That's REALLY Cool! But I Just Don't Think Anyone Will PAY That For It!

When you're in sales-- and especially selling art-- you get to overhear an interesting cross section of commentary from visitors.

My wife and I both eavesdrop and listen carefully to what people are saying... which tends to be fairly candid as long as people still think we're "just employees," rather than the proprietors of the gallery.

So What Have We Learned?

On the plus side, it's very gratifying to overhear people call our little establishment "one of the coolest stores they've ever been to" and "my new favorite store" and "Awesome" and "Beautiful."

It's also nice to hear that many people have an open appreciation for many different kinds of art... even though some of the "weird art" we sometimes have on the wall seems to zoom right over some folks' heads.

On the minus side is a kind of "disconnect" over the cost-- or price-- of art. With the exception of a tiny handful of people who are art collectors and patrons who fully understand the creative process, public perception of what a piece of art "should" cost and what it actually costs typically presents a huge gap.

Sometimes we are able to have candid conversation with visitors and we've gradually come to see that the public perception of "non-elite" (as in, not created by a famous artist) art is that it should only cost about 20-25% of what it actually costs. For example, we hear people say "I'd probably get that for $100" about a piece we have on the wall for $375 or $450. 

Inconsistency of Value

What's also interesting-- and occasionally a little depressing-- is how hard someone will work to find the least expensive item in the gallery-- usually a $2 art postcard-- just so they can buy something from their new favorite store.

So what's the problem?

Now maybe this sounds a bit like a case of sour grapes, but it's the incongruence of the situation that baffles me, because this same person struggling to find a $2 postcard is carrying bag with several $25 bottles of flavored olive oil from the very swank store across the street.

The bottom line becomes that there's a major gap between the degree to which people are willing to verbally and emotionally support artists and the arts... and the degree to which they back it up, financially.

The REALITY of "The Myth of the Starving Artist"

And it's not a pretty picture, if you're an artist: If you were to offer your work at prices that were in alignment with the broader perception of "fair pricing," you'd be agreeing to work for less than half the current minimum wage.

Of course, some would insist that "artists shouldn't be creating for the MONEY-- that's selling out!"

Whether or not I agree with that statement is irrelevant here... the fact remains that artists also have to pay rent, pay for electricity and eat-- just like you and me-- and that takes money.

For the "functionalists" who want to debate that point with me, I typically point out that we can also just STOP creating art and use that same time to go to work at a paying job... at which point surprisingly find themselves caught in the hypocrisy of strongly wanting there to BE art, but not wanting to afford artists a living wage. 

And yet? They would never consider selling their lawyering, doctoring, accounting, or carpentry services "at cost." 

"Yeah, but that's different," the argument goes.

Is it? Is it really?

Share your opinion: Are artists-- and particularly "career" artists-- any less entitled to receive "fair compensation" for their talents and efforts than anyone else? Is the argument "yeah but it's not an essential product or service" a valid argument for leaving a profession undercompensated? Is art "worth" less because it is "frivolous?"

The Red Dragonfly is an independent alternative art gallery located in Port Townsend, WA; showcasing edgy and unique contemporary art & handmade crafts by local and worldwide artists. All images are our own, unless otherwise credited. Artist images used with permission.