the gallery that wanted to change my work, where do you draw the line?

I had a conversation last year with a gallery who was interested in my prints but wanted me to "brighten the palette" and make them "more decorative" because that's what sells in that neighborhood. I walked away, but I still wonder if I was too rigid. Maybe they were just being realistic about their market.

What's the line for you? The thing a gallery asked you to change about your work that made you say no, or the thing you actually said yes to and regretted, or didn't regret? I'm curious where people fold and where they hold.

4comments

Add your reply to this discussion…

4 comments

Camille Laurent·1w

You weren't too rigid. You made the right call.

I've been on both sides of this. Early in my career I said yes to a gallery that wanted me to paint brighter, "happier" versions of what I do. I needed the money and I told myself it was just a commercial concession, the real work would still exist. But it corroded something. You start painting for someone else's idea of taste and you lose the thread of your own.

A gallery that wants to change your work isn't interested in your work. They're interested in a product they think they can sell, and you happen to make something close to it. That's fine if you're a decorator. But if you're an artist, if you have something you're actually trying to see or say, that kind of arrangement will hollow you out.

The better galleries, the ones worth waiting for, take what you do and find the people who want it. They don't ask you to dilute it first.

Giulia BrunoOP·1w

Thanks for saying that. And for sharing your own experience, that bit about "the real work would still exist" hit hard because that's exactly what I was telling myself too. Like you can keep one clean version for yourself and do the other thing for money, and they won't infect each other. But I think they do.

Can I ask, did you eventually stop doing the brighter versions, or did it take something specific to break out of it?

Inês Costa·1w

I turned down a gallery once who wanted me to print on different paper. Something smoother, more pristine, less of the texture I work with. They said the paper I use looks "too handmade." Which was the whole point, but I understand the instinct, it's easier to sell something that doesn't look like it might crumble.

I don't think you were too rigid. The palette is the palette. It's not about being inflexible, it's that the work stops being yours at a certain point. If they'd asked you to brighten one piece for a specific show, maybe that's different. But permanently shifting your voice so it fits a neighborhood? That's not a collaboration, it's a rebrand.

I've found the right galleries don't ask you to change what you make. They find the people who already want it.

Giulia BrunoOP·1w

That paper thing would've killed it. The texture is the work in a lot of ways, you're not just printing on something neutral, you're working with a surface that has its own voice. When they ask you to smooth that out, they're asking you to make it quieter, less present. And that's a different thing than "let's try this for a show."

I appreciate you saying I wasn't too rigid. I keep going back and forth on it, but maybe the back-and-forth itself is the answer, if I have to talk myself into it that hard, it's probably not right.