Why I Refuse To Pay For Exposure: Classism In Art
Let’s be honest about something - Art costs a lot of money. This is ironic because, historically, the underprivileged have had the most to express. So here we are, shelling out our last dollar bills till payday on film, paint, paper, canvases, and any other material imaginable. But we aren’t done spending money there. That film? Gotta develop it. The canvas? That needs a frame. That frame needs glass. It needs a foam backing. And it needs hanging hardware, so that’s another few bucks. So when a gallery offers you a show, that’s great! But it’s also a hundred or two dollars, minimum. And what about galleries that make you pay for exposure? Well, that’s bullshit.
There are two kinds of galleries that make you pay for exposure. The first is the kind that makes you pay for wallspace. In the average pay-for-space gallery in Detroit metro, that’s a monthly fee of $75 to $100 and a joining fee that runs $200 to $900. So from the get go, you’re including almost exclusively artists that are already established enough to the point where a grand don’t mean a thing and/or you’re definitely sacrificing quality. I cannot tell you how many e-mails I’ve gotten from galleries that would love to have my work on their walls… After I pay them a month’s worth of car insurance and groceries.
The other kind of gallery that makes you pay for expsoure is incredibily common - They’re the kind of place that has near-monthly contests, which of course you have to pay to enter. Some places have a reasonable entry fee of $10, which is understandable but still makes me uneasy. A low entry fee could be deemed necessary to promote the event and to make the gallery presentable for a successful opening night reception. It can also go to award the winner a cash prize. More often that not, however, galleries will let you enter up to 3 or 4 pieces for an entry fee that usually runs about $50. Is that necessary?
Lets run through the cost again. Let’s say I’m entering 3 pieces - That’s approximately $15 in prints and $50 in framing if we’re being reasonable. That’s not including the time it took to make the piece and the work that went into it (That pricing is so subjective). So with the entry fee and the pieces, we are already over $100. And since these competitions are juried, it is not guaranteed all these pieces will show. (Recently, I was invited to participate in a contest that cost $25 for two pieces. One - ironically the professionally framed and matted one under glass - did not even get in so what did that $100 go for exactly? That money could have been better spent but more on that later.) It is almost certain that if you do sell a piece at one of these shows that the gallery will take about 40% comission. That means most art I enter has to be priced at a much higher price point than I would like it to be, certainly making it unsellable.
For transparency’s sake, let’s add it up. I have a print that’s quite large, it cost about $18. The matting cost $36. The frame cost another $35. If I had glass for it, that would have been about $70 because of the fact that it’s oversized. We’re at $159 for the art itself. If I were to sell it for less than $300 with the gallery’s 40% commission factored in, that means my profit is $21. After getting the picture reprinted, I make $3. After getting it reframed, I’m in the hole. I wouldn’t expect this piece of art to sell for more than $300 but I don’t want to take a loss… But if we factor in the cost of entering anything into competition or paying for wallspace, I’ve already taken a loss, haven’t I?
Art should not be a rich person’s hobby. It should not be only for the well off and the more fortunate. Classism in art is a real problem. Art is not an even playing field and that is wrong. The reason I started doing analog art was because I couldn’t do digital art. I could not afford a computer so I couldn’t photoshop. I started cutting apart magazines. I couldn’t afford a digital camera so I spent literally pocket change on a used 35mm. What I have created, I am more proud of than I could ever be of pixels and pngs and I never would have done any of it if I had money. Lack of resources forces ingenuity. But that ingenuity should be rewarded, not nickel and dimed to death. If Frida Khalo and Diego Rivera had to pay for exposure, I doubt they’d have a DIA exhibit going on today.
The fact of the matter is that art is only for the affluent. These funds collected go right back into the galleries and a lot of these non-profits are doing nothing to give back to the community. (Where are the free after school art programs? Where are the drives for supply donations in good communties that are being outsourced to lower income areas? Let’s be real, Metro Detroit. You can drive a few paint brushes to Midtown.) Instead of paying for exposure, I am going to take those funds and spend them on supplies for the less fortunate. All it took today was a quick google search of non-profit arts programs for kids in Detroit to hook me up with a few great outlets. I don't know about you but I think that’s a much better way to spread the positivity of art than paying to have some rich people gaze at my work for a few hours. Honestly, I encourage every artist that’s reading this to do the same.
Additionally, I call for a transparency of funds allocated by these galleries, particularly in the instances of non-profits. Where are these entry fees going exactly? At least fifty people participated in the last exhibit I was a part of. That’s $1,250 and I cannot imagine all of that went towards glass cleaner, price tags, and wine. It would be nice to know how non-profits are giving back to their community, particularly in the greater Detroit area. There is a lot of good here that artists can do and currently that good is not being done. If anyone has a chance at changing that, it’s artists. Artists change the world.
