- the cost of the materials to make the artwork with
- the time to make it
- the cost of entering art shows both open and juried
- joining the gallery usually discounts the entry fee for shows
- not joining the gallery usually adds $5 to $10 per entry piece for the show
- the cost of transporting/shipping the piece to and from the show
- satisfying the show obligations
- gallery sitting or a $5-ish buyout
- Show opening contribution in helping to set up or food contribution
- manufacture or distribution of show/personal marketing artifacts
- repair of damaged work/frames (its all on you)
As if all of this wasn't enough, all galleries require a commission fee on anything sold. This can range usually not more than 50%. Thirty percent is more common. So, the artist must factor in that discount to their final remuneration.
A common complaint about the commission structure is that frames (an expensive cosmetic value add) are included in the commission even though the artist's final take is less AND in order to even out that double-jeopardy these pieces must be adjusted cost even more thus making them less likely affordable.
So far so good. But the subliminal message here is that art is not cheap to make nor show.
Okay. So the next consideration has to be what shows are worth submitting work to.
Here we have to triangulate the cost of showing as calculated from the show-based costs identified previously against show duration, anticipated show attendance, and opportunity cost.
IMO, shows that last fewer than a full month must be inexpensive to submit to or incredibly attractive in terms of sales potential or prestige. And every show ties up the works involved for the duration of the show. That can be an opportunity cost in certain situations. The other opportunity cost is limited arts funds being dedicated to *this* opportunity.
As far as all of this is concerned, there is nothing discriminatory in terms of identity politics. You, the artist, whoever you are or think you are or have been told who you are play by these rules.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Things that are out of our control as artists are the conventions and practices of the gallery owners/organizers. Somebody ALWAYS has an upper hand in what they deem acceptable.
Raging on about that is a different blog entry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, open gallery shows will accept as much work as they can show within wall/floor space constraints.
And in deciding whether or not to enter a show all candidate entrants need to study the aesthetic bias of the juror involved. Representationally opinionated jurors are generally less likely to select abstract or contemporary work and vice versa. You want to pick a juror at least sympathetic to your practice.
The Identity Politic Tax kicks in for juried and blatantly discriminatory shows that sell themselves as oppressed, special interest group promotional vehicles.
In recent years the number of woman only gallery shows has become a floodwater. In browsing open calls for artists its rare that a month goes by without at least one of these advertised close by.
This is the first erosion of art shows evolving from being quality-of-object specific to identity politic specific. Its unclear who this truly benefits. Its anti-democratic nature removes a degree of prestige from the work involved and the self-imposed autonomy of the enterprise is as likely to generate animosity as promotion of anything more than hate politics.
Maybe the intended by-product of these tactics is to simply reduce the exposure of anyone who doesn't qualify and hope the public's taste is socially-engineered to believe the quality of art has an artistic identity preference.
The more pernicious effects of juried shows comes into play when the juror or the gallery put their thumb on the scale so that, as previously mentioned the show is no longer about the quality of the art being juried and instead some kind of socially engineered conclusion. The rationalizations are endless to justify this stuff so let the recriminations make their way into the comments section.
But to be more specific, in recent years, juried art shows increasingly reflect disproportionate female representation. Furthermore the remaining entries often favor tightly-coupled gallery members, supporters, or associated figures. Some of this is to be expected. But that leaves but a small fraction of eligible entry spots.
For men, there's an economic consequence. Their work is less likely to be selected, they are more likely to be subsidizing an unspecified and unwelcome discriminatory practice, and contributing to the deterioration of the community's artistic reputation.
The sober reality is that the Identity Politic war has deeply polluted the art community worldwide amounting to nothing less than cultural appropriation not only of the present but the past. This is an unregulated affirmative action program - aesthetic vigilante-ism in the professional ranks. Its by-product is an archaeology of myopic mediocrity elevated to a seat of importance not even the village idiot artist can salute.
The most obvious personal solution is for male artists to simply be far more awoke about who the jurors are, what their agenda is, and what the track record of the galleries are.
To the degree a more general solution must be a scorecard for jurors that includes the Political Identity arithmetic involved in their jury practice. This must include all the politically motivated algorithms being used to bludgeon the artistic community into yet another polarized political institution.
It shouldn't be long before, on a scale of one to five vaginas, any gallery or museum ranks or how genital friendly any gallery call for art will be.
A common complaint about the commission structure is that frames (an expensive cosmetic value add) are included in the commission even though the artist's final take is less AND in order to even out that double-jeopardy these pieces must be adjusted cost even more thus making them less likely affordable.
So far so good. But the subliminal message here is that art is not cheap to make nor show.
Okay. So the next consideration has to be what shows are worth submitting work to.
Here we have to triangulate the cost of showing as calculated from the show-based costs identified previously against show duration, anticipated show attendance, and opportunity cost.
IMO, shows that last fewer than a full month must be inexpensive to submit to or incredibly attractive in terms of sales potential or prestige. And every show ties up the works involved for the duration of the show. That can be an opportunity cost in certain situations. The other opportunity cost is limited arts funds being dedicated to *this* opportunity.
As far as all of this is concerned, there is nothing discriminatory in terms of identity politics. You, the artist, whoever you are or think you are or have been told who you are play by these rules.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Things that are out of our control as artists are the conventions and practices of the gallery owners/organizers. Somebody ALWAYS has an upper hand in what they deem acceptable.
Raging on about that is a different blog entry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, open gallery shows will accept as much work as they can show within wall/floor space constraints.
And in deciding whether or not to enter a show all candidate entrants need to study the aesthetic bias of the juror involved. Representationally opinionated jurors are generally less likely to select abstract or contemporary work and vice versa. You want to pick a juror at least sympathetic to your practice.
The Identity Politic Tax kicks in for juried and blatantly discriminatory shows that sell themselves as oppressed, special interest group promotional vehicles.
In recent years the number of woman only gallery shows has become a floodwater. In browsing open calls for artists its rare that a month goes by without at least one of these advertised close by.
This is the first erosion of art shows evolving from being quality-of-object specific to identity politic specific. Its unclear who this truly benefits. Its anti-democratic nature removes a degree of prestige from the work involved and the self-imposed autonomy of the enterprise is as likely to generate animosity as promotion of anything more than hate politics.
Maybe the intended by-product of these tactics is to simply reduce the exposure of anyone who doesn't qualify and hope the public's taste is socially-engineered to believe the quality of art has an artistic identity preference.
The more pernicious effects of juried shows comes into play when the juror or the gallery put their thumb on the scale so that, as previously mentioned the show is no longer about the quality of the art being juried and instead some kind of socially engineered conclusion. The rationalizations are endless to justify this stuff so let the recriminations make their way into the comments section.
But to be more specific, in recent years, juried art shows increasingly reflect disproportionate female representation. Furthermore the remaining entries often favor tightly-coupled gallery members, supporters, or associated figures. Some of this is to be expected. But that leaves but a small fraction of eligible entry spots.
For men, there's an economic consequence. Their work is less likely to be selected, they are more likely to be subsidizing an unspecified and unwelcome discriminatory practice, and contributing to the deterioration of the community's artistic reputation.
The sober reality is that the Identity Politic war has deeply polluted the art community worldwide amounting to nothing less than cultural appropriation not only of the present but the past. This is an unregulated affirmative action program - aesthetic vigilante-ism in the professional ranks. Its by-product is an archaeology of myopic mediocrity elevated to a seat of importance not even the village idiot artist can salute.
The most obvious personal solution is for male artists to simply be far more awoke about who the jurors are, what their agenda is, and what the track record of the galleries are.
To the degree a more general solution must be a scorecard for jurors that includes the Political Identity arithmetic involved in their jury practice. This must include all the politically motivated algorithms being used to bludgeon the artistic community into yet another polarized political institution.
It shouldn't be long before, on a scale of one to five vaginas, any gallery or museum ranks or how genital friendly any gallery call for art will be.