Guest Editorials
My Views on the State of the Art Fair Business
By Greg Lawler, Editor and Publisher, The Art Fair SourceBook
Things are definitely changing. If you’ve been exhibiting at art fairs for the past several years, you already know this.
While there are still exhibitors who report that their sales at shows have never been better, my impression, from booth-side, phone, and email conversations with exhibiting artists, is that most are struggling with declining sales, skyrocketing costs, and the new challenges that digital and ZAPP application processes bring.
Sales have declined.
Since the year 2000, the average sales at the top 300 shows nationwide (according to AFSB statistics) have declined by 10%. Average net revenue at these shows has gone from $3,568 in 2000, down to $3,184 in 2006, with a more pronounced decline at the smaller shows. Factors likely include the challenging economic environment, a continued lack of consumer confidence since 9/11, cut backs in promotional efforts by fairs, hence not enough patrons, and the dilution of the market through a proliferation of art fairs in many formerly lucrative areas (South Florida, West Coast Florida, California, Chicagoland).
Costs have skyrocketed.
During the period from 2000 to 2006, the average booth space fee at the top 300 shows nationwide has gone from $316 to $412 – an increase of over 30%.
Meanwhile, the average cost of jury fees at these same shows has increased from $15 to $26 - an increase of over 60%! In addition, the price of fuel, airline passenger fares, air cargo, hotels, and the cost of materials have all climbed significantly. Plus, the overall cost of living has advanced by over 22% in that same seven year period.
Predictability has plunged – the ZAPP attack.
Add to the above challenges the increased uncertainty of getting juried into profitable shows, and you have a situation that is challenging even the most successful exhibitors. Trends indicate that artists are applying to 50% more shows than ever before, in order to insure having a venue - any venue at all - at which to try to sell their art on a given weekend, and this means the added cost of an increased number of jury/application fees to pay.
Why has it been so challenging for so many to jury into good shows lately?
1. ZAPPLICATION: The complaint I hear most frequently is the new Zapplication process. Many artists, formerly “regulars” at the best shows, have yet to be accepted through this process, which leads to questions about ZAPP presentation and viewing. Unless stated otherwise, each ZAPP jury viewing is supposed to take place by projection; unfortunately, some shows are viewing via monitor, and artists aren’t always apprised of this change. Without knowing which system and color space will be used, or whether the images will be enlarged or not, it is more difficult to choose the right digital images. Out of desperation to make sense of this process, some artists have resorted to purchasing the projector supposedly used by ZAPP, or traveling to the jury’s screening of the shows that have open ZAPP jurying that can be observed, but this is not a feasible solution for most people. Instead, the screening process must be truly standardized so that exhibitors will know how their images will look when the jury looks at them.
2. Overwhelmed jurors
While shows that convert to ZAPP report that the number of applicants (read: revenue) has increased by 15 – 50% in their first year using it, I have yet to see a show that has increased the number of jurors hired by a similar percentage, nor have I observed that jurors’ stipends, and potentially the caliber of juror, have increased.
The increase in the numbers of images to be viewed by the typical juror, due to the increase of applicants with the ZAPP process, has contributed to an increasing denigration of the jury process, and a steady erosion of the quality of their selections. For instance, even at the top 25 shows it has become commonplace to find amateurish work of very questionable quality; jurors appear to be so overwhelmed by the sheer number of images they have to view, that it is compromising their ability to make sound aesthetic judgments, to the ultimate detriment of quality at the show.
With digital images it can be easy to fool the jury with 3 or 4 that are tweaked in Photoshop to really POP for the jury, though they no longer accurately represent the body of work that will end up being displayed at the fair. This can result in amateurs earning the spaces that once belonged to fine artists; overloaded jurors, wading through the increased volume of ZAPP images, can’t see straight after the first thousand or two images have been viewed, are most susceptible to this digital trickery. In some cases, instead of increasing the number of jurors, shows are instituting the mysterious pre-jury process. Leaving artists to wonder if the “real” jury is not viewing their work because some other entity has taken them out of the running before the actual jury process begins.
Shows have an obligation to invest their jury/application fees in paying for enough qualified art experts to properly jury their shows, not to use the “application fee” money to fund other projects. This means hiring jurors, not asking for volunteers, and hiring enough of them to significantly reduce the visual load on jurors. Also, jurors should only be asked to judge what they are qualified to judge; this means at least two jurors who are experts in their field should be judging each media category. The funds for this exist. The average jury/application fee revenue at the top 300 shows in 2000 was $10,871; by 2007 it had increased to $15,312; that’s a whopping 41% increase in jury fee revenue! Meanwhile, 70% of those 300 shows spent absolutely nothing to hire a competent jury; the average show spent less than $500 of the $15,000+ jury fee revenues on their juries. That’s disgraceful.
What can be done?
Shows must be encouraged to set aside a specified percentage of an event’s spaces for professional artists; “professional” can be determined in the following ways:
1) Street juries Re-invite up to 50% of the exhibitors from the show each year, like Old Town Art Fair in Chicago does. This allows shows to base their exhibitor selection on the entire body of work exhibited, not just on three to five images.
2) Resumes Require newly jurying applicants to list their last ten shows. This will make it difficult to fake your way into a show as a professional if you’ve never exhibited before.
3) Limit “emerging” artists New exhibitors are necessary for art fair vitality, and should be able to gain entrance, but only up to a set percentage, for instance, 10%. This will ensure new blood without contributing to a show being overtaken by amateurish exhibitors.
Using a system of criteria will provide shows with the necessary balance of new and returning artists, keeping the lifeblood of the show flowing, but allowing it to change and evolve over the years.
Why should art fair directors care about all of this?
Sadly, for too many formerly top shows, the directors seem to have decided that filling their show with eager applicants is a higher goal than filling their show with quality fine art. Shows need to rely on a pool of high quality artists from which to select a dynamic and stimulating group of exhibitors for their constituents. When the business of art fairs becomes unpredictable and prohibitively costly for professional artists, a phenomenon that is happening even as I type, the available pool of quality, professional artists shrinks steadily, leading to the decrease of quality art fairs, and, eventually, the loss of interest from serious patrons. Sure, for a while shows will be able to replace these professionals by weekenders and one-timers, but by eliminating the steady supply of professional applicants over time, the quality of the pool will degrade to the point where even the best jury won’t be able to find a qualified collection of exhibitors for their show.
AFSB's writing contest presents prizes for insightful, concise, and relevant short essays.
Write an article to be published on this very page. If yours is chosen, I'll give you a 1-YEAR SUBSCRIPTION to your choice of any AFSB edition(s), in print or online.
Here are the details:
- Write an article of around 500 words on any topic relating to the art fair world. The article can be about anything from your opinion on the challenges or joys of being a working artist to a story about an art fair experience, from a diatribe on jury fees to a guide for marketing your work online, whatever is interesting to you. Get creative, speak your mind, have fun!
- Email your article to us.
- We'll select the best article and post it on our website Linked text under the "Opinion" tab on the first weekday of each month.
- The author of the winning article will receive a 2008 subscription to AFSB Volume One: The 300 Top-Selling Shows Nationwide, OR may choose any two Regional Editions, either online or in print format. If you don't win the first time, we'll automatically re-submit your entry for the following month's contest, so you'll have another shot at the prize!