Pricing your art

[Richard Monro]

Garth,
Based on my observations of the market, you should be in the upper quartile. i know that is a rarefied zone to be in, but your work is certainly worthy of that placement.

Tony Pro
i hope you see this posting as some of the work you have at the Heritage Gallery is in my list. Great Stuff!

[Mary Sparrow]

Thank you so much for posting this Richard.

I, unfortunately, fall in the category of the artist described that was scared to raise his prices. I'm coming around slowly though.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Richard,

This information is great and I thank you as well for sharing it with us. Have you observed what the trend is for charging for additional people in a portrait and weather or not pet portraits command the same per square inch ?

[Richard Monro]

Enzie,
When i first started this statistical market analysis many years ago, i tried many different ways of analyzing the raw data. The amazing conclusion of the analysis is that art pricing displays a direct correlation to price per square inch regardless of the subject matter. There is also a direct correlation to perceived reputation but virtually no correlation to any other factors.

Now to answer your questions:
1) With portraits or figurative art there seems to be a 10 to 20% boost in price for each additional figure. However, this is not a hard and fast rule. Some artists don't show any price change.

2) Animal or pet art commands the same price as all other types of art.

[Michele Rushworth]

You can get further information about portrait pricing by looking at the work of the many artists on the SOG site.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Thanks for posting this, Richard. It's very clearly stated and makes a lot of sense no matter how you sell work, whether you are in a gallery or not.

My work is in three galleries, and in addition to that, I often have shows in other venues. Things get a little complicated. Usually the gallery is willing to split their commission. In this kind of situation I never expect to get more than 50%, my usual commission, if it is piece that was in a gallery to begin with. If you are honest and make sure the gallery gets their part of the commission even if it is a piece that the gallery sent back because it wasn't sold, it helps promote good artist-gallery relations. I never sell anything or negotiate without consulting the manager of my primary gallery.

I'd be interested to hear how others manage this sort of situation.

[Richard Monro]

Alexandra,
The gallery gets paid for work performed such as selling the painting, negotiating the sale, providing wall space, advertising and other things like these. Their high commision is predicated on the fact that not all the art will sell. When they send a piece back, the business contract for that piece is ended. They were not able to perform their required function. They are not owed any fee. In such a case you owe nothing to the gallery unless it is specifically stated in your contract that any such after return sales are commissionable.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Hi Richard,

I've heard varying opinions on this. Personally I would still go through the gallery if the work had been sent back recently, say within 6 months, but no more than a year. I know not everyone would do this--others might call it "bad business sense"--but I have a very good relationship with my galleries and I think this enhances it.

Older work I just go ahead and sell myself or through other shows (minus whatever commission is charged).

When artists reach a certain stage in their careers when they are branching out into several galleries, they often do not tell their primary gallery where else they are selling and what work they are giving these other galleries. I've seen gallery managers become angry about this, and I can see why, so I try to keep them all informed, especially my primary gallery. I don't think secrecy is a good policy here because sooner or later someone finds out.

In a way these two paragraphs are about two different things, but in a way they are both about going the extra mile for the gallery especially if your gallery has done a really excellent job of promoting your career, selling your work, and building a collector base. It works for me.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

When I first started to figure out how my work compared with others and how it should be priced, I looked at the fees of other artists, who worked in a similar style and who's technical ability matched mine.

I have never liked having to list different prices for each different size and then adding on fees for complexity, even though that's exactly what I ended up with, since that seemed the thing to do at the time of my research. I would love to say instead: " I charge "x" amount per square inch plus "X" amount for each extra person and have the client decide what size suites their budget. Somehow starting with a small figure and adding it up, is not as shocking as seeing the lump sum right off. Does that make sense?!

I often feel that when people hear what I charge they get that look of "Wau, way too expensive!" and it makes me upset that I always have to try to justify my fees. To top it off, I am priced at the bottom end of Richard's fee structure! At this point I really don't know what to ask for anymore.....

Michele, I looked at your pricing again and I like how it is kept simple and precise. I will need to look at mine and revise a couple of things.

[Garth Herrick]

Enzie, I am with you. It seems a big factor should be content and complexity, more so than size alone.

By your scale Richard, a miniature portait with all the content and complexity of a life size portrait might be a hundredth the price! There must be other factors to be considered.

It seems most portrait artists cannot adhere rigidly to a size only pricing scale. A small head and shoulders might be better than half a spacious three-quarter figure on a typical portrait price schedule. Why should it amount to a quarter the price by scale?

Can we tweak the formula?

Garth