I don't quite get this. For me, there's no question that the smaller ones take almost as long as the medium sized paintings and the larger than medium ones don't take that much longer. So I'm inclined to price the small ones higher per sq. in. and vice versa.

Wes, it's got nothing to do with how long it takes. You're not in a union.

Selling by the square inch has worked for me. Regardless of size I start at 50 cents upwards to $1.50 per square inch for my watercolors. If custom framed I would add that cost as well.

In your letter, you say "If you paint a range of sizes, your smallest need to be underpriced according to their size, and your largest need to be overpriced according to their size. Your larger masterpieces test the upper limits of your prices. As in the "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" situation, the middle sizes should be priced 'just right.'" This is opposite of what I have experienced. My smaller paintings are slightly more per square inch and the largest paintings are slightly less per square inch. Yes the middle size paintings are the relative life-blood of the business and where I came up with what my pricing should be per square inch. I also add double the cost of framing to it ... which assures I receive my framing cost back (and I do buy at wholesale for the framing).

In my opinion, those larger paintings are priced just slightly under the normal per-square-inch formula to give an incentive to purchase a larger painting. More value for the money!

And, I always figure out what the price is for a gallery that charges 50% and that becomes my pricing all places. When I sell a painting myself, I have worked hard for that 50% the gallery gets for promoting, taking credit cards, showing, travel, etc.

I think you have to use kind of a bell curve if you're doing per sq inch. The little ones have to be MORE than your ppi, and the larger one less. At least till you're famous. :) Then go ahead and charge the higher price for the biggest ones. But the buying public always does want to know 'how long did it take you?' A teacher of mine used to say "50 years plus 4 hours.."

After decades of selling paintings both ways...in galleries and on my own, I agree with Robert's notion of pricing. Extra for big and below average for small. I do use a per inch beginning price set but give myself wiggle room up and down depending on size and other less tangible factors if they apply.

I think it is best if self selling artists price their work the same as if it was in a gallery (and hopefully aim for as high or higher quality in the art). In order to promote and sell art (doing the job of a gallery) it will likely cost the same as the 50% commission the gallery takes.

In fact the self selling artists usually need to do more promotion to make up for the credibility the galleries provide. Then if they get tired of spending 50% of their time marketing they can hire someone or work with a gallery and not have to change their prices.

Are you saying that size is relative to what a painter is doing, or is there and actual middle-size range? If so, could you outline dimensions please. I guess that everything I've done so far could be considered small.

Marsha, everyone else, I was going to say the same thing. I studied Roberts pricing suggestions years ago and had the same idea about more on smaller less on larger. Wll be interesting to hear from Robert!

I'm new to process of pricing and selling my art. I have heard that some artists decide on pricing by square inch of canvas. Does anyone have any guidelines around what is a reasonable price per square inch? Something like beginner $2.00 per sq in, intermediate $3.00 per sq in and master $5.00 per sq in.

Wes, unfortenately the price has to reflect the value for the buyer, not our own investment. The bigger the painting, the bigger perceived value for the client. John, I have been selling for 8 years with galleries and I use $2.5 per square inch. Hope this helps.

There are factors with this discussion that bear mentioning.
The Internet has altered the art market in ways I think people still ignore. There was a time an artist had to have gallery representation - it was the only valid outlet to sell. Consumers can now buy anything online. The democratization of so many industries, including art, has made mini-galleries of artists merchandizing themselves.
On the negative side, that has knocked many galleries off their feet and their doors closed ... but so have other industries. Heavy on the plus side, it has allowed artists the opportunity to compete and has somewhat leveled the playing field; neither are they limited by locale anymore.
Retail businesses have had to restructure and adapt to their competitors who are just a click away, open 24hrs, world wide. Why shouldn't galleries as well? Or, do they still cling to the business model that used to work but isn't as dominant today?
I know, it's a business and most galleries earn their fees. But marketing ourselves has overhead as much as galleries do. The difference is instead of promoting the gallery as a business entity, the artist (or spouse, agent, etc.) is promoting his or herself and no one else. Merchandizing energy and resources are committed to sell only one artist's work.
Another question ... why should website artists price their work half of what a gallery-represented artist is priced? You're not paying a 50% commission but how do art patrons make an equitable comparison? They may like two similar paintings; the independent guy prices his at $3,000 and his local gallery prices the other at $7,500. Honestly, I think the gallery and the independent artist equally undermine themselves by not pricing their works comparitively. A patron may buy the independent work because it is cheaper ... the artist might command a higher price and the gallery might make a sale because they are within the same price structure. Ultimately it would be the quality of the painting that makes that determination.
The canvas size controversy is interesting ... I wish I could turn out a small painting but it's not in me to do so. There is such a thing as too small and too big ... but shouldn't we paint the size canvas the subject commands?

I haven't ever seen a dealer/gallery who will take 25%-I heard of it 25 years ago, but never encountered one. Most galleries I have worked with take 50% and some take 60%.

I have found there are several other venues where you can work with pricing. One is the coop galleries, tent shows and the other is the "show" galleries. In the coop galleries pricing is completely up to you. Increasing price by size is an excellant idea and should be utilized by artists no matter in what price bracket you are. The "show" galleries are galleries where they have four shows a year with different themes. I've been in one for the last three years and pricing is totally up to me.(I include entry fees and dealer commissions in my price) The last venue, the tent shows-- Here I have the most latitude with price. Since I am doing the selling directly, I can work with the price to make the sale. I don't worry about commissions and in some cases taxes. I generally make back my entry fee on the first sale.
I've tried increasing prices yearly with little effect. With the economy being what it is, this hasn't worked for me. Since I have a sales history going back some time. I charge more for the newer works as they are exhibited, again keeping in mind the size differential.

I would just make it clear to emerging artists that the "two different price lists" you refer to in your opening paragraph are a "one or the other" choice; your work should be the same retail price for every occasion, whether at a gallery show or from your own website.

Another problem with self sellers crossing over to galleries is that they have established a price range for their work that is based on not having a dealer and therefore lower. They may not be able to justify a bump in price and end up with less in their pocket. On the other hand volume will make up the difference, he said tongue in cheek.

When discussing pricing with artist friends I always say we should pay ourselves to sell our own work just as we would a gallery. A lot of time can be sucked up dealing with clients. A lot of energy and patience is required. Sometimes I call it “aggravation pay” but no matter what, my work has one price except when I choose to give a regular client, a family member or someone I’ve kept waiting a discount.

Successful artists should disagree with your statement that online "prices can be lower." The retail price of a painting should be consistent, no matter the venue.

The commission paid to a gallery or dealer is a cost of business to the artist, the same as a booth fee, travel expenses, paint and canvas, electricity for the studio, insurance, etc. If an artists is willing to pay someone to take the time and expense to sell her work, why would she not pay herself for that job? An artist's time is best spent in the studio creating. If someone has the honor of dealing directly with that artist, then they should pay the same (if not more!)

Self promoting artists need to realize that they have to be paid for the time spent on the computer if they want to be successful.

Secondly, by underselling your own gallery, you are undercutting your sales partner and devaluing your own work.

Living in a small country and selling my own work for the past 30 years I try not to undercut the galleries as I sometimes do sell my work through them and as far as I'm concerned there should be one price for the work, wherever it's sold. So I give myself the commission for selling it!

I suspect that the success of online sales is purely anecdotal. There are certainly some heavy-weight online galleries but one would never know how they sell. Their income is enormous just through artists fees. There is no need for them to sell to survive - just like vanity galleries. Selling works for over $1000 via the online shopping cart method sounds more like wishful thinking than fact. I also suspect that success stories for onliners are for works well under $500.

Thanks for the great advice,,,and the comment "dead artist still sell well", brings to mind ,, "the news of my death is greatly exaggerated." Have a good day...

Readers should keep in mind where Robert is coming from on this matter. He is so well represented across Canada that if he doesn't bring in $100,000 per month he figures he's having a bad one.

Dear Robert,
As an artist who just opened a show last Friday night, this letter comes at an interesting time. I agonize about the prices of my works. When I started out, I just went to a gallery and found a piece that was by a local artist and in the size I was working with. I immediately reduced the price of that piece by 40% (the amount galleries usually take). Then a few calculations, I discovered what the piece was selling by the square inch. I then applied that formula to my own work and have increased it by 10% each year. The thing about art is it is a luxury item, it is the LAST thing people buy. So when the economy is tanking, artists need to increase the quality of their work. It has been my experience that artists who don't get government funding (Grants and bursaries) they have better quality works. Another good thing is do work with smaller canvases when starting out. This is also a good thing to do with established artists. I usually do a series of 12" canvases with each collection that are the "Snickers Bars" of art and get gobbled up opening night. I have seen artists make every mistake in the book. Pricing their works at a reasonable price one day and then after an article or TV interview they quadruple their prices thinking the exposure will garner them big collectors prices and sales. This can be a difficult bell to un-ring. Artists need to be consistent with their prices and show a steady collection of their works. I have always said "If you want to be rich and famous, then sell real estate"! I must say though Robert, your last quote about self selling artists having trouble getting into galleries offends me. It has been my experience that the artist does more for the gallery than the gallery does for the artist. And because we 'self sellers" have more experience in selling, we know a think or two, we can sniff out a buyer and if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. And this etherial world of being an artist and waking up wondering "what am I going to do today while my dealer makes me millions" is really just a pipe dream! Treat it like a business and you can never go wrong. John Ferrie

It's fairly obvious to me that an artist is better off, and probably a better artist, when he or she is free of commerce.

Sara and Robert Genn are promoting their annual workshop at Hollyhock again (August 14-18), and I’m wishing and hoping I can go. (Buy paintings . . .lol) I can recommend this fabulous week to anyone who wants to immerse themselves in the problems of painting the landscape and abstraction on site at a beautiful location. Robert and Sara complement each other perfectly: Robert works more realistically and provides blunt, fair, supportive mentorship and detailed instruction while Sara is a very successful abstract artist and a fabulous teacher and mentor. Both provide demos and lots of one on one time. I finished the week with several paintings I loved and lots of new artist friends . .

And of course who wouldn’t want to stay at the fabulous Hollyhock on Cortes Island for a week? Check it out . . . go to www.hollyhock.ca and look for the workshop ‘From Plein Air to Abstraction.’

"Some dealers have an intrinsic distaste for other entrepreneurs." My experience exactly. Being "too smart," even helpful, with a dealer doesn't always go over. Mr Genn has a good understanding of human nature. Just like me. I guess we've learned.

I've decided to hand the whole matter to someone who buys art for her interior design business. She has a handle on what people will spend, and on where certain art sells well, at what prices. I'll name her my agent and give her a piece of anything she sells of mine. Anything helps that takes me out of the realm of quantifying the value of my art.

Make art because you enjoy making art. The art market is fickle. Your art dealer wants another painting that looks like the one he just sold. Get caught in that trap and you will never grow. You will be stuck making merchandise rather than art. Besides, most all of the best artists died broke.

I like Mike Barr's comment. I hardly ever have sold in the net while my gallery sales AND prices are steadily rising. I need the good dealer's knowledge of their market, their buy in and art sales know-how. However I held three private drawing exhibitions and made good money on what otherwise would have been pulped.

"I am interested in art as a means of living a life; not as a means of making a living." Robert Henri

In response to anon's Robert Henri quote, aren't we all? Unfortunately, making art is rarely free. An old joke about another industry fits our world very well: What's the easiest way to make a small fortune selling your art? Start with a large fortune.

I have a suggestion for art pricing, that is to price per square inch (or centimeter, whatever)...I can sell reasonably well to common everyday folk at a reasonably affordable range...flowers probably...to match living rooms...sigh....

Dealers work daily to "share the magic" as Genn says, and save the really creative person a lot of manhandling and hassle. Needless to say I have several wonderful dealers.

I guess I'm a shelf-seller, that is, my product is on the shelf. I am awaiting the right venue to sell my pen and ink flourished birds and hymns and scriptures in Spencerian penmanship.
Portage, MI (Kalamazoo)