Topic: Paid-for juried exhibition submissions: rip-off or investment?

[zapsnaps]

I have been pondering this for sometime and wonder what the feeling is on FW.

There is an ever increasing number of 'galleries' in obscure parts of the UK and especially the US, who call for submissions to forthcoming exhibition at their premises. For anybody unfamiliar with the process, you send them your snaps by email, together with a submission fee, they review the images and if accepted, you get to be hung on the wall of an often unknown gallery, in a unknown town, for sale at an unknown price, in the hope that an (unknown) enthusiastic passing punter may buy your print.

Three questions: do we think this business model is broadly honest, trustworthy and value for money, or broadly just another income stream for a bloke with an empty shop in the middle of nowhere?

If accepted for hanging, do these galleries ever make a sale, or is the exhibition predominantly paid for by the submission fees of hopefuls?

Lastly, have you ever heard of any of the 'jurors' before or working anywhere else or doing anything other than being a juror for paid-for submissions?

My only experience of this is paying a very modest fee (it may have been only $5) to a New York gallery and being accepted for hanging, but the print was later returned, unsold, which is fair enough. But the gallery who only charged me five dollars to view my work is no longer in existence. Being careful not to extrapolate and confuse cause with outcome, I have no idea if the gallery went bust, the gallery owner got bored or the rent was hiked. But can it really cost $30-$50 to view 4 snaps in an email and file the email into a yes/no/possible folder?

Thought, opinions and rants would be very welcome. I'm often tempted to submit, but a little voice in the back of my (very small) mind tells me that the subs fee would be better spent on Wasting (more) Film. And that all proper London galleries (with a physical gallery and an enormously prestigious address book for the opening night party) review work without charge.

[DonkeyDave]

Waste more film - simples

Most galleries as you know work on a commission of the sale fee. Some charge a hanging fee, and some charge you for the space like a rental. I pay £10 a month for the gallery that 'represents' me. I've never sold an image through the gallery, but over the years people see my work, make a note of the website and then I get an email years later asking for a print. It also pushes me into making new and different work, for it to have a purpose. These aren't really the sort of galleries to be seen in.
The big London galleries will work for their money to promote you to their select group of rich clients, how we all want to be in there...

The juried stuff looks shit to be honest.

The same sort of 'scam' occurs on the net eg the Black and White Spider Awards. I entered a couple of years ago, and it is juried by some exclusive types eg Magnum. The price today is around £15 per image entered, which seems pretty high. I'm not sure the exposure is worth it. I ended up getting a prize and a certificate as a Spider Awards Nominee. I was chuffed, got an image on a website and a press release which I thought looked good on the website, maybe gave me some kudos. The reality is that 1 in 10 get this award, and they have around 10,000 entrants, each putting in an average of 10 images. Am I getting cynical or is this a money making exercise? Maybe I underestimated the significance as B+W mag recently published that Joe Bloggs from the UK had been giving the prestigious award of Nominee for the Black and White Spider Awards. Maybe they advertise....

I've had it with competitions to be honest, it all seems a bit 'braggy'. I'm looking at the 'indie' magazines such as Shots and Lumen - anyone been in them?

trying to be less cynical in 2014 :-)

[astrobeck]

I submit, but only to certain venues that are reputable and have a history of good shows, sales and jurors.
Normally I only enter about 4 shows a year.   

I don't finance startups unless they are obvious and forthcoming about what they are doing with my money.

I think it's good to get into shows and go through the jurying process, but....you should really do some research on the galleries that are hosting shows.
What is their track record?  How often is their turnover of shows, etc?

It's true that every gallery was once upon a time "new", but seriously consider what you are getting back for your fee and showing if selected.   

[gsgary]

I was asked about 2 months ago by a gallery to exhibit my work they wanted a fee and even wanted me to get public liability insurance even though they would hang them

[stevesegz]

Agree with Dave, waste more film. Very little return on your investment, better off having a few friends over to look at your work and do a bit of self publicity closer to home.

[zapsnaps]

Donkey Dave et al - I'm pleased that my cynicism appears to be well founded. I'll buy more film. Thanks for your thoughts

[Late Developer]

I've hung a few prints of my work in a small selection of restaurants / bistros - free of charge - on the basis that if anyone wants to buy one, they can do so without the restaurant / bistro owner getting involved. The business owner gets something different to hang on their walls and I might sell the odd print.

I'm also just about to have 3 10"x10" prints hung on a wall in a gallery in Suffolk. It will cost me the princely sum of £20. The gallery is home to a photographic "group, they have monthly exhibitions and, from what I can gather, sell a fair bit. Pretty low risk from my perspective - although it's not "High Street" exposure as such.

The model explained by Zapsnaps seems heavily weighted in favour of the gallery.  They get paid for the selection process. They can select what they feel is most commercial. They (I suspect) will make a significant margin on whatever is sold. If the gallery is "unknown" in the sense of not somewhere a punter would automatically think of when considering buying art - and it's in a remote location - my guess is that you'd be better posting photos on the internet yourself. At least that way you avoid the selection costs and you know that your work will be visible.  If you're serious about making a few quid, you might want to spend a bit on website optimisation to get your site to the top of Google searches.....

[gary m]

Not quite sure on the juried shows anymore. I understand the entrance fee helps the gallery for a month, but it doesn't always help the artist. I have been in I think 22 juried shows now. I have sold stuff only 3 times. I think it really helps if you want to build a CV/ or resume, but in the end it comes down to what you want to get out of doing it. For me I didn't get rich, but I made a lot of contacts and met some great people. I do know a few people who went this route and now have their own gallery representation. If your goal is to only sell your work, then all you need to do is self promote your work thru the web. If people like it, they are going to buy  

[Terry]

I recall a seminar on getting work into galleries that Deborah (gothamtomato) organized at B+H.  The first thing the speaker said was that getting your work hung in galleries and making money from photography are two different and unrelated goals.  I've had 20+ photos hung in a gallery and sold one, had a show in a café (like LD, no fee just a handshake agreement with the owner) and sold three that way.  Not getting rich doing photography, but not doing weddings either...

[Francois]

Not getting rich doing photography, but not doing weddings either...

I don't blame you, too many people who want wedding photos like this are out there


 
http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/category/photos/weddings-engagements-couples/ for more painfully funny photos

[Terry]

I've probably mentioned this before, but a good friend tells of a wedding he shot in which he spent weeks photoshopping away the bride's extra flesh (at her insistence) and was then told that it didn't look like her.  I did see some photos hung at a local café by a photographer who said she sold a lot of them--horses, kittens and oversaturated quaint landscapes.  As I recall, most of her sales were printed on greeting cards.  I think if you're in it as a business you have to make compromises like those.  I'm keeping my day job and having fun with the cameras instead.

[DonkeyDave]

"Democracy has bad taste"

Grayson Perry

[Ezzie]

The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right.

Henrik Ibsen

[Terry]

Attributed variously to H. L. Mencken or P. T. Barnum (and the wording varies): Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the (American) public.

[gothamtomato]

I recall a seminar on getting work into galleries that Deborah (gothamtomato) organized at B+H.  The first thing the speaker said was that getting your work hung in galleries and making money from photography are two different and unrelated goals.  I've had 20+ photos hung in a gallery and sold one, had a show in a café (like LD, no fee just a handshake agreement with the owner) and sold three that way.  Not getting rich doing photography, but not doing weddings either...

I can't remember which speaker that was, but here is a new seminar from Sandra Carrion and Lois Youmans of the Soho Photo Gallery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa4ufrOf6XQ&list=PLA2A7966A44E77011&index=1

I often liken a gallery career to gymnastics: There are probably over 100,000 girls in the country seriously training in gymnastics, and every 4 years, 5 of them get to go to the Olympics. Did the rest of them waste their time? Some probably yes. But you need to have goals with your work that allow you to still have a successful life without being one of those 5. And even if you are one of those few who get into galleries, it can take years to build a collector base. A serious gallery builds that base fr you. A real gallery earns their 50%.

Also, paying to jury-in to show is common, but be wary of the vanity galleries. They are NEVER worth the time and money. If you pay the gallery to exhibit, they can be complete idiots and they have no incentive to bring qualified buyers through the door.