Art/Money #2 - Audience monopolies
Before we dive into art and money #2, I wanted to share three points of context:
When I started this newsletter, there was a pervasive sense that Instagram was going to kill photography on the platform and that constant tweaks to the algorithm were making it difficult for businesses to share their products with users. As a person who runs a business, to some extent, through instagram, it was a bit of a turning point for me: I needed to own more of the channels I used or I'd be forced to continue playing an unseen game.
There's often a slightly nihilistic idea that artists aren't ever going to earn a living wage, artists will always be broke. And while there's some truth to that (it isn't simple or straightforward for people to earn a living from art) I sort of think that's a stupid thing to believe. I'd like to, at some point, earn a living from creative things - that's one of my long term aims. Hoping for it overnight is naive, but not working it out is defeatist.
As an artist it is essential to have multiple income streams. But today's newsletter will focus specifically on selling objects (prints, books, posters, etc).
So let's talk a little bit about art, money and monopolies.
Selling art has, for a long time, been defined and constrained by monopolies. In recent years this has gotten more obvious and worse, despite many promises and hope to the contrary.
Let's talk about two ways this plays out.
Galleries
In a previous era, artists would bust their butts to get gallery representation - and an astute gallerist with connections to collectors and museums would represent an artists' work and sell it. While not a true monopoly, this was always a very exclusive system that divorced artists from audiences. Artists can also only bring certain types of works to galleries - prints. If you want to make t-shirts or something more low-brow then a gallerist might worry about the collectability of your mass produced work: will a millionaire want something that every skater kid could also own a version of?
So, in this case - what makes this a monopoly, in my view, is both the constraint (how many collectors are there? how many galleries are connected to them?) and the pandering. If you can't produce something that will please a collector you can't make any money. But who the fuck wants to please collectors as a necessary part of creativity?
Now, having had the pleasure of working with a few galleries, I have really enjoyed the collaboration and shared responsibility that did exist. Certainly I enjoy exhibiting with gallerists and learning from them!
But galleries rarely sell any of my work, so when we get down to brass tacks - galleries are great, but not an avenue for much in the way of income. Especially if your work is good but not saleable - how many people want an intense creepy photograph of an eagle in their house, for example?
Web 2.0
When web 2.0 came around a new possibility for art selling emerged: amass a large following on a social media platform, then advertise directly to them. With that connection to audience, artists could sell more and keep more of the profits.
We did we see some of this succeed. Youtube creators like Ben Horne and Tomas Heaton are certainly great examples of success. Instagram has led people like Daniel Arnold to have big cash injections through print sales. Tall Poppy Press DOES sell books through Instagram for sure.
In my world, instagram HAS led to sales. I have had people message me and ask to buy a print, I've certainly sold books through my instagram audience and I think people have signed up for workshops by finding out about them through IG.
So - with this success, what's the problem? Isn't this working as advertised?
The short answer is: sort of. When you commit to a platform like Instagram, you spend years gaining enough followers that advertising a sale, a product or something like that goes anywhere. If 1% of your audience will buy something and you've only 50 people following you, well that's no sales. And I would say the percentage of followers that purchase is about 1%. So you spend years building an audience, which is fun and enjoyable in its own way, for a small direct selling avenue. On its face that is certainly worth it.
But here's the kicker: then the platform changes.
Instagram continually changes how people see posts from those they are following. So if I post a video, 50% of my audience see it. I've been posting these videos of books I've hand made at home and they've been getting a lot of love. But if I post an image, maybe only 10-15% of my audience see it. If I put up a poster advertising a workshop - then many fewer people see it. While I could move entirely to video content on instagram it takes a lot more effort to make video, and the video I make is quite low quality. Additionally, people have come to me for PHOTOS - so switching to video is also confusing. And slamming people with lots of advertisements in the form of video is also likely to bore people and might even reduce the audience I have.
And let's underscore a larger point: using a platform makes you vulnerable to its changes (and there will be changes). That these changes are opaque makes it even harder to find your way forward: IG doesn't tell people what they are tweaking and how to stay on top of it. Neither does youtube, facebook, tiktok or anyone else. Things just change behind the scenes and suddenly your audience aren't seeing your work anymore, so attempts to sell or advertise a product, exhibition, etc, die.
Worse are people who got into NFTs that had this really big promise of further artist ownership and income and yet, after about 9 months, were revealed as a money laundering scam, pyramid scheme, etc.
Face-to-face
This has been one of the more successful avenues for me. When I publish a book, stores will buy it, people will buy it from stores or, if I'm at a book fair, people will buy it from me there. Similarly if I make a poster it slays at a book fair I see IG sales trickle in.
But of course, fairs are not happening every weekend (and if they were I'm sure sales would slow as audiences aren't coming to a weekly fair), and I don't own a shop front (and couldn't afford one anyway). So there are constrains there, for now.
While things have occasionally had hot streaks on instagram, or through newsletters, conversion is always really small. And that's ok - I will continue to share what I'm doing and see how that goes. But, moving forward, I'd rather invest more time into newsletters, presence at physical stores/events and making cool shit.
Selling online can't ever be a reliable income source while platforms are subject to corporate changes (which they always will), galleries aren't viable income sources either as a lot of my art just isn't something one would want in their home.
Sometimes well meaning friends will suggest putting work in cafes or something like that. I have never, ever seen a print at a cafe sell. The cafe near me has had the same 10 prints up for almost two years. These avenues aren't meaningful.
My way forward
For me, what's essential in thinking about my future as an artist who hopefully makes some money is:
Always have a range of products and price points
Always have a range of ways to bring in income - selling, teaching, paid work, etc
Continue to spend time building quality workshops - as my work will rarely be that saleable
Build audiences through newsletters and social media
Keep drumming up wider store distribution for Tall Poppy Press
Attend relevant fairs - I especially would like to get into one in China one of these days
Find creative ways to show people what I do, in the hope that they are then more likely to connect/resonate with it
Move a little into merch - while this was a bit of a false start this year, I have some ideas to trial next year that I hope will be successful
Art and money are intrinsically linked to audience - so this matters.