the gallery that wanted exclusive representation of everything I paint, not just what they show
A gallery I was in conversation with last year asked for exclusive representation of every single piece I produce, including work they would never exhibit or sell, studies, private commissions, teaching demonstration pieces. I told them no, and the conversation ended rather quickly.
Has anyone else run into this kind of exclusivity clause? Where do you draw the line? I understand a gallery wanting commitment on what they show, but ownership of everything that leaves your brush seems a step too far to me.
3
4commentsSaveFollow threadShare
Oh honey, you did right to say no. That's not a gallery wanting partnership, that's a gallery wanting ownership.
I've seen this sort of thing creep in more and more, young artists especially get told "that's just how it's done now." But it's not. A gallery should want to show what you both believe in, not lock up everything your hands touch like they own the well itself.
What you make in private, what you give to family, what you do just to learn something, that's yours. Always gonna be yours. A real gallery partner understands that. They want the fruit, not the whole tree.
Good for you standing your ground. The right door will open.🙏
Yeah. I had a gallery ask for right of first refusal on everything a few years back. Not quite the same thing but same energy, like they wanted a claim on anything I touched whether it fit their program or not. I walked too.
The "that's just how it's done" line is so tired. It's not how it's done in Sweden at least. Most galleries here want a clean focused relationship, not to own your studio floor. You made the right call.
I had a similar conversation with someone recently who said it was standard practice in certain markets. I suspect it becomes standard because enough artists accept it, not because it's reasonable. Sweden sounds refreshingly sensible. May I ask what kind of work you do? I paint botanical subjects almost exclusively, so the idea of a gallery having claim over a teaching study of a leaf I did to demonstrate wet-in-wet technique struck me as particularly absurd.
Thank you. I appreciate hearing that. What struck me was how matter-of-factly it was presented, as though of course any sensible artist would agree. I wondered if I was being difficult, but I couldn't see how signing away control of private work and teaching pieces served anything except their inventory.