Instagram vs Galleries, has the Artist Support Pledge changed the power dynamic?

The 2020 lockdowns brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic signalled a potentially disastrous year for artists around the world. As in-studio purchasing, self-selling, and retainers have fallen out of favour, galleries have monopolised the way artists earn money. So, when galleries were forced to close their doors in March 2020, panic spread throughout the artist community. ‘Within an hour it felt like the art world was coming to a close,’ states Matthew Burrows, the creator of the Artist Support Pledge, ‘I felt this wave of desperation throughout the art world. I had to do something. There was no choice in the matter, I had to act.’ (1)

 This is how Burrows created the Artist Support Pledge, a movement which encouraged artists to sell work for up-to-£200 on Instagram, with the proviso that once they reached £1000, they would buy another artist’s work who was part of the ASP. The pledge created a sustainable culture of generosity and profit, becoming, for many artists, the only way to survive. It also, after years of digital-selling snobbery and an unbridled pre-eminence of gallery representation, legitimised self-selling online.

 The first thing to establish when approaching the question of whether the ASP has altered the artist-gallery dynamic, is whether the relationship was unequal to begin with. From an outsider’s position, a professional relationship unregulated by contracts, yearly base-salaries, or agents, whilst often demanding complete loyalty and taking 50% of profits, seemed, in the grand scheme of how other creative industries work, somewhat exploitative. However, when asking artists and galleries about their thoughts on the relationship, the answer to this question is far more nuanced than originally anticipated.

 Growing up within an artistic community has meant that overhearing grievances about galleries from artists was a regular occurrence. An artist (who prefers to remain anonymous, so will hereafter be referred to as HB), confirmed a lot of the complaints I have absorbed: ‘Galleries just sit on their laurels. This isn’t every gallery of course, but it is a lot: they expect a lot from their artists, such as digital marketing, PR, which is really the galleries responsibility, alongside complete loyalty and a 50% stake.’ (2)

 On the other hand, gallery owner-turned-full-time-artist David Risley stated simply that the relationship was ‘not at all’ (3) unequal, whilst artist Sam Windett seemed to sit in the middle of these two polarising opinions:

 ‘In general, I don’t think it’s unequal. They have the overheads: a space, staff, databases, art fair fees etc. Because of this, I have never begrudged them 50%. However, it’s the loyalty that they demand that I’m not quite on board with. Why can’t the artists exploit a number of galleries and collectors to ensure they get income from multiple sources?’ (4)

 Matthew Burrows’ opinion was even more nuanced and spoke to what the real issue of disparity in the gallery-artist relationship is: ‘A good gallery earns their money- I don’t begrudge them their 50% IF they are earning it. Their overheads are bigger than mine.’ Yet Burrows also lamented the wealth disparity in the art world, as it is one of the wealthiest and most glamorous industries with some of the most underpaid and unstable workers supplying it. To Burrows, this hypocrisy is also visible in the way the art world seems to foreground social agendas, without turning this consciousness in on itself. Burrows concluded:

 ‘However, this is because we as people, as artists, as consumers, have let this happen. I am reluctant to just blame galleries. We are the people who need to decide what the values of the art world are and live by them, so if there is inequality, the only people we can blame is ourselves.’ (5)

 Which is arguably what the ASP has been, a way of taking back control, of setting conditions for a specific area of the art market, of creating a culture of generosity instead of greed, of using the Internet to promote ease and democracy instead of mystery and elitism. So, I wonder, since artists have gained some control of their income streams, has this changed the gallery-artist dynamic?

 Burrows suggests that, to begin with, it did initially ‘upset the apple cart. Because it surprised everyone that artists could have a viable way of making money themselves.’ (6) HB added, ‘my gallery gets very cross when I sell directly through Instagram. They see it as me taking away potential clients, even though I have developed these relationships myself. The ASP has empowered me. It means I can make money and get paid on time for it, which I never do with a gallery. I now know that no one can sell my work and talk about it as well as I can.’ (7)

 David Risley was perhaps the most to the point about this question: ‘If galleries are threatened by the artist support pledge, if they are suggesting it is ‘undervaluing’ their market, then, frankly, they have nothing to worry about. If your market is so fragile that it can be undercut by work being sold for £200, then you don’t have a market to start with.’ (8)

 And although I disagree that work which sells for low prices don’t have a market, this is the crux of the argument. Why would a gallery who sells large scale works for thousands of pounds be threatened by an artist selling a small work-on-paper for £200? In the words of Burrows, the ASP is ‘A market, not THE market.’ (9) The gallery would never offer the small work on paper/ edition / drawing and similarly, the artist would never sell a large painting for £200. In general, these kinds of relationships have remained aimable and untouched.

 It appears that when the ASP creates tension between artist and gallery is in those small-to-medium galleries which might sell work for between £200-£400. This is substantiated by the comments from HB and (another artist who would prefer to remain anonymous) LB, who stated that she neglected being part of the ASP because she feared that her gallery would feel she was undercutting them. (10) It appears that *some* of these galleries feel as if their client lists and financial gains are threatened by artists who take part in the ASP. Instead of this becoming a productive opportunity to discuss what kind of work both the gallery and the artist sells simultaneously, some of these galleries appear to be using the leverage of gallery representation to attempt to stop these artists selling with the ASP all together. There is no awareness that both the ASP and gallery representation can work alongside each other.

For, it has been universally acknowledged by all spoken to, that galleries are still necessary. Sarah Brittian-Mansbridge, director of Cornwall Contemporary Galley, stated: ‘I think my artists know that [the ASP] will never replace what a good gallery can give them: many years of experience, a worldwide mailing list of art collectors, catalogues, press, publicity and the chance for art lovers to stand in a whole room full of their paintings and see them in the flesh.’ (11)

The ASP has in no way replaced galleries, just reinstated a kind of financial equity that has made artists less dependent on galleries as the sole providers of income. It has legitimised the act of self-selling which has ensured gallery representation is not the only way to become a professional, nor to remain financially stable. It has democratised the art system, ‘being an artist’ is now open to the many, not the few, and, as art critic and artist Matthew Collings stated, ‘with the ASP, pretty much anyone can own something called “art.”’ (12)

This culture of generosity and self-sustainability appears as if it has become another part of the art market, instead of threatening the systems already in place. It offers an alternative and, being digital, a more accessible way to sell art. It serves a purpose of creating personal connections between artists and buyers in different financial situations, whereas a gallery is still important in its ability to access a higher-value market and as a space to show a body of work in the flesh. If the ASP has made those galleries who are not “good” nervous, then all the better. Perhaps it’s time for those galleries to scrutinise themselves, to figure out why they can’t bear the thought of their artists having it all.

REFERENCES

(1)  Matthew Burrows, direct interview

(2)  HB (anonymous artist), direct interview

(3)  David Risley, direct interview

(4)  Samuel Windett, direct interview

(5)  Matthew Burrows, direct interview

(6)  Ibid.

(7)  HB (anonymous artist), direct interview

(8)  David Risley, direct interview

(9)  Matthew Burrows, direct interview

(10) LB (anonymous artist), direct interview

(11) Sarah Brittains-Mansbridge, direct interview

(12) Matthew Collings, direct interview