Whatever Lola Wants | A Few More Thoughts on the Rash of Defections From the Art Market

In response to what seems a growing rejection of the current gallery model (see here, here, and here), a backlash of sorts has emerged on social networks, with a few people who are still committed to the model criticizing "the quitters" for everything from not being tough enough to not understanding the business they were in. On Facebook, one very innovative dealer, who I personally have greatly admired for many years, described the trend (if we can call it that) as dealers "bowing out from art for sentiments that could only be defined as anti-market." I've read similar responses in other places, and they share a theme: "the overall market is strong, so clearly there's nothing wrong with the market...there must be something wrong with these people rejecting the system."

That notion, though---if the overall market is strong, there must be nothing wrong with the market--warrants a closer look in my opinion. 

First of all, it seems to imply that "the market" is an absolute good and therefore whatever makes it stronger must be good. Whatever the market wants...the market should get. The thing is, though, the art market, like any market, is not a wholly self-contained, separate entity that works best for everyone when it's not interfered with (despite what some free-market fanatics might argue).  Every market is a human-created system designed to suit human needs and human priorities. We collectively regulate them (or not) according to our goals. They exist to serve us, not the other way around. So for the dealers who have decided the art market, as it has evolved, no longer suits their needs or priorities, rejecting it is simply logical.

Second of all, it's not particularly helpful in this context to discuss the "art market" as if it were one homogenous system. If that were true, a "strong market," like a rising tide, should lift all boats, but very different realities are facing dealers at different ends of the spectrum. As Shane Ferro recently wrote, "The Primary Market Is Immoderately Lopsided":

If you are a large dealer, last year was probably one of your best. The primary market has ticked slightly upward to 52 percent of the total art market, up from 50 percent last year. If not, you may be screwed. Inequality in the broader economy is increasingly apparent in the art world. However, much of the discussion (including here at ARTINFO) has been focused on the stagnation of the “middle market.” [Clare] McAndrew’s report, however, really highlights the plight of the lowest end of the market. While the middle may not be growing, commerce at the smallest galleries is actively shrinking. Consider these facts:

• Dealers with sales under €500,000 in 2012 reported that average turnover fell by 17 percent year-on-year.
• Dealers with sales of between €500,000 and €2 million reported a decline of one percent.
• Those with sales between €2 million and €10 million also had a decline of two percent on average.
• The top end of the market, where dealers generated sales of over €10 million, reported an average increase in turnover of 55 percent.

Third of all--and here's where I wish some of the folks criticizing "the quitters" would instead spend a few minutes reflecting on their stated rationales for leaving the business--the business has dramatically changed over the past ten years. Many of the reasons people started galleries 10, or 20, or 30 years ago are now to a large degree incompatible with being successful in the current system. Discovering new talent, making the gallery a casual place for the exchange of ideas, partnering with artists toward very long-term goals...these were all much more possible and rewarding only a decade ago than they are today. They have been made less possible by the relentless art fairs schedule (and many galleries cannot afford not to do them), the constant pressure to grow (or lose your artists to a gallery that has), the rampant poaching that's going on, and simply the limited number of hours in a day. I fully understand when someone says the business is no longer interesting to them. It's not the same business it used to be.  

Now I'm not at suggesting all hope is lost, and everyone who's not already a mega-gallery or well on their way to becoming one should throw in the towel. Rather, one of the notions that emerges from these social networks critiques of "the quitters," I happen to believe in myself. That is, innovation is the order of the day; it's the only way to respond to the change. The thing is, though, depending on their personal circumstances, not everyone who wishes to re-invent the model can do so while still running the current model [see note above re: number of hours in a day]. Some of the best minds in the industry probably should step back and approach it unencumbered by the daily grind and incredible overhead of a brick-and-mortar space. I truly hope they all come up with improvements we can all benefit from. 

More than that, I hope they come up with solutions that permit everyone to spend more time looking at and discussing art. I wouldn't mind if things were so exciting on that end of the industry that discussions about the business model became extremely rare.