I would like to address a situation that is unfair for every person involved and often leads to anger and the creation of false prejudice. The issue of art fairs and artists and the bringing of portfolios by artists to fairs.

Allow me to present some numbers first off.

• Fair Rent : ~€45.000
• Fair Travel: ~€10.000
• Fair Art Handling: ~€6.000
•  Fair Insurance: ~€2.500
• Fair Incidentals: ~€3.000
• Total: €66.500

The fair runs 5 days for 10 Hours divided into First Choice, VIP and Everyone day. That adds up to 50 Hours where a gallerist can sell art. If we are fair we can deduct about 20% for morning slowness and evening hectic which leaves 40 Hours.

€66.500 / 40 = €1.662,50 / 60 = €27,71

What I am saying is that every minute of the fair costs the gallerist €27,71. That translates to €138,55 for a 5 minute discussion with a gallerist. This is the economic framework in which we gallerists work during a fair.

Enter the artist: The artist invests time and money in making a portfolio which is representative of the work they make. They travel to the fair, rent a hotel room, take time off of their day job, etc..

The hope is that they can show their work to a gallerist who will be deeply moved by the work, enough to represent them or at least give them a show in their gallery.

The problem is the forces acting on both parties in this situation. They are not compatible. The staff of a gallery is at the fair to make money to cover the costs and keep the gallery running. The artists want a chance to get into the gallery.

The solution is simple, understanding. If we gallerists put ourselves in the artists shoes then we can be friendly in the way we tell the artists that the time is not right. And equally if the artists understand the pressure o=the gallerists are under they will be able to accept that maybe it is enough to say hello to a staff member, ask them if they can send some material and what the best time would be to do so.

It’s an empathy issue. Be kind in both directions and understand that a gallery does not owe an artist it does not represent anything except common courtesy. That’s just the reality of it. And artists, enjoy the fair and the work on display. If you spend time looking at the work each gallery shows, and how, then your chances of finding a good match will be much higher.

See you in the pressure cooker!

 

 

•  
• 
• Share on Tumblr

The statistical fact is that the largest part of the worlds artistic production has and will continue to end up in the trash. It was far less in the past, but considering the onslaught of “artists” it is mathematically clear that most of what is being made now will end up in the trash in the same way that most of the drawings your children have produced have returned to the world as carriers of ink in the form of recycled paper.

My diagram in not complete, but it shows a basic flow from the artist to one of 3 final locations for artworks. Museums, Collectors and Trash. This is a harsh truth, but it is a truth and needs to be known so we can understand how the parts actually work together.

•  
• 
• Share on Tumblr

After my recent post about the fun factor in the art market I want to put a few numbers to the actual cost of a gallery. First I will just outline and define some of the players involved.

Assumptions:

A Gallery has at least 1 person who needs to live off the money made in the gallery. I’ll call this person the gallery owner (go). I will also assume that go has a life cost of ~ €2000 assuming no children, and no student debt. If go has 1 artist who he represents, then we can assume that that artist also has a living cost of ~€2000 + materials. If artist is exclusively represented by go then we can safely assume that go needs to make €4000 + materials to cover the living costs of all parties. If we take a material cost of 10% of sales then we could assume a total of  €4400 for the gallery to break even if no other money is spent.

Of course go cannot show artist work without a space. This could be a joint space, a project space, or a gallery that is rented somewhere. Let me assume that a minimum for such a space will be €500 + utilities. That would be about €700. So for space,go and artist we now need to have €5100 in sales to break even. If this is in Germany then that summ end up being €5100+19%VAT = €6069.

No we can assume that artist will not only show with go, and that go cannot just show 1 artist. If the gallery has 4 shows per year and each show has a different artist, and each of those artists show with 3 galleries we have 1/3 artist x 4 = 1 1/3 artists for the gallery to support. If we stay with the €4400 for 1 artist then we end up with a sum of ~€3200 per month + rent and go living expenses. This also assumes that all the galleries who represent the artist are selling enough to help cover their share of the artists living costs.

The gallery does have to do advertising, networking, framing, openings and dinners etc.. If this cannot be done by go alone then the gallery needs to hire some people. Each full staff member will add at least €2000 to the monthly expenses. Lets say the gallery needs 1 administrative person and 1 sales assistant, where as all 3 also share shipping work, cleanup, setup, hanging, gallery painting etc.. So with our adjusted artists cost we now assume

€700 + €3200 + €2000 + €2000 + €2000 = €9900 + all the stuff mentioned above.

If we put a simple number on those points (because they can vary greatly) of €1500 we end up with a monthly expense of €11400. We also have to assume that we have to charge VAT, so that number become €13566 including 19%. That scales up to €162792 per year where as there are active and less active sales months in the art calendar. From my experience the hot months are Feb-Apr, June, Sep-Nov. Thats 7/12 of the year. So if we take the sales we need to cover the expenses of the year and place them in the 7 months we get €23256 for each of those 7 months.

Now let’s do a reality check.

€23.256 @€500 / Artwork = 46 pictures per month. If the gallery is open 5 days a week = ~20 days a month then the gallery would need to sell 2.3 pictures a day on average. €23.256 @€1000 / Artwork = 23 pictures per month. If the gallery is open 5 days a week = ~20 days a month then the gallery would need to sell 1.2 pictures a day on average. You get the idea. Please remember that this is a break even calculation where there are no reserves built.

So I have done all this theoretical spitball math to point to a problem. If the engagement of the client base, the collectors, is not there then the galleries cannot function. I do not know of a single gallery that is not a mega gallery where the kind of visitor flow is so large that this kind of calculation could ever become a reality. The simple fact is that people will never buy what they do not know exists. If the collectors view the art world through a filter like the internet and do not engage with the art world where they are then only the work that is propagated by the large galleries will ever be seen, or seen enough. If the small galleries that are the breeding ground of young talent are ever going to survive it will only be because the people who buy art are aware of them and seek them out.

The art world ecosystem need all of the players. The mega galleries play an important role as do mid tier and small galleries. We could of course just say that all of this will regulate itself, as it always has. That is probably true. I cannot think of a sensible way to subvention the small galleries because they need to grow like all plants in the wild.

Nonetheless, it is important that the collectors and visitors to the galleries understand that we are effectively the backbone of the art world. We take the risks to show work we believe in. We invest large sums of money and time to help our artists grow. Many of us spend the money we have earned in other places to do this, and a great many of us will never make that money back.

I am not asking for pity. It is neither needed nor desired. Being a gallerist is a choice, and those of us who know what it means and have made it beyond the begining are proud of what we have achieved for the most part. But the artworld needs to understand that this is a labour of love with significant risks.

If you visit a gallery regularly to enjoy the artwork, enjoy the company and drink the wine then you should buy art.

If you can’t afford what’s on the wall then speak to the gallerist about other work they have, or a payment plan. Bottom line is, if you like what the galleries are doing then support them. Buy art.

•  
• 
• Share on Tumblr

The art world is no fun at all!! We all have passions, hobbies, things we do that enrich our lives. These pastimes are part  reward that we give ourselves, part things that expand our ever hungry desire for new experiences,  part socially driven events and part whatever else motivates us to get off of our ass and do something.

When I was younger and in the gallery scene in SOHO of the 1980’s it was a fun vibe. Galleries all had openings on the same night. There was cheap wine, sometimes cheese and crackers, and most importantly lots of people. Those people did not come to a single dedicated exhibition, but would wander around the neighborhood and see many shows, much new art and run into people they saw at any of the other galleries. Out of this discussions would develop. From those discussion grew an engagement with the work, or not. Point is that the situation allowed for it.

All the galleries were sort of in the same boat. All of them were trying to get by. If you look at the Art Forum ads from that time you will see that all the artists showed with all the galleries, and some galleries got lucky. It was the wild west of you will. People were in it for the fun, for the excitement. They could buy 1-2 artworks per month on their salary and really had something to enjoy and to show their friends. Most of those artworks ended up not really rising in value on the market, but that was not so important because the collectors were engaged in a happening.

the collectors were engaged in a happening

In ~1991 that all changed, but it is safe to assume it changed earlier when some players in the market made their experience no longer about the artwork or the support of the artists, but about making money off of selling the work they bought. The simple idea is the same as with compound interest. Since it seemed to work everyone ran with it, until the ground they were running on broke away… crash.

I am writing this because the young generation of collectors that are in the market now did not experience that. Hell, I barely experienced it, and I am not a young man. The young generation, the digital natives, did not experience the culture that was there before. The language of the art world is now so filled with things related to money that it is hard to get away from it. And as our understanding of value is very closely chained to it’s price we cannot get away from it either.

But there is a point where the development becomes self consuming, and it seems we have reached that point. The cost for a gallery (my gallery) to do a fair is always a five digit number. I am a small gallery. The larger galleries have 6-7 digit costs for a single fair. If we do some simple math it becomes clear that this can only be paid for if the artworks are expensive enough to make the income based on the galleries share of the artwork enough to justify the experience.

As a simple example: I spend ~€45,000 to do Paris Photo. This is a very important fair for my gallery, so I don’t really have a choice. From the artwork I sell there I have between a 15-50% share of the raw sales that my gallery gets to keep after paying the artists or owners. For the sake of this example if I take an average and say that my share is ~32.5% then I need to sell €138,462 in Art to make the fair break even. I have wall space for ~30 works of art if I work with smaller prints, etc. So by that measure my average price needs to be €4,615.

my average price needs to be €4,615

The fair has a visitor count that is 5 digits. The real selling time is in the morning during the VIP time when the collectors and museums have more space to actually look at the artworks. That time window is 2 hours per day. Assuming I have to make 80% of my sales in that time I need to sell 24 artworks in 8 hours standing in a room with ~200 other galleries who all need to do the same.

The result of this is that most of the galleries are now showing work that they assume has the best chance to sell. That chance has a lot to do with how often an artist or artwork has been seen. There are other factor of course. The issue of a galleries reputation and the trust built between a gallery and a collector are major factors. But those factors only help the galleries that are established. Everyone else will need to  play it safe in the hopes (delusion) that their chances of selling something will be better if it appeals more to the masses. And we can then sit by and watch the level of quality and newness drop to the lowest common denominator. That is just plain shitty.

Making the fairs cheaper won’t work because they need to make money. Making the art more expensive is not working because it becomes prohibitive to buy based on a regular person’s budget. If collectors are not buying regularly then they are not really engaged. It looks like this is broken from all sides, and that a simple magic fix does not exist.

Why can’t we go back to the engagement, the social experience of SOHO in the 1980’s?

Because we are not in SOHO in the 1980’s.

right… We are in the art market of 2018 and it’s a bit broken.  It’s time to think hard about how we can bring the fun back. Ideas?

•  
• 
• Share on Tumblr

At the end of every month there is the moment of truth. Can I cover the bills. Who do I have to call and ask for a bit of time. Which clients have not kept their promises. Which wagers did I make which paid out, and which did not.

This ever repeating cycle seems to be the religious mantra of the art world. As galleries open and close it remains a mystery how this works. Better said, the question is why it sometimes works and other times it does not.

The very simple answer is that the gallery that sells enough art to cover its expenses will remain. This is, in fact true. The events that lead up to this are much more curious.

We, the gallerists, are the pirates of the art world. We are admired by some, dreaded by others. We live a swash buckling life of swilling champagne and jetting throughout the known world offering our wares to the highest bidder and gather our wares at the lowest price. We hide our stash so no one will know what we have because we don’t trust much of anyone.

This is a hard world, a place of backstabbing and intrigue. We are jealous. We are… sellers of new and used wares that retain the cultural heritage of our society. We are the ones who bought Picasso when he was uninteresting. We save the pre christ relics of an ancient brand of monk in our home to remind ourselves that they once existed. We present the memorials to those those who’s only shot at immortality is to be saved in the discoloured silver of a photographic print.

All this romanticism, all of these merry stories are of course examples of my ability to make a point. I am selling you an ideal. And by saying this I am giving that away. Curse my wooden leg!

If I sell enough pictures then I keep my ship afloat. Sell enough pictures…

This is the part that becomes challenging. If I believe in what I see, and I endorse it, then I will find myself at paar or ahead of my audience. We, the gallerists, are the bridge between the artists and the clients. We are the free museums of the city where the show is as fresh and new as can be. We can show you whatever we choose however we choose based on our personal opinion of what we deem to be great. And we can err. It is our pleasure to do so. But by embracing that which the audience does not know we are traveling in a storm at high sea. Most will not embrace the new as we are trained to trust what we know, not what we don’t. But if I show the audience what I know, then I am only serving the vanities of my audience and by doing so am not fulfilling one of my most important jobs. So how should I chose between my passion and my requirement. I don’t know.

Maybe I need more daring clients, maybe I need more mainstream material, maybe I need both.

It works if people buy pictures.

It works if people buy pictures. That is the bottom line. So, actually, it does come down to that very simple truth. That’s what’s in the pudding.

•  
• 
• Share on Tumblr

The art world is small as we all know. At the top of the pyramid are a few illustrious dealers who have worked hard and have made the right decisions. Below them is a pool of sharks. I was actually written an email by a friend of my fathers who welcomed me to the shark pool. Back the the size of the art world, it being small also means there is a lot of envy and a lot of back stabbing as well as just general politics and misinformation. The honour of acknowledging people for their achievements is overpowered by the desire to place ones competitors in a bad light in order to raise oneself to a better position. This is, of course, a stupid thing to do as lies have short legs and quality does actually survive long after people realise what the moral fibre is that we are made of.

So I hear that one cannot buy at the FEROZ Galerie because I cannot be taken seriously. Apparently I only sell reprints…. Ok,  I was a bit surprised by this. I went to find out what is actually meant by that. The term is often used in reference to books, specifically when a book is sold out a reprint of it will be made. In photography there are people who sell reprints, but they are generally called poster or museum shops. I know for example that the SK-Stiftung Kultur sells reprints of work by August Sander which they have every right to do. These are digital prints of scans of Sanders photographs. What I sell, by comparison, is gelatine silver prints made from the original negatives by my father Gerd and his long time dark room assistant Jean-Luc Differdange. These are what is referred to as posthumous or modern prints. There are, of course many photographers who’s work was printed after their passing. Actually there are a lot of photographers who did not print much of anything themselves. Lisette Model comes to mind. Henry Cartier-Bresson comes to mind as well. Brett Weston printed pictures of his fathers negatives as well. I could continue, but I think you get the idea.

So lets jump back to my reputation again, that I only sell reprints… well, I don’t. The only posthomous prints I sell are those of August Sander’s work. Many of these prints are the only prints made from the negative that we know of. The rest of my inventory of vintage material spans a time frame of 120 years. I also have primary market photography by the artists I represent. I am not even going to explain how those cannot be reprints.

Ok, so now I have clarified what I sell. To make this easier to understand, I have this material because my father Gerd has been in the gallery business since before most of the new museum curators were born. This will, by timing, make it hard to remember what he did. It is not really important at this point, but he, as a gallerist, also amassed a very large collection of extraordinary photographs by some ~270 artists. Thats my inventory. I hope that is easy enough to understand.

I hope that is easy enough to understand.

So back to the rumours and fact that people prefer to take the simple route of believing everything they hear as opposed to find the truth for themselves. This form of cerebral laziness leads to slavery. If you want to be a slave, be my guest. I assume if you have read to this point you do not, so if you have heard the rumours about me not being serious or my gallery not being a place to go to, I challenge you to formulate your own opinion. I will surprise you.

cheers, Julian Sander (owner of the FEROZ Gallery)

•  
• 
• Share on Tumblr