Good thing there’s internet!

I received an email from Gora Gallery last week..and as usual when I get these I do a search on the internet with the gallery name and ’scam’. I also check out their website, which I have to say is pretty good..clean layout, well thought out. But what you’ve said above and everything else I’ve come across on the internet pretty much seals Gora’s fate for me.

My first thought when I get an email like the one printed above, is great! Someone’s seen my work and thinks it’s worthy. My 2nd thought is…hmm how much do they want for this ‘opportunity’?

Last year I paid Artbelow £800 to ‘exhibit’ two posters of paintings on the London Underground for 2 weeks..great..I knew what I was getting into. But I had to push really hard to get the promised ‘complimentary copy’ of the posters. They initially sent me 2 very badly printed A3 copies..the colours were like mud and looked like they’d been done on the office printer. After a lot of outrage & indignation on my part, they gave me full-sized copies (1m x 1.5m) as promised in the original application material.

The offer from Gallery Gora? It looked really good, up until I got down to the $2700 fee, so I know more than likely its not. Dodgy sangria and friends of the artist won’t get paintings sold, but then they’ve already been paid, where’s their incentive, why should they care?

I think I’m in agreement with what a few people on here and elsewhere have said. If a gallery believes the work will sell, they won’t want vast quantities of money up front before they’ll touch it.

Also, I’ve learned to ask questions…lots of questions.

Thank you for posting, it really helps. I can only hope despite what you said you saw at the previous openings, they provided great wine, music and clients and you sold loads of work!

This is exactly right.

I’ve advised a few artists this same thing, and they always come back with ‘but it gets exposure.’ Exactly the kind of exposure you don’t want.

Furthermore, a gallery is first and foremost a business. Once they have your money up front, they have NO INCENTIVE to sell your work afterwards, as the cost/benefit ratio doesn’t add up for their effort. And the icing on the cake, once they have your money, their profits are maximized by spending the least amount possible on promotion. Basically, they’ll promote as little as they can get away with.

I will pass by this weekend and take a fee shots of the place!!

See Ya!

That said, this form of self promotion might work with potential patrons, if they don’t know what they are doing, or buying …

For the high-end galleries that exhibit the big names, the arrangement is similar to that in the US, although I believe the commission may be higher, but I’ll have to do some research to be sure.

Also, it is my experience that a 50/50 split is not the norm. Dealers and galleries usually split 60/40 to the artist. And THEY are responsible for promo, opening, media coverage. However, it behooves the artist to tie in with all those things as much as possible. Again, in my experience, THEY pay for these things, not the artist. I have noticed a change in this lately though. Galleries are TRYING to foist more of the expense onto the artist AND retain their cut. Negotiate, and yes, get a contract that clearly states respective ‘responsibilities’.

The higher up the food chain the more the dealers/galleries will cover YOUR costs cuz they believe in you and can see their market … Publically funded galleries in Canada offer an exhbition fee in keeping with CARFAC guidelines, and do all promo, including an ‘exhbiition catalogue’. … It’s generally a long haul to get to this stage. Publically funded exhibitions only come after a good 10-15 years of exhbition history.

In my experience …

It’s not a “scam” if they deliver all the things promised in their letter for the fee discussed. But the deal they are offering is atypical when compared to most respectable galleries.

This is basically a vanity publishing deal. For a fee, you get a gallery show. Is that horrible? I suppose it depends on what you want. It probably won’t accelerate your career (and in some instances it might hurt). But it probably will make you feel good (especially if you sell some work).

As long as you understand the benefits/risks it boils down to a judgment call. It’s not beyond belief that doing a show like this could give you the visibility that might lead to better things. Most galleries are basically commodity brokers — they invite artists who’s work they think will sell. They aren’t always right.

The sad part in this case is there are probably uninformed artists who might be swayed by this offer and wind up spending money for a gallery show that probably won’t yield positive results.

If you have exhibited with them in the past, delete them from your resume.

There may be some catchet to being able to say to your local audience “I exhibited in NY/Montreal”, but make sure your not talking to someone who knows the backstory.

I was tempted by offers from both over 5 years ago. Once I controlled the ego boost and investigated, it was a simple walk away from this tree of false knowledge.

Ray

http://www.heyhotshot.com/

Their competition is not quite a pay-to-play scheme like this Montreal gallery. Instead, you pay $60 for the opportunity to have three pictures put in front of a panel and *possibly* chosen for exhibition at the Jen Beckman gallery. There are 5 winners, they are given a group show and they are each given a $500 award (though the photographer incurs the cost of “producing and framing their work, as well as shipping it to/from the gallery”). According to their website, this competition runs 2-4 times a year.

Does it really cost $60 to handle the online entries? I can’t find how many people enter the contest but the gallery would need at least 42 entrants to cover the winners’ honorarium. I assume more than 42 people enter the contest. Subtract web costs (because you enter online), wine costs (for the gallery opening) and the rest seems like profit (unless they pay the judging panel).

Am I tempted to enter? Yes, I’d like the exposure. Am I conflicted about it? Yes, because photographers pay $60 apiece for the gallery to scout new talent–which kinda seems like the gallery’s job in the first place. Will I enter? Dunno yet.

At least with the Montreal gallery, if you pay your $150 you’re *guaranteed* placement in a group show.

Both situations rub me the wrong way.

Thoughts?

Where we vary from the place above is cost to participate. A single photo cost ranges from $27 to $40. Our next upcoming exhibit, there is a flat cost of $27 per photo. I have 40+ photographers participating already.

We further differ by allowing the photographer to keep 100% of whatever they sell, minus any credit processing fees. Those fees are pass through, not in addition too. What we pay is what the artist pays.

Our model allows more people at lower cost to get experience and sell.

If you are interested, check out atlantaphotography.org

If it isn’t costing anything, and you enjoy participating in your community, I don’t see why you shouldn’t put something in a local community center.

There are quality retailers and those of dubious integrity in every business. This offering doesn’t surprise me at all. And I suspect they’ll do well with people who have the cash to fund a vanity gallery show.

But serious buyers will probably figure out how this gallery is doing business and stay away. So it will become a sucker-for-sucker deal — people will pay to have their work exhibited and sell prints to people who don’t know any better. I suppose if the gallery generates enough traffic that you sell more than $2,500 worth of prints, everyone goes away happy.

I wonder is whether participating in this sort of arrangement would hurt your chances of being shown by legitimate galleries in the future? Even more interesting, I wonder if anyone will be able to short circuit the current system by paying a bunch of galleries to show their work, spend some more money on self promotion and voila, they are being revered as a great photographer.

The pay per exhibit model has been around for years. While some may actually be credible, providing good exposure to the artist, I employ a policy never to pay for exhibiting, framing, or shipping. If a gallery is successful they do not require funding from the artist as their patrons and clients will provide the necessary income. These vanity gallery venues are not dissimilar from some publishing models requiring the artist to absorb production costs for their monographs. If the publisher believes in the work they will produce the work and market it at their expense knowing that the return on investment is in the content.

Public venues ( art centers, small museums, public space ) are not dissimilar to the pay per exhibit model if they require costs for presentation be borne by the artist with out any guarantee of financial return. I also recommend avoiding these. Be assured the curators and directors of these public venues are receiving an income while you provide a free venue for there community. If they see the value they will pay costs.

I do take issue with the analogy of galleries to art stores. Good gallery representation goes way beyond simply fulfilling the transaction or recommending work. There is a concerted focus, promotional capabilities, relationships, credibility, and most of all trust that a good gallery puts forth on your behalf. Well worth the commissions they receive in exchange for those qualities.

I’m so lucky my produce guy is a girl and tend to agree with MOA (modern art obsession) that she is also a hottie. I also like the analogy because now I can tell people to stop by and feel how ripe my melons are. ;)