As with every other aspect of trade, I suspect the internet is turning the art business on its head. Internet galleries proliferate as buyers are reassured, “Worry not, if it doesn’t go with your couch, you can return it”. I don’t know what the future holds for the bricks-and-mortar galleries, but I like what’s happening on the web. Everyone has an equal chance of having their work seen. Anyone can start a blog. Talent always sells, whether the artist is dead or alive. I see great art selling off the net every day, and at decent prices too.

How true it is that there is no correlation between quality and saleability. Many years ago I ran a shop that sold art prints and posters. What never ceased to amaze us was the plain ordinary posters that outsold the attractive ones, for example a plain brown horse's head against an impossibly bright blue sky, as opposed to a beauty of a white horse running against the wind.
And the customers who came in with a swatch of curtaining fabric: "I want an art print in these colours".
I will never paint to order, no matter how hungry I am!

It all comes down to giving people a way to get what they want, and charging what they will pay. Vanity galleries give artists a place to show their work. Whether the cost is worth it, is a separate question. Regular galleries are no bargain, either. Patsy Tyler commented that she would never paint to order, no matter what. That's a noble sentiment, but portraits and other commissions are painted to order (maybe not to match the drapes, though!).
I would like to add that as artists, our job is to give people what they didn't know they wanted until they saw our paintings!

How timely! I was just invited to submit 4 large pieces into a 2-week group show in Toronto for an upfront smallish fee ($350), with the gallery taking only 30% of sales. They've been in business for 5 years and the space is lovely. Is this a vanity gallery? Seems to me not unreasonable that the artist shoulder *some* upfront cost in this economy. It's a lot cheaper than the weekend blockbusters that Toronto has hosted this month (those can run the artist more than $2K). My cost covers a few ads, emailing to 2000, and opening refreshments. Still, I wonder what I might not be seeing. Anyone have any thoughts to help me decide?

In my neck of the woods-- south shore of Lake Erie-- home shows are still rare. In my recollection there has been only a single one in five years, and that for a ceramicist. I've been to home concerts, usually for singer/songwriters or interpreters of traditional musics. Occassionally an artist's co-op will emerge, but some of these have proven uneven at best and at worst derelict.
I like my art in person, and prefer to use the internet only as a reference, or to browse the greater market, not to buy. On the other hand, many of the local commercial galleries are hamstrung by local economics (working class, rust belt), and don't get the best local artists, who find their way out of town. Additionally, local tastes can run to stylized watercolor florals and stop there. The successful local gallery owner might push the envelope a mite, but knows where the market is and caters to it. Many artists (wannabe's, amateurs, young, and developing) are often very discouraged. Not everyone can move to New York, Toronto, or Paris.

I think this situation pertains, to some degree, in a lot of small and moderate size urban areas. We-- even those of us living in them-- regard them uncharitably as cultural wastelands.

The vanity gallery-- arguably positioning itself less as an agent and more as a marketing services company-- can fill a need for the commercially marginalized artist, particularly in commercially marginal markets. It's a matter of getting visibility and a springboard to launch a career, or at least giving a languishing dream an opportunity at "the bigs".

Vanity galleries seem to have their place, serving the needs of many and I know of successful ones for all involved. I sense an underlying feeling that galleries are the enemy, taking more than necessary from the artists. If so, why don't more artists go the co-op route? note: perhaps we don't need museums, either. We can all go on line to enjoy.

Beware of vanity galleries wherein the owner is also an artist whose work is in the collection. Guess whose work will be pushed when a potential client walks in the door?
I've had a much better response by holding art shows/sales once a year in my own studio and the surrounding garden. People apparently enjoy this personal touch as I've had close to 500 people attend the last three annual shows held between the hours of 10AM to 4PM on one Saturday in June. Admittedly many of these folks show up to see the garden but often they end up buying. Whatever works. Good thing there is plenty of parking in the neighborhood.
It's a lot of work to prepare the show, design the flyers, spruce up the garden, and oversee the publicity. The publicity alone can take up a goodly portion of a month. Publicity packets must be submitted at least two weeks before the event and should include an article covering all the particulars, artists bio/statement, and some decent photos on disc.
I also impose on a few of my more charming friends to help me meet and greet those who show up and to make sure no one walks off with anything without paying.
In our current economic situation, art sales are one of the first things to drop off the radar. Set your prices accordingly if you want it to move.
The good thing about holding your own show is that you're in charge of everything. The bad thing about hodling your own show is...you're in charge of everything.

There are a number of vanity galleries in our area. Some of them actually sponsor "competitions" which charge an entry fee to participating artists which both pay for the prizes and support the gallery owner. I hope this isn't the way of the future.

I joined my local artist's coop, which has an attractive gallery and some talented members (all of them juried, though unevenly). To my surprise, it basically functions as a vanity gallery, with little effort to promote member artists, and a great deal of attention paid to developing and promoting an annual community art event which enriches the association itself with little benefit to the bulk of the artists. Emphasis seems increasingly to be on faux folk art styles for the tourist trade. Though nominally a "coop", it was run by a select group of people with little input from others. I withdrew my membership after one year. I learned that the artist turnover is quite high, and I readily understand why. Other artist coops may be set up better.

Resigning was actually a relief. I feel unrestrained to let my art develop in its own direction. As for exposure, I'm exploring options: setting up a website, going on gallery explorations in other areas (where art is less a tourist commodity), arranging personal shows in public spaces... and maybe even a private home, if I can find the right one. Keeping my eye out for creative opportunities.

Regarding 'home shows' - I am wondering how many artists who choose to do this are aware of public liability issues which this might entail. Even group shows now require proof of insurance in order to be accepted into a show. Several popular and long-standing local events like home and garden shows have, at various times, fallen by the wayside with these costs being prohibitive.

I've known of “Vanity” galleries for some time but unaware of this title. Several of my artist friends routinely exhibit AND in addition pay commission monthly for the space. The gallery is completely self-serving and has little to no interest in the "paying" artist except for collecting their pound of flesh. My take is if you have the money and are willing to humiliate and delude yourself … go for it. Many artists will never find their way into a gallery any other way. But it's one more way to get your work out there, but be warned the commission and rental space may eventually equal if not pass the original selling price. If that happens you will be losing money on your work and only helping the gallery.
On the up side, it looks good on your resume to say...”your in such and such gallery.”

Hopefully through this unstable economy, galleries and Vanity galleries alike will feel the pressure enough that they will need to restructure and become much more realistic to continue doing business. I show my work in a few galleries and have found the responsibility of the gallery sales people is to sell art, not exclusively my art but the art within the gallery. The level of loyalty from the gallery to the artist is by no means equitable, and seems the artist is the one working for the gallery rather than the other way around. I question the high percentage on sales and especially in vanity galleries, when generally they provide nothing more than wall space, a staff that is usually unknowledgeable and really are nothing more than a retail outlet for a group of artists that often can not get their work into mainstream galleries. I read an Interview recently with Saatchi, he said selling art is not really about selling anything of quality; it is more about selling it because he can. His recent acquisition from the Royal Academy is evidence enough of this mentality. I feel artists should be working on taking back the control of their work, by doing group shows organized with other artists, Internet site, and any way to generate sales and eliminate the large chunk taken by the galleries. The provincial mentality is long dead and really if people are buying art to match their couch or a particular color swatch, we as artists are responsible for representing what our society is doing and we should be doing that. Doing what we love is most important, making a reasonable living doing that is not much to ask for….

As a Director of a Co-op Gallery, I took offense at some of the statements in this letter. First of all, getting your art into a Gallery that pays for everything in this economy is only for those of us that are really good selling artists. I found your comments to be rather condescending to those who don't occupy the same plane as you do. You were probably talking about those galleries in big cities who are asking for thousands, however, a lot of people who read this probably feel that you mean any gallery you have to pay something to show in. Artists learn so much from a good co-op gallery. They learn to work with others, market their work, show their work and what sells and what doesn't. It's a good education for many to learn how to be professional. However, I agree, once you are a professional you should probably get into some of the bigger name galleries. But, if you can show your work well, sell some and enjoy the cameraderie, it's certainly better to be in a co-op gallery than to have your work hung in the back room...or, even worse, piled up somewhere where no one gets to see it and your frames get damaged!

As long as artists support vanity galleries they will continue to exist. There are alternatives. I'd like to see more successful artist-run, cooperative galleries. I'd like to see more artists educating themselves on the business of being an artist. Artists can now take advantage of the plethora of empty retail spaces now. More artists today are using the Internet for promotion, their own web sites and social networking. I'd like to see more artists taking charge and playing a more important role in the business of art.

What could be more vain than to qualify yourself by the type of gallery which accepts your work! Isn't it too bad that business as usual galleries (@ 50% commissions) are threatened by so-called "vanity" galleries where any artist can display the work they choose to display without having to pander to art snobbery and biased gallery owners. I say Hooray! for so-called "vanity" galleries (I've never heard them referred to by that moniker)...and a creative chance at catching the buying public's eye. No rejections, no exclusivity clauses, no brown noses!

I co-own a gallery in Macon GA and we're entering our fifth year in business. We began this gallery because the high commission we were paying in other galleries negated any profit we made. In those galleries, we had to price our art higher than the local market would bear to make even a small profit. This past year is the year we changed our business model from the traditional 40%-50% commission to what you've described as a "vanity gallery".

We do not charge a "complex list of fees"; rather we charge one low fee per piece for 60 days, expressly: $5 per piece per month with 20% commission on the sale. You don't think this is reasonable? This of course goes for overhead, web presence and everything else but it is the only fee we charge. And we limit the number of pieces each artist may submit, up to five. Our commission is also much, much lower than the usual commission in this area. So far, our artists are happy with this arrangement and we're moving their work where otherwise our sales would be stagnant to the point of closing our doors. We've seen this very thing happen in our area at least three times over the past few years. Many artists tell us they think our policy is fair and reasonable.

We by no stretch of the imagination, "mine artists rather than buyers". Your assumption is insulting and illogical. We work hard at finding accomplished artists AND buyers. Without buyers, we certainly wouldn't get far now would we? We have an extensive mailing list; use print, television and direct communication with our buyers and community to bring forth sales. We are not predators as you suggest. And we are indeed "keen" on our artists' work.

Please see our gallery and some of the work featured. You'll find excellence there.

I have been pulled into using these galleries and lived to regret it. The first problem is, they get their money up front, therefore they have no motivation to sell, much less promote any of the work they show. They hang the work and shrug their shoulders if it does not sell. The same problem exists with the web marketing galleries and the catalogue compilers.

The second problem you mentioned, quality. If you pay you hang, no matter if you do dreak or not. But then I have been to so many regular galleries, New York, Carmel, Scottsdale, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Prague, Paris, Milan where the walls were hung with crap - because it sells.

Here it is worse, an artist rents a space, installs a show, does the promo, hires a gallery sitter (and that is about all they do) and hopes.

There is no easy solution.

I am a relatively new artist entering the art market. I have displayed my work for a time now and haven't sold anything. Part of the problem seems to be the rather hefty price tag attached. I have my pictures professionally and archivally framed (pastels) with double mats. The cost for such a framing is around $150 up to 225. When the sponsoring gallery prices my work, of course, the cost of framing has to be figured in at my end. So...for example... if I want to get $100 dollars for the artwork itself (not to mention materials, gas, travel time, phone calls, etc.) and $200 for the framing costs, I have to walk away from the sale with $300 in my pocket. Now The gallery gets 40% and so that is tacked on (another $120) bringing the total to $420..... but that isn't the end of it. We are up to $420 but as near as I can figure it the gallery will get 40% of THAT total amt. or roughly $168 making the sale price: $468. While that doesn't sound like a huge amount in the current economy this is prohibitive for most people for a no-name artist. Is all of this pretty typical? And what's an artist to do?

I am not in the art market to make money but rather just to make expenses and keep the clutter down in my studio. In the face of this drain on my budget I keep doing it, though, because I love it.

Your summation of Vanity Galleries, to me, was right on. I belong to 3 Art Leagues two of which are having shows in April and May in a fine gallery. It will be interesting to see if there are sales. This Gallery sends notifications to all clientel and charges only if a buyer charges a sale a minimum fee. no comm. the league gets 10% on sales. I find that abstract pieces attract the public more
than ever, and probably sell more especially to the yuppies.....You can view some of my work just goggle june tucarella artist, and the first intro, click on to my art. Let me know if you get it. Meanwhile keep positive, good art is always the best, even if we keep it in the closet for awhile.

It seems whenever times get tough the creative schemers come out of the woodwork. These schemes are usually innovative but sometimes unnerving ideas, designed to squeeze out enough new money to keep a failing enterprises afloat. We see it all the time. Problem is, they are not a "phoenix rising from the ashes", but usually have less to do with integrity or substance, are more likely to lower and dilute our standards, and shake the very foundations of systems that have worked so well for so long.

Reputable galleries take a financial responsibility and risk in the artists they represent. That greatly helps to insure that their buyers are going to benefit from their knowledge, experience and reputation, and that the artists who deserve and earned a position to be promoted, get it.

I think commercial galleries that are paid by artists to display art will undoubtedly hold "how much the artist is willing to pay" in the balance. Any artist who is seriously willing to pay for this "service" should "cut to the chase" and consider completely self promoting and retailing their own art. After all, do artists want or really need a middle man whose 'loyalty' is sold to the highest bidder?

I'm wondering if you know anything about the following ateliers that offer painting workshops in Europe:

Atelier Stockholm
Moulin de Perrot in France

Many thanks for any info you might have.

Lately I've been getting some 'invitations' with price tags from European galleries, Biennales and the 'book & collections' producers. Some of them have found me through the posting on Painter's Keys by the way. They each claim to want to exhibit my work, for a fee of course - usually 700 - 1,400 Euros. They have websites and appear to be legitimate, but how can one really tell these days. I don't have the money right now and haven't bitten yet. But supposing I did - Any advice on this?

There are many varieties of vultures sitting on limbs overhead just waiting... some are bad some are good... it's hard to separate 'em sometimes.

How then do you categorize co-op galleries? Many of the better artists in our community turn their noses up at the local co-op, in existence for over 25 years. However, for me, it's been a dilemma. I've achieved a good majority of my local sales through the efforts of the co-op which resides inside the Arts Center... and at least it is a place to send 'locals' and out of towners besides bringing them all to my home gallery. It has played some measure of a role in "getting my name out there." There is always the website, of course, but it doesn't generate sales like the actual in person viewing I think! So, co-ops... are they vanity galleries? (I do think some people pay their dues and keep the gallery afloat for years while others DO reap some sales to offset the cost of their dues - not exactly fair across the board).

Charging a fee is sometimes a necessity. I am part of an artist-run galleryand studio space. We have 5 resident artists and we have a large gallery reserved for guest artists each month. The thing is, we all pay rent to be there, so why would we let someone else use our best space free of charge? We charge a modest fee for a one-month show ($200) and the commission rate is very low (15%). The thing about running a gallery is that there are a lot of costs, and someone has to be there all the time. The time alone is huge investment. So please, don't make out the guys who charge a fee as the bad guys. It's a changing world. Artists want places to show their work and there are a lot of different ways they can make that happen. Paying a fee to be in a gallery is just one of them.

I have been marketing my work for over twenty years. I have come to the conclusion that art galleries are two steps below the used car salesman. They take an artist's work on consignment and try and sell it. Meanwhile, the artist is usually under a restricting "exclusivity contract". Bla, Bla, we all find our way. But these Vanity galleries are something that has risen in the art world over the last few years. Artists have this bent perception that once they are with a gallery, the contract of fame and fortune will come. These galleries make most of their money by charging the artists memberships, rental space, internet space, commissions charges, a large percentage of any sales and all sorts of other hidden charges. The gallery owners seem to know that artists have "hope" of being with a gallery and artists will hitch their star and a great deal of cash to this pipe dream. It has been my experience that artists often stop creating once they are all set up in these spaces. There is no curating, no through line with the collection and no specializing in what they show. They just want cash. In one section you will see some nice paintings, but beside that is decoupage and crochet'd kittens. In this day and especially crummy economy, artists need to be careful and frugal how they work. If not, they might be buying a "wonderful vehicle that was only driven once a week by a little old lady who drove it to church!"

I gasped when I read your take on vanity galleries, who charge a fee to exhibiting artists, that they "could be a significant model for the future?

As artists, sure we all are enticed by a lower commission rate, but they are never galleries with a motive to promote & sell quality art. With their fees paid up front, by the artist, they have minimal motivation to advertise and promote an exhibit. Sorry to admit I've been a sucker a couple times. The 1st time chalking it up to being young & naive, the 2nd - momentary desperation. Never again. www.sharonwill.com

In the '60s and '70s vanity galleries were a no-no for serious artists and people who knew about the market. The word was out that reviewers and critics would not consider them of professional level because anyone willing to pay could get their work exhibited.

Now, vanity galleries don't seem to be looked down upon. To the viewing public it is not of concern. Also, circumstances have changed so much over the years with the computer, where anyone can have their own website, exhibiting to the world and possibly selling.

This is not to denigrate work on the computer. There is wonderful work out there, including art which I always view on Robert Genn's site, and other sites too numerous to mention..

It certainly helps to increase an art reputation to be in a prestigious or museum collection and is a definite boost to an artist.

I am not an expert in this area, but I receive these emails as well. Vanity Galleries really make no bones about what they do. They are making money without the pressure of actively selling the art--probably because they have neither the desire nor the knowledge. If they can continue to pull in enough up-front paying artists, then they can make their money without having to sell. They have no passion for the art or the artist, and no preferences when accepting artists. This is totally contrary to the meaning and essence of art and what it means in a universal way to society. However, these vanity galleries will remain, as long as there is a group of desperate artists out there who are willing to pay to have their work shown, as opposed to earning it through daily education and the intense work it takes to become good. It is like any profession: it takes a lot of hard work and determination to become really good at what you do. There are no free lunches along the way. As Cervantes said, "Those who play with cats must expect to be scratched."

This is an issue that has bothered me for a long time. I live in a relatively poor province (Nova Scotia) with a varied and beautiful countryside that is attractive to artists, yet has many communities that are relatively cheap to live in. We therefore have an abundance of gifted artists, but relatively few buyers. Even the very few galleries in Halifax have a hard time keeping going, while it is even more difficult for those in smaller communities, especially in this economic climate. (One of these, Zwicker's Gallery, has some of your work). I have attached an article I found when first looking into this issue a few years ago (By the way, the NYFA has many useful articles that are available for artists). It points out that many galleries already expect artists to help with costs, which is certainly true in my area, although not to the extent suggested by this article. Also, it suggests that the cost of showing may be looked at as an investment that might be worthwhile. I have found that it is very difficult to break into galleries in large cities in other provinces, because they already have many local artists beating down their doors. The only way I may be able to show my work in these large centres might be through a vanity gallery.

I've noticed more and more of these Vanity type Galleries popping up in my area as well. Some rent space, with small commissions on all sales. Some have various plans for different types of vendors. The true galleries are disappearing here, leaving our options limited, with little possibility of them taking a chance on an unknown. I feel that it does give many artists a venue to show their work. And takes the pressures off the gallery to force sales. But it also takes the determination to makes sales a less priority for the shop owner. I've entered into a couple of them for the exposure and possibility of an occassional sale. We are artists, we jump through all the hoops to find the right paths.

You are right - there are many artists out there who want an outlet, and my solution is to establish artists' co-ops where everyone can have an affordable space to exhibit their art. Vision is the thing we hold dear, and what will lead us from here.

I recently received an email for a vanity art book called Best of America oil painting. The cost of entry is $40 and the email said I was "guarenteed a spot in the book". The offer is tempting because the entry fee is reasonable but then of course you have to buy the book with 199 other artists' work in it. Just wondered what you thought. Perhaps investing in making my own art book is a better use of my images.

I would think every gallery has to be judged on its own merits. I know of one "vanity" gallery that shows contemporary work that no one else would handle and wouldn't be able to do so based only on commissions. I've also known of regular galleries that would rob you blind given half a chance. I'd rather deal with a vanity gallery that charges you an honest fee than a regular gallery that makes you go two falls out of three in order to get your money out of them.

Save your money, and work on your craft. Shouldn't they be paying us to hang our work.

When it gets right down to the honest truth do you really want to tell your customers that yes you have art hanging in a gallery but you had to pay them to put it there.

ps. I've been painting long enough that I can, and will mix and paint the color of a sofa, drapes or a persons eyes.

I am endlessly amazed how artists expect to paint away their hours ( a joyful experience) then want to sell the works without paying anything towards the costs of making sales.

If it is so easy to run, manage, own a gallery, then why aren't you all out doing it?

I curate a local gallery (as well as having been an established artist for over 35 years now). I have sold through commercial and very exclusive galleries under contract in the past, home shows, local co-ops, web site, art auctions, local shows and competitions: you name it, I've done it! And yes, I would add a vanity gallery to my arsenal to help me move my art! It is all necessary and relevant! I have sold over 1000 paintings in my life which has given me a good life! And I still sell!

A gallery has to cover, electricity, rent (or loss of rent to someone else), insurance, fees, rates, repairs, rubbish removal, management etc etc and maintenance and that's before the show. Then there's invitations (design and print), database build, press releases (they have to be researched and written), publicity, TV, radio, local and national media, Hanging systems, hanging the show, manning the show, sales and records keeping, supper (nibbles and wine), cleaning etc etc......and guess what....none of this is FREE!

You get to enjoy a days work in the quiet of the studio, a chat with the framer, and a delivery to the gallery......

It is worth every penny of 50% to market you as an artist and your work. The gallery (vanity, regional or commercial) gives you a credibility you don't get out of your front door.

So please, have respect for all of the marketing systems available to you as an artist and understand, the shows not over until it's sold! (or given away!) You get what you pay for in life and in art!

There are options, besides vanity galleries, for artists who are establishing a career: many libraries, community centres, churches, etc., provide exhibition space for novice artists, with various degrees of curation. In these venues, it is up to the artist to develop, and execute, a viable marketing plan, send out press releases, invitations, plan an opening, and possibly sit the "gallery". By doing this, the artist gets a feel for what is involved in running a commercial gallery, (and may appreciate the value that commercial galleries provide for their 50% commission) however, the costs may be significantly less than those associated with vanity galleries; the downside is difficulty in bringing in clientele beyond the artist's own circle, but it may give the artist the opportunity to show a body of work that may be less commercially viable than that normally handled by commercial galleries. Other career-development options may include the "art rental and sales" component that some museums and public galleries provide (the work of contemporary artists is displayed, usually in the gallery's gift shop, and is available for rent or sale to gallery members and businesses). Unless they are true "art stars", or arrive on the art scene with a mature and compelling vision, artists must assume some responsibility for building their own careers, however they go about it.

Joy, I totally agree with you. Traditional galleries usually earn every bit of the commission they charge and have valid reasons for the commission. Vanity galleries can be the right beginning for an artist if they have done the research on the particular vanity gallery and find everything reasonable and above board. But, no matter what route the artist takes to get their work out there, they must be personally involved in the promotion of their work. It helps the gallery -- whatever gallery.

Research -- that is the key to finding the right outlet for the level of your career. Get your work out there if that is your goal. Use the organizations and club shows, personal venues, vanity galleries, retail shops, traditional galleries, home shows, etc. Know what you are being asked to do and do it well.

I think Robert gave us much to think about and information to research in this tough economic time.

I totally agree with paying 50% and do to reputable galleries. I just cannot see giving money up front (vanity galleries) with no promise of a return.

I have been through most of the places Joy mentioned excluding vanity galleries, and also owning a gallery with 9 other artitsts. I would recommend that if you have a problem paying 50%.

Ten artists owned the business of the gallery, co-operative ownership is different than a co-op (the city of San Antonio owned the buiding). We each had a wall and floor space, we each worked one day a week and every fifth weekend in pairs. The gallery was open 7 days a week from 10-6. The rent (a old historic building) was 995.00 divided by 10 was 99.50 per month each (I always made my rent plus). A 2% commission was kept for bags, tape and packing supplies, 5% was kept for credit card sales.

After over a year I decided to go solo, for two reasons. One. three of the artists did not want to work any harder, they did not want a dot com or computer access. And also the time to man the gallery I could spent painting. I may try this concept again in the future with the right group of artists.

If anyone is seriously interested in this concept and has any questions you can email me through my site for some free help, I think its a very good concept that works. www.godenfineart.com

The gallery is still doing well enough, its located in this artistic village, La Villita, the gallery name is Galleria II .

As I was reading all these wonderful responses and came to the display of art from your 'premium listings', I realized that I always see the art featured there, and some of it I like, and some of it I don't, and really, these artists have paid a fee to have a premium listing and be featured, so what is this? A VANITY WEB LISTING??

I wish selling art could be like selling widgets. The store BUYS what they think they can sell, if they don't sell them, it's their problem and they have to discount them in the end in order to move them. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way for artists. Running a business costs a lot of money and why some feel that they can have their work shown, promoted and sold at no up-front cost, is beyond me. Only the most saleable (not necessarily the best) artists will make it under that system.

I bristled at the comment on the vanity gallery being the 'kiss of death'. Those 'IN' people in the art world can be so snobbish. I guess we can't all be in this elite group, otherwise it would not be elite, would it.

The world is changing. We need to adapt to survive. That is life.

Work on your craft and work on your marketing.

Between 10 and 30% of your profits should be put back into advertising.
Thousands of people cruise through the Painters Keys daily, (premium listings are 8.33 USD per month=advertising), There are other online sites that get thousands of visitors daily. Does any vanity galleries get even close to these numbers? I think not.

ps. Snobby IN artists don't post here, the seasoned artists that do are here helping others, even the ingrateful ones.

pss. Frame shops will sometimes take a portfolio full of paintings, (they get 50% plus the frame job)-a good place for getting out there and making some money.

I am an artist, gallery owner (Savannah Georgia) and I see both sides of the coin. I show in my gallery and in other galleries. I gladly give up 50% to dealers. I know the expense of running a gallery and the rewards you receive by having someone else represent your work. Most galleries do not make a lot of profit…this notion that galleries are greedy is false.

The other artists I represent in my gallery get promoted continuously to clients and get recommended to other galleries that may help with their careers…I am passionate about their work. These connections that galleries make are important. The galleries that represent me promote my work continuously. You can not buy that.

I feel strongly that having a gallery invested in you in some way is more valuable than the 30 days or however much you might be paying for. I would never pay to play.

Perhaps it's me but a Vanity Gallery gets your name out there and a place to hang your stuff. If I were to use one I would only consider the Vanity gallery a temporary stopping point and would spend my extra time drumming up support and trying to sell my paintings and using the gallery as an accessory to selling. I would put a time limit on how long to be there and work toward the goal of locating a better gallery to hang my stuff in that is commission based because paying someone to hang my stuff is eating into my profits (if I had any).
I think a Vanity Gallery can be a startup point on the road to riches, fame, and immortality. :o)

Lets face facts. Most of us (artists) make lousy salespersons. In fact, the whole process of marketing is a chore and time consuming, and I might add, for me a bit demeaning. We can have an endless discussion on that topic some other time. Like the many who post here, I've been the gallery route with the same disastrous results every time.
Selling your art, like the telephone, is a necessary intrusion on your valuable creative time. Who wouldn't love to sit in a studio or be outdoors painting til the cows come home?
My reality is this- if I could find one honest dealer with mutual interests in getting a fair deal, I would jump at it. The final analysis is we, as people and not just artist, want a fair shake and not be cheated, swindled or have the wool pulled over our eyes. The underlying purpose for selling is survival.
When I sell on my own, I adjust the price if it looks like I might lose the sale. I give the gallery the same right to do so. I just need to know they did their best to get top dollar. Simple. I wouldn't mind a monitory split in the gallery’s favor if they were honest with me.
After all, we are really mutual partners.

You know, as an artist who is just beginning to consider bringing her work to the marketplace, I would turn places like this down. I'm a lifelong art appreciator, and I come from a line of them. I fully believe that art should make it into galleries based on merit alone. I will show my work. I will pay to put it into shows and competitions; however, I will NOT pay to put it in galleries.

I will present my work to the world via my own online shops, and interested parties will either approach me, or they will not. I will accept either outcome (though I do favor one over the other) as the correct one for my work. Some will like it, and some won't.

None of that will stop me from creating it.

JenniferLynn Productions

It is a while since Darla said: "Patsy Tyler commented that she would never paint to order, no matter what. That's a noble sentiment, but portraits and other commissions are painted to order (maybe not to match the drapes, though!)." I should have explained further: I was thinking of the type of request: "A nice landscape with turquoise in it" - the kind of person who hasn't a clue. I find it stressful enough, without someone who knows nothing about art telling me I haven't matched their drapes. ;-) I love painting portraits, but would tend to paint only those faces that appeal to me; not on commission.
And I completely agree with you on this, Darla: "I would like to add that as artists, our job is to give people what they didn't know they wanted until they saw our paintings!"