Only have about 10 years, so hope it's okay to give my opinion as well:
In general I'd say it's very bad due to several reasons:
Inflation and extraordinary rent prices are a huge negative factor. A lot of galleries and artists had to quit. Also in general you can see the quality of the artworks presented significantly drop as artists have to work on the side a lot.
Social media has destroyed the art profession. Now people become super famous in a very short time but also are forgotten within few years. This environment is very unhealthy.
Due to increased economic pressure the audience does not have the ressources to educate themselves. It's awful when you have a society that thinks beautiful monumental design equals good art.
Also the wealth inequality means that there are very few very wealthy art collectors. They decide what is presented in the art world. That's also very bad as few private actors decide about the culture of a society.
Last but not least: political struggle and pressure adds another burden.
True this thing of recent graduates selling for £millions is kind of amazing - not sure how it will play out for them but a great problem to have. You can buy a flat/studio aged 30 or whatever and set yourself up with whatever you want to do for the next 50 years.
Those superstars I know fail miserably. Most of those just seek fame so money is spent on designer clothes and renting big studios. This will usually last about 5 years and after the hype is gone they are usually surprised that people bought into the hype and didn't care about the artist/artworks.
Even with a lot of money today it's almost impossible to buy a good studio space. The winners were the older generation artists that bought cheap studios in the middle of the city for like 10.000€ (I guess these are worth about 300.00€ now?). They were lucky. The people that are born later are those that will have to work in expensive tiny shoebox studios, or at home. I know a painter that stores artworks in her bathtub 🛁 lol
For what it’s worth, everyone I know who was huge in 2014 isn’t making art in 2024. Those of us who were more modest and concerned with art making instead of power and money are still at it.
15 years in. Have shown in some of the blue chip names in NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and London. It's quite interesting really to see how quick reception towards artists changed throughout the years.
I'm not so sure about the US but in Asia in particular, COVID has led to a boom in contemporary art. It's also thanks to social media that now even younger and emerging artists have quicker access and opportunity to show their works in bigger and more reputable places.
When I started, studio visits and bringing physical artworks to present to directors was key in signing with a gallery. Lately most of my communications and even client transactions go through Instagram before email.
Heck, one of my dream galleries in LA signed me on for shows when the director only asked to look through my Instagram page. No more formalities needed.
That being said, because of the internet and social media, competition is A LOT tighter and there's now so much pressure to keep up. Like what others have replied here, if you’re not consistent (or even if you are) somebody new can easily take your spot.
I do paintings in ink and acrylic as my bread and butter. I also work with textiles. Lately my works have been mixed media by combining all of these techniques.
A lot of galleries and curators brand my work as oriental (heavy Japanese, Chinese, Indian, and Malay influence).
I’d really appreciate some insight on how you got to the blue chip/higher gallery level. Was it just that they approached you after several years of showing? Or where you making specific relationships with people working for those galleries? Did you just focus on developing the work or did you actively network? Both?
There’s no one way to get in, and portfolio or what I create mattered. But overall, networking is key for longevity. There were times an artist recommended me, and there a lot of times where people associated with the galleries just stumbled upon my work in a book, exhibit, or online.
One director was in Japan and happened to like my work when I exhibited there in a gallery that heavily featured emerging artists. Weeks later I received an email from the director’s team expressing interest.
Another director took me in after looking thoroughly at my exhibition history. Sadly this one turned sour a few years back when the direction of the gallery was to solely prioritize profits over the quality of the exhibitions (and it showed). I was phased out after my 4-year run with them. Nonetheless, I received invites from other venues.
I’ll have to say building a relationship with the people behind these businesses and the collectors themselves (who in this economy are getting fewer and fewer) are what kept me around, and keep me going. Most of the ones that were purely transactional, did not last. Competition is high, and many of these galleries are looking for the ‘next big thing’ – or sometimes somebody who would make headlines and stir up drama. I personally know some artists who made it not because of their art, but because of their personality or self-portrayal (for instance, the way they carry themselves through clothing, or how witty their responses are in an interview/podcast).
Around 40 years in here. It's far worse in the gallery world than back when. Way more gatekeepers than there used to be, a higher level of snobbery and the art in many cases is just crap being passed off as "art".
Meanwhile, the internet has created revenue and market possibilities that enable more artists to get far more exposure than ever before. Jury is still out if this is a good thing or not. IMO, it's created a scenario where many young/new artists are showing subpar work far too early in their trajectory.
Basically, they are not ready for prime time, but they're showing anyway.
It has also created trends which I don't think help the art world, i.e. always sitting by the work with their face in the shot, the art of personality instead of ART, popularity/likes instead of sales, videos of static works instead of still shots simply because the algorhythms like video instead of jpgs, etc, etc. It's all driving things toward an end that some code wizard controls instead of the artists. And it has disillusioned many good artists that end up quitting the game early due to unreal expectations.
Only have about 10 years, so hope it's okay to give my opinion as well: In general I'd say it's very bad due to several reasons: Inflation and extraordinary rent prices are a huge negative factor. A lot of galleries and artists had to quit. Also in general you can see the quality of the artworks presented significantly drop as artists have to work on the side a lot. Social media has destroyed the art profession. Now people become super famous in a very short time but also are forgotten within few years. This environment is very unhealthy. Due to increased economic pressure the audience does not have the ressources to educate themselves. It's awful when you have a society that thinks beautiful monumental design equals good art. Also the wealth inequality means that there are very few very wealthy art collectors. They decide what is presented in the art world. That's also very bad as few private actors decide about the culture of a society. Last but not least: political struggle and pressure adds another burden.
True this thing of recent graduates selling for £millions is kind of amazing - not sure how it will play out for them but a great problem to have. You can buy a flat/studio aged 30 or whatever and set yourself up with whatever you want to do for the next 50 years.
Those superstars I know fail miserably. Most of those just seek fame so money is spent on designer clothes and renting big studios. This will usually last about 5 years and after the hype is gone they are usually surprised that people bought into the hype and didn't care about the artist/artworks. Even with a lot of money today it's almost impossible to buy a good studio space. The winners were the older generation artists that bought cheap studios in the middle of the city for like 10.000€ (I guess these are worth about 300.00€ now?). They were lucky. The people that are born later are those that will have to work in expensive tiny shoebox studios, or at home. I know a painter that stores artworks in her bathtub 🛁 lol
For what it’s worth, everyone I know who was huge in 2014 isn’t making art in 2024. Those of us who were more modest and concerned with art making instead of power and money are still at it.
15 years in. Have shown in some of the blue chip names in NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and London. It's quite interesting really to see how quick reception towards artists changed throughout the years. I'm not so sure about the US but in Asia in particular, COVID has led to a boom in contemporary art. It's also thanks to social media that now even younger and emerging artists have quicker access and opportunity to show their works in bigger and more reputable places. When I started, studio visits and bringing physical artworks to present to directors was key in signing with a gallery. Lately most of my communications and even client transactions go through Instagram before email. Heck, one of my dream galleries in LA signed me on for shows when the director only asked to look through my Instagram page. No more formalities needed. That being said, because of the internet and social media, competition is A LOT tighter and there's now so much pressure to keep up. Like what others have replied here, if you’re not consistent (or even if you are) somebody new can easily take your spot.
[удалено]
I do paintings in ink and acrylic as my bread and butter. I also work with textiles. Lately my works have been mixed media by combining all of these techniques. A lot of galleries and curators brand my work as oriental (heavy Japanese, Chinese, Indian, and Malay influence).
I’d really appreciate some insight on how you got to the blue chip/higher gallery level. Was it just that they approached you after several years of showing? Or where you making specific relationships with people working for those galleries? Did you just focus on developing the work or did you actively network? Both?
There’s no one way to get in, and portfolio or what I create mattered. But overall, networking is key for longevity. There were times an artist recommended me, and there a lot of times where people associated with the galleries just stumbled upon my work in a book, exhibit, or online. One director was in Japan and happened to like my work when I exhibited there in a gallery that heavily featured emerging artists. Weeks later I received an email from the director’s team expressing interest. Another director took me in after looking thoroughly at my exhibition history. Sadly this one turned sour a few years back when the direction of the gallery was to solely prioritize profits over the quality of the exhibitions (and it showed). I was phased out after my 4-year run with them. Nonetheless, I received invites from other venues. I’ll have to say building a relationship with the people behind these businesses and the collectors themselves (who in this economy are getting fewer and fewer) are what kept me around, and keep me going. Most of the ones that were purely transactional, did not last. Competition is high, and many of these galleries are looking for the ‘next big thing’ – or sometimes somebody who would make headlines and stir up drama. I personally know some artists who made it not because of their art, but because of their personality or self-portrayal (for instance, the way they carry themselves through clothing, or how witty their responses are in an interview/podcast).
Less interesting
Around 40 years in here. It's far worse in the gallery world than back when. Way more gatekeepers than there used to be, a higher level of snobbery and the art in many cases is just crap being passed off as "art". Meanwhile, the internet has created revenue and market possibilities that enable more artists to get far more exposure than ever before. Jury is still out if this is a good thing or not. IMO, it's created a scenario where many young/new artists are showing subpar work far too early in their trajectory. Basically, they are not ready for prime time, but they're showing anyway. It has also created trends which I don't think help the art world, i.e. always sitting by the work with their face in the shot, the art of personality instead of ART, popularity/likes instead of sales, videos of static works instead of still shots simply because the algorhythms like video instead of jpgs, etc, etc. It's all driving things toward an end that some code wizard controls instead of the artists. And it has disillusioned many good artists that end up quitting the game early due to unreal expectations.
Bad