vanity galleries vs. commercial galleries

'Rented spaces are called 'Vanity Galleries' and can actually hurt your reputation...'

I read this statement in another thread. I was wondering: how can a 'vanity gallery' hurt your reputation? If the quality of the work is good, isn't that ultimately what matters? Which is better: showing your own artwork your own way in a 'vanity gallery', or showing your work in a commercial gallery with extremely low standards...which is more damaging to your reputation as an artist?

How do vanity galleries differ from the DIY aesthetic that has fueled music in the last couple decades...could it be said that indie/punk/hardcore bands that rent out places to put on their own shows and start their own record labels and book their own tours are on a vanity kick? How does a vanity gallery differ from a personal website showing your own artwork?

Is there anything wrong with hiring a team of professionals to create an electronic exhibit in a virtual gallery for you? I am extremely curious to take the pulse of the community in these regards...specifically, I would like to hear what Alison in the UK thinks of this, as I was impressed with her pull-no-punches responses in an earlier thread.

I eagerly await your responses...Ace_Frehley

* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful

An interesting question, Ace. Certainly there's nothing wrong with hiring ones own venue, and putting on an art show on ones own terms. Indeed, if one has the organizational skills, contacts, and capital, it would be stupid to do all the work of putting on a show (which is often laid off onto artists even in established galleries) just to give someone else half the gross return. Many artists are in a passive mode when it comes to showing their art, waiting to be 'discovered' - picked out of some gallery's 'slush pile' (that heap of slide sheets flooding out of their hall closet) by some discerning eye and given a solo show. But sad to say, it hardly ever happens .

That said, the fact of having been picked so fortutiously (especially recently) is seen as validation in the small circles of the Art World. This is not conferred by the fact of having paid a certain (outrageous) amount of money to have ones work hung in a 'subsidy' gallery for a month or so. Also, since the gallery isn't dependant on sales for its existence, there is a prevalent lack of motivation on the part of the staff that generally results in low expectations being justified. While most galleries gain a following of those sharing the aesthetic predispostions and enthusiasms of the directors in charge, because of the random nature of their offerings these galleries attract nobody but idly curious passersby and the invited friends of the artist. For artists desiring recognition by the cognoscenti- and that, plus the hope of sales, is the usual reason for showing ones art- these places are unlikely to provide satisfaction. The punk bands' production of their own shows is a much more hopeful and democratic model.

Andrew Werby

It is nice to see the other side of the discussion! I agree that, just as with best selling novels, only a very few manage the combination of luck, good timing and instant appeal that give the results. I think that this was part of the confusion in the comments made before. Clearly galleries are very different. Part if my initial interest was to see if there were any more rules of thumb as to how to select one. At the moment I am getting to know the curator of a first rate gallery, if he were interested his gallery would certainly appear to be one of the ones considered 'validation' locally - however, I know that it costs a lot from previous artists who have exhibited there [though they have done very well out of it financially despite that!]. The moral problem is that by knowning the curator personally I am likely to have a substantial edge over the slush pile - if I want to use it. However, it would be precious to believe that nepotism and the OBN don't operate - many critics of the current Brit Art pack, point out how few people actually decide who is 'in', and how closely they know each other.

A good point too. I do see a value in both the artist and the gallery sharing the commercial risk.

Dear Ace: I think the people who make these distinctions (and make a big deal about it) are just self-absorbed art snobs that don't have a life. I used to have a very good artist friend in CA named Maude Church. Don't know if she's still painting, but she did exquisite work. She had private showings in what you call 'vanity galleries'. But she also participated in Studio Shows in Oakland (a Sat. or Sun. afternoon where you can go to different artists' studios and see an exhibit of their work.) And she even had her work in a couple of Fisherman's Wharf galleries. NONE of her exhibit venues made any difference to me . . . her work remained the same

You do have a point! It is funny how, for some people, art ceases to be the important thing and pose takes over. I would have thought that the Fisherman's Warf would certainly be very commercial! This is certainly a sensible way to view the matter. I think that the experience can also help direct the artistic side. If certain pieces appeal to a lot of people it can be instructive to consider why - particularly if they don't appear to be the sort you would expect to be so popular. I have certainly been very surprised at some of the paintings of mine that people have siezed upon as their favourites.

Some interesting points have come out of this thread:

If it is acceptable to rent space to promote your own work, is it okay to hire talent to design your exhibition? It seems to me that exhibit design and creation is an art form that is vastly overlooked

Peter, You might check the place advertized below, and discuss with the C.E.O about the possible harmful effects of vannity galleries.

- lauri ******

<...>

>For further details on hiring the galleries please contact the Arts Programme Co-ordinator at

>Cable Street Studios >T 020 7 790 1309 F 020 7 790 1323 Mobile: 07803 208161 >566 Cable Street London E1W 3HB >(near to Docklands Light Railway Limehouse station)

When you decide to pay to put your own show up, then I think it very advisable to look carefully at the reputation of the gallery. Many are well known as vanity galleries, where all you get is a *space* and no support. I would advise emerging artists to do as I have done over the last two years. Get involved first in a co-op gallery and you will most certainly find that you are then invited to show and will not need to spend your own money. However, many contemporary artist's work are not suitable for this, particularly installation and video artists. Renting a space may be the only way. In these case there is generally funding bodies to help and artists should look at grant application procedures. Again, choosing the right gallery is essential. Galleries that seek only to profit from vulnerable artists who are desperate for that first leg on the ladder, are open to exploitation of the worst sort.

I agree that if the work is good you can show anywhere. Like everything, its a learning process and you need to be prepared to work at it to achieve success. There are very few *geniuses* in this world.

How do you folks feel about 'online galleries'? A few of us have started an operation at http://www.artfreaks.com to break open the gallery cartel on exposure. I wonder how this would be classified by your measures Vanity or Commercial?

Jay Nash

* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful

I am entirely in support of online galleries! I think that they serve to help break down the walls between artists, galleries, and patrons in a way we have never seen before

This completely misinterprets my original post. Written in the usual condescending, patronising and narrow minded way that this particular poster favours. He is an idiot that I have never bothered to waste my time responding to. Listen to him - spurting off the same crap that he does in all his posts. Some sort of desire to be seen as some great supporter of the starving artist, who is so caught up in his own drivel that in fact he can't even see how the support systems are impeded by this sort of self acclaimed nonsense. Art doesn't have to starve and neither do the artists, so I tell him to take his silly little statement *Art starves* and shove it where ever he likes. Art is a multi million pound industry which is there for the artists to lock into not to be a victim of. To hell with people like him who want to wallow in their own piss and pity. I stand for the artist who wants to meet and embrace the system and use it to put food on their table.

Unfortunately, I am required to answer posts regarding Cable Street in this instance, or I would not be here. Frankly we have more important fights going on in the East End of London at this time. In the last month I have been required to learn, and now speak, the bureaucratic language that you, and I, detest. I have read more legal documents, written more legal letters and spoken to more people in *power* than ever before. This is the only way that the artists can ever have a voice against those who dominate with money - you have to be prepared to face them head on with language and guts. The artists at Cable Street are frantically fighting to save the studios from re-development and some idiot who posts under an alias on Usenet without due consideration to the consequences of what he is saying, is no friend of the 180 artists here. In fact I would even question if that artists is even aware of the art world outside his own four walls. My knowledge of the artist is that he is not. I will respond to him in the same way I have to respond to the bureaucrats that I meet with daily. I will talk his language only in order to face him. In the future I suggest that he does not take quotes out of context without considering the consequences. Like so many of his posts, he expresses an opinion that is narrow minded and skims over the reality of what is being said ....in order for what ? His own glory ? And he an artist who won't even show his work to the audience he addresses here. Please, I advise him go back into his garret and starve - the rest of us will find ways to make the system work for us.

I trust that others will re-read my statement, carefully, and will clearly find out that this charity has been established to aid and assist artists who are impoverished, not those who have the capital to promote and market themselves. It is clearly written into the governing documents. Those documents are written to protect the artists from exploitation and to ensure that the charity operates in its original intention - that being to aid those in poverty and need, and that is what we intend to use it for. That is why we would favour supporting those in need over those able to pay for their own show. That is clear, to those who read properly.

I was asked to respond to a post by another idiot who implied that Cable Street galleries was a *vanity gallery*. Had the manager at Cable Street not received an Email with a copy of it, I would not have known about it. The management and artists at Cable Street were appalled to find some complete stranger on Usenet implying something that is clearly not in the charities guidelines - something that potentially could be very damaging to the future of the galleries. This is the sort of nonsense that destroys the hard work that artists throughout the world, are involved in, in order to make this world accept the artist as something other than self obsessed individuals who have no interest in contributing to society. If you care about artists making good in this world then do not impede the good work of charities like this which are designed to support those in need.

Alison A Raimes Cable Street Arts Factory Ltd 566 Cable Street Limehouse London E1 9HB Tel: 0207 790 1309/0207 780 9493 Fax: 0207 790 1323