2 ms·

50% actually makes a lot of sense given the nature of the market. In my opinion, the high art world depends heavily on the manufacturing of taste, brand, and s

by fny 9y ago

50% actually makes a lot of sense given the nature of the market. In my opinion, the high art world depends heavily on the manufacturing of taste, brand, and scarcity for survival. We have a $100,000 valuation for a painting that would never exist if we didn't get a bunch of people together who agreed, perhaps by mutual delusion, that the painting is worth $100,000, despite all the other artworks by other artists that are comparable that sit in other galleries for a meager $1-10K--if they'll ever even sell for that much. This market only exists because both the artist and the gallery foster the illusions necessary. And the artists brand depends on getting into a high-tiered gallery just as the high-tiered gallery depends on attracting well-branded high-tiered artists. So the market has decided a 50% split, and remember these splits are actually negotiated by the people involved since these are very high touch markets. If the artist complains to much, there's always some other artist to groom. If the gallery complains to much, there's always another gallery for a "worthwhile" artist. Now compare this to how developers pay 30% for a fixed price app in a store. Given all the voodoo in the valuations, I could easily see why a gallery could negotiate for 50%.

krrrh 9y ago
It’s a fair argument, but of the dozens of examples I’m personally aware of, from the tiniest and newest galleries to the very biggest blue chip ones, the 50% split basically never varies. The galleries compete on other things including attending art fairs (where many galleries do most of their sales), controlling access to networks of collectors, good exhibition spaces, money and assistance to send works to museums and other non-commercial shows which raise the artist’s profile, insurance and storage of works, fancy dinners after openings, and advances to cover production costs. I know less about how the gallerists balance sheets look at the end of their careers, but I’d suspect that more of their net worth has come from having insider knowledge to make strategic acquisitions of rising stars (at 50% off sticker price) and then talking up their book, than simply accumulating what profits are left over from their 50% after paying for all of that.

by fny 9y ago

krrrh 9y ago

It’s a fair argument, but of the dozens of examples I’m personally aware of, from the tiniest and newest galleries to the very biggest blue chip ones, the 50% split basically never varies. The galleries compete on other things including attending art fairs (where many galleries do most of their sales), controlling access to networks of collectors, good exhibition spaces, money and assistance to send works to museums and other non-commercial shows which raise the artist’s profile, insurance and storage of works, fancy dinners after openings, and advances to cover production costs. I know less about how the gallerists balance sheets look at the end of their careers, but I’d suspect that more of their net worth has come from having insider knowledge to make strategic acquisitions of rising stars (at 50% off sticker price) and then talking up their book, than simply accumulating what profits are left over from their 50% after paying for all of that.