Do we need galleries?

It's a debate that has been going for years, particularly since the surge in popularity of buying art online and the increase in artist-managed art fairs and pop-ups.

My usual answer is that some artists need representation because many of them are not very good at presenting, marketing and selling their art. Why would they be, their skills are in creating art. But a couple of things recently have made me question that opinion.

I'm not that keen on an online art facility where anyone can upload their art for a fee. The quality of art, biography and photography is variable and the multiple filters that can be used to hone your selection devalues much of the artists intention for their work. However, there are some really good online galleries who focus on the customer as much as the artist. They have algorithms that make recommendations based on your preferences and on previous art that you have viewed and liked. They get to know the artist and help curate online galleries with meaningful artist statements. They also tend to appeal to a narrower client base by having a house style, which means that customers will not have to spend hours looking through 'irrelevant' art to find something they like. Having said that, I would rarely buy original art unless I have seen it 'in the flesh'. 

Art fairs are popular with some galleries and buyers. Galleries are attracted to the large footfall in a short space of time and clients like the enormous selection of art presented to them in one place. Sometimes the overload of art can be a hinderance and I know some galleries get frustrated by the short amount of time they get with a potential buyer. Part of the joy of selling art is getting to know a buyer and portraying the story of the artists and their work. But do the artists need galleries to be the middle men?

I often visit The Other Art Fair where artists manage their own stands. My expectations are to have a variable experience. Some artists struggle with curating their stand and find selling their work even more challenging. Some artist run fairs are short on funding, which can translate into poor quality environment, particularly lighting, or minimal marketing and so footfall is low. But if sponsored then the experience can be very different.

The Other Art Fair is well funded and my most recent experience is typical. The layout is spacious and has a natural flow so that you see everything on route (galleries usually pay different fees for better placed stands). There are plenty of welcome distractions along the way, from specialist drink and food stalls to art installations and rest areas. I felt immediately enthused. The art was all contemporary and of many different styles and medium, although the lack of sculpture was a little disappointing. The big surprise to me was how well curated all the stands were and did justice to the art. The quality was really good too and there were very few stands that I walked by because I thought the art wasn't very good, rather than I didn't like it (I know that is subjective to an extent). The art fair was well organised and seemed to be well marketed by the number of people attending. I think the organisers got it spot on.

The experience was only let down by some of the artists themselves. Their ability to engage with visitors was extremely variable. Some had a great ability to talk about their work and try and connect with potential buyers so they could make a sale. Others could be seen reading a book, ignoring the visitors to their stand and having no contact information available, even if asked. In the main, the minimum that most managed was to hand out cards and make an awkward but polite opening line. In many cases I found this endearing and artists were very open when asked questions about themselves and their work. I personally prefer this to being pounced on by an enthusiastic salesperson but I suspect there will be some lost sales opportunities in this fair (in all the time I was there, the wrapping man was twiddling his thumbs).

Another option for artists is utilising the many social media platforms that provide the ability to sell products. There are many success stories of previously unknown artists who have made a career on Instagram and sell everything they can produce, at increasing prices. But these are rare. Most artists are not marketing experts and don’t have the time or desire to create the content and spend the hours required to attract clients and maintain engagement. There is an ongoing battle to keep up with ever-changing algorithms and advertising is becoming essential for breadth of reach. Social media has a large role to play in the promotion and selling of artwork but is unlikely to be a single distribution platform for most artists.

So do artists need galleries? Well, some are likely to thrive with the help of well organised art fairs and customer focussed online facilities and may not need permanent representation. For some artists, they don't have the necessary skills and so gallery representation is going to maximise their commercial potential. Yes, galleries take (typically) 50% commission, but half of something is better than all of nothing. I also know many artists who wish to spend all their time in the studio and have no appetite for marketing and selling. They are willing to pay for that service, particularly because they only pay fees if they sell work, unlike the other models where costs are incurred upfront, irrespective of sales. The art models are increasingly broad and that is good news for artists and buyers, who have a choice of how they wish to buy/sell art. Personally, I enjoy them all, depending on the time I have and the type of art I'm interested in.