The Oddly Public Dissing of Print Dealers

As reported in the Art Newspaper, the organizers of the Frieze Art Fair in London have announced that they won't invite any print dealers as exhibitors this year. Apparently, The Armory Show may follow suit. Having cut my teeth, so to speak, in a works-on-paper gallery, I have a deep respect for the traditions and importance of prints. Contemporary prints are a vital part of the overall dialog. I don't mind saying, I find this decision jaw-droppingly short-sighted. More odd though is why they chose to announce it at all. Here's their rationale:

The organisers of Frieze have sent a letter to print publishers such as Alan Cristea, Paragon Press and Two Palms saying that “a certain category” of exhibitor will not be admitted this year. The reasons given are that “prints don’t look good in a fair”, and that the dealers do not have “primacy of representation” of the artists they show.

I think that explanation actually raises more questions than it answers. What if a non-print-focussed dealer does have primacy of representation, is he/she permitted to exhibit prints by said artist in his/her booth? What if that artist is so incredibly in demand that prints are the only works available at the time of the fair? And how on earth can one claim that "prints don't look good in a fair"? Doesn't it depend on the print in question, many of which are virtually indistinguishable from drawings or photographs in terms of presentation? Do they mean that prints don't look expensive? And what about some of the interesting developments in three-dimensional printmaking? Are such artworks also considered unwanted? Most fair applications request concept proposals: what if a print dealer proposed a groundbreakingly fresh installation? The article continues:

There are also indications that the Armory show in New York may follow suit. The fair’s communications director Pamela Doan said: “We will be discussing with the Selection Committee how to maximise the space for participants. We do not have clear plans to announce yet about how we will include print dealers in The Armory Show 2007. It will probably be different to 2006, though,” she said.

I'm not sure The Amory Show's response is necessarily parallel here. They've been cutting back the number of galleries they invite the past few years, and most gallerists I know expect it to be even harder for everyone to get in moving forward, so I read their response in that light. If indeed they do single out print dealers for exclusion, that will be another matter.

But Frieze's explanation for the announement makes no sense to me, and I'm not the only one:

“It is completely ludicrous,” says Alan Cristea. “Art fairs are full of multiples: sculpture, photography, even a lot of paintings incorporate printing techniques. This excludes all the people who have the specialised knowledge.”

“This is an sign of an overheated, cliquey market, and it is incredibly short-sighted,” says Charles Booth-Clibborn, founder of Paragon. “Buyers often start with prints: they are a seedbed for future collectors.” David Lasry of Two Palms is “fuming”. He said: “This is the way the entire market is going, they want to push us out to make way for paintings dealers.”

The irony, notes Mr Cristea, is that Frieze’s main sponsor is Deutsche Bank, noted for its fine corporate collection—predominantly of prints.

Of course the organizers of any fair are fully entitled to craft the look and feel of the fair as they see fit, but why make a point of announcing that you're excluding print dealers (bleeding-edge projects often emerge from the last place you'd expect them to). Why not simply not invite them if their application is not what they're looking for? No fair is obligated to explain its selection choices. This "print dealers need not apply" announcment looks to be a public downgrading of the importance of prints, which in turn seems to be about the market for paintings and other more costly works of art. As Booth-Clibborn notes, this is a disservice to collectors just starting out, many of whom begin with prints.

Another reason this is short-sighted is that should the art market crash and many galleries go out of business, the fairs will most likely want to open their doors back up to the surviving dealers, regardless of what their primary product is. At that point, who could blame the print dealers for responding with a similarly very public dis?