Art In Bars

A prevalent issue that collectives face is how to get buyers to the space. Collectives are generally strong when it comes to harnessing the power of self-promotion, getting press and publicity both for the space and the individuals who show there, but how can that promotion be parlayed into sales to the emerging Philadelphia artists? I feel the art produced by the city has a distinct flavor that should be seen, but if most of these exhibitions are one evening only, it vastly limits their impact outside of the artistic circle, and the artists ability to ‘do the dance’ with potential buyers.

The artblahg is constantly on about how many collectives are open by appointment only. As far as I can tell, collectives don’t really have a choice. If a space operates during gallery hours, someone needs to be there, and they generally like to be compensated for their time. Frequently, it works as a co-operative trade system – you show here, you’re obligated to sit here x number of hours with a book and chat with whomever comes in. This tends to work¬† only if you have an established space with foot traffic, or an alternative income source, or are a collective of more secure artists, but for those fairly fresh out of school that sacrifice of unpaid daylight hours is just not an option.

It is part of my job to sit in a gallery hoping people will come in to see the work. Frequently, they do not. And I can count on one hand how many times in the last four years someone has walked in off the street and bought a work simply by seeing it on the walls. I’m not just getting paid to sit at a desk, however, I’m getting paid for the other work I do while I happen to be around should anyone want to see the show. When I leave the gallery, the owner has discussed the possibility of going by appointment only, or eliminating the physical space all together.

Ashley Gallery (another Northern Liberties gallery, now closed) never existed in a physical space; only online and by participating in art fairs, and it was consistently picked for press and promotion because of its solid online presence. It amused me that it would receive gushing national blurbs with the address was given although there was no gallery space for the readers to visit. It continued to be named one of the top Philadelphia galleries after it had been closed for more than a year. And it did very well in terms of sales for its artists.

By appointment is not an option only utilized by collectives, but formal galleries have more opportunities to weigh against not being open to the public. Collectives suffer not from underexposure by this decision (they manage to get plenty of press and hold their own online with image and information dissemination) but from a basic inability to connect with buyers; more often than not artists and critics populate opening, rather than potential patrons. And as a gallery employee, I can say very few people ever make appointments to see the work, even if they are interested. If it doesn’t jive with their schedule, they just let it slide. It’s only art, after all.

I personally think it would help sales and money flow if the collective spaces could be open more often so more people could see them. Especially as traditionally, the locations artists can afford to set up shop in tend to be in the, shall we say, less gentrified areas, and foot traffic tends to be an issue.¬† Therefor a trip to see the work in a collective is a destination appointment, but would simply being open more help? As someone who has seen a solid week go by without any walk-ins, I don’t think that’s a panacea. I’ve already discussed why many cannot afford the sheer cost of a open storefront. And many are not able/interested in submitting to the difficult grant/becoming a non-profit application process. So is there a solution? Or are all collectives doomed either to go gently into the good night or follow the Space 1026 model?