal that said artist is no longer in demand. -Also when people buy artwork early as your stated, they're often rewarded with lower price points for collecting and backing an artist. If prices fluctuate due to the whim of the market, then people may look at art as stocks and just wait for the normal business cyclical behavior of supply and demand to occur and make their purchase when an artist cools a bit. There won't be any incentive for collectors to get in early and support when they can get something cheaper down the line. I appreciate the alternate views, and I think you make some valid points about the potential adverse consequences for certain collectors of an auction system for selling art that's in very high demand. Supply and demand is a fact, as is the market which, like it or not, ascribes value to art for sale. A gallery can choose to price that art with disregard to the market, but the broader point I'm making is that this creates market distortions with consequences for collectors, some of which I've described. Pricing art lower than the market means that the art will sell of course, but who gets to buy it will be determined by gallerists rather than the person who most values the work as reflected by a willingness and, yes, ability to pay. Who a gallerist chooses to sell it to can preclude persons unable to differentiate themselves from other interested purchasers on whatever grounds, however arbitrary, forming the basis for the gallerist's decision-making. If one views him- or herself as having a greater ability to influence outcomes of a gallerists' decision-making in his or her favor than having the discretionary means to outbid other interested parties, that person reasonably prefers that system, although I wouldn't call it more "fair" in that there are winners and losers under either system: however many persons interested in purchasing a unique art work, it will only go to one collector (which is why it's great there are prints made so more people can enjoy very high quality reproductions of the work in their homes). I believe there's an argument to be made that auctions are more fair because it allows people to make choices by allocating discretionary income to acquire more of the things they value most. Even priced below market, a gallerist is likely to price a high demand artist's work at a level that precludes many otherwise interested collectors purely on the issue of ability to pay, so I don't buy too much into the notion that an auction system solely benefits the collector with larger discretionary resources at the expense of a hypothetical Average Joe or Jane. Often enough pricing below market results in the circumstance of a gallerist picking who, among a bunch of persons with plenty of discretionary resources to pay more if they really want the piece, gets to take the work home. One challenge to auction concept is that the art market is driven by fickle tastes-- one day the artist may be hot, the next day not, and false signals about demand created by just one or a small number of collectors can exacerbate such results by creating value spikes that turn away a fan base that don't come back after the artists' work tanks when the few reliable purchasers become replete with the work in their collections. I think it can hurt an artist for a single collector to have too much of his or her work because of what it signals to the market about demand. A gallerist can and should manage that, but could do that by limiting participation in the auctions based on the number of works one can have (but how to police that, as one could always purchase by proxy). Art purchased from galleries is, at the end of the day, purely a luxury item because it has no utility other than bringing the collector sensory pleasure and enjoyment, and as such should be purchased with purely discretionary income, not money you need to live on, so a bidding process shouldn't result in someone giving up food. So why not let someone allocate that pot of discretionary money to the thing or things that bring him or her the most enjoyment? Whatever system exists for pricing artwork at or below market, there is no system where pricing higher than the market will bear results in the work selling. Period. It doesn't matter whether an artist has worked their way over time to a particular price point, because if demand no longer supports that price, it simply won't sell. Any other outcome is wishful thinking. Weezy PS: Props from Weezy to LeBasse and Carmichael (LA), Lazarides (London), Alix Sloan, Josh Liner and Mimi Fertz (NYC), Wilde Gallery (Berlin), Vera Cortez (Lisbon) and Hespe Gallery (SF) all of whom are really great to work with!
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Oct 25, 2011 20:23:05 GMT -8
Art purchased from galleries is, at the end of the day, purely a luxury item because it has no utility other than bringing the collector sensory pleasure and enjoyment, and as such should be purchased with purely discretionary income, not money you need to live on, so a bidding process shouldn't result in someone giving up food. Ummmm... Does that mean I can start eating more than one meal a day? You can bust me on my own point, too , given how imprudently I overshot my art budget this year! But I think I also get more nourishment from my art ... Weezy
|
|
|
Post by highbrow on Oct 25, 2011 20:30:09 GMT -8
Great thread, first I would like to say a huge thank you to Weezy your knowledge and posts regarding this are truly helpful, everyones input has been great on this thread, a lot of knowledge in this thread I have learned a lot.
Now onto my gallery dealings, The first "gallery" I ever purchased rom was Limited Addiction prior to the name change. I contacted Dave regarding a piece of work and he could not have been more helpful. I knew nothing about art at all as this amazing board was not formed, Dave was great to deal with and walked me through the purchase. I ended up purchasing a few more works from him before I branched out.
Gallery 1988 , while I have never purchased from one of the shows I did enjoy the style of Mark Brown and contacted Jensen regarding a commission, he was kind enough to handle it for me, playing middle man between myself and Mark. At the end of the day I got a great commission work with some really person things and jokes my wife loved. A side note on this the commission Mark Brown sends along a book with it detailing each little hidden picture and meaning, long story short mine did not arrive with the painting, I never emailed Jensen at the time as I did not know it existed. About 7 months after the painting arrived I was contacted by a fellow board member who informed me my book was included in with their painting. Great all the way around.
Lebasse Projects , I can not say enough of the great service. I have made several purchases from this gallery, all but one being Nate Frizzell works, but Beau regardless of what country he is in always responds to emails. When I was on vacation at the last Nate showing and he emailed the preview I called him with two works I was interested in, he was kind enough to give me time to decide then place the one I picked up on hold till I could get to a computer and see a larger image. When I purchased my largest Frizzell and the most money I had spent to date on a work, Beau was kind enough to set up a payment plan for me ( and has on several occasions ). I highly recommend Lebasse.
On a side note, I asked Dave regarding Josh when I made my first purchase and he said he would place me on the list and keep me updated. While I never have been contacted I do fully understand the line a gallery must walk a line between collectors who have supported the gallery and the artist from the beginning and trying to make work available to new customers to grow the base of the gallery and artist. I feel I was fairly early on purchasing Frizzell works ( I think his second show I started and purchased each show since , and one group show ) Some people I know have been shut out, and I know there were times where I inquired about a piece or upcoming work and it has not been available for certain reasons. I think a lot of us forget the fact the gallery has 100s of people who contact them for certain shows, then a list of previous clients as well, so it has to be hard for the gallery to try to play both sides of new clients and clients who support them when they don't have that A artist showing.
|
|
|
Post by juggernut3 on Oct 25, 2011 21:58:37 GMT -8
You make some good points about supply and demand in addition to the pros of an auction device.
Just to clarify, I do think an auction is a good method to navigate and allow those who are willing to pay a method to circumvent the "getting to know the gallery" game.
Just that it should not be used as a primary market device mainly because as you stated very well: "Whatever system exists for pricing artwork at or below market, there is no system where pricing higher than the market will bear results in the work selling. Period. It doesn't matter whether an artist has worked their way over time to a particular price point, because if demand no longer supports that price, it simply won't sell. Any other outcome is wishful thinking." <- The primary market for artists is very unforgiving. It's hard enough to price it at or below market value. If you introduce an auction element that actually documents a primary pricing that's higher than a watershed level, then you potentially strand the artist at (possibly) unsustainable level. We call it the beached whale effect, where prices go high for a few shows and sell out due to hype, market manipulation, etc.... then once the works don't sell, you don't have a soft landing and the artists really can't go lower than the level sustained on previous primary sales. This is why it's always good for the artist and their galleries to take a little less and leave some on the table. Keep the sell out (or near sell out) momentum and let the secondary market sort it self out via auction or direct secondary market sales.
One more thing to add is that you're paying either way. With building a relationship with gallery, you're basically patronizing their roster to get offers for your favorite artists, so it never comes for free. I actually agree with you especially when I don't like anyone on a gallery's roster, I would rather save my money buying artists I don't want and just go direct to auction to get what I want for a premium. What sucks the most about that is the auction houses charge 25% additional to whatever price you just won the art at...
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Oct 25, 2011 23:06:54 GMT -8
I hear you. I guess I haven't yet heard a compelling argument why art pricing has to be a ratchet, meaning it can't be allowed to drop in price below an existing floor. Why not? If the art is high quality, and set apart from the pack in terms of a je ne sais quoi that makes it a meaningful contribution to what's out there, why would the prices fall through the floor unless the market spike was pure hype? Arguably, prices are then resetting to what they ought to have been in the first instance. I have to tell you that if all of a sudden nobody wanted a Gerhard Richter at any price, I'd be the happiest man alive, and fill my home with all the work I could acquire because I think he and his art are true genius, whatever its market value. The view of art pricing as a ratchet is kind of like real estate in a way, because buyers also want to see the purchase price equal the price floor. But with the the real estate correction, prices are simply coming back into line with historical trends and being a more proper reflection of the distribution of incomes and what people can actually afford. Even though a house may be deeply under water from what someone paid four years ago, that doesn't mean the house itself is crap and worthless. It might still be a great house, it's just worth something less than with the market was artificially inflated. Unlike real estate, art shouldn't be seen in the first instance as an investment that has any reasonable degree of liquidity, so you should buy it because you love it, not as an investment because there are better vehicles for your money to do that. A reset also gives new fans of the art work access to it that they didn't have earlier when prices spiked (and on the real estate front, I keep fantasizing about moving into a home with more wall space). I was going to argue to myself that if you spend the price of a car on a painting, don't you want to have some sense of the investment grade of the piece, meaning you can monetize it in a pinch? But then I thought well, why is that painting any different than a car? For instance, I spent way more on my car than any piece of art I own by a long shot, and yet the second I drove it off the lot, its value dropped precipitously. Every mile I put on it, it depreciates more-- a wasting asset. And it's unlikely to be a classic, so unlike the value of a great painting that may bounce back in a booming art market following a price drop when the market was soft and interest in the artist waned, my car I will drive into the ground until it's worthless except for its salvage value. Yet it's okay for me to blow all that cash on a wasting asset like a car that granted gives me enjoyment for a time, but god forbid I buy a painting whose price drops a penny below what I paid? Really? Still-- all you gallerists who know who Weezy is, don't get any ideas that I'm going to be particularly pleased that the work you sold me has plummeted in value. While galleries have some culpability as a market maker for an artist's work, I don't think you can point a finger if the broader market is soft and if even I can see the mistake I made in buying something that was more hype than real quality, which is something I really am striving to try to avoid in my collection (we'll have to see how it stands the test of time). Hope nobody takes all my posts as trying to be antagonistic. I think someone might have given me a positive karma point or something so I figured I might be okay. I'm just throwing out thoughts and ideas to see if anything sticks for me or anyone else out there. You can see in these posts I'm even arguing with myself. Getting the thoughts into words has helped sort me out a bit about what's going on, although I really just started out by trying to understand the rude behavior of some galleries that insomniac was describing and it turned into a half baked treatise on art pricing theory-- sheesh, clearly I need a life! Weezy
|
|
|
Post by greenhorn1 on Oct 26, 2011 10:51:06 GMT -8
Looks like Last Rites is "pre-selling" works before the preview list goes out too based on the preview for the new show.
I've bought from G1988 in the past and I kind of rank them in the middle. They try, but their shipping sometimes leaves a bit to be desired. They've always taken care of it when it became an issue though. They also need to come up with a plan for preview lists and stick to it rather than just making it up as they go along.
Rotofugi, Gallery Nucleus, Stranger Factory, and Rivet all get high marks in my book for doing things right. Thinkspace is pretty good in my opinion also.
|
|
|
Post by mistersmith on Oct 26, 2011 12:50:17 GMT -8
So the rant against JLG basically boils down to:
-- they said they take care of their hardcore collectors before taking care of people that, to them, are unknowns. Well, that's how every gallery works. Shop there, get first crack. I don't see how this problem is unique to JLG.
-- a boss said you could come early, you were a bit late, then you opened a door marked closed and, unless you forgot to share it, didn't identify yourself. How was he to know who you were, you'd never met, right?
It sounds like you had high hopes for a rad weekend and they fell through, and that sucks man, and I'm sorry. But nothing from your post makes Levine seem out of line. Of course they're going to give first crack to the people that made them and keep them in business, and if they were chatty with everyone trying to pop in early they'd never get anything done.
Edit: in case anyone cares, I've never been to JLG, never bought anything there, haven't even been in New York more than about two days in the last ten years. You could substitute any gallery's name for theirs in what he wrote or what I wrote and the point remains valid, I feel.
|
|
|
Post by sin on Oct 26, 2011 14:45:47 GMT -8
The art business to me seems to be ready for a disruption. Normally businesses that are driven by such antiquaited power structures of brokers or agents controlling the flow of goods or services see drastic changes once someone has the courage to challenge the model.
Housing Music Travel
All three businesses that saw themselves crushed under the power of the consumers desire for smarter service models.
I believe that you will see this take place and while it wont destroy the higher end business I believe it will drastically change the lower and middle end businesses, along with the emerging artist market.
I dont begrudge JLG or anyone else mentioned, it doesnt benefit them to look at the market through this lens. However, I believe they will first fight against and then seek ways to deal with whatever market disruptive force happens.
Personally, I have had few gallery experiences as many of my purchases have either been direct from the artist or on the secondary market. The sole gallery experience I have had that I actually enjoyed was with Art Whino in DC. Everything else has been different degrees of poor from luke warm to outright offensive.
I will preface this by saying I am in the business of disrupting markets and have zero tollerance for stupid business so I get dissapointed in an experience faster than most. At the first sign of anti customer policies or poor optimization I start disecting how I would do it better.
|
|
|
Post by greenhorn1 on Oct 26, 2011 14:50:29 GMT -8
So the rant against JLG basically boils down to: -- they said they take care of their hardcore collectors before taking care of people that, to them, are unknowns. Well, that's how every gallery works. Shop there, get first crack. I don't see how this problem is unique to JLG. I know for a fact that Stranger Factory and Rivet give EQUAL shot to everyone with their preview lists and i'm almost positive Rotofugi does too. NO PRESALES/SPECIAL TREATMENT for anyone. Granted, these are smaller galleries but I guess it's just like everything else...if you want good customer service then shop at the smaller "mom and pop" type shops and avoid wal-mart.
|
|
|
Post by pricklypete on Oct 26, 2011 15:38:23 GMT -8
I'm cool with presales and a gallery's "list". That's just how it works for the most part. I'm just used to getting some kind of response when I send an email with a direct question.
And now I at least know I have no chance in Hell of getting a Geddes so I can plan for something else.
|
|
|
Post by cpk on Oct 26, 2011 16:27:47 GMT -8
I just wanted to say how well I have been treated by Corey Helford Gallery. They were the first ones I signed up for a preview with. All I can say is that I thank Jan for having so much patience with my stupid "how does this work" questions. Seriously, I had a ton and it wasn't just one email either Everyone I've made contact with there has been warm and friendly. I have dealt with Thinkspace as well and wouldn't hesitate to do so again-professional, friendly and fair comes to mind. As for the gallery list debate, I do not think there is an easy answer. Smart and good business people will find a way to foster new collectors and serve their regular clientele. As for auctions, I could see how it might become feast or famine for an artist if their prices swing wildly from one auction to the next. Extremely competitive auctions may scare people away from the next one and then those willing to spend all that cash on the hot show might not arrive at the next one creating a false low market value.
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Oct 26, 2011 20:16:31 GMT -8
I'm lame. I earlier forgot to underscore all the great things said about Andrew Hosner and Thinkspace too. Mental hiccup on my part to have left him out of my earlier shout outs.
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Oct 26, 2011 20:36:55 GMT -8
The art business to me seems to be ready for a disruption. Normally businesses that are driven by such antiquaited power structures of brokers or agents controlling the flow of goods or services see drastic changes once someone has the courage to challenge the model. Housing Music Travel All three businesses that saw themselves crushed under the power of the consumers desire for smarter service models. I believe that you will see this take place and while it wont destroy the higher end business I believe it will drastically change the lower and middle end businesses, along with the emerging artist market. I dont begrudge JLG or anyone else mentioned, it doesnt benefit them to look at the market through this lens. However, I believe they will first fight against and then seek ways to deal with whatever market disruptive force happens. Personally, I have had few gallery experiences as many of my purchases have either been direct from the artist or on the secondary market. The sole gallery experience I have had that I actually enjoyed was with Art Whino in DC. Everything else has been different degrees of poor from luke warm to outright offensive. I will preface this by saying I am in the business of disrupting markets and have zero tollerance for stupid business so I get dissapointed in an experience faster than most. At the first sign of anti customer policies or poor optimization I start disecting how I would do it better. Sin, yours was a really thought-provoking post for me. I'm sure you've seen that Amazon has now gotten into direct publishing and e-distribution of books, creating a whole new model circumventing the publishing industry, whom you'd imagine making similar arguments about their critical relevance as arbiters of who's worthy of reading, and introducing the public to new authors and making the market for their works. From Amazon trailblazing the concept, it's not much of a leap to direct publishing, with blogs and other favored arbiters of introducing new works doing the introductions and authors selling their own work directly from linked-to websites. I do that with news already. I visit my favorite blogs who do the work of culling articles from a variety of sources I'm interested in and linking to them. Why wouldn't one imagine a favored blog discussing art, introducing collectors to new and established artists and directing them to the websites of artists. You could buy the work online and/or the artist could fund his or her own pop up galleries of their work in major cities to allow people to see them live. Why not? I've bought most of my art on the basis of digitals, even though I've often seen the work live before as well. I think the point you make, Sin, is that in this new era, the galleries that survive will be the ones that are constantly proving their relevance, and which are seen by collectors as facilitators of their collecting by introducing fresh and interesting artists, getting to know collectors personally and what they're trying to build, advising them as to how to develop and expand their collecting vision, and being seen as enablers to help the collectors realize that vision. The galleries I have great relationships with are that for me, they add a great deal of value (and I like them a lot personally). How could you be more opposite of that by not engaging positively with all potential collectors-- and being rude just seems completely self-destructive. Artists and collectors have plenty of incentives to cut out the middleman if there's no value add by gallerists. And the access point is a key one. If a gallery develops a reputation for alienating potential collectors or getting in the way of their collecting rather than facilitating it, people will go around them to get what they want. Sin, I'm probably like you. I'll take any tool of self-empowerment at my disposal. And nothing pisses me off more than facing a wall, which I've already faced too many times in my collecting. My very first instinct is to get out the sledgehammer. Weezy
|
|