Should Artists Pay?

If an Artist Pays, the Gallerist Isn’t Really Investing

Should an artist pay to exhibit their works, hoping it will lead them to fame? A direct question deserves a direct answer: no.

I explained my reasoning in a chapter of my book Your First Five Contemporary Artworks (2017). But should this "no" be taken as an absolute rule? Let’s think it through—after all, thinking is free.

If an artist pays for an exhibition, the gallerist is not truly investing. In my book, I made it clear: this practice is unfair, both toward the artist and the collector. The collector, unaware of any behind-the-scenes deals, assumes the artist is at a level where someone is willing to invest in them.

The art market is crowded. For every person ready to buy an artwork, many more are ready to sell it, and even more are ready to create it. In the primary market—the market of living and often emerging artists—the value chain should be simple: an artist creates, a producer (whether a gallerist, patron, or institution) invests in their production and livelihood, and a distribution network connects artists with collectors. Curators and critics also play a crucial role in determining an artist’s exposure and pricing.

This was my stance—until December 29, 2024, at 2:35 PM.

At 2:45 PM, I changed my mind. Or rather, I no longer considered that "no" an absolute truth.

What Changed in 10 Minutes?

That day, a woman walked into one of my galleries, trying to promote her son, an aspiring artist. She regretted not signing him up for a reputable art competition—a competition that, from the names she mentioned, seemed worthy of attention. The entry fee was 30 euros.

I reiterated my position that artists should not have to pay. But I was surprised—could 30 euros really be a barrier? We were in St. Moritz, where a gin & tonic costs 45 euros.

She explained that her son was a student, with a respected curator as a teacher—someone I personally admire. The professor’s rule was clear: "Never pay to participate!" So, the young artist had to choose: either follow his instincts and pay 30 euros, disappointing his professor, or obey the rule and pass on the opportunity.

Two Key Factors: Quality and Transparency

That conversation made me realize that the issue is not about whether artists should or shouldn’t pay. The real question is about two key elements: quality and transparency.

If an art competition is organized by respected figures in the field—yes, I know, this is undemocratic, but the art world has operated this way for over half a century—and fees are openly communicated, I honestly don’t see the problem. We pay for highways, so why not pay a 30-euro administrative fee?

What About Museums and Galleries?

Now, let’s consider art galleries and museums. Many renowned museums also charge artists to exhibit. Is this fair? If done behind closed doors, no, it isn’t. But there are two deeper issues to examine: first, money is fungible; second, money exists as an enabling tool.

From an economic perspective, does it really matter who pays for the venue, lighting, or champagne? If a wealthy and talented artist wants to sponsor their own exhibition in partnership with an intellectual yet less affluent gallerist, why should that be a problem?

There’s a long-standing stereotype that artists should be poor and struggling while gallerists should be wealthy and arrogant—but who decided this? Shouldn’t we focus on artistic quality, cultural depth, and expressive power instead of reinforcing clichés?

Do we really believe that money alone can buy undeserved fame? Are we afraid that a rich but talentless artist will somehow rise to the top? I don’t think so—the art world is selective enough to prevent that. And even if it happens, so what? No system is perfect.

At 2:45 PM on December 29, 2024, I Realized: It’s All Just Mental Gymnastics

If you have money, invest it. If you have talent, use it. If you’re an intellectual, write. If you’re insightful, spread happiness and improve the world.

There’s just one non-negotiable rule: if an artist contributes financially to an exhibition, it must be explicitly stated. The exhibition should be credited as "Produced by [Gallerist’s Name] and [Artist’s Name]," just like any other sponsor.

After all, why should a winemaker sponsor the free-flowing wine at an art event, but an artist can’t contribute to their own exhibition? That would be a ridiculous double standard.

Should Artists Contribute to Exhibition Costs?

Should artists be required to pay? No, I don’t think they should. But if they choose to do so, I won’t be scandalized. On the contrary, it likely means they are also a skilled entrepreneur who understands the value of strategic investment.

I’ve been treated to more dinners by women than by artists—yes, I’m old-fashioned, I still believe men should pay—but the system has conditioned emerging artists to think they are incapable of making financial decisions, forbidden from investing in their own success, and not even allowed to buy themselves a gin & tonic.

A JSON for Art Exhibition Economics

In the tech world, one of the most fundamental internet structures is JSON (JavaScript Object Notation). A JSON schema formally defines how data is structured, allowing different software components to communicate seamlessly—whether for banking systems or flight navigation software.

And since data structures are no joke, why should we treat art exhibition financing any differently?

I propose that every art exhibition publicly display a JSON outlining who funded what, how costs were distributed, and who played what role.

This would eliminate false assumptions and end meaningless debates. More structure, fewer empty words.