Second Decade + 2

Second Decade + 2
oil pastel 32x52"

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Typical art world craziness

Several weeks ago I got a call from my local art dealer telling me that a corporation was interested in buying my "Science Fair III" series, 7 framed monochromatic 36"x28" oil pastel drawings based on the 7 main colors of the light spectrum. He told me the piece had been installed for over a week and the corporation was ready to sign a contract EXCEPT for the small fact that their budget was less than the already reduced price of the piece. It seems there's a "gotcha!" in every scenario.

Since this work was essentially 15 years old I was willing to reduce the price by 1/3 its original cost. I also, for the first time, agreed to sell the pieces individually, effectively breaking up the set, provided at least 3 pieces were purchased. I completed 6 versions of this particular theme and 4 have sold through the years, 2 privately and 2 in institutions. Interestingly enough the original "Science Fair" (which requires a wall at least 30" wide to install) was shown as part of my "Phoenix Rising" exhibition last fall and was an enormous crowd pleaser. I understand the fact that pricing 7 framed images as 1 unified piece makes the cost sound very high so it doesn't surprise me that, despite having been exhibited 5 times through the years, the largest version has not yet found a home for itself. It will when the time comes but having 2 left to sell motivated me to seriously consider a counteroffer for "SF3".

Rather than trying to get more money from this potential customer I decided to ask for more than the usual 50% artist's split since I had already offered a large reduction. Some dealers are so pro-artist that they will cut their commission if it is the only way to save the sale. I was willing to cut my own commission an additional 10% provided the 2 dealers involved would each cut theirs by 25% in order to remain within the client's stated budget. As it turned out, this proposal was acceptable to all parties. As my wise brother Tom once said, sold work beats unsold inventory by a mile.......

So what's the problem? When I was notified the sale would go through I was also notified it would probably be  about 18 months before I'd get paid!!!!!!!! Having been a part of this corporate program in the past I was well aware that in most cases they tie up work for a year before the client decided which pieces they will actually purchase. The available money is usually some percentage of the total value of the works installed. It's why most artists give older pieces to the program  -  better to see them on a wall in some bank or commercial institution than have them in a closet. But in this particular instance, work had already been contracted for installation earlier in 2011. This same client expanded their space and needed additional work in August which is where "SF3" came into play. At the time I knew nothing about any of this since I had originally been told the work was going to be installed in the lobby of our local cable TV company. Change of plans as to location. But when I was called initially I (wrongly) assumed this was one of the cases where the corporate art marketer had an immediate purchase request and "SF3" fit the bill. What I didn't know was that rather than piggybacking the additional inventory on 2011"s conract they wrote an entierly new contract for 2012 ( despite the fact this was only August 2011). In this scenario I would have to wait until the end of 2012 (August 2012 at the earliest) for payment. It's how the contract was written and as an artist I am essentially powerless to affect any changes.

The "gotcha!" is that somebody loves my work and is willing to pay their entire budget to have it BUT they won't be asked to pay until that contract expires late in 2012. They have signed the purchase agreement and will enjoy the artwork free of charge until then. Will I need the money at that point? Certainly. Do I really need that money right now? You BET!!! And the sad part is that these sorts of deals are typical of the flaming hoops artists are asked to jump through all the time. Burn baby burn.

2 comments:

  1. Hi Susan, I met you last year when your work exhibited in New Albany at the Carnegie. This seems so atypical of what I'd expect to happen in the world of business having not sold to corporations. Its exploitative in my opinion. This will stick with me if ever I'm nearing this type of transaction...thank you for sharing your experience.
    http://karoda.typepad.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Karoda sorry it took a while to read your comment. Thanks for reading and voicing your opinion. The art world is so fragmented these days that anything and everything seems to be reinvented on the spur of the moment. Exploitive? Maybe. But many many galleries have been exploitive for a variety of reasons. Things used to be even harder for women artists. Anyone who wants his/her work out in public view has to recognize the very real possibility that someone will see it and like it enough to want to see and possibly buy. Wwwwwwwhen the bottom line is finding a buyer, then in rough times that buyer has even more of n upper hand than is usual.

    ReplyDelete