I was recently contacted by a New York gallery offering representation. To say the least I was surprised and politely asked how they had found me half a world away. Apparently, it was the accidental discovery of my website and of course I was flattered that anyone had noticed. There was a fee for examination of a portfolio [ which is fair enough] by experts to be followed by an offer. The three levels of offers were published on the website and ranged from images on a monitor to actual wall space – at a cost. A quick conversion of American dollars into Australian dollars told me that I simply couldn’t afford any of it. Add on the possibility of having to pack and send work anywhere, let alone to a New York gallery with the more than distinct prospect of a return trip at artist expense, and this form of gallery representation is well and truly out of reach. My immediate thought was ‘only the rich and established need apply’.

And then this was published this week ‘

‘Beware of ‘Pay for Play’ Galleries– ‘Galleries that charge artists hundreds or even thousands of dollars to exhibit are becoming increasingly common in the U.K. Although the setup helps artists build out their CVs, some critics say the practice is predatory, misleading, and unethical—especially because sales are not guaranteed’. [Artnet October 28 2022]

While pay for play galleries is the norm where I live, they generally don’t cost an arm and a leg and while there are no guaranteed sales, words like predatory and misleading aren’t part of the vocabulary. Artists at every level of their careers are pleased to have any wall space on which to hang their work with galleries now like hen’s teeth and as the recent SALA [South Australia Living Artists] showed, any doorway, vacant shop on short term lease or shelf in a library will do as exhibition space. There is no guarantee of sales there either but and the modest fee to be in the catalogue/guide can pay off in terms of visitors and there’s every chance of selling something face to face.

The terms predatory, misleading and unethical however, deserve some consideration. As the children of Mark Rothko found out on the death of their father [The Legacy of Mark Rothko, Holt, Rinehart and Winston] predatory behaviour was considered normal practice by the Marlborough Gallery system who could afford teams of lawyers to protect their interests and stockpiled work to essentially corner the market and discounted work without the artist’s knowledge. Galleries have always taken a percentage of the sale price and traded artwork through auction of private sale. That is their business. The assumption here though is that any gallery charging artists for gallery space is predatory and artists are too naïve and childlike to know what is going on or so desperate for recognition and fame that they choose to accept any conditions.

The further assumption that some galleries make huge profits may be true but paying the rent/lease on a city building and tax on income may also consume profit margins, The system eventually caught up with Marlborough whose swap/lend business practices across countries sought to avoid notions of ownership and tax. In general, work accepted on commission does not pay the bills. There is a practical component to gallery ownership and provided that a contract exists wherein both parties understand what they are taking on, the situation is no different than in any other supply and demand industry. Ethics only come into the equation where acknowledged fair practise is breached and the artist doesn’t get paid or is forced to wait a considerable time for remuneration. To align lack of sales with unethical or predatory behaviour may simply be a convenient get-out.

Every art student coming out of college on the back of several years of internal praise expects that success will naturally follow but the fact remains that not all artists are going to be successful and nor should they expect to be. That artists are a rarified breed deserving recognition and a living income just for calling themselves artists is in many ways based more on hope than reality. Just how many artists society actually needs is a question being asked at the moment attached to the whole argument of a living wage? One figure I saw recently was 10,000. A nice round number. The actual number of practicing artists would be in the millions and while the taxation department recognises the few who actually earn enough to pay tax on sales, for many talented artists recognition or earning a living other than from commercial art/design is not going to happen which is not in truth going to stop them from creating art. The argument that society and civilisation needs ever more artists to establish a cultural identity may well stand up but the idea that self-expression is of primary importance is a relatively new one.

There have been many and varied reports of the imminent demise of the gallery industry and yet new galleries keep popping up and those artists who can afford to pay the fees, continue to do so in the belief that their civilisation-altering genius will propel them into the annals. The odds of winning the lottery or making a success of art are about the same. The Australian lottery jackpot this week was won with the odds of doing so calculated at 37,000,000 – 1. No one is talking about predatory or unethical behaviour in selling people tickets no matter how talented they are at picking winning numbers. You get what you pay for – a chance. If you choose to pay for gallery space it is no different. If your number comes up, all well and good.

The assumption that being or calling yourself an artist denotes some sort of privileged position in society denies the facts. Any of the ‘great’ artists found in the history books were artisans who were contracted for a fee. While a reputation did guarantee further work, the likes of Rembrandt ultimately died in poverty. Art has always been a business run by businessmen and philanthropists run for the benefit of business and philanthropic reputation. The status of the artist hasn’t changed in a millennium and art will always be an industry subject to market forces. The headline shouldn’t be ‘beware of pay for play galleries’ but simply….be aware before you dip your toe into the waters.