Virtual v. Traditional Gallery

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by George McClements on August 29, 2008 at 22:52

It always amazes me that people will buy a $4000. painting from a 4" x 6" or smaller photo but I guess it happens all the time. Each year since the introduction of the personal computer, internet sales have climbed leaps and bounds. I would think that serious collectors still require seeing the actual work, but as the rental prices, overhead, advertising and utilites on gallery spaces keep going up, it makes sense to go the internet route. By using the net it also gives you a worldwise audience. It would be interesting to find out how well the many art net sites are really doing. I have been part of a few over the last five years and have only sold a few works. I don't have any idea if this is the average or not. I have also wondered if the sites that charge a serious fee to join over the free and almost free sites get more hits and sales. I think it would be sad for the artists if the gallery system dried up to all but the blue chip artists, but it does appear to be heading that way. I know when ever I am talking to someone about my art they always ask what my website is. I think it is expected by almost everyone now that you at least have a presence on the internet via a personal site.
George McClements

Permalink Reply by Jessica L. Porter, Raandesk Gallery on September 7, 2008 at 16:16

I find that most of the online sales are of photography and drawing and not painting...but that isn't to say it doesn't happen, it's just I have many more paintings sell in person. I did come across a chart at one point that had the big online galleries and their average sales...I was quite impressed but I have to say my guess was that most of the works were under $500 and were probably smaller and either photos or drawings. Of course the chart/data didn't reflect any specifics on that!

Permalink Reply by Jessica L. Porter, Raandesk Gallery on September 7, 2008 at 16:20

I guess my worry with some of the online art galleries is that they tend to have entirely too many images. Artists can upload to them directly and they are just there, on the site. They are titled "galleries" but they lack the tradition of what a gallery does and that is working to promote the artist's work and grow their career. Don't get me wrong, these sites serve as a great way for someone to stumble across the work that wouldn't otherwise see it and is also a great showcase for artists who don't want to or have the resources to have their own website, I just don't think that it should be the only venue for an artist to promote their work.

Permalink Reply by Jessica L. Porter, Raandesk Gallery on September 7, 2008 at 16:26

Out and about in Chelsea last week for all of the openings to kick off gallery season in NY. Now, this is the first time that I can say that Raandesk has a "permanent" space although we are still showing in alternative locations and in other cities (b/c that is the foundation the gallery was built on and I stand by increasing the exposure of the artists in every way possible). So, I met some other gallery owners here and there while with a friend of mine who knows a bunch of them and in the past (without my space) when I met such gallerists, I literally would get a bit of a dismissive attitude from them.....this time however, I got the "Oh, where are you?" and me now having a location in an "appropriate" area, the reaction was totally different! Instead of dismissive, it was the let me dig into your entire being and find out if we can work together or if you are competition I must crush with every resource I have ;-). Anyway, nothing has really changed for the gallery all that much except for people's view of it...and that is my point really. The art is the same, the artists are the same, I'm the same, the gallery is the same...but with a more "regular" space....and now it is perceived entirely differently! Thoughts? Comments?