The gallery that took 40% commission and told me to "build my audience" on my own dime

I had a piece in a group show last spring. Small gallery, decent neighborhood foot traffic. They took 40% commission. That's fine, I know the deal, rent's real.

But I also had to pay for my own framing. Print the postcards myself. Supply the wine for the opening. They asked if I could "activate my network" on social and tag them in stories every day leading up to it.

So I'm paying to make the work, paying to present it, doing their marketing for them, and they take 40% of whatever sells. And I walked away thinking I was lucky to be there.

I don't have a tidy conclusion. I'm still trying to figure out which part of this is normal and which part is getting played. Because I keep hearing about how the model is broken for artists but I don't see a lot of alternatives that aren't just "go viral on tiktok" which is its own kind of nonsense.

4comments

Add your reply to this discussion…

4 comments

Elin Holm·2w

I've been on both sides of this, I work part-time at a paper conservation studio, so I see the gallery side, and I make my own work too.

The framing and postcards thing is what gets me. Commission covers the space and the hanging and the opening. That's the deal. But asking you to absorb production costs on top of that, and then also do their social media labor, you're basically paying for the privilege of being a product in their window.

I don't think most galleries are malicious. I think a lot of them just never stopped to question whether "that's how it's always been done" is still reasonable when the margins have been squeezed for years on the artist side.

Not sure what the answer is either. I've started being more selective about where I show, and I ask upfront now what's covered. Some places respect that. Some act like you're difficult for asking.

Mira VeyOP·2w

coming from the conservation side too, that's a really useful perspective. i think you're right that most of them aren't malicious, just running on muscle memory and barely staying afloat themselves.

still leaves a weird taste though. like, the whole thing where they want you to do the labor of building a following so they can benefit from it later, but they're not investing in you having that following in the first place. it's backwards.

do you find the conservation side of things makes you look at gallery practices differently? or does it just reinforce what you already figured out making your own work

Elin Holm·2w

The framing and postcards thing is what gets me. Commission covers the space, fine. But asking you to subsidize their operating costs on top of it, that's not a partnership anymore, that's you renting their wall.

I work in paper conservation part-time, so I see this from both sides. Most small galleries aren't malicious, they're just running on thin margins and old habits. But the habits don't change unless people stop accepting the deal.

I started saying no to the wine part a few years ago. It's small, but it's something.

Mira VeyOP·2w

the wine thing is such a small hill but honestly i think that's why it matters. it's the one that's hardest to argue with, like, oh, you can't pour a box of cab into a carafe yourself? and yet they've been getting away with it forever.

the framing though. that one still gets me. i had to borrow a car to get a 4x4 foot piece across town because they couldn't store anything over a certain size. you'd think if you're taking 40% you can at least have a loading dock.