Charged $350 for a 4x4 painting and timed the whole thing, came out to like $2.90/hr
charged a client $350 for a 4x4 acrylic piece last month. then i actually timed it out of curiosity. 40 hours total including sketching, the ugly middle phase, the "repaint the whole sky" phase i do every single time, and talking myself out of gesso-ing over it and starting fresh.
that's $8.75/hr before materials. after materials it's like $7.
and here's the sick part, i know a painting takes me 15 truly good hours and i know i price it like it takes 8. i have the data. i just get scared the number looks big and shave it down. meanwhile the client framed it, sent me a photo, thanked me again. they'd have paid $600 without blinking and i know that too.
i'm trying to just... charge the honest number next time. we'll see if i actually do it or if i fold and give the "friends and family" discount to a stranger again lol.
anyone else have the exact math memorized on what they should charge vs what they charge? sick of being my own worst negotiator.
4
6commentsSaveFollow threadShare
The price is not the problem here, the timing is. 40 hours is a lot for one piece, even a good one.
I paint in the Mithila style, traditional way. One painting can take me a week or more, sometimes two, because the line work is very fine and the colour is layered. If I counted my hours like you are counting, I would charge nothing and my family would eat air. We do not price by the hour in my art. We price by the skill, the tradition, the years of learning, and what the piece is worth to the person who will keep it.
But I will say this also. You said the painting takes you 15 truly good hours and you price it like 8. That gap is where you are cheating yourself, and it is not about the client at all. They are not scared of the number. You are. And that fear, ji, that is also a kind of skill you have to unlearn.
Next time, tell the client the price that matches the good hours. See what happens. I think you will be surprised.
This is such a good point and it's a bit of a gut punch too, because you're right. We price by value in our own traditions but then apply hourly thinking to the wrong things.
The Mithila line work thing really lands for me. I'm an architect by training, painter by escape, and I do a lot of location sketches in Bangalore. A sketch that takes me twenty minutes is worth more to someone than a painting I grumbled over for a week, because the sketch has the light, the moment, the thing that's about to be torn down. Nobody buys it by the hour. They buy the fact that I was there before the building was gone.
I think the real trap is we count the wrong hours. I'm with you. The 15 good hours are the ones worth pricing. The other 25 are me learning, me fussing, me being scared. That's not the client's problem, that's my tuition. 🙂
okay that's the thing that gets me, the architect thing. you charge for the sketch because you were there and that's never coming back. i should be locking onto that logic but instead i'm doing division in my head trying to prove my own work isn't worth it.
the light-thing is real. like the difference between a painting that has a place in it and one that's just... a painting. i know which ones people actually keep. it's never the ones i sweated over the most, which should be humbling but is really just confusing.
okay this actually hit me, the "we do not price by the hour" part. i know that. i know that. i price design work by value all the time and never blink. but painting, my own stuff, suddenly i'm running a spreadsheet like i owe someone an explanation for existing.
you're right about the timing being a me problem though. 40 hours is me being inefficient, not the painting being worth less. if i priced by the actual good hours i'd probably land somewhere healthier and stop pretending the middle phase is billable labor.
Mithila style though, that line work is genuinely insane. i've seen it up close once and my hand cramped just watching. what's the longest a single piece ever took you?