Julie T. Chapman - ArtBlog

Upon further thought, to more directly answer your question- I’m utterly charmed by the notion of a “litmus test” for candidate support based on how well they score on art issues. Every other special interest group seems to issue “report cards”, why not one for the arts?

However, as an artist, I’d have to say that the art support/candidate consideration connection hasn’t even remotely crossed my mind other than the less money they have and the more anxious people are, the less that they are likely to buy a “luxury” good like art, which will affect all our bottom lines. It really is The Economy, Stupid. As the Dow goes, down, down, down.

We haven’t seen the worst of it yet. I think we’re at the “phony war” stage comparable to the eye of the hurricane. Time to batten down the hatches and just hang on.

I’d love to choose who to vote for based on how much they support the arts. Perhaps in four years. But, hey, maybe there’ll be WPA-style jobs for us in the meantime.

Don, great point about tracking art support locally (as in town, county, state)! That’s probably where the real action will always be for most of us..

I’ll pass on the wealthy collectors then and happily see the tax cuts go middle class and working class people instead. They have a lot fewer options.

The only thing that’s trickling down now is the crushing national debt that Bush has buried us in after starting his watch with a surplus. I have seen one discussion on the web that spending more in the short term (hence my WPA comment) may be necessary to right the ship.

“The more money these people must give to Uncle Sam the less they have to spend on art, so fewer artists will be able to make an honest living.” Red herring alert.

One of the advantages that being wealthy gives you is lots of ways to hang on to that wealth. I think it’s more a confidence issue than anything else. As your studies have probably revealed, what the markets don’t like is uncertainty and we got LOTS of that right now.

A 20% income hit, for example, hurts a lot more when you make $38,000 a year (the average income in my county), than $380,000.

The previous level of consumer spending isn’t (wasn’t) sustainable either economically or environmentally anyway, so I think we can safely say that we need to move on from that.

Sales of luxury goods like art are probably going to contract for the next few years and we will all have to be more creative and proactive in our marketing.

It will be interesting to see what happens at the big auctions, some of which set records in 2008. My guess is that they’ve peaked for the time being and the lucky ones will level off.

This all reminds me of the Gay 90’s, fantastic levels of conspicuous consumption followed by a return to reality (partly in the form of the imposition of income tax).

Susan says: “The previous level of consumer spending isn’t (wasn’t) sustainable either economically or environmentally anyway, so I think we can safely say that we need to move on from that.”

You can say that again.

It’s not just a matter of our not being able to afford our own consumption. The rest of the world can not afford it either.

Times like these are good for assessing priorities, both at a personal level and a governmental level.

We should be looking toward establishing a “sustainable” economy rather than an endlessly growing one.

That will almost certainly rub many economists the wrong way, but reality does have a tendency to do that (Just ask Alan Greenspan).

First of all, let me say that I value and respect the opinions that have been expressed. I don’t think there is a “right” answer, just different ways of looking at things. I think the way we vote comes down to what our priorities are and we all have the right to our own views. This is just the way I think about things, obviously affected by my background and profession, and I understand why others may have different views.

Susan: I wouldn’t be so quick to discount the value of wealthy collectors to the art community. I think they’re some of the biggest supporters of the arts and without their support there would surely be some major impacts on the art community. For instance, I’ve learned a great deal about painting from, and find major inspiration in, some of the more successful western/wildlife artists of our time. Without the support of their collectors those artists probably wouldn’t have had the chance to dedicate their lives to their art and I surely wouldn’t have been exposed to their great work. As a result, my art education would have suffered and I’m sure I’m not the only artist in this position. No matter the outcome of the election, I agree that some of the bigger auctions and galleries are going to see fewer sales. I think that’s unfortunate and there will be some businesses that close and people will lose jobs in the art world. It’s really very simple, if businesses suffer losses in sales they must cut costs to stay alive and the easiest variable cost to cut is labor. But that’s a whole different discussion.

As a member of the so-called “middle class”, I would much rather continue paying my fair share of taxes and have the tax cuts go to my customer base. This gives me the opportunity to pursue my own success and not receive a handout from the government. Sure, a middle-class tax cut would be guaranteed money in my pocket, but at what cost? I’ll be in a much happier place if I’ve grown my business and am providing for my family based on my hard work than I would be if the government was helping me get by. The long-term prospects for my business would be better as well.

I agree that confidence is a big factor. Historically, the markets have always been pretty rocky in election years. The people that play the biggest role in the financial markets are the same people that would be affected by an upper-class tax increase, and they’re obviously worried about that happening. Their fear has a substantial impact on the rest of us.

I also agree that the recent high levels of consumer spending aren’t sustainable. In my opinion, the problem has been created by the middle class overspending with credit and doesn’t have much to do with the upper class buying luxury goods that they can afford. Also, the guiltiest party in overspending is the US government. I’m happy to agree that Bush has gone way overboard on spending. The unfortunate thing is that both presidential candidates are proposing massive new spending plans, so from that standpoint things look pretty bad.

I should probably get back to painting!

“Are we willing to cut our prices so that more people can afford our work? If so, where will we sell it? Most galleries wont hang our work at those prices”

Don, I think this is exactly the kind of thinking artists need to engage in.

I am not a professional artist and am certainly no marketing expert (I give away most of my paintings so that tells you what kind of expert I am)

But it is pretty clear to me that the internet has completely changed the sales landscape in recent years — for everything, including artwork.

Without the middle man (or woman), artists could sell their paintings for half or even less what they now do and still make the same profit.

This alone might open up a completely new market.

Galleries basically offer exposure, which can almost certainly be gained in other ways through the internet.

There is really no reason why people have to go to a gallery to buy artwork.

This is the traditional sales method, of course, but it is hardly necessary or even desirable.

In some regard, I think that galleries have contributed to an atmosphere in which artists are actually afraid to sell their work outside the gallery circuit.

Julie has alluded to that a couple times:

never, EVER do an end-run around a gallery. In my workshops, I tell stories I’ve heard from dealers about this. They find out).

That sounds like an intimidation tactic on the part of the galleries, if you ask me.

Larry, if I cut my prices because times are tough I’ve essentially screwed the collectors and buyers who paid the higher price in the past. My price is my price (per square inch, by the way), whether the buyer got the painting from me or a gallery. Why shouldn’t I pocket the extra 40-50% if I make a legit direct sale? Why would I slit my own financial throat by cutting my prices? We’re not selling Dodge Dingbats here, but one-of-a-kind original art. If we don’t respect what we do why should anyone else?

I don’t mess with my pricing structure out of respect for buyers current and future. I think that that’s part of being a professional. And I totally agree with Julie about not going behind one’s gallery.

You are right about new, alternative marketing channels and I have gotten queries from shows and my website. In two cases, oddly enough, the sale didn’t happen because the paintings were “too small”. Sigh.

I think that one of the ways we all get through the next few years is to support each other. I find Alison Stanfield’s site, http://www.artbizcoach.com to be very helpful.

Julie, I think that quote you had in your last artzine was very apropo-about how art is a refuge. Could you post that again? It was something I believe a gallery owner said to you when you were down in Jackson.

Here’s hoping that we all live long enough to see art and culture (as opposed to culture wars) back on the national radar.

I guess that stirred up the pot.

Julie:

It was not clear to me that that was what you were talking about and I apologize if I misrepresented your words. I agree that selling the painting independently when the gallery had already found the buyer is sleazy.

But as with everything else, there are “gray areas.”

For example, what if I had a painting in a gallery that was not selling and someone saw it on my website (ie, not at the gallery) and inquired about buying it? In that case, the gallery has no claim to any of the profit as far as I can see. Perhaps i am wrong, but I can certainly envision a gallery getting ticked off if they found out I took a painting out of their gallery to sell it independently. I am sure the obvious question from the gallery would be “Did they see it at our gallery?” and not sure that the answer “No” from me would be acceptable to all galleries.

Incidentally, another artist that i know has indicated reservations to me about selling paintings independently at lower prices because he thought his galleries might “find out” and be ticked off. So I don’t think my impressions are completely in left field.

Susan asks: “Why shouldn’t I pocket the extra 40-50% if I make a legit direct sale?”

Far be it from to tell you how to sell your paintings! I don’t know much about this stuff and what i said above was basically thinking out loud.

Don was asking about ways to get those with less money to buy art. “Charge less” is the obvious answer. Many people can simply not afford to buy a painting for over $1000 (not even a small one) but if the price is cut in half, they might be able to.

But you could be right about it affecting the value of the paintings you have already sold. I really don’t know.

So, now I will shut up.

I’m sure you’re all sick of hearing my opinions so I’ll just make a few more points. I’m not trying to influence anyone’s vote, just bringing up some different points of view.

I don’t think cutting prices or eliminating gallery representation is a good idea for many artists, but everyone’s situation is different. Galleries do a lot more for the art community than just sell art. I’m happy to give my galleries their 40% because they earn it by further exposing the general public to and endorsing fine art as a whole.

I think with the downturn in the economy we could see a resurgence of the print market, including giclees. If this is what’s necessary for artists to stay afloat then so be it. I could be totally wrong though. The approach I plan on taking is to keep working really hard to improve my paintings. I hope to further increase my sales in that way. If your art is good enough, it probably doesn’t matter what’s going on in the economy, you’re going to sell some of it. The businesses that are the most successful are those that can adapt to different economic situations, and that doesn’t exclude artists. We all need to constantly evaluate what works and what doesn’t work for us, now and in the future.

In response to Paul’s comments: I agree that Bush hasn’t been anywhere near perfect but when comparing his administration to Clinton’s I think you have to mention some major events that had drastic affects on the numbers you mention and were out of the president’s control. Clinton benefited from a huge explosion of growth caused by the introduction of the Internet and e-commerce. It could also be argued that he benefited greatly by lagging affects of Reagan policies that were introduced during the 80’s but took time to work their way through the system. In Bush’s defense, he had 9/11 to deal with, which could have totally destroyed America’s economy. I think he handled it pretty well and for many people it’s hard to find any major lasting economic affects. If a major terrorist attack like 9/11 happened during Clinton’s watch, I’m sure the figures would be quite different.

I was simply using the affect of trickle down economics on professional artists as one example of different issues that can affect us. I admit that my opinions are based on my own self-interest. I don’t think either candidate’s policies benefit everyone in the country. If a business relies heavily on the middle class as their customers then they may benefit by policies directed towards those people. I was simply using high-end collectors as one example. Art isn’t the only thing wealthy people spend money on. They buy a lot of things and inject a lot of money into the economy, which in turn creates a lot of jobs. Whether you’re an artist, work in a restaurant, or build luxury homes you benefit when the rich are spending.

It’s true that CEO pay is outrageous, but who are we to decide how much they deserve. Their pay and bonuses are decided by the boards of their companies, who are elected by their shareholders. If people truly care that much then they should stop investing in and buying the products of those companies. One of the best things about America is that we have that choice. Plus, high CEO pay may not have trickled down to the workers in that particular company, but certainly those CEOs spend that money somewhere. Every product or service they purchase creates jobs somewhere.

Thanks, Julie!