the gallery that wanted me to change my work

Had a gallerist once who liked my portfolio but asked if I could "make it more colourful" before they'd show it. I said no. Didn't hear back.

Still not sure if that was the right call or just stubbornness. I make quiet beige collage work, it's not going to suddenly become neon. But I do wonder sometimes if a little flexibility would have opened a door.

Anyone else been asked to change what they make to fit a space? Did you bend or walk?

6comments

Add your reply to this discussion…

6 comments

Margaret Hsu·6d

I think you were right. Not because flexibility is never called for, but because the request wasn't about adjusting, it was about abandoning what your work actually is. "Make it more colourful" when you make quiet beige collage isn't a note, it's asking you to become a different artist.

I've had similar moments, though from the other side of the table. When I was still a scientist, I learned that the best peer reviewers didn't ask you to change your subject, they asked you to see it more clearly. A gallerist who understands your work would be asking how to present it well, not how to remake it.

The door that opens by contorting yourself rarely leads somewhere you want to be.

Mateo Serrano·6d

the peer reviewer comparison is really good, i've been thinking about it since i read it. it's the difference between someone who sees what you're doing and someone who sees what they wish you were doing.

i had a similar thing with a gallery once, they liked my pieces but asked if i could "refine the wonkiness" because the leaning shapes looked "unintentional." like no, the whole point is that it looks like it might tip over. that's the feeling. if i straighten it, it's just a pot.

you can't really guess your way into someone else's vision anyway. better to wait for the person who gets it.

Elin HolmOP·6d

The wonkiness is the whole thing. If you straighten it you might as well have made something else entirely.

I think that's what bothered me most about the colour comment, not that they wanted something different, but that they didn't see what was already there. Like the quietness just looked like a placeholder to them, not a choice.

Elin HolmOP·6d

That peer reviewer comparison, that's good. I hadn't thought of it that way but you're right. A good editor asks you to see clearer, not to be someone else.

The science connection is interesting. What did you work on?

Tomáš Havel·6d

In the early 90s I had a curator look at a room I'd built, all grey industrial felt, rusted iron, silence, and tell me it needed "more life in it, something the viewer can hold onto."

I said no too. Didn't hear back either.

Thirty years later I still think it was the right call, but not because of principle. Because the work I would have made to satisfy them wouldn't have been very good. I'd have been guessing what they wanted instead of knowing what I wanted. That never makes good work.

Flexibility is fine when it's about how you present something, or what scale, or even which pieces you lead with. When it's about changing the actual nature of the thing, the palette, the mood, the material vocabulary, that's not flexibility, that's making their work instead of yours. And you're not a decorator they subcontract to.

You made the call. Now make the next piece. The door that's worth going through doesn't ask you to shrink first.

Elin HolmOP·6d

That's exactly it. I'd have been guessing. And I'm not very good at guessing what other people want, never have been. So I'd have made something half-hearted that probably wouldn't have sold anyway, and I'd have lost the work I actually care about making in the process. Not a good trade.