Wouldn't it be great if promoters / organizers worked together with artists. They would schedule shows in geographic areas, timing with other shows so they do not compete with each other.
Instead of depleting market share, sales of art would increase.
Mediums for shows could be arranged.. ie craft shows done separately from fine art yet they could be during the same time schedule.
Some may believe this is already in place. Yet there is a conflict of interest for the promoters with profit from putting on as many shows as possible.
Eventually something will break or it will diminish the level of art as the average price per piece will shrink tremendously.
You need to be a member of Art Fair Insiders to add comments!
I had suggested something similar about ten years ago, even speaking to a few show directors. My idea was for shows in similar geographic locations that ran a week or two apart save something like 5 or 10% of their jurying for a common jury where artist would be willing to travel great distances knowing they had two shows back to back to absorb the expenses.
There was a time, not terribly long ago, when Bill Charney (who started the Cherry Creek Arts Festival in Denver) and Harvey Feinberg (Cain Park Arts Festival in Cleveland Heights) and a few others discussed this idea. They talked about putting together a universal application, a schedule of shows that dovetailed with one another that artists could use to plan their schedules. A nifty idea if your work is good enough to break into that system.
One of the problems is not that shows are all independently run, not a lot of talking back and forth, some show directors won't even answer our inquiries as we try to keep ArtFairCalendar.com up to date with their current dates, and too many of the mid-to smaller events operate as though they are the only show in the country. The NAIA brought a lot of shows together and better planning started, and the show directors met one another and started visiting each other's shows. This is good for the business because just about every show has something new to teach another show and the directors who want to continually upgrade their shows are always learning.
How would you propose getting this started, Larry? We could start something here.
As you stated, Connie. It starts with communication. Motivation / incentive must be garnered for the promoters to feel there is a need for change.
As most businesses in this country are predicated upon capitalism, then financial incentives would be most effective.
The Profit loss of these promoters is based upon the volume of artists, the volume of patrons in their shows. Without either numbers being high enough their show will not succeed to run. If these numbers are high enough they are able to attain higher booth fees. The quality of artists they acquire, brings up the cost of artwork sold. This in turn allows for higher booth fees. Therefore it is communication not only between promoters but with the artist. If nothing is done this will work itself out in the long run. For as more and more shows are running constantly in the same areas, artists have many more choices of which shows to go in. Simple economics of supply and demand relegate that booth fees will drop as this competition increases. Unfortunately by the time that happens so will the quality of artwork. For promoters, in the meantime, will just want to fill spots regardless of quality in order to meet their profit.
Educating said promoters on a longer Vision to the Future and the growth of this industry and the unwise choice of just raping it now, or in the short run, will be in their best interest. It is the difference between short sighted or looking for long-term business growth.
Creating an Advisory Board that promoters will honestly work with can help. Unfortunately this would have to be carefully done in such a way to avoid just having more fingers in the pot.
Alternately the artists could collectively make their own system, on the idea of a union. However that could easily create an adversarial relationship between the artist and the promoters. That is a lose/lose situation for all. The best situation is when the promoter is a partner with the artists and both are looking to grow the business in both quality and capital.
Will Never Happen. Show Directors don't care.....There will always be artists to take someone else's place.... although possibly a lesser quality. The artist's profit or loss is not their concern, its the artists concern.The only thing controlling this is the free market. While I agree with you, it will never happen.
Replies
Larry Berman
There was a time, not terribly long ago, when Bill Charney (who started the Cherry Creek Arts Festival in Denver) and Harvey Feinberg (Cain Park Arts Festival in Cleveland Heights) and a few others discussed this idea. They talked about putting together a universal application, a schedule of shows that dovetailed with one another that artists could use to plan their schedules. A nifty idea if your work is good enough to break into that system.
One of the problems is not that shows are all independently run, not a lot of talking back and forth, some show directors won't even answer our inquiries as we try to keep ArtFairCalendar.com up to date with their current dates, and too many of the mid-to smaller events operate as though they are the only show in the country. The NAIA brought a lot of shows together and better planning started, and the show directors met one another and started visiting each other's shows. This is good for the business because just about every show has something new to teach another show and the directors who want to continually upgrade their shows are always learning.
How would you propose getting this started, Larry? We could start something here.
As most businesses in this country are predicated upon capitalism, then financial incentives would be most effective.
The Profit loss of these promoters is based upon the volume of artists, the volume of patrons in their shows. Without either numbers being high enough their show will not succeed to run. If these numbers are high enough they are able to attain higher booth fees. The quality of artists they acquire, brings up the cost of artwork sold. This in turn allows for higher booth fees. Therefore it is communication not only between promoters but with the artist. If nothing is done this will work itself out in the long run. For as more and more shows are running constantly in the same areas, artists have many more choices of which shows to go in. Simple economics of supply and demand relegate that booth fees will drop as this competition increases. Unfortunately by the time that happens so will the quality of artwork. For promoters, in the meantime, will just want to fill spots regardless of quality in order to meet their profit.
Educating said promoters on a longer Vision to the Future and the growth of this industry and the unwise choice of just raping it now, or in the short run, will be in their best interest. It is the difference between short sighted or looking for long-term business growth.
Creating an Advisory Board that promoters will honestly work with can help. Unfortunately this would have to be carefully done in such a way to avoid just having more fingers in the pot.
Alternately the artists could collectively make their own system, on the idea of a union. However that could easily create an adversarial relationship between the artist and the promoters. That is a lose/lose situation for all. The best situation is when the promoter is a partner with the artists and both are looking to grow the business in both quality and capital.
Will Never Happen. Show Directors don't care.....There will always be artists to take someone else's place.... although possibly a lesser quality. The artist's profit or loss is not their concern, its the artists concern.The only thing controlling this is the free market. While I agree with you, it will never happen.