I have lived on both sides of the gifting-art fence, working for nonprofits requesting art for their benefit auctions and as a dealer constantly being asked to give work myself or to invite my artists to do so. And, yes, because the benefits cluster seasonally there are times when demands become excessive and I might well have agreed with some of what Mat Gleason says in the Huffington Post article, “The Career Benefits of Boycotting Art Auctions.”
But being older and a little wiser I found the article mean-spirited and uninformed. Then I noticed that this ridiculous screed was gaining traction and praise on Facebook. Gleason had touched a nerve, but clearly not a nerve located in the brain. It is time for a little pushback.
“Half a century of charity art auctions have changed the way collectors buy art. These fundraisers have depressed prices of art across the board.”
Statements like the one above make it clear that Gleason knows nothing about the art market. First, major collectors do not buy much at benefits because it’s not where one finds masterpieces. It’s where they find filler. The masterpieces are all locked up in the dealer’s vault. Today, collectors buy mainly at the global art mall, a circuit of fairs. And they spend billions. The art pie today is worth over $50 billion annually. Are we to believe that its very foundations are under attack from benefit auctions?
Aside from the fact that he tells us that this will destroy the art market, Gleason gives other reasons to boycott benefits. Giving to art benefits will not make you rich and famous. Your work might get a low bid or it might get no bid. And the ultimate horror: you will be treated like a second class citizen at the gala dinner.
In my experience artists are in demand at these events because they might get unruly and turn one of these boring evenings into a memorable experience. And if you can’t deal with the pinprick to your ego when no one wants your piece, you should stay at home.
Yes, there is a downside. We all dislike the benefit toads who buy art cheaply at benefits merely to cut out the retailer. And then there are the toads who acquire social cache by organizing these events. There is a lot to dislike about benefits apart from the chicken, but there is some revenge. One builds a very mediocre collection at benefits. It’s where some artists release their dogs. Caveat emptor.
And you cannot just buy at at the bottom price, as Gleason suggests, then turn around and give that piece away to another cause for the top tax deduction. Gifts of art to auctions are not tax deductible except sometimes at cost. You have to give art to a museum or another arts organization for their collection to get an appreciated write-off. And one can only do that after three years of ownership. If it’s a good piece and it goes to a good institution, the artist gets a bump to their resume. And the charity got some money. Win, win.
Artists give art for two reasons. The first is obligation (the request comes from your best collector, or your closest friend is organizing a benefit). And if you have organized a benefit yourself, beware, the law of quid-pro-quot applies. This is the price of doing business.
The second reason is because most artists are idealists and enjoy supporting causes that matter to them. Many artists cannot write check for $2,000 as a donation but they can give an artwork that raises that sum.
When they give to nonprofit arts organizations (the major producer of art benefits) they are supporting their own community. This makes a lie of Gleason’s claim that all benefit money leaves the art world (bear in mind his definition of this world consists of an artist and a dealer, nothing else.).
That said, do not be a patsy. Set a few rules. An annual quota is a good start and when it is reached, say no. At the same time provide a list of what you have already given with your rejection note.
Examine the finances of the beneficiary. Not all charities are born equal. Hospitals are often highly profitable billion dollar businesses hiding behind a 501c3 facade (and, yes, that includes the children’s wing matter how much of a tug on the heart it may be). In the latter case offer art free for the children’s ward. And we do not want to get into politics, religion or the Policeman’s Benevolent Fund.
Lastly, if you are going to give, give. You may not want to make a total gift but if you insist on getting back your full artist price, you are giving nothing. If it sells, you get your cash. If it does not sell, it comes back to you. That hardly makes you a philanthropist.
The fairest deal is for the artist is to get 50 percent of the hammer price with a reasonable reserve (the lowest price it can sell for). Prices at most benefits are very low. So once the artist’s share is paid there is very little left for the cause. And if you have no investment in the cause for which the benefit is being held, don’t give.
But do not simply boycott all benefits. For many arts organizations the auction is their biggest fund raiser. Take it away and many useful educational programs, services, centers, exhibitions, lecture programs, artist emergency funds, workshops—the very fibre of cultural life, particularly at a grassroots level- will be lost. Give wisely and avoid the toads.
Garth Clark is the Chief Editor of CFile.
I see a balance in this. I don’t think it will wreck the market to be in a charity auction, but it would be nice if the artists did get something out of it also. If the artists did not put up a piece for auction/sale, the charity would get nothing from it. So to say if your going to give, just give, is not always the answer. Heck, at times I was the one who needed the charity from some of the non profits I gave to!
I don’t see why we all could not come up with something that would be a win win for everyone.
If the artist got a take in things, the art would probably be of better quality which might in turn mean more demand/more money for the charity.
Garth,
I saw the parade of likes, shares, etc on the land of FACES. I agree with you. The article paints this with one broad stroke as an evil entity. I appreciate your take on it and wish folks were not so quick to jump n the LIKE bandwagon. I will say that some auctions can potentially do more harm than good, I would wager these are the exception not the rule. I personally donate immediately and willing if the cause is a good cause, cancer society, arts councils, etc. Less likely if its as you say, masking itself behind a 501c3. I feel it is the artists’ responsibility to do their own homework and set a limit to their donations. As to prices paid for the work and the work’s actual worth? Its an auction people, get over it. The auction doesn’t exist to inflate your ego, it exists to raise money, period. They are meant to be fun spirited events that raise money not careers.
Garth
when You change your approach from real estate salesman….
and you will look @ artists as essence of the culture…..
You will become more helpful in Your profession.
We have to stop piggy-backing on artists.
Contribute to art from both side.
Recognize artists.
Recognize art communication.
jolanta
aha… Garth
getting the clear idea how art works….
is not enough to be art dealer…
You have to BE artist /creator/ as well.
jolanta
psikus@mts.net
Garth, I agree with most of what you say and I give my work freely to not for profit art organizations. As a ceramic artist, my work is inexpensive to begin with and it always goes at auction for the appropriate value. I never give my “dogs” since I sign my work and do not want my name on a piece that I am not proud to give. It does not give me recognition to give. It gives me satisfaction that I can help at a fund raiser which is always a fun event.. I do not get a free dinner or a free ticket to the event. When I give my work, that is it- I give it. I do not need to see how much it sold for. It was my gift.
I do question someone bidding on my work every year and “collect” my work at one event after another then they will not come to my open studio to look at all of my work and support me at that time.
Fund raising is always difficult and I also have been on the asking side as a board member of an arts council. I would love to not have to ask for donations and would like to know if there is another way.
Artists give for a lot of reasons. Exposure, admiration, love for the organization and of course, they think it might lead to a possible commission (never happened for me). I’ve been lucky, my work has pretty consistently sold for at least 80% retail to above retail. Heres my beef with the whole thing. I get no tax deduction from this. I give away my weeks of toil that i’ve spent making something (not to mention the years i’ve spent getting good enough to be asked) and I get little more than dinner and a chance to be on parade for the patrons. Come on. Plain and simple-Its unethical to ask the most from those who make the least. I think these organizations should give 50% back to the artist and learn to deal with the fact that its a partnership. Period
Artists are the elite of the servant class
Jasper Johns
Thank you Garth! Well said. I hope that your views reflect most of us in the art world. Sure there are issues,but the benefits of donating far out weigh the down side.
I always enjoy reading your rebuttals, Garth. Well written.
I’ve found flexibility a most beneficial means of getting through life. I don’t have to make decisions that prevent me from evaluating a given situation by it’s own merits. Some donations work. Some don’t.
After a very unpleasant experience at a nonprofit fundraising auction, where they reduced my reserve price by 75% without my approval, I have resolved to never again participate in these auctions. The buyers get work at a steep discount from retail, which harms the artist’s price structure. The artist gets reminded exactly how little people think of his or her work. And the artist is also reminded that you are basically the entertainment for the evening, a momentary amusement for the rich people in attendance. It’s terribly insulting, and I refuse. So.