Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,217   Posts: 1,532,162   Online: 966
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    I have another hare brained idea.... (now you know why my nickname is rabbit) What about a virtual gallery that the mark up would go to apug? We could have the really good prints put into the gallery (this leaves me out) and dold via that gallery?
    Non Digital Diva

  2. #12
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,084
    Images
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggie
    We could have the really good prints put into the gallery

    YIKES!!....do you want to pick them? What a hornet's nest (or rabbit warren) that could become.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  3. #13
    127
    127 is offline
    127's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    uk
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    581
    I think one way to look at it is how much do YOU want to receive? Then let the gallery put whatever markup on it they think they can.

    If I want $100 for a print (not that I've ever sold an art print!), and the gallery sells it for $120 then fine. On the other hand if a more upmarket gallery can sell it for $1000 and give me $100 then good for them! OK I might be a little peived that they just made $900 out of me (and I'd want to get more for the next one), but they're earning it by putting your work in a context where they can sell it for that price.

    One example took 18%, the other 90% but I get the same. In fact I do a lot BETTER from the $1000 gallery than the $120 gallery, as now my work is seen as worth more, and is being circulated to "the right people".

    I'm sceptical of anywhere that wants cash up front from you - makes me wonder if they make their cash from selling the work, or from scamming artists. If you want to sell the work, then you want someone on your side that makes their money when they sell your work.

    Ian

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    468
    In my situation, I've had as many as 10-12 images in stock at the gallery at one time. These are framed pieces. The prints that tend to sell more often, I usually supply in unframed as well.

    joe

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,032
    From the magazine formerly known as Photovision, There was a column written by Joette O'Connor. I found it to be one very informative series of articles since it covered practical information/advice from the gallery's perspective. Hope she doesn't mind having her email address here but it was published in every copy of the magazine. ojoette@cybermesa.com

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    84
    In defence of the gallerys - think for a moment what the gallery is doing for you. The good ones at least. For the percentage you are paying them you are; hiring a professional gallery sales person whose job is to do nothing but try to sell your work, they promote the show through printing and mailing announcements and invitations and sending out pr announcements to the media, hey sponsor and pay for your opening, they provide the man power to hang the show. And all this is provided not knowing if any of the work will sell. There is alot invested up front. Just offering a different perspective on this - The most important thing they offer to the artist is access to their clients (refered to as their A list) whom the know and who trust them to show valued work worth buying.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by mvjim
    In defence of the gallerys - think for a moment what the gallery is doing for you. The good ones at least. For the percentage you are paying them you are; hiring a professional gallery sales person whose job is to do nothing but try to sell your work, they promote the show through printing and mailing announcements and invitations and sending out pr announcements to the media, hey sponsor and pay for your opening, they provide the man power to hang the show. And all this is provided not knowing if any of the work will sell. There is alot invested up front. Just offering a different perspective on this - The most important thing they offer to the artist is access to their clients (refered to as their A list) whom the know and who trust them to show valued work worth buying.
    Jim, I think most of us are aware of this. Personaly I don't begrudge the gallery their cut, when it is on a 50/50 basis. But when the gallery takes 70% and they do so in part because they know they got you by the short ones....well, that IMO is just plain unfair. As I said, live and learn, next one I have I will make sure of the terms before I commit.

  8. #18
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Galleries take work on consignment and then sell them.

    Their PR/promotion, stocking and personel costs are not significantly different than other merchants.

    Retail stores of a similar nature (a mom and pop shop as an example) buy goods to sell. Their risk is infinitely higher than a galleries, yet there mark-up is similar or less. A small clothing or shoe store will often have to commit to their purchases 3, 6 or 9 months in advance further increasing their risk. What if it doesn't snow and they bought 20k worth of snow boots (back in May) or Britney switches to granny nickers and they've ordered a semi truck full of beaded thongs?

    I don't blame Galleries for taking as many advantages as they can (or artists allow), I just have a hard time feeling much sympathy.

    If we put as much emphasis on the humanities in our public schools as we do on sports we might have a far better art market -- Galleries would be forced to play by different rules.
    Last edited by mrcallow; 10-01-2004 at 10:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.

    *

  9. #19
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,084
    Images
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    .

    If we put as much emphasis on the humanities in our public schools as we do on sports we might have a far better art market .

    Geez is that ever true. Imagine kids having heroes who paint, photograph, compose, dance, and/or write and about whom they were as knowledgable as they are about professional athletes. When humanities are taught by really good teachers in schools that value such learning, kids actually do become fans. It's harder for them to articulate their appreciation sometimes and still be 'cool', but I know for a fact that the enthusiasm is being instilled. Sports are a hugely important element in the lives of kids, but so too can be subjects that stimulate their minds and creative juices. It does happen!
    John Voss

    My Blog

  10. #20
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    If we put as much emphasis on the humanities in our public schools as we do on sports we might have a far better art market -- Galleries would be forced to play by different rules.
    I will second that motion. I feel the Arts have become severely neglected in our education system. Sports and arts are not incompatible - in fact they were once considered to be of equal necessity. A few examples: The Japanese Samurai warriors considered art just as important to the warrior as was the sword. A couple examples from more recent Anglo-American history. Winston Churchill and General George S. Patton. Both were great warriors and athletes. Patton had competed in the Olympics. Yet both were equally passionate about art and were great patrons of the arts. Patton wrote sensitive poetry, Churchill painted.

    The bottom line, as always is money. Ball games bring in cash, while art programs generally just spend it.
    Semper Fi & God Bless America
    My Photography Blog

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin