The Business Of Art

Last week we had a presentation that was given to our Art Seminar class by the Head of the Fine Art Department and Artist Thaddeus Holownia. He shared his most recent experience of having his work exhibited in The Armory Show, in NYC. He also gave an in depth overview of his experience within the art world as professional photographer. The discussion covered dealers, auction houses, and the issue of selling art as commercial commodity and all that it entails. It was extremely informative, enlightening, and a reality check.

I subscribe to the site, FineArtViews which was serendipitously sent to me today and the article I have republished by Brian Sherwin, I found it to be very relevant to our Art Seminar class in that it explored some the same concerns and I wanted to share it.

Big City Success for the Small Town Artist: Part 1 - Going the Distance can be a Step Too Far

by Brian Sherwin

This article is by Brian Sherwin, Regular contributing writer for FineArtViews. Brian Sherwin is an art critic, blogger, curator, artist and writer based near Chicago, Illinois. He has been published in Hi Fructose Magazine, Illinois Times, and other publications, and linked to by publications such as The Boston Globe, Juxtapoz Magazine, Deutsche Bank ArtMag, ARTLURKER, Myartspace, Blabbermouth, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Modern Art Obsession, Citizen LA, Shark Forum, Two Coats of Paint and Art Fag City. You should submit an article and share your views as a guest author by clicking here.

A recent FineArtViews article, titled ‘Communication Breakdown: Art Dealers and Cold Calls’, sparked a lively debate. In the article I discussed some of the do’s and don’ts concerning how to-- and when not to-- establish direct contact with an art gallery. The article spurred several readers to comment with questions that focused on how an artist located in a small town should go about establishing contact with an art gallery that is located hours away. Point blank-- readers wanted to know how to work around the barrier of distance in order to pursue exhibit opportunities in larger cities. I won’t claim to have all the answers-- that said, I do have some suggestions. The first in this series deals with going the distance.

What does a small town artist do if he or she desires to rub-elbows within art galleries that are located hours away? How can a small town artist overcome the distance barrier? Moving to the desired big city is a choice that comes to mind over all others-- it is a choice that many artists have made in order to solve the problem of professional distance. Thus, it is a choice that is very important to address.

Moving to the big city of interest is probably not the answer that small town artists are looking for. However, it is the most obvious solution to the problem of distance-- one that a large number of artists have decided on. That said, I don’t advise a physical change in location unless the venture is thought out in advance. True, it can be relatively easy to uproot and move to a major city in order to pursue art-related opportunities-- New York City being the most popular choice. However, do keep in mind that while throwing caution to the wind can be liberating-- it is only fun until the bills arrive.

Before you abruptly move yourself, and loved ones if that is a factor, to NYC-- or any other big city for that matter-- there are MANY things that you should consider. Artists who move to NYC often do so while chasing a dream. Unfortunately, reality always awakens the dreamer. Artists who make that bold move are more likely to discover high rent, high cost of basic goods, and a staggering decline in their standard of living than they are of discovering an art dealer-- or other influential individuals-- who will “discover” their artwork.

Visual artists flock to NYC for the same reason that actors flock to Hollywood-- the dream of becoming a star (though most will deny that if you ask them directly). The dream of finding someone who will magically propel you to stardom can root deep into your soul if you allow it. Unfortunately, the powerful individuals with the professional backing to cultivate your career-- artificially or otherwise-- are few and far between. Not to mention that they are likely preoccupied with artists whom they have already invested time and money in. In reality, it is doubtful that any of them will care about your financial situation or the sacrifices that you have made to make your dream a reality. NYC is not the place to play the world’s smallest violin-- few ears will listen. The dreams slowly fades-- the artist is left puzzled and defeated by his or her own ill planning due to the embrace of one of the most basic of artist myths.

My words, though harsh, offer only a small glimpse of the reality a small town artist is apt to face when chasing dreams in a big city. Call me a dream crusher if you want-- you don’t have to take my word for it. Having interviewed hundreds of artists I can tell you that cities, such as NYC, are tough ground to travel. Even famous artists whom I’ve interviewed-- the late realist painter Sylvia Sleigh, the Pop Art icon James Rosenquist (though he does not exactly appreciate the Pop Art label he has been stamped with for decades), and performance art legend Vito Acconci-- have suggested that mainstream success is hard to come by and even harder to maintain in NYC. Point blank-- moving to a big city, such as NYC, will not automatically open the golden gates of the mainstream art world upon your arrival.

Reaching a high level of instant success is a very rare occurrence no matter where you live. Thus, those who dream big in that respect often face a tragic reality in the big city they now call home. It is a gritty reality to find oneself in. The expense of living in a big city, such as NYC, can easily chip away at funds no matter how they are allocated. Those who move to a big city with reckless abandon will likely face hardship. Misfortune of that nature can easily devastate ones artistic direction. Suddenly the artist who arrived with hopes of success becomes little more than someone trying to scrape a living-- more so than he or she ever thought possible. End result-- the practice of creating art suffers.

The lure of canvas, clay, or camera does not have the call that it once had when a formerly small town artist is faced with the task of big city survival. I’m not suggesting that said fate is met by every small town artist who uproots to a big city. Those who plan well-- especially if they have a supporting partner or are financially secure-- can thrive where others falter. My point is that a permanent change of location-- though an obvious solution-- is not always the best answer for a small town artist who desires to solve the problem of distance.

It is true that there are specific areas in most major cities that are assigned for low-income individuals-- such as the majority of visual artists. However, do keep in mind that said locations generally have strict regulations for consideration or are in the process of being surrounded by high profile real estate. Wealthy individuals love to experience those lovely bohemian dens-- and it does not take long before the artistically inclined are pushed out of their dwellings due to the rise in expense that naturally follows wealth. The easy breaks for artists living in a big city are always on the verge of crumbling in a way that is not in their favor. That is one reality that you can be certain of.

There are rational options to explore if you feel that you must live in a big city, NYC for example, in order to physically network with various art professionals. For example, you could rent an apartment on a short term basis-- perhaps the span of a summer-- in order to focus on attending exhibit openings, making art-related acquaintances, and scoping out art galleries in general. Obviously this option entails having the financial resources and luxury of time needed to sustain such activity. That said, it is a far more rational choice than to uproot your entire life on a gamble.

Another option for living in NYC-- or any other major cultural hub-- is to find artists who are seeking roommates. Situations like that are more common than you might think-- and with a bit of research it can be a perfectly safe alternative. If you take this route, be sure to show your fellow artist courtesy by explaining your intentions-- that you will only be living in the city briefly.

Both of the options mentioned above involve expense. However, both are far cheaper than settling in a big city permanently. If you feel that you must experience living and creating within a large cultural hub I would strongly advise that you do one or the other instead of uprooting yourself and changing your entire way of life. After all, a few months of concentrated exploration is more than enough time to seek out opportunities and to see if anything will come of them. Those months can also help you to decide if a permanent move is viable.

In closing, moving is an obvious solution to the problem of distance that so many small town artists face when seeking gallery representation or mere exhibit opportunities. However, an abrupt move to a big city can be detrimental to the success of an artist who previously lived in a small town. There is a world of difference between the two locations. A small town artist who is thinking of moving permanently to a big city must take caution. Going the distance-- in this sense-- often results in taking a step too far.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

----------------------------------------------
This article appears courtesy of FineArtViews by FASO Artist Websites,
a free email newsletter about art, marketing, inspiration and fine living for artists,
collectors and galleries (and anyone else who loves art).

This article originally appeared at:
http://faso.com/fineartviews/29135/big-city-success-for-the-small-town-artist-part-1-going-the-distance-can-be-a-step-too-far

For a complimentary subscription, visit: http://faso.com/art-marketing-newsletter

-----------------------------------------------

I Had To Post This...

Art & Prejudice: Dealing with Sexism, Racism, and Ageism in the Art World
by Brian Sherwin on 2/19/2011 9:50:57 AM

This article is by Brian Sherwin, Regular contributing writer for FineArtViews. Brian Sherwin is an art critic, blogger, curator, artist and writer based near Chicago, Illinois. He has been published in Hi Fructose Magazine, Illinois Times, and other publications, and linked to by publications such as The Boston Globe, Juxtapoz Magazine, Deutsche Bank ArtMag, ARTLURKER, Myartspace, Blabbermouth, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Modern Art Obsession, Citizen LA, Shark Forum, Two Coats of Paint and Art Fag City. You should submit an article and share your views as a guest author by clicking here.

When one thinks of the art world, one thinks of a place of openness and tolerance-- yet that is hardly the case. The ‘art world’ shares the same prejudice we face in the real world. That said, the illusion of togetherness that has been constructed around the art world makes said reality even more toxic. Forms of sexism, racism, and ageism dominate art culture just under the surface-- which dictates our collective knowledge of art history. This is a topic that few gallery owners want to discuss-- because it is a topic that, more often than not, reveals a world of bigotry and unnecessary challenges placed before artists.

During my research for this article I contacted Elaine Kaufmann of the Brainstormers-- for those who don’t know, the Brainstormers are an art collective striving to force discussion concerning gender inequities within the contemporary New York art world. Many of the stats I used for this article are based on research the Brainstormers have conducted-- as well as information provided to me by an anonymous artist claiming to have association with the Guerilla Girls… a group that has fought against art world discrimination and corruption since 1985.

Kaufmann made it clear that when asked about exhibitions or gallery lists of artists that include overwhelmingly more men than women, curators and gallerists typically respond by arguing that what gets exhibited is based solely on the quality of the work. Kaufmann stated, “This seemingly lofty statement about quality disguises a belief that would be unacceptable to say outright, the belief that men make better artwork than women.” She went on to say, “Many perceive the art world to have long ago rid itself of discrimination against women. Unfortunately, it persists and continues to affect new generations of women artists.” Professionals within the mainstream art world obviously don’t want to face the reality of prejudice that they have helped cultivate-- which tends to spiral down into all aspects of art culture.

New York is considered the hub of the art world in the United States-- a place where you would think ‘openness’ and ‘tolerance’ would reign-- yet the average New York art gallery represents 76% to 96% male artists. Galleries representing the same percentages in favor of women can be counted on one hand. Over 77% of the galleries in Chelsea represent more males than females-- and only around 5% represent males and females in equal numbers. These gaps have fluctuated ever so often-- but artists who happen to be male continue to dominate gallery rosters. These numbers foster the myth that males are more apt to be better artists in the eyes of the general public. People in the position to bring about change-- such as curators and gallery owners-- tend to cling to the status quo rather than find solutions.

Some have suggested that the stat breakdown does not represent educational background-- which implies that art school graduates tend to be male. However, when you consider that the average MFA program in the United States has up to 20% more female students than male students an obvious gender bias is clear. In other words, the MFA argument is flawed because more women study art on an academic level than men nationwide-- yet men dominate mainstream art galleries where the value of an MFA is obviously considered.

The glaring percentages don’t stop there-- they can also be found in our public institutions. For example, in a typical art museum visitors will find that 95% of the displayed artwork was created by an artist who happens to be male. Thus, women are only represented visually by 5% of the displayed artwork in the average museum. True, there have been many museum art exhibits that focus on ‘female artists’-- but I don’t think a handful of special exhibits make up for the overall percentages and clear gender gap. It sickens me to think that artists are being placed on the back-burner simply because of their gender-- but this hardly a new problem within the professional art world.

I can recall an interview I had with Sylvia Sleigh in 2007-- in which she stated, “I do think things have improved for women in general. There are many more women in Government, in law and corporate jobs, but its very difficult in the art world for women to find a gallery.” These words are haunting when you consider that the late Sylvia Sleigh is considered an artist who helped shatter the glass ceiling of sexism within the contemporary art world. Obviously that ceiling still exists-- research by groups such as the Brainstormers and Guerilla Girls bring light to the issue.

In the recent past, it was not uncommon to see only two solo shows by artists who happened to be female for every dozen solo shows to open in New York. Women exploring painting as the focus of their artwork stood even less of a chance of receiving a solo show compared to men. I doubt the situation has changed that much over the years. It troubles me that in the mainstream art world-- often noted for being liberal in thought-- such clear prejudice based on gender continues to dominate. This veiled prejudice fosters the idea that art is a man’s game-- and shoves that mode of thought into the psyche of the viewing public.

Due to this glaring bigotry, I find myself loathing the labels and descriptors that art world professionals, specifically art writers, use to group or categorize artists based on sex, race, and age. For example, this form of prejudice based on gender within the art world can be observed in mainstream art magazines, art blogs, and in the media as a whole when art is the focus of an article. It leaves one to ask why in 2011 artists who happen to be female are often stamped as ‘female artist’, ’female painter’, and other gender-specific descriptions that are never used when describing artists who happen to be male. It is almost as if the writers who describe artists in this way are giving females a pat on the back for their attempts. It is insulting.

Prejudice within the art world does not stop there. Race also becomes an issue. For example, you never read an article about an artist starting with so-and-so is a “Caucasian artist from…” to describe an artist who happens to be white. That said, if an artist is from any other racial background you can almost be assured that race will become a descriptor for that artists efforts-- “African American artist from…”, “Hispanic artist from…”.. the list goes on. While it is true that race can define an artists visual message-- if that is his or her direction-- I don’t think placing race before artist is a sound choice to define an artist in general.

The issue of age is apt to pop up in the fray of art world prejudice. Age is arguably the most offensive way to define-- or should I say label?-- an artist. I say that because the age factor often meshes with the two forms of prejudice I mentioned above. For example, most art critics, gallerists, and artists will tell you-- if they are honest-- that the majority of 30-something exhibiting artists who happen to be female are near career- end. That decision is not by choice-- it is fueled by age and gender alone in association with the prejudice of art dealers representing them.

After all, there is a double standard within the context of the art world-- artists who happen to be male in the same stage of life are often viewed as coming into their own. Sadly, I don't think the majority of art dealers, curators, and art critics realize that they are creating-- or helping to maintain-- a cloud of prejudice over the art world. It is almost as if it has become the status quo-- supported by feeble arguments that tend to bypass the issue altogether.

If you are not an artist who happens to be white, male, and are past the age of 35, it is likely that your career within the mainstream art world is playing an unwilling game of Russian roulette with three bullets in the chamber. I say that because the descriptors involved with those three factors often are reduced to art market trends and fads-- labels that artists don’t necessarily want for themselves but get stamped with anyway. This prejudice is an ugly stain in what is otherwise one of the most liberal thinking aspects of our culture.

I, for one, feel that it is time for art critics and the media in general to drop descriptions based on gender, race, and age when describing an artist unless that information is vital to the artists work. Gender, race, and age should not come before what an individual does when writing about said individual. Yet it happens all the time-- and most of the major art publications have long been guilty of this. Who knows how many artists could have continued to shine had it not been for these three factors serving as obstacles. These labels/descriptors breed prejudice no matter how you try to warrant it. It is time to look at the artwork and what artists have to offer instead of being so focused on their gender, race, and age.

In closing, we-- and I include myself in this-- have allowed the mainstream art world to become a place where maturity is punished, the color of our skin reduced to a mere exhibit qualifier, and our sex twisted into age-old stereotypes. It has become a place where the wisdom that comes with age is abandoned for youthful ambition, a place where an artist is defined more by his or her race than what he or she creates on canvas, a place where the likes of Tracey Emin will always be viewed as an adolescent girl breaking the rules-- even when she is 80! It is time to come together in order to deal with the issues of sexism, racism, and ageism within the art world as a whole.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin