Galleries or No

[robertpulley]

I have three questions:

- Do you market mainly through the gallery system or independently?

- Does the physical location of your studio help determine how you market?

- If you sell a significant amount through galleries, does anyone insist on modifying the standard gallery contract to be more in their favor?

I am recently confronted with a situation where through efforts of my own and those of friends I have made a contact that could result in the sale of a significant piece or the writing of a commission. The gallery that represents me in that area wants 50% of the sale or commission though they had nothing to do with the action that led to the connection with a customer. I have no problem with sharing commissions with the gallery when they have successfully promoted my work, but I wonder if one could successfully write into a gallery contract a clause excluding such sales or even merely reducing the gallery's take to 30%.

[anatomist1]

Your customer could have first heard of you via your representation at the gallery - could even have visited the gallery repeatedly. I don't see how a contract could be written to determine whether the gallery had "nothing" to do with such a sale. Have the customer sign a sworn statement that he has never heard of nor been to the gallery, nor ever talked about you or your work with anyone who has? Give the customer and all his aquaintences lie-detector tests? It may seem like a drag in an instance like this, but I can see why the gallery would insist on a clear-cut geographic critereon for whether or not they get a comission.

[Tired Iron]

Did you send this prospective customer into said gallery to see examples of your work? Even then I wouldn't believe you owe them anything. You "pointed" them to the gallery. That means you tried to give the gallery first chance at a sale. If what they saw was not what they wanted then I believe what you WILL create is not any business of that gallery. If one of the artists here decides to buy a piece of my work from me and he lives near one of the galleries I sell things in , I don't owe that gallery a nickel IMO. You stated that you and some friends developed this relationship with the client , right? Where does the gallery come in? I don't get it. The gallery should not be allowed to change the original agreement unless you signed one that says they can. You may have to take your agreement to a lawyer. Julianna , where are you on this???

[robertpulley]

Tired Iron,

The gallery has a clause in it's contract that specifies exclusive representation rights in a 50 mile radius. (Actually I have not read the contract for 15 years or so, not even sure if I can find it). A friend no longer shows with this gallery because the owner wanted a major cut on all commissions he was getting through an architecture firm he developed a relationship with.

I was recently asked by a friend to install a piece in a landscaper's "sculpture garden" in a state "flower and patio show". It seems to have kicked up a lot of interest, but is located in the "50 mile radius" I was talking about. THe gallery has represented my work for 15 years or so and has sold quite a bit of my work, but has nothing to do with the contacts made through this current show. I am not averse to giving him a cut since I am in his turf, but I'm sort of cringing at the 50%. I think this is pretty common practice in commercial galleries.

[GlennT]

In a different post onthis subject I was defending the gallery's right to a commission given that a client, although known to the artist from an earlier acquaintance, was put in touch with the artist through the gallery.

In this case, it seems absurd that a gallery can claim a commission, especially 50% :eek: for doing absolutely nothing other than using selfish language in a contract. I cannot address this from a legal standpoint, but from an ethical standpoint their position seems highly immoral.

GlennT

[circeart]

This is really hard to believe, that the gallery would try to make 50% of a sale they had nothing to do with.

First of all, most contracts have some sort of length of duration clause. Most likely the contract you had with the gallery expired a long time ago.

Contracts usually specify the type of work they cover. For example, only limited edition bronzes and not one-of-a-kind commissioned outdoor or public works bronze sculptures. Or steel but not wood (media specific).

An attorney may find one or many ways out of this. But they're expensive unless you get one like I did through Lawyers for the Arts, or have an attorney friend.

Of course, if the gallery did have some hand in bringing in this potential client, (even if they just spoke on the phone or sent an email about you to the client), and if you're still bound timewise by the contract for this particular type of work, then you should honor your agreement by paying them a percent of the sale, but probably no more than 10%.

A 50% commission is usually paid to the gallery when the gallery buys the piece upfront from the artist, then makes the sale handling everything through them directly. But if the piece was in the gallery on consignment, even though they handled the sale directly through them, the usual standard is 60% to the artist and 40% to the gallery.

The 50 mile radius refers to the exclusive handling of the artists work, but this usually means no other gallery or physical place of business other than the contracted gallery within a 50 mile radius cannot also carry the artist's work. This ensures the gallery that a customer can't go down the street and find another similar sculpture offered for less.

This area exclusivity usually doesn't refer to the artist selling their work through their own studio. For example, an artist living in California has a contract with a gallery in Colorado. Then an art festival comes up that happens to be within a 50 mile radius of the Colorado gallery. The artist shouldn't have to pay 50% of the sales they make during the show, but more likely 10% to the gallery, the same as if the sale were made by the artist anywhere else.

All considered, check that contract with a professional, if its been fifteen years, you probably don't owe the gallery a dime. :)

[anatomist1]

Since I'm not currently selling anything or hard-up for money, I tend to think the opinions here are unreasonably biased against galleries. A gallery has a presence and reputation in their region. Their whole business is built on promoting artists at their own financial risk. They are paying rent, paying for advertisements, throwing all-expense-paid parties, etc... all based on the hope that they'll get a commission from art sales. People who are interested in art in that area are going to be influenced by them.

The idea that transactions between them and their stable artists would happen in that area in such a way that they would have "nothing to do with it" sounds a little far-fetched. If exceptions were allowed, it would quickly become known that one could check out the gallery to see what one likes and wants, then do an end-run around them, calling the artist directly - the customer buying the piece for a discounted price, and artist getting a higher price, all via a calculated scheme to use the gallery for advertisement and promotion, then cutting them out of the actual sales process.

If you think you can really do more and better business in such a way that your local gallery has absolutely nothing to do with it, then you should have no problem with dropping the gallery and marketing yourself directly.

[Tired Iron]

Anatomist1, your points are persuasive, however I still feel that the gallery in this case is doing the "end-run" around the artist. I believe as Circeart stated
" The 50 mile radius refers to the exclusive handling of the artists work, but this usually means no other gallery or physical place of business other than the contracted gallery within a 50 mile radius cannot also carry the artist's work. This ensures the gallery that a customer can't go down the street and find another similar sculpture offered for less."
And it appears that Mr. Pulley just loaned a piece to a friend that used it in a Landscaping Show. The piece itself generated interest and contacts were made. This is completely seperate from the gallery wether the gallery is 49 miles away or one block away. IMO...Mr.Pulley should throw a little bone towards his friend the landscaper if anybody should get a cut of the pie for their part in generating sales. Now that sounds like a relationship he should strive to develop...but get a well written contract signed by your buddy!

[anatomist1]

I guess the bottom line is to find out what the contract really says. At this point, he either owes the gallery 50% or not. If so, he already agreed to it, and he has the choice to either honor the agreement and pay, or break the contract and end his relationship with the gallery. If the gallery needs him much more than he needs the gallery, he might be able to break the contract and negotiate a new one.

This case shows that you should read the contract carefully regarding this issue and discuss this type of scenario with the owner before you sign it. Stumbling upon this later and not knowing is a serious problem.

[robertpulley]

Circeart, Where are these galleries that still operate on a 60% 40% commission basis? I haven't seen one for a long time.

Anatamist1, I agree with you in essence. I am not much of a business man and I don't live in a metropolitan area and I don't find my work is easy to sell, so I have never complained about the gallerie's take. Big city galleries, especially, are often in high rent areas, pay assistants, send out thousands of cards monthly, insure the work in their possession, etc. They need to turn over a lot of work to stay in business. On the other hand, it seems excessive to ask for the full 50% if the artists, through his or her own initiative scares up some business in the gallerie's area (and, yes, if the gallery is doing its job they deserve something for just keeping your work in the public eye and talking it up to collectors).

The contract thing doesn't bother me as a legal device. The gallery owner has made it clear what his expectations are. Failure to abide will not lead to a law suit, simply a request to pick up my work and try to sell it on my own. And I'm not one of his hot artists. He keeps me partly because he likes my work. I don't want to go it alone for reasons stated above. I was just wondering if anyone has had the forsight and moxy when signing up with a gallery to specify exceptions or modifications that make the agreement more favorable than "my way or the highway". Have any of you tried this with any success or are there just so many artists for the market that only the very famous would have the clout to try such a thing?

[EJB]

The dirty word in gallery/artist relations is 'trust'. Do you trust them and do they trust you? Galleries and artists should ideally be partners contributing to each others benefit. I'm not a big fan of contractual commitments to a single gallery. It sets the stage for petty litigation down the road. If this one commission is an aberration of your normal activity let the gallery know that this transaction is not a threat to them and if possible, include them in the process or let them know this is a unique, one time deal. This is assuming that they indeed are dedicated to advancing your career and not just trying to sniff out a little cash. If there were truly some hard feelings I would take my normal split and divide the commission between the gallery and the person who made the sale happen (a common practice). This could also be the time to reassess the value of the gallery to your endeavors. Galleries should certainly get paid for their efforts and recognition for contributions to one's career but when was the last time an artist got a cut when one of their collectors came in and bought another artists work from the gallery? Whatever you decide, consider the long term ramifications. One sale should not be the make or break of anyone's career.

[evaldart]

Surviving at this art thing requires you to be able move in many directions, to follow a lead, to change your approach, to seek out new worlds constantly. Some of the best things in this career just fall into your lap - and there better be no reason for you to squash an opportunity. Negotiating percentages will not change much. They might be agreeable - after all, they'll get something for nothing. But if you forsee this situation recurring you will resent the money they are getting, you will end up changing your pricing stucture: either higher so that you get what you're worth, or lower to make sure the comission happens. If you are unable to earn a decent living by their efforts you have no choice but to reach out and do it yourself. Probably, if they make a few bucks off of you now and then you are worth keeping around. I know artists, myself included, who have many casual relationships with more than one gallery, no contract, just a good relationship - chase down our own sales all the time - the world is a big place, no one really steps on each others toes. And when they fade away (the relationships) they fade away. Something else takes its place.

[desertrock]

I just recently had correspondance with a person who had seen my work at the gallery, wrote down my name, then emailed me after googling my name, wanting to see more of my work. He asked if I had anything on hand (with me not at the gallery) for him to consider and hinted about whether he might see prices comparable to a specific piece he saw at the gallery. He was obviously suggesting that he would like to do a private transaction for a sculpture and this was his price range.
My consignment agreement says, "Any commissioned work I privately arrange, as a direct result of a referral by the Gallery shall be sold through the gallery. Gallery will retain a commission of 25% on such a commission sale". The galleries protocal for referrals is to take the interested party's name and contact information on a card, stick it in my file, and pass it on to me at my next visit, or call me with the referral.
Hypothetically speaking: If he purchased a piece I was requested (by the gallery) to remove from the gallery for something fresh, and/or purchased a piece I had not yet committed to the gallery, should the gallery get 25% of the sale.
Likewise. I now have 3 pieces that were recently removed from the gallery to make space for new shows and events (rather than see them go into a closet).
I have posted them for sale on my website. Suppose a past visitor to the gallery sees my work on my website, calls and says, "I saw this work at the gallery, the one you have for sale on your site, and I want to buy it". Is the gallery entitled to 25% of that sale also?
Lots of grey here and less black and white, in my mind.
I would not take a referral directed by the gallery through to completion of a commissioned work, or sale of an on-hand piece, and not pay the gallery their 25%. I'm an honest guy:)

[ahirschman]

I sat down with a gallery owner yesterday and talked with him for a long time. I got some input from him, and he had some good points. I did not yet talk about commissions, so this applies to existing work. The main point he had to make was that a sale to any client within "His" area (As stipulated in our contract) would be very difficult to dissect. We would never be able to know if the customer first saw the work at the gallery, or stopped at the gallery and discovered the artist through them.

What he said is that any sale to a person residing in the area covered by the gallery should probably be directed to the gallery and handled through them.

Down here in Florida even that can become very complicated. There are many people that have houses here, and in other states (Snow birds). So they can see a work in the gallery, and then call from their cell, or call when they get back to their other house. He has seen that happen with customers that try to negotiate a better price directly with the artist.

One way, he said, of preventing that, is to set a price that is respected by all galleries, and by the artist. That prevents a client from playing the system.

Next time I meet with the gallery owner I will try to get a bit more information about commissions.

I know that there are lots of loop holes, and exceptions, but I personally tend to agree with the gallery owner. I want him to represent me in his entire area and I want our relationship to be mutually beneficial.

I do not mind paying a 50% commission to the gallery, because I am very well aware of the cost of running a gallery. Also, this gallery owner will discount a work out of his %age.

If any one has questions that I can pass on to the owner let me know and I will try.

Ari.

[anatomist1]

I sat down with a gallery owner yesterday and talked with him for a long time. I got some input from him, and he had some good points. I did not yet talk about commissions, so this applies to existing work. The main point he had to make was that a sale to any client within "His" area (As stipulated in our contract) would be very difficult to dissect. We would never be able to know if the customer first saw the work at the gallery, or stopped at the gallery and discovered the artist through them.

What he said is that any sale to a person residing in the area covered by the gallery should probably be directed to the gallery and handled through them.


This is what I have been talking about. I don't have any personal interest in galleries, and it wasn't long ago that I had no money and would have wanted every penny I could get out of a piece. Nonetheless, I think there is a tendency not to think about the principles involved and just let your brain be guided by the fact that you want more money in a particular sale.

One thought I just had is to frame this from the opposite angle. Instead of thinking about how you think the gallery is trying to get too much out of you, think about what you really want and expect out of the gallery. If you think the gallery is not reaching customers in their area, why are you bothering with them? It seems like the whole reason for choosing the gallery to represent you in that area is that you think they are going to take care of all the advertising, promotion, and customer-attracting you need there. If you don't think they can do that, or don't think they are doing that, and that instead you have to go out and beat the pavement to get sales which you think they deserve no part of, why are you in business with them?

[GlennT]

I work on direct commissions, and have never had a gallery represent me as discussed here, so my comments are somewhat as an outsider.

I do not see why it is a one way or the other arrangement. In my mind, the gallery has a certain market that it can reach, and the artist has their own. The gallery is entitled to a commission for all of the opprotunities they provide to the artist, directly or secondarily. This should not preclude the artist's opportunity to benefit by his or her own connections that have been made without any influence from the gallery. Those contacts that have occurred as if the gallery did not exist should bear no responsibilty towards paying the gallery. If the artist has signed a contract that specifies otherwise, then that is a seperate matter involving in my opinion a foolish move on the part of the artist.

Earlier in my career when I did show some works in galleries, my arrangements were much more informal. They would earn a 40% commission on the sale of the work they displayed, and on the honor system they would get a smaller percentage if they steered a commission my way. That was it.

The success in those arrangements was so minor compared with the direct commission approach that I decided not to waste my time with the galleries.
If at some point I were to decide to have a gallery or agent represent my work, I would definitely not give them exclusive rights, nor would I fail to reward them for the sales that they worked to get.

GlennT

[Julianna]

I'm a little late coming into this thread, so much of what I had to say has been said already!

Robert, for your specific situation, you'll probably want to have a lawyer look over the contract with you. Vauge wording leaves much manuever room for both you and the gallery, but a lawyer will also know if there were other situations where there were rulings one way or another.

Although most artists hate the thought of a gallery getting half (give or take 10%) of the selling price of their work, we do have to keep in mind that they have an overhead and their job in all of this is to get your name "out there". For the future, it may be wise to have a clause in your contract that allows the gallery to get a smaller commission on non-direct sales. Another way to handle it is to direct all of your clients to the gallery...you may be getting less money, but ideally that should give you more time to produce work because you're not working out the details of the sale (that's their job).

As an example, when I get into a gallery (eventually...some day ;)), I plan to have something in the contract that says the gallery will get either a smaller or no commission on anything I sell to clients who have purchased my work before I started to work with the gallery...unless they go directly to the gallery for the sale. I would be asking for that because they obviously found my work and we started the relationship before I was being represented by the gallery.

[robertpulley]

I would like to thank everyone for their responses to my questions about gallery terms. Some of the points I asked about were never actually answered by anyone, but thats ok. The input I did get (plus the passage of time) has settled things in my mind.

One thought I had in regard to galleries is that contracts are simply the galleries way of stating how they are willing to do business. No body has stated they had the experience of injecting artist favorable changes into a contract. I've never heard of one being used to settle a dispute in a court of law, though I suppose in the rarified strata of the "gold chip art" such things might occur. If the artist comes to a point where they cannot agree to abide by the contract they simply leave or the gallery drops them. I've never heard of a contract that binds the gallery to represent the artist or makes disolution of the arrangement any more complex than one party quiting.

Its a gallerists market when it comes to hooking up with artists. We outnumber galleries hundreds or more likely thousands to one so those of us who need the gallery need it worse than the gallery needs us. When we get to the point where our work is in such demand that the gallery would be willing to make major concesions to get our art we would have reached a point where we might as well find ways to sell directly to the admiring throng and cut out the middle man.

For those of you who might interpret my words as anti-gallery, please re-read my posts. I have stated over and over that I do not begrudge the gallery their 50%, I merely would like to see arrangements that would more fairly compensate the artist for promotional efforts they might put forth. Have fun.