There is a gallery in Cincinnati that
collects well over $100K a year (over half of the
institution’s total revenue) just from charging submission fees to artists. It
puts out several calls for submissions every month, and typically charges $40
per submission. These fees are not for participation. They are for mere
consideration, mostly for entry to juried group exhibitions.
Most of the paying artists do not
benefit from their investment. Their art will be rejected. They will not receive
a refund. At best, they can write it off as a business expense. That is, if
they earn a profit off their studio work three out of every five years,
otherwise the IRS regards an artist’s labor to be a hobby.
The inevitable result of pay-to-play is representation that is proportional to the artists’ means, not the quality or cultural significance of their work.
Emerging and mid-career artists commonly invest
more money in our studio practices than we earn from selling products produced
in our studios. Our costs of living are often supported by teaching, day jobs,
and loved ones. Some of us don’t even produce products which can be commodified
and therefore can only ever have our studio practice be monetarily compensated
by the occasional stipend or grant.
The gallery in Cincinnati is Manifest Creative Research Gallery, and the only reason we
know how much they collect in fees and that the fees are the bulk of their
total operating budget is because they are a 501(C)(3) nonprofit, and must
therefore disclose that information to the public. Most arts institutions
charging submission fees are completely opaque about it, and there is no way of
knowing just how much fees from artists whose applications are rejected are supporting
the artistic establishment in America.
As artists know, submission fees are
a standard practice. The most common amount charged is $35, though many charge
more. Some charge a lesser amount as a base fee for fewer works, and the fee
increases with the number of works submitted. Some charge a lesser amount for
students, though no discount is offered to low-income artists. Membership
organizations typically charge their dues-paying members submission fees, even
if it is a lesser amount than charged to non-members. University galleries are
increasingly charging submission fees. Even nonprofit institutions whose stated
missions are to support artists, charge fees.
The
inevitable result of pay-to-play is representation that is proportional to the
artists’ means, not the quality or cultural significance of their work. The
artists most strapped for cash, particularly those supporting dependents or who
live in economically depressed regions or communities, can only afford an
occasional fee. More financially stable artists can set a limited budget for submission
fees. And a minority of affluent artists will enter whatever they want, whenever
they want because the fees are inconsequential to their standard of living.
Given that this is a growing practice, is it any surprise that a rather
homogenous culture of middle-upper class, mostly white people continue to dominate the art
world, especially at the levels of emerging and mid-career representation?
Why not charge admission fees to those coming to shows and events? Crowd-fund online. Apply for grants. Appeal to wealthy art-lovers for donations. Lobby lawmakers for more public funding for the arts.
BUT – isn’t it fair to ask artists to contribute to some of the expense in
running an exhibition, event or program they might benefit from? And the answer
is sure, IF the artist is benefitting. There are institutions that only charge modest
fees to artists whose applications are accepted. But how is it fair to charge
an artist who is rejected, especially given how much they have already spent in
the studio creating work, as well as preparing application materials?
BUT – nonprofit and artist-run galleries do so much good and already run on
shoe-string budgets. What if without revenue from submission fees they shut
down? By surviving via a practice that blatantly perpetuates systematic
classism, sexism, and racism, these institutions hide the struggles and diverse
perspectives of disadvantaged artists behind a field
of more advantaged ones. People see thriving arts nonprofits and conclude that
everything is fine, when it most certainly is not.
BUT – commercial galleries have the right to charge fees. After all, they are a
private business, and those who forego engaging in lucrative standard practices,
however unethical, will be replaced by competitors who are willing to do so. And
this is true! Which begs the question, why on earth should any artist pay a fee
to a gallery for the mere privilege of being considered for a show, when that
gallery can’t even sell enough work to survive on commissions? Commercial
galleries are either bad at their business – which is to sell art – or they are
taking serious advantage of artists by demanding fees on top of commissions.
They can only get away with because everyone is doing it.
This is more reason why nonprofit institutions must NOT charge submission fees. If they stop charging fees, artists have an alternative, and that pressures
commercial galleries to cease this unethical and inequitable practice.
How much are artists benefiting from nonprofits that only exist because
they charge so many of us fees for nothing in return? In real world practice,
doesn’t this lead to the benefit of a few at the expense of many? And how is that any different than what is
happening in the profit-driven realm?
Are there no other means of
fundraising available? Why not charge admission fees to those coming to shows and
events? Crowd-fund online. Apply for grants. Appeal to wealthy art-lovers for
donations. Lobby lawmakers for more public funding for the arts. Have a goddamned
bake sale if need be. But stop charging the very people who are already
investing the most and probably making the least off art!
This manner of weeding out applicants might make processing submissions easier for administrators and jurors, but it also makes them less competitive by excluding the very artists whose voices are already marginalized.
Some institutions manage to not charge submission fees, and they are better for
it. The International Print Center New York (IPCNY) is a nonprofit that runs the New Prints Program, a biannual open call, and they don’t charge submission
fees. As a result, they receive a massive number of submissions to choose from,
and their juried exhibitions are much more diverse in representation than is
typical.
In an email exchange I had with
Jason Franz, the Executive Director of Manifest Research Gallery, he wrote, “Our exhibits are intentionally VERY competitive. This makes
them valuable, and desirable for those wanting to measure their work against
their peers and achieve something special.” A curious thing to say considering
that submission fees, by their nature, result in much less competition. While each
of Manifest’s open calls receive at best a few hundred submissions, IPCNY's New Prints Program receives
thousands. This manner of weeding out
applicants might make processing submissions easier for administrators and jurors,
but it also makes them less competitive by excluding the very artists whose
voices are already marginalized. As the saying goes, the path of least resistance is what makes the river crooked.
The time has come for all of us who make, buy, sell, and value ART to radically
change our attitudes about submission fees. We need to collectively, firmly call
out this practice for taking advantage of artists who can afford to pay
submission fees, and further marginalizing those who can’t.
