Blog

Clint,
Remember what happened to Dalhart Windberg when he dropped his prices. It almost destroyed his market. Collectors who paid $60,000 to buy one was livid when he sold the same size for half that price. They purchased for an investment. Just saying.

Art is not wine. In art we are not looking at a $5 discount, but thousands of dollars in some cases.

It's safe to lower some, but not drastically. Instead they can make smaller pieces. jack

Just re-read your comment, Jack. Yeah it sucks for those who paid $60,000. However, this line: "They purchased for an investment."

They should have listened to the advice of people saying "buy art you love, don't buy art as an investment."

If they bought art as an investment, they were speculating. Losing 50 percent does suck, but people have lost a lot more in the stock market. People need to remember that investments go up AND down.

If those people had bought because they truly loved and believed in Windberg, they could have looked at a $30,000 price as an opportunity to get more at "half price" rather than being livid.

Lori:

"I got flack from my artist friends, a couple were very angry about my making my art more reasonably priced."

"when I've asked "serious" art collectors what they think about prices falling, they replied with an answer much like your own... More art!!!!"

Ironic. Basically I read that as other ARTISTS telling you that you can't lower your prices but COLLECTORS are fine with it.

Why were your artist friends angry? That's what I don't understand.

Clint, not many of my friends are angry. Some don't even care what I do, but a couple of them couldn't understand why I'd want to lower my prices. They are in top galleries and think I could go that route and sell my work for much more... and maybe I could, but I'm not sure I really want to deal with selling through galleries.

I know I can sell my work on my own for lower prices, and if I entered the gallery system again, I'd have to raise my prices significantly to make the same amount of income, and it's possible that my work will just sit there. By selling on my own and keeping my prices lower, I can attract a larger audience.

I think artists get angry when they feel they are in competition with other artists for recognition and sales. They want their friends to do whatever they're doing. That's human nature.

However, I'm never going to sell in the "investment" range anyway... I can hear those artist friends getting irate with me as I say that. They think I'm being negative about my work and potential. And maybe they're right.

But if I don't really want to deal with all the hassle of getting into top galleries, who may close, and paying for expensive ads, going the high end route, that's my choice.

What I really care about is - getting my work sold and into homes of people who will really cherish it. I need to stop thinking about money all the time and get to the point where I grow to the artist I want to become, for arts sake. As long as I make a profit and grow my audience over time, I'm happy with that.

With the Internet, I have many more avenues to get my work in front of potential buyers - I don't want to sell my work for Walmart prices, but I do want it to move onto someone else's walls besides my own.

Hope that kinda answered your question. One other thing that I surmise, "Artists who work exclusively with galleries" are worried with whether galleries will survive the long term, and how that will change their careers and potential to make a living.

I'm in a good place, because I didn't let my prices go "sky high" when times were good. I also sell at heavy discounts to past buyers who bought from my galleries 10 years ago, but now those galleries have closed, and I'm free to sell at whatever prices I feel is appropriate.

As long as I make a profit.

My answer doesn't help the artists who did raise prices and are now worried about lowering them.

Two things: If you're selling, no need to lower. If sales were doing well and now you're wondering whether to throw in the towel and quit, lower them slowly until sales pick up again. Find the sweet spot. Prices of artwork have come down - even with some very famous artists.

The old rule no longer applies. By the summer of 2010, many collectors who lost money in the stock market and in housing investments decided to put their artwork on the secondary market in galleries. A lot of the work just sat there (especially if it was by a newer artist whose prices rose too quickly in the last decade). When these collectors were not able to cash in on their investments, they stopped buying art - especially from living artists whose prices could not be proven over a long period of time.

Some of these resales are still in the galleries, and the prices of them are coming down - just in the same way that housing prices drop until sales pick up again. If the artist is living, and the value of their past work is deflating - guess what, the overall value of their work drops.

Why do folks think that art investment is different than other investments? If it ever was, it was because dealers and curators puffed it up. Now, no one pays attention to the experts - collectors know art, they are educated, and can see a ton of great art online and compare prices.

The Internet has affected the value of antiques too, so much in that what was worth hundreds or thousands of dollars 10 years ago, is not sold for half those amounts. Why? Because people can shop online and compare values for price.

The same kind of shopping is being done for artwork. Unless an artist is old or dead, they'll wait for the best deal, or worse yet, compare it to similar work - and just as good - for a more affordable price.

Any thoughts?

Yeah, well...whatever.

"Perceived value" doesn't pay the bills. Cash does. I knew a guy who believed that back in the 90's who put a price tag of $1,000,000 on some of his bigger works.

Guess what - he didn't sell anything. But I guess he consoled himself that people "perceived" his art to be worth a million bucks.

That jewelry store example is usually taken out of context. I higher price can work in a situation where it leads people to believe that the supply is extremely limited and it's a now or never thing (kind of like, in an extreme example, gas prices surge during a natural disaster). But that type of frenzy is very very difficult to create in art. You can get it sometimes in an auction setting with a room full of hundreds of collectors all bidding against each other. But normally most "regular" artists won't be able to create that kind of feeling in their followers.

OK, now I'm on a roll... another question/thought..

If an artist has really high prices, then the collector is wanting proof that the price is substantiated and will retain it's value.

That sure puts a lot of pressure on artists who sell their work in the tens of thousands. They have to jump through hoops to ensure that their work is worth what they say it is.

The internet has allowed previously unknown artists, who are just as good, or even better than some of the higher priced well-known artists to gain an audience.

Galleries used to protect their artists by keeping low priced, talented artists who would compete with their top earners.. out of the gallery. But with the Internet, there's no stopping comparison shopping.

BTW: I now get more hits to my website from the daily art show on FASO than any other source. Just thought I'd share that because it's a perk that doesn't cost me any extra money.

Complex subject, but bottom line, you're right - artists don't need to follow out-dated rules. Collectors will just have to acknowledge that art prices have become flexible, and like everything else, art "investments" can go up and down.

OK, I'm gonna go paint now... so I can have more work to sell ;-)

"If an artist has really high prices, then the collector is wanting proof that the price is substantiated and will retain it's value."

If a collector ever asked me that, I would tell them there are no guarantees. An artist or dealer should never make such a guarantee. I suspect that guarantees like that are why Windberg's collectors were pissed. Some dealer probably sold them as an investment.

If you don't make a guarantee, then, yes, you might lose the sale. But you'll be able to sleep better at night knowing you didn't promise something you might not be able to deliver.

Clint, also this post has helped me tremendously to cut out all the confusing voices and opinions about pricing my work. Your advice has helped with the "state of confusion" I was in.

Anyone else? This isn't just the Clint and Lori show, ya know. But I must say, it's helped me a great deal.

Clint and Lori,

Too bad collectors don't read this post. The truth is deep down people buying art expect to be buying the next Andy Warhol. They may not say so, but they do dream of their art increasing in value. Mine is based on 40 plus years dealing with clients.

The art dealers of old sold art as an investment and some still do. They speak so loud only a few collectors buy out of love.

I remember a few years ago a client purchased an $8,000 Senkarik. Two years later he was in the gallery and saw a giclee about the same size as his for $3,500. He made a scene until the gallery owner was able to calm him down. Even then he was not totally happy. He thought he had been cheated

It's okay to cut your price if you are selling art for very little, but be careful if your art is over $5000.

jack

Great post, wonderful discusssion! I use to own an art gallery. At one time we had over 75 artists and fine craftsman whose work I represented. My highest priced sale was a painting for $14000. So of course my sales were small potatoes compared to the big galleries out on the West and East Coast. But I did learn a lot about collectors and artists in that time period. Number one, I never, let me repeat Never, met a true collector who wasn't looking for a great deal or at least real value for a painting/sculpture they were considering purchasing. I never once had a collector complain if an artist's work was selling for a price lower than it had been a few years earlier. We had some of the top artists from around the midwest and even a few from other countries....and we did attract many collectors who collected work by artists who they knew personally.

I am an artist as well, so I understand an artist's need to survive! I now have my work in several small but nice galleries in the midwest. I basically have told gallery owners what I need to get out of a painting. They add their commission on top of that. None of them have complained that my prices are too low. I could go on and on, but the basic prinicple that I have come to live by is this. When I start making more sales than I can keep up with I raise my prices. When I have more work than I need to keep my galleries stocked or room to store, then I do something to increase sales.

So thank you again Clint for saying what I feel is true! Most if not all of the professional artists that I know have all lowered their prices somewhat...if they need to compete and sell work. I do feel however that artists need to really think through how they are pricing their work and if they do lower prices, they need to do so cautiously....that is a whole other discussion however!

I just give my paintings away i'm just glad some one will except e'm!!

Clint: there is also a perceived blue to quality. I am going to write a blog on art, food and wine as it is perceived by content and value. It should shed light on what you have spoken on this blog, a great topic that should continue! Artt and wine each have a perceived value to the customer that can bring a purchase to closure, loved this post!

I got so caught up in passing along my story that I forgot to say what a great article Clint! And Lori has been inspirational to me for years. Her articles helped me make many important decisions regarding my career. Thank you for the wonderful, helpful articles and the great website! I couldn't have sold nearly as many pieces without both of you.

Really interesting post thank you. I was certainly of the opinion that we should never reduce prices as artists. My way of thinking is really that each piece of art we produce is more than likely to be better than the previous (certainly from year to year) We learn from every painting therefore we should get more financial reward for the more experience we have. Looking at it from the clients viewpoint I imagine they would be annoyed if after they had bought a piece of art, and a month later they see it for a lot less.
Having said that offering a discount on a piece of art seems much more acceptable and does happen frequently in practice.
Looking at your comments Clint you have certainly got me thinking. Although I have never lowered my prices I would certainly do this rather than have paintings to be sat in galleries for too long.
We definitely need to judge the market well and take the necessary steps to continue to sell and produce. I wouldnt have any problems reducing my prices if it meant I could carry on doing what I love and that must be one of the most important things to consider.

Though you'd like to know Clint that I lowered my prices last June at a solo show I was in. Sold a painting.

Early this month I decided to lower my portrait commission fee by 20 percent and have been commissioned by 5 people since doing so. I have never gotten 5 commissions in one month before. A lot to be said for lowering ones price during rough economic times.

I've been traveling without Internet and just catching up with email. Thanks for the encouragement from readers. You don't know how much your words make it all worth the while.

Lori

The reality of the matter is that the art market is not moved by pure love of art.... Period. Anyone trying to sell within it needs to accept and understand this reality.

Your article is just flat out wrong, and terrible advice. The art market thrives and exists in the way it does because it's a way for investors to make money. The entire behemoth that it is.... The books, investments, museum shows, and entire massive gallery system exists not because of love, but because of *money*. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a gallerist trying to sweet talk you, or an artist talking about their reasons for creating. I happen to be the latter, living in New York.

Of course there are people who purchase out of love, but I'm sorry, the ones who purchase works at 70,000 a pop are not *all in for the love*. They might be partially, but do you really think a rich person would spend that much for an original work for no reason? Why not just spend $20 on a print? People who are wealthy became that way by being savvy with their money. It might be the love that lures them in, but it's the promise of a quick return on their investment that seals the deal.

Lowering your prices destroys that chance, and makes you a bad buy.

You can talk til you're blue in the face about this, but it's the reality. There are few industries that move such massive amounts of money around, and this is why.

As a young artist, this was painful (horrible) to accept, but I have realized as I've grown that doing something for money and investment, and doing it for love, are not mutually exclusive. The people investing in the art market want returns on their investments, but they also could have their hands in different industries.

However, flouting the advice of an entire establishment, and comparing art to wine, smacks of a massive amount of under-education in the movings of the art world, and some serious hubris. I'm only so vehemently passionate because it's concerning to think of any young artists who might stumble upon this terrible advice.