To the Editor:
Re “Art Galleries Are Not OK,” by Marc Spiegler (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, June 19):
Mr. Spiegler echoes what has long been an open secret among gallerists and artists: The art world economy is unsustainable and broken, perhaps irreparably so. But Mr. Spiegler almost completely glosses over the outsize harm caused by the market dominance of Art Basel and the proliferation of art fairs that have followed it.
Participating in these fairs is prohibitively costly: An article in Artnet quotes a gallery’s total costs for showing at Art Basel Miami Beach as $105,500 — $65,000 of which is just the price of the booth. To undersell at a single fair would send any gallery into dire straits. Art fairs, however, remain one of the venues where the most works are sold, and to fully forgo art fairs would be for galleries to cut off a crucial revenue stream.
In light of this, Mr. Spiegler’s admonition that galleries must remain locally focused comes across as condescending, unhelpful and unaware of the role that the author himself has played in destabilizing the art market. It is art itself that suffers the most, with artists feeling the pressure to churn out inoffensive works their galleries can sell to remain afloat.
Andrew Wagner Berlin
To the Editor:
While Marc Spiegler does identify stagnation in the demand for art as a core problem affecting the financial viability of many art galleries, he omits the reason demand has remained flat. Most galleries are still selling artwork the same way they did 50 years ago.
The landscape of the way consumers buy art has changed. You can now buy a painting on an online art platform. Artists can market directly to buyers on social media platforms like Instagram.
Not long ago, an artist’s Instagram account showed up in my feed. After a couple of direct messages and emails, we arranged a virtual tour of his studio 3,000 miles away. I bought one of his paintings.
It is extraordinarily difficult for most brick-and-mortar stores in any industry to survive, and that is especially true for art galleries. These large art shows may create a lot of foot traffic, but that doesn’t always translate to robust on-site sales for the galleries.
Galleries should try to stimulate consumer demand based on the intrinsic rewards of collecting art and not the extrinsic benefits. Most savvy art collectors buy paintings because they love the artwork and not because they expect the painting to appreciate significantly.
Art galleries will have to innovate their approach to sales and bring real value to buyers; otherwise, they will become another example of a dying brick-and-mortar business.
Steven Lutzer Los Angeles
To the Editor:
I agree with Marc Spiegler. Galleries are not OK.
As an art adviser for more than 30 years, I know firsthand and from colleagues at galleries — from the major blue-chip galleries to emerging ones — that everyone is complaining of lower sales, some down as much as 50 percent from last year.
The expansion of the market has been exhausting even for advisers like me who love what we do intensely. We travel constantly and comb through thousands of previews each year to make sure we’ve seen everything on the open market so that our clients are offered the best artwork available.
Galleries should always turn to their local communities of collectors to deepen their relationships, but collectors can’t just acquire work locally. Globalization gave our clients access to magnificent work by artists from South Korea, African nations, Brazil and elsewhere. We can’t put the genie back in the bottle, and I believe that collectors should continue supporting galleries around the world.
Selecting a serious but small group of trusted dealers is a way to navigate through the plethora of art. Most important, collectors should love what they buy.
It’s unfortunate that artists and galleries are being hurt in this market contraction, but the legally enforceable resale agreement that Mr. Spiegler is arguing for is not the answer. Collectors will always want the power to decide whether to leave their collections to museums or their families or to sell them when they are ready.
Victoria Burns New York
To the Editor:
I take Marc Spiegler’s point that dealers and galleries are scrambling to adapt to a new art market. There is no training manual for art dealers or artists. But trust me, artists will be OK.
As an artist in the fourth decade of my professional career, I’ve seen my work sell better when the economy was down. During the 2008-9 global economic meltdown, some galleries ran for the hills and dropped out of Art Basel Miami Beach — as some did this past year. In 2009, however, the art fair behaved like a casino and took money from anyone willing to come to the table and play. That opened up spots for art dealers and artists who normally could not get in the door, including me.
My dealer at the time, based in Paris, accepted an invitation to the Miami Beach fair and decided to show my drawings, paintings and furniture pieces. We sold like hotcakes, as the expression goes. There were still plenty of collectors willing to spend money, even as the economy was crumbling.
For whatever reason, we were never invited back to Miami Beach, but my work continued to sell and thrive at other art fairs. Hopefully, the recent instability in the market will create opportunities for other galleries and artists looking for a break — which, as an artist, you always are.
David Kramer New York
To the Editor:
Sorry, Marc Spiegler, but galleries are not the engine of the art world. Artists and their art are. Culture only trickles up, and money never trickles down.
Lari Pittman Los Angeles
The post The New, Unsustainable Art World appeared first on New York Times.
