galleries: a one way street
More outrageousness from “Collecting Contemporary” by Adam Lindemann: a little game that galleries enjoy playing that involves some heavy handedness. In the game of collecting, there’s usually an unwritten rule (although sometimes it’s actually written into a contract): when it comes time to sell a piece, the collector is obliged to give the gallery from which it was bought the first right of re-purchase before throwing it to the dogs at auction. Galleries don’t like to see their stable of well-stocked artists find more money from auctions than if they just sold the art to another collector. The fear is that the artist could just eliminate the gallery as an unnecessary middle man, and go straight to the auction house for a higher price. Seems that the relationship between artist and gallery is this tenuous. In fact, the British artist Damien Hirst performed this very act in September 2008 by going directly to auction - Sotheby’s - and surpassed the £62 million high estimate. He’s only one artist (and the first), but the initial crack in the foundation has been scored.
I'm on me own now
The threat to a collector for not working with the gallery is very real. If the gallery feels slighted, the collector’s name gets passed along to other galleries as someone who doesn’t deserve further sales. For a limited supply of art, that’s a big thumping for the fawning collector. Effectively, they’re black-balled, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s also illegal.
The venom of the gallery is understandable, but this is nothing new. Real businesses operate with “unfaithful” customers all the time. That’s why brand image is so important…and unique products and services. Apple Computers know they may be selling to customers that could easily buy a PC - for less money even, but they don’t, because the product and service is deemed valuable than anything Microsoft could create. The customer never feels a need to be permissive.
Finally, if a collector is obliged to approach the gallery first, doesn’t the gallery then have the responsibility to purchase the piece back if the auction price is lower than the original purchase price? Why doesn’t it swing both ways?
Having access to artists because you say they’re important is not really a service. At one point, middlemen do one of two things: they either make themselves a more valuable element in the equation, or they go away.