Why don't 'regular people' or 'non artists' spend money on art?
"Artists are perplexed NON -ARTISTS why r u more comfortable spending $ on jewelry, clothing, handbags than paintings?"
Artist Jan Blencowe asked the above question on her twitter stream today (twitter.com/janblencowe_art), which caught my attention for several reasons. I think this cuts right to the heart of the frustration that many artists feel these days - 'I know my art is wonderful, and I know that people have money to spend on other luxuries, so why do I have such a hard time selling any art?'
If you don't know who Jan Blencowe is, you may be tempted to pass this off as a beginning artist question - maybe she just needs to work on her art a bit more, or learn some basic marketing skills, or learn how to network? Well, Jan Blencowe is a master of all of the above - visit her blog at http://www.thepaintingadayproject.com/ . She is a very talented, accomplished, prolific artist, a teacher, a great marketer, and a very active member of the online and offline art communities. Jan is a professional artist in every sense of the word. But, she still has to wrestle from time to time with the same question as most other artists on all levels - 'why don't more people buy art?'.
So, what is the answer? How can we sell more art?
First, we need to understand that there are a few fundamental shifts happening in the art world right now. If we fail to understand these changes, and to react to them, we will fail to thrive as artists.
1) Images are a commodity, whether you want them to be or not. There was a time in the world when a nicely painted image was a rare and wonderful thing. These images were available only in museums and galleries, or in the collections of art patrons. Now, images are everywhere - images of all styles and quality and price ranges. Just about any type of image you can envision has been created in many variations already, and is available to view or buy many places online and offline. There are no longer any barriers to creating, selling, viewing, and buying most types of images.
Even the most talented of artists will have to come to terms with this reality - as beautiful as your images may be, somebody somewhere is selling images that are nearly as nice for a fraction of the price you're charging. And, most of your potential customers have no idea why your images are any better or more expensive than similar images. This trend will continue indefinitely. Our images may still be wonderful, but they are not rare and so they are not in demand.
2) Artists are a commodity. Artists are everywhere. Each one of us is unique and special, and not replaceable as a person. But, from a market standpoint there are way too many artists, producing way too much art for the current demand, and most of it is interchangeable. Yes, much of it is absolutely wonderful artwork, but there just isn't that much demand for new original art within the traditional art market. There are too many artists competing for the same small piece of the market.
3) The traditional 'art market' is not keeping pace with the growth rate of artists and artwork. By the traditional art market, I mean art shows and fairs, galleries, museums, art patrons and high level collectors, government grants, and all of the other institutions that have traditionally supported the arts. There are simply not enough art venues, and enough customers and supporters of these venues, to support all of the artists that want to sell their work.
So, that leaves us with only three options as artists:
a) We can all continue to fight for visibility within galleries and other art establishments. Many artists are competing for the same limited audience, and we should continue to strive to reach this audience - good galleries and their patrons will probably always be the best way to sell high end artwork.
b) We can establish our own art establishments. We've seen quite a bit of this over the past few years - with artists selling directly online, through online galleries like my own dailypainters.com, and many other online galleries that pop up every day on the internet. This is a great way for artists to take some control over their careers and create new opportunities for themselves, and I'm sure that the number and quality of these new galleries will continue to grow. But, this will not be enough to help most artists survive.
c) We can find new audiences for our work. Probably at least 70% of artwork is sold to a relatively small group of people: art collectors, and other artists. These are the people who care enough about art to actively seek out art in their communities and online, and to spend money to support the arts. I don't have any statistics, but I'd bet that this customer base represents only a very small part of our potential audience. This small audience cannot support all artists, no matter how deserving they may be. Artists need to reach out to a larger audience.
If we want to survive as artists, we must find ways to build an audience outside of the traditional circle of art collectors and artists. We have to make ourselves relevant to the rest of the world.
Let's go back to Jan's original question: why are so many people willing to spend money on jewelry, handbags, clothes, or other luxuries than on paintings? What about all of those high end electronics, fancy cell phones, sporting goods, movie tickets, sporting events, luxury cars, or any number of other frivolities?
Why do you spend your money on the things you buy? If you're like 99% of the people I know, you spend your money first on the things you have to buy for basic survival - like food, shelter, transportation, etc. Then, if there's a little bit left over, you spend it on the things that are special to you - maybe you feel good driving a fancier car, or wearing some new jewelry. Or, you really enjoy watching live sports, or going to concerts or movies. Or, maybe you want to support your church or local charities. Or, maybe you like to buy art. But, there is one category of things that almost nobody spends their money on:
Most people don't spend money on things that don't have any immediate personal benefit to them! If we want to sell art, we need to find a way to make our work meaningful and beneficial to 'average people'.
Whether it's a real measurable benefit or a perceived benefit, we spend our money on things that are important to us. And, there are too many possible ways to spend our money - good or bad. So, things like 'pretty paintings' just don't make it onto most shopping lists. Yes, I know that idea offends most artists as we all know how beneficial our work is to the world. But, if most people don't see our work as important to them, they won't buy it.
We need to find ways to make our work - the actual images and the stories we tell about ourselves and about our work - more relevant. We need to get out of the 'art world' and into the real world. We need to ask ourselves not 'why does nobody buy art', but 'how can I connect my artwork to my customers lives'.
For example, how many artists focus on landscape paintings but know very little about the scenes they are painting? Maybe some of our favorite plein air spots - farms, beaches, mountains, or whatever - have some special histories and meanings? And, maybe most of the people who most love these places will never step foot into the local art gallery or browse for art online? How can you engage these communities in a conversation about the places they love, through your artwork and your writing?
So, how can we - through our paintings, our blogging, our tweeting, and our other networking - tell a story that is more meaningful and engaging to those around us? How can we identify some small niche and build connections not based on a common love of art, but on a common love of something else - some thing, some place, some shared story and experience? How can we ask the right questions, and listen in the right way, to build new relationships with 'non artists'? Then, how can we tailor our artistic offerings to fit the wants and needs of this new audience?
Great Insights
Thank you so very much for taking the time to unravel this thorny question and present a possible answer that artists can actually act on.
In my own plein air work I often find people who purchase have a connection to the scene in the painting.
However, more importantly my focus on evoking a sense of spirituality,tranquility and harmony in my paintings has become the niche market I serve.
People who are sensitive spirituality find my paintings an outward expression of what they experience internally and love to purchase them to serve as a physical reflection of their inner life that graces their home.
I also find that people that are facing challenging and stressful life situations gravitate towards my paintings. Having them in their home or work environment brings them a sense of peaceful relief from their burdens. This is most likely because I myself live with a challenging and often stressful life situation having a grown ausistic son. My paintings are my own way of tapping into peace and calm and I suspect they serve that purpose for many people who purchase them.
As with so many things artists do, we must dig deep to find the gem that makes us shine and recognize it before we can share it with others.
Why people buy art
People buy a new handbag or piece of jewelry or designer wrist watch when they don't need it because wearing or using it says something about them. Art on your walls does the same thing, and many people are afraid to make the decision about that art because it unmasks them. Someone comes in their home and comments on the art - either positive or negative - and an explanation must be made. "Oh, I took a trip there once" or "It's the artist's interpretation of life after death and the meaningless of it all...whatever". Their clothes are removed, figuratively. It's revealing.
So, our job is to make it not only easier, but more personal, and help the collector understand WHY they like our art - and then they will feel "safer" when they purshase it.
If they get to know us, their response can simply be "Oh, I met this artist once and really liked their work and the stories behind their paintings". Safe, true explanation and a good starting point.....
ART ON THE WALLS
When I buy art, it has to touch my heart...I never think or care who will like or dislike it on my walls. I buy it for ME. It is "MY ART"...it's who I am. I don't need approval from society to buy anything.
And that's the problem today: People want to keep an image and they end up not being true to their selfs!
Why don't regular people buy art?
Why would you spend $2000 on a designer bag (useful for a couple seasons) instead of a painting (probably on your wall for a lifetime)?
This question has been going around in my head for a long time. Here are a couple possible answers:
Americans are very insecure about their artistic judgments, and in recent decades the market-making in art that not many people understand has compounded this problem. Do they want to stand by a painting that doesn't qualify as a good "investment" just because they love it? The designer bag (and many of them are truly ugly!) has already been sanctified by the tastemakers in the glossy magazines. The solution? Educating the average person to refine their artistic passion and stand by their preferences...not easy.
Also, the bag, or electronic gadget is seen to have more utility than a painting, thereby justifying the expense. Since many people have never had the experience of living with a complex piece of original art, an object that they look at, learn from and converse with over time, there is little realization among our populace that art provides lasting and meaningful returns. Our Puritan heritage is partly to blame here, and I see a good direction in product design, which was always terrible compared with Europe or Japan, and is now much improved here. Maybe people are starting to realize the everyday "nutrition" of living with beautiful objects.
These are both issues that a good gallerist should be addressing on a case by case basis...but we need a better way to catch up faster and educate the general populace that it's in their interest to buy art that they love.
Meaningful art
Some good thoughts here all around. Making art that is meaningful to the artist is starters, and done with respect for the technique is essential. Viewers cannot relate to art on a computer monitor the same way they will in person, so the new cyber galleries is relatively new phenomena that is building.
More communities it seems are picking up the silent fund raising auction with local art being donated, so this puts strain on retail prices for art as well. It's seems there are auctions every season in my area, and people like to buy art in these venues.
Auction
Candy, The last couple of auctions I sent work to I told them that I would donate only if I got 50% of the retail value. They got anything in addition to that. It worked. They paid me after the paintings sold, recieving anything beyond the 50%. I got so tired of being repeatedly asked for work to donate. I felt this reflected the quality and it didn't devalue the work since it would be sold for a reasonable amount. Many times auctioned work is sold for a fraction of the value.
The truth about Jan
The truth about Jan Blencowe's art is that it's just not that good. Not sure why you would claim she is some master. Compare her to a corot or sargent landscape and you'll get my drift. Probably 99.9% of 'artists' i come across shouldn't be anywhere near a canvas... perhaps they could have been artisans in another era - decorating floor mouldings, carving rocking chair arms or something. The truth is, talent is god given, and you can't intellectualize your way to being an artist - you got it or you don't. Of course it can be a double edged sword - unwavering belief in yourself is so important, but delusional belief is more often the case.
With conceptual art, galleries that need to sell are in a tough spot - trying to be relevant, but having a hard time selling the UGLY to their patrons. Here in vancouver, the high end galleries always make money selling the good looking stuff, but brag about the conceptual crap they put in thier windows.
LIke anything else, there is a flood of ugly and/or overpriced artwork on the marketplace, which makes it a bit difficult for the talented newcomer, but its like they say 'the cream rises to the top'. Most artists with no talent or vision just aren't told they suck... so they go on struggling and wonder why 'no one buys art' which is a crock. Reminds me of the tryouts on american idol.
Generally upperclass types buy gallery art, and they collect art, that's the way it is - probably becaue they spend less time in front of the boob tube rotting their brains. Sad but true....Of course internet art is a different matter, but no one is going to buy a 50" contemporary oil painting online.
The truth about YOU
Hello Anonymous,
Glad to see that you believe in speaking your mind about what you believe, think and feel. It is too bad that you could not have done so with a bit more class and diplomacy. There was no reason to publicly put Jan's work down. It was thoughtless and demeaning. You could have gotten your point across in different ways. I believe that visual art is subjective and meaningful to the artist as well as the people who admire it. Don't diminish that for others. There may be works that you think are magnificent and others would simply pass by. Art can and should be enjoyed by all and it is through education and exposure that it becomes a part of everyday life. Art is not just for the elite high society. The world is changing with technology and the internet is reaching more and more people with all kinds of art. This is an exciting time we live in and the dedicated artist has more opportunity than ever before. I hope that this helps you to think a bit differently about artists and the process we go through to create our work. It is growth, expression, feelings, passion and more that we put into our work. Not all of it is going to be the best, some of it will "suck" as you say, but a dedicated artist is on a journey. Don't try to crush or discourage it..... nurture and educate!
Mindy
http://www.studio16online.com
re: the truth about Jan
Dear Mr. Anonymous - I'd love to see your art - it must be truly spectacular, and you must be so busy selling it that you barely have time to read this online nonsense :-)
my first response was almost to delete your comment about Jan - this is a forum for constructive discussion, not for publicly insulting other artists. However, there are some interesting points in your reply:
Jan's art is 'not that good' to some people, but absolutely wonderful to others. The point here is that you don't need to please everybody. Look around at all of the other products in the world - artistic and otherwise. Many of them are 'not that good' in many peoples' opinions, but they still sell because they meet the needs of some buyer somewhere. There is not one absolute aesthetic taste in the world, a single absolute judgement of what is good or bad art - art is an expression and a conversation.
The most important thing about Jan, or any other artist is this: 1) have a vision for what you want to express in your art, and why, and 2) find ways to connect with people who can relate to your vision. That's it. The art business is a conversation between an artist and their fans - your goal as an artist is to create strong, lasting connections with a small group of fans who truly believe in you.
It is not only "upperclass types" who buy art. The trick is, figure out who might relate to your art, and then go find them and start a conversation to figure out how you can provide a product that meets their needs - and price range - while staying true to your artistic vision
For any artist who's not selling well enough, the answer is surprisingly simple: you haven't yet learned enough about your customers and their needs and interests, and until you can find a way to do that you will not see consistent sales
the truth about Jan
Very interesting and challenging page, I'm glad you didn't delete the post
it is a little unkind but essentially true. On looking the the painting a day galleries
very few are really technically capable. Painting well is just very hard
and there not going to be many stubborn enough to get really good. Most artists
earn their crusts by painting things they are asked to paint, (Myself included).
Painting something that just might take someones fancy is harder still, the chances
of that potential buyer seeing let alone buying your masterpiece is very small.
The wonder is that they do sell at all. I do notice on a quick trawl through
that the consistent sellers are the better artists which is a bit reassuring as
it shows there are appreciative and educated eyes out there.
I actually think the "Artists Blog" approach is very promising, though doing one
painting every day just for the hell of it seems a bit random. You have after all
to believe that the damn thing is worth the while.
I think though it's going to be the way, that painters will have to pitch their wares
online, what is going to remain true however is that it's a hard road and only a
very very few will ever make a fortune.
wow!
Very righteous, down right agressive/condoning and UN_SENSITIVE comments! Actually, extremely angry words!
Creativity is everyboy's divine right.
But, in the other hand is right to say that "Not everybody's art" is ready to be "put out" in the world to sell...
I agree absolutely with the "Upperclass" types, 100%.
Cristina.
make your art credible
Interesting new site Micah - I'm not sure about the title (which seems a tad on the negative side!) but the content is relevant and interesting
One of the things artists need to think about is their credibility and how they can make their CV one that buyers will want to boast about - that's why doing things like entering art competitions and winning prizes actually matters. It's not just that it helps you in getting into galleries, it also tells the punter that somebody else thinks your art is good too. That provides reassuarance when they're weighing up whether to buy or not.
re: make your art credible
See my latest blog post for an explanation of my negative title :-)
As for making your art credible, my response is: Maybe.
The first question you need to answer is 'what is the vision I am selling', and then 'who would want to buy into my vision, and why'? But, we can't answer these questions in a vacuum - sitting in our studios or at our computers. We need to create a hypothesis and then go out and test it somehow.
If you find that the most likely customer base for your art is people who care about things like credibility and actually read your CV, then you should definitely work on improving in this area. But, you may also find that there's a huge market for your work among people who don't even know what the letters CV stand for. Maybe they care about your story and your product, but not for the reasons you'd expect.
So, I'm not saying not to polish your credibility in the traditional way - entering competitions and earning awards. But, it's a long, slow, expensive process - make sure you have a clear understanding of your market first, or you may find yourself a few years from now as a talented artist with an impressive list of credentials and awards, and no sales :-) In the end, the most important judges of your work are those who purchase it, not those who give out awards
See my latest blog post for more ...
Why don't 'regular people' or 'non artists' spend money on art?
Simple. Most living artists still produce art that was relevant in early 20th century, forgetting in the process that they are essentially producing only static images and objects that have to compete with the millions of similar visual stimuli in our everyday environment. Advertising, TV, magazine graphics, attractive products (functional design), and the constant visual bombardment we are continually subjected to all mean that, once home, most people prefer quiet walls even if that means bare walls. Those putting up anything are the 99% of the general population buying inexpensive framed posters for decor because the magazines say so. The rest are collectors buying brand-name art for investment purposes only.
Nowhere is it written that people, including the educated and wealthy, absolutely have to have original paintings and sculptures in their homes. This is the nostalgic image most artists today still desperately cling on. Maybe being an artist in 2010 is just a bad business, since money seems at issue here, and most people making art should stick to just making it for themselves (as self-therapy or hobby) and forget about making a living from it. Art making today is a flawed business model. Flat static images are remnants of a past where human fantasy was not fed otherwise and those still trying to sell painstakingly handmade images only need to look around them to understand they are in the wrong business, no matter the "quality" of their product. It is not the quality that's at issue, it's the fact that art today has become strictly cheap decor, when it is even that.
Make your art for your own good but like all objects created only for the pleasure of their maker, there is no market for something not serving someone else's needs.
the inverse of this argument
the inverse of this argument is simple: if our art products are not relevant to peoples' needs, we need to engage in conversations about what they really want and need - how can we turn our artistic ideas into products that people actually care to buy
Why wall art in the 21st century?
Micah, this is an excellent blog if only because it forces artists to reconsider certain aspects of their profession, especially the WHY. Unfortunately, wall art today does not lend itself to easy comparisons with most other man-made products out there, including custom-made ones. I come from a design and business background and I find it incredible that, of all creative types, it seems only visual artists are resisting adapting to the societal and economic realities of our century. Why that is has been the subject of many books and articles but in my opinion it is largely due to the heavy hand of the Art Establishment and associated royalty and high priests reveling in their majority shareholder roles and the obvious financial advantages of the status quo and the art stock exchange. We all know who they are.
Can you imagine today any writer, musician, film maker, or actor, creating strictly for recognition from the system and not to communicate with a target audience? Visual artists are the only ones crazy, naive or stupid enough to seek peer acceptance before public success and the financial rewards that come with it as well as the immense personal rewards resulting from having connected to large numbers of other people. What good is art if it fails to communicate? If it fails to speak? Then, of course, many will ask "can static objects and images still be made to speak today?" And if they can be made, do their voices have a chance in the cacophony of stimuli around us? The world of today is a very noisy place and there are many who think that our getting used to inexpensive an disposable objects has forever altered our relationship to all artifacts, art included.
If art is no longer the precious, sacred object of the past, it begs the question "why on earth still work so hard to make it while enduring financial distress"? I will agree "true" artists will create no matter what (a form of SM behavior), but it follows that visual art has a unique problem compared with other arts: distribution. Film, music and books are all easily broadcast to very large numbers of people and can be quickly previewed and/or evaluated, but especially purchased. Paintings and sculptures are unique, delicate expensive objects sitting in a gallery somewhere that people must travel to in order to fully appreciate (unless you believe art appreciation on a computer screen does the art justice).
The "problem" is logistical, in my view, rather than in the marketing. Artists haven't yet figured out a way to keep pace with current technologies and the way people evaluate and buy products. Yes, the web has helped but most artists' websites are only perused by other artists for comparison and by a few potential buyers for quick browsing, rarely to buy, and when strangers do buy from an artist, it is by and large inexpensive works, rarely in the thousands of dollars.
I am convinced more people would buy art, including expensive art, if artists started to get creative about how to present their work directly to customers in a way that is convenient for the latter. That means taking some days off from the studio, but if the purpose of making something is to sell it eventually, there's no point in just producing stuff and then think of selling as an aside. In any business out there, the other arts included, if you haven't sold your theater show, your film or your band's latest release, it is considered essentially that you've worked for nothing. In other words, market success is coveted way above critical success. Except in the visual arts. Artists want gallery or museum recognition and, for some bizarre reason, their place in art history books. This is typical art school legacy that many artists never shake off.
They probably forgot that many creative people in all fields ended up as influential figures history remembers precisely because they connected to very many people often before the establishment even heard of them.
Your message is a good one. Artists must question WHO they make their art for and whether, on a formal and a technical level, whether their art actually does WORK. You rarely hear artists question whether their object actually succeeds in communicating but you hear them a lot trying to invent a purpose and topic for what they do as they go along. I find musicians and film makers far more apt to describe their work in functional terms, almost like a mechanism or a construction that sometimes works well, and other times less so. There are clear reasons for this usually and it has to do with the mastery of technique, materials, skill, risks taken and everything else we learned in school and in life.
Artists need to stop pretending that everything they touch turns to gold, buyers are not so easily duped to enjoy any piece of trash, especially when the art in question is clearly not invested with feelings, intelligence or a desire to share a story. In no other creative field would this work today. My point here, all artists should be way more selective about what leaves the studio and not hesitate to destroy what doesn't "work" even if they spent considerable time and money on it. In all the other arts, this is not the exception but the norm. Not everyone is a J.S. Bach or a Mozart, most visual artists should produce far less and be far more self-critical if they expect to wow others (and sell).
My last point has to do with this overproduction of art today. It seems every one just HAS TO manufacture X number of works per month for some reason. Have you heard of similar goals with writers or playwrights, for instance? Good art has always required the appropriate reflection, trial and execution time, and always will. When so much "art" today seems so rushed, shoddy, flimsy and made just out of the desperation of having something to sell, it is normal potential buyers are turned off, and this no matter how loud you scream about your existence. My advice to such artists is get a second job, calm down, take your time to think your ideas through and execute them in a way that is respectful of their worth, your style and the message you try to convey. Better to sell fewer works to (repeat) buyers convinced of your works' value, and not because such and such gallery says so. Art is not a manufacturing business.
People will pay a premium for unique ideas and especially a unique vision that shows mastery of both mind and hand.
yust one
I beg your pardon for my poor english, but what i must understand i have read yust only from anonymous (why?).
I think that saying that artist is a good one it'is yust a way to defend their own garden, it seems "the best, the one" to listen at moderator words, but also i had not seen so splendid artworks on dailypainters.com and other similar websites.
Yust ordinary, daily pieces of good craftsmanship.
I agree with Anonymous that most art websites are only perused by other artists for comparison or hoping to go in a virtuous circle.
I'm living in a little town of an unlucky italian province
but the whole world is country so I think that people buy only what the television says.
Also if I am sure that of art we may die , not to live, I think that a good way to increment artist's selling it is to arrive to have an inhexpensive opportunity to advertise art websites on the television in order to create the connection to large numbers of other people.
The money of sponsors of certainly websites may be invested in that way, advertising the sites that welcome the painters.
The painters, in order to join could agree to a marketing campaign at a fixed price, donating, only if they sell something, a little percent to website (gallery?) to cover
the costs.
Buying art in today's world
I was really glad to see a blog post echoing many of the same thoughts I've dealt with over the last few years. It still seems to end in the same spot I end in too -- with no real answers, just questions that I need to keep seeking the answer to. It reminds me that I'm not alone and not crazy in thinking the way I do. It also keeps me looking for the answers that only I can come to with my art.
Post new comment