Report #18 

National Endowment Visual Artists in Houston Minneapolis, for the Arts

,

Washington, and San Franc,sco Research Division 

October 1984 

Earnings and Exhibition Opportunities 
Visual Artists in Houston, Minneapolis, 

Washington, and San Francisco 

Earnings and Exhibition Opportunities 

National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C. 
This report is produced by the Publishing
 

Center for Cultural Resources as part of a
 

pilot project supported by the National Endowment for the Arts demonstrating economy
 

and efficiency in nonprofit publishing.
 

The Publishing Center’s planning, production,
 

and distribution services are available to
 

all cultural and educational groups and organizations. For further information, write
 

Publishing Center for Cultural Resources,
 

625 Broadway, New York City 10012 or telephone 212/260-2010.
 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
 

Main entry under title:
 

Visual artists in Houston, Minneapolis, Washington, and
 

San Francisco.
 

(Research Division report ; 18)
 

I. Artists--Economic conditions--United States. 2. Art
 

--United States--Marketing. I. National Endowment for
 

the Arts. II. Series: Research Division report (National
 

Endowment for the Arts. Research Division) ; 18.
 

N6505.V57 1984 381’.45’70973
 84-9773
 

ISBN 0-89062-191-8 (pbk.)
 

Manufactured in the United States of America
 
 

 

 

CONTENTS
 

PREFACE / 4
 

LIST OF TABLES / 5
 

LIST OF FIGURES / 5
 

HIGHLIGHTS / 7
 

INTRODUCTION / 9
 

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS / 13
 

Producing art and the support system / 13
 

Exhibiting art / 14
 

Selling art / 15
 

Other issues / 16
 

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARTISTS / 17
 

ECONOMIC AND WORK CONDITIONS / 24
 

Income / 24
 

Expenditures / 31
 

Space / 34
 

Time / 34
 

EXHIBITION AND SALES / 36
 

Exhibition record / 36
 

Selection for exhibition / 38
 

Sales methods / 39
 

Exhibition patterns and other conditions / 40
 

EXHIBITION PROCESS / 42
 

Efforts to exhibit / 42
 

Exhibition factors / 45
 

Information networks / 46
 

Exhibition success / 46
 

APPENDIX / 47
 

Approaches to the definition of visual artist / 47
 

REPORTS IN THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS RESEARCH DIVISION SERIES / 48
 
PREFACE
 

This report examines the economic situation of visual artists living and working
 

outside the three main American art centers of New York City, Los Angeles, and
 

Chicago. It is specially concerned with
 

the processes for the selection of the art
 

which is exhibited and sold in galleries,
 

museums, and other exhibition spaces in
 

four large cities considered as representative of the U.S. secondary art market. The nature of this study ruled out
 

the use of such data bases as the Census
 

of Population or the Current Population
 

Survey utilized in the preparation of previous Research Division Reports that
 

stressed comparison of artists with other
 

occupations or artist employment trends
 

over time. Since the focus of the report
 

was on the access of artists to the art
 

market, the artists studied were identified by exhibition history rather than by
 

employment in arts occupations. The information gathered covered matters of attitude and opinion as wel! as demographics
 

and economics.
 

The detailed work of this project was done
 

by the Human Resources Research Organization located in Alexandria, Virginia. The
 

principal investigators were Dr. Richard J.
 

Orend and Dr. Batia Sharon. They were
 

assisted in the preparation of the questionnaire by consultation with James Rein-


ish, formerly associated with the Visual
 

Arts Program of the New York State Council
 

on the Arts and currently with the Zabriskie Gallery in New York City. Work in
 

each of the four cities consisted of developing lists of exhibitors and meeting and
 

working with them to determine which exhibitors showed or sold locally produced
 

works of art in the 1976-78 period. These
 

lists were used to develop the survey universes of artists in the four cities. The
 

local project teams also assisted with
 

arrangements for six to ten group discussions in each city. The persons responsible for these efforts were Mimi Webb-Miller
 

and Jean Romeril in Houston; Lea Hagoel
 

in Minneapolis; Charles Patrick and Mary
 

Strobino in Washington; and Kathy Gurwell
 

and Ricki Kimball in San Francisco. Over
 

one thousand individuals assisted in the
 

fieldwork by participating in the development of lists and group meetings or by
 

completing and returning questionnaires.
 

The research staff assisting with the data
 

collection and processing included Ann
 

Caggins, Mark Dearfield, Pat McGee, Patricia Orend, Eileen Sussman, Dolores Carson, Emma King, Linda Gorski, and Susan
 

Blansfield. The Research Division of the
 

National Endowment for the Arts wishes to
 

acknowledge with thanks the importance of
 

the participation of the above persons and
 

the many others who made this study possible.
 

Researchers who wish to look at the details of the study methods, a more complete set of data tables, and the questionnaires should obtain copies of the


final report deposited into the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
 

sponsored by the National Institute of
 

Education of the the U.S. Department of
 

Education. Over six hundred United
 

States institutions and sixty in other
 

countries have complete microfiche collections of reports deposited into this
 

system. They are also available through
 

on-line computer access from several
 

organizations that maintain the ERIC
 

data base.
 

The identifying number of this report is
 

ED # ED216990. Inquiries concerning the
 

availability of a microfiche copy should
 

be sent to: ERIC Document Reproduction
 

Service (EDRS), Customer Service, P.O. Box
 

190, Arlington, Virginia 22210 (telephone
 

703/841-1212). The full title of the report is: Orend, Richard J. and Sharon,
 

Batia, "The Economic Conditions and Exhibition Processes of Artists in Four
 

Cities: Final Report P0-81-i; prepared
 

for the National Endowment for the Arts,
 

Washington; Human Resources Research
 

Organization, 300 Washington Street,
 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314, September
 

1981." The condensation for this Research
 

Division Report was initially prepared for
 

the Publishing Center for Cultural Resources by Rolfe Larson and subsequently
 

revised and edited by the Research Division and the Publishing Center.
 

Research Division
 

National Endowment for the Arts
 

October 1984
 
 

LIST OF TABLES
 

1 Exhibition spaces for locally produced art / ii
 

2 Survey response / 12
 

3 Ethnic and racial composition of artists / 20
 

4 Dependents of artists / 21
 

5 Art forms / 23
 

6 Total income of artists’ households / 24
 

7 Art income by art form / 26
 

8 Art income of artists from sales, commissions, and grants or awards / 28
 

9 Income of artists from art-related jobs / 29
 

I0 Income of artists from nonart-related jobs / 30
 

Ii Total art-related expenses / 31
 

12 Art production costs by art form / 32
 

13 Art income by production time / 34
 

14 Art income by experimental time / 35
 

15 Type of exhibition in various spaces / 36
 

16 Exhibition clusters / 37
 

17 Mode of selection for exhibition by exhibition index / 38
 

18 Art income of artists by exhibition index / 39
 

19 Experimenta! studio time by exhibition cluster / 41
 

20 Efforts to obtain exhibition / 42
 

21 Exhibition effort clusters / 44
 

22 Exhibition factor consideration clusters / 45
 

LIST OF FIGURES
 

I Age of artists / 18
 

II Professional art experience /19
 

III Sex of artists / 20
 

IV Education or training of artists / 22
 

V Total income of artists . . as a proportion of their total household income / 25
 

VI Distribution of production time / 35
 
HI GHLI GHT S
 

 ̄ The cities of Houston, Minneapolis,
 

Washington, and San Francisco have significant markets for locally produced art.
 

In these cities, locally produced art is
 

exhibited or sold by galleries, museums,
 

and other spaces. In 1978 there were 83
 

exhibition spaces in Houston, ii0 in
 

Minneapolis, 122 in Washington, and 233
 

in San Francisco.
 

 ̄ The median professional art experience
 

of practicing artists living and exhibiting in the four cities was twelve years.
 

 ̄ Very few artists in the four cities
 

earned their livelihood from the sale of
 

art; most held jobs or were supported
 

by someone else. Artists’ sales prospects seemed to be poorest in Washington
 

and best in San Francisco.
 

 ̄ The median $718 earned from the sale of
 

art by the artists in the four cities recouped half the median expense of $1,450
 

they incurred in the production of art.
 

 ̄ The number of hours spent by artists in
 

the production of art was high compared
 

with income they received from the sale
 

of their art. Time spent on other work
 

adversely affected the chance for a
 

successful career as a practicing artist
 

by reducing time for production, experimentation, and marketing efforts.
 

 ̄ Notwithstanding the large number of exhibition spaces found in the four cities,
 

artists expressed dissatisfaction with
 

exhibition opportunities and waiting
 

time to obtain a show.
 

 ̄ Well-established artists may have had
 

adequate exhibition opportunities through
 

direct invitations from exhibitors; however, less well known and younger artists
 

could only achieve significant exhibition
 

and earnings through self-initiated
 

efforts, determination, and a period of
 

learning to work with the market system.
 

 ̄ Informal information networks were found
 

to exist in each of the four cities.
 

These networks supplied most artists with
 

important information on such matters as
 

which exhibitors to approach. However,
 

about one-third of the artists did not
 

seek out and take advantage of such information.
 

 ̄ Among the various methods used by artists to find information on exhibition
 

opportunities, service organizations were
 

the least used and personal contacts with
 

other artists were the most used.
 

 ̄ Major differences were found in the
 

perspectives of artists and exhibitors on
 

the fairness of the exhibition selection
 

process. Artists believed that selection
 

was heavily weighted in favor of personal
 

relationships and personal networks
 

rather than being based on the merit of
 

art. Exhibitors, on the other hand,
 

viewed artists’ expectations as unrealistic in terms of available space and
 

sales. Exhibitors criticized artists because they seemed unconcerned about the
 

special exhibition characteristics developed by particular spaces.
 

 ̄ Obtaining studio space was a major problem for artists in all four cities. Artists who did not have studio space continued to work despite high costs and
 

regardless of other support. However,
 

the lack of studio space reduced production time, and production time was
 

related to art income. Artists and exhibitors advocated public acquisition of
 

buildings to be rented as studio space.
 

 ̄ Cost of equipment and materials was a
 

problem for artists in the four cities.
 

Rent for studios in downtown areas was
 

a problem in Minneapolis and Washington.
 
Cities with over 1 percent of U.S. visual artists 
The Visual Arts Program was particularly
 

interested in learning about the smaller
 

art markets--rather than the three primary centers for the sale of works by
 

contemporary American artists. Many of
 

the smaller centers have grown substantially in recent years, and there is
 

evidence of vigorous art sales and exhibition activities as well as large artist
 

populations within them. While the three
 

primary art centers are clearly dominant,
 

the other sixteen cities with more than
 

1 percent of American visual artists are
 

all believed to have substantial art markets. These secondary art market cities
 

increased their proportion of American
 

artists during the decade of the 1970s.
 

An indirect confirmation of the broadening of the American market for original
 

art purchase is provided by another Research Division study now in progress.
 

Preliminary data indicate that about 22
 

percent of the American adult population
 

attend an art gallery or museum in a
 

twelve-month period and that many have
 

purchased an original work of art at some
 

time in their lives and indicate that they
 

are considering buying an original work
 

of art in the forseeable future. These
 

data support the assumption that a broad
 

interest and market for art, including
 

its purchase, have been evolving in the
 

United States.
 

INTRODUCTION
 

New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago
 

have long been regarded as the primary
 

centers for the sale of works of art by
 

contemporary American artists. In recent
 

years, there has been growing recognition
 

that many other cities have significant
 

sales and exhibition opportunities for
 

works of art produced by local artists,
 

but there have been few studies that
 

examine the newer centers in detail and
 

compare their special characteristics.
 

The Visual Arts Program of the Arts Endowment requested a study for the purpose
 

of answering several questions: How
 

large are these art markets in terms of
 

the number of exhibition spaces regularly
 

used for works of art produced by local
 

artists? What are the processes by which
 

artists in these cities can use the local
 

exhibition and sales spaces? What are
 

the selection processes and do they differ
 

from city to city? What are the economic
 

conditions and difficulties for the artists producing art in these local art
 

market situations?
 

Four cities were selected for study in an
 

attempt to answer these questions. These
 

cities, chosen for geographic diversity
 

and significant art marketing, were
 

Houston, Minneapolis, Washington, and San
 

Francisco. The study identified 548
 

exhibition spaces that regularly exhibit
 

and sell the work of artists who are
 

local residents in these four cities-­

clear confirmation of the significance
 

of secondary art market cities in the
 

distribution of art.
 

The economic condition of artists in the
 

selected cities was measured through
 

their income from the sale of art and
 

from other jobs, through costs of materials and studio space and through expenditures of time and effort to exhibit
 

and sell art. The study also considered
 

the ways artists support themselves and
 

cover the cost of producing art, where
 

they find affordable studio space, and
 

how the effort of exhibiting and selling
 

affects the time available for creating
 

art. The study examined how art gets
 

exhibited and the relationship between
 

exhibition and economic success. Because of the limited accessibility to
 

available space, the relationship between
 

artists and exhibitors is a key to the
 

artist’s success in the market. Quality
 

of work is not the only factor in being
 

exhibited. Considerable disparity in
 

the approaches taken by artists and
 

exhibitors was discovered--leading to
 

complaints by both sides. One of the
 
biggest problems perceived by artists
 

is the need to create more and better
 

opportunities to show work that because
 

of its physical nature cannot be collected
 

and that is otherwise regarded as not
 

marketable. Overall, it is the dynamic
 

interaction of artists and exhibitors,
 

those creating and selling art, that concerns this report.
 

Development of buyer inherest in the
 

visual arts outside the traditional art
 

centers of New York City, Los Angeles,
 

and Chicago is believed to have led to
 

expanded selling possibilities to support
 

the increase in numbers of local artists.
 

In the art markets of smaller cities,
 

there appear to be many public and private exhibition spaces that accommodate
 

local interest in purchasing works of art.
 

Local art buyer demand is being satisfied
 

by more exhibition spaces, and additional
 

opportunities for artistic success have
 

been created. Success at th~ local level
 

may precede attempts to enter the New
 

York, Los Angeles, and Chicago art markets by some visual artists. For others,
 

some success at the national level may
 

create opportunities to benefit from local
 

exhibitions and sales.
 

The study confirmed that art market systems exist in each of the cities chosen
 

for examination. Each had a variety of
 

types of exhibition spaces and artists
 

working in many art forms. The number
 

and types of professionally run exhibition spaces regularly (but not exclusively) showing local artists are presented
 

in Table i.
 

For the purposes of the study, professional artists were defined as those whose
 

work was displayed or sold at a locally
 

recognized art exhibition space during
 

1976-78. Visual artists working in all
 

media and styles were included in all
 

stages of the study. Only artists living
 

in the metropolitan areas were sampled.
 

Recognized art exhibition spaces, encompassed private commercial galleries, public galleries and museums, artist-run
 

cooperatives, public or private places
 

that held regular professionally directed
 

exhibitions, and alternative spaces continuously or occasionally showing art
 

unlikely to be exhibited elsewhere.
 

Houston, the city with fewest spaces and
 

only two cooperatives, had experienced
 

a rash of gallery closings in the two
 

years preceding the study period. The
 

number of alternative spaces was small
 

everywhere except in San Francisco, which
 

has a tradition for this type of space;
 

Houston and Minneapolis had no alternative spaces in regular operation.
 

10
 
Excluded were art fairs, art association
 

shows, nonprofessional shows in places
 

like banks or restaurants, and student
 

exhibitions.
 

The study comprised several distinct
 

stages:
 

Identification of appropriate exhibition
 

spaces
 

Identification of artists
 

Group meetings of artists and exhibitors
 

Development of the survey questionnaire
 

Surveying the artists
 

Analysis and report
 

Local consultants and experts participated in the identification of spaces
 

in each city. Lists initially developed
 

from art and telephone directories were
 

expanded by the local reviewers, and the
 

final lists included only spaces that
 

had shown or sold locally produced art
 

during 1976-78. Some important galleries
 

were excluded if they had not shown
 

locally produced art.
 

About three-fourths of the contacted exhibitors cooperated by providing lists
 

of local artists who had exhibited in
 

their spaces during 1976-78. Because
 

of the frequent multiple exhibitions of
 

artists, lack of cooperation by a few
 

exhibition spaces probably had little
 

effect on the final list of artists.
 

The type of space least likely to cooperate was the small, lesser-known private
 

gallery, so lesser-known artists could
 

have been underrepresented in the sample
 

even. though they account for a large
 

portion of it. However, since much of
 

the analysis was stratified by exhibition
 

history, it is thought that the results
 

reflect fair representation of lesser-


known artists.
 

The lists accumulated the names of 459
 

artists in Houston, 693 in Minneapolis,
 

1,089 in Washington, and 2,200 in San
 

Francisco. Some names were deleted because they failed to meet the criterion
 

of local residence or because information
 

was incomplete.
 

In each city there were between six and
 

ten group meetings at which artists or
 

exhibitors discussed issues and problems
 

of accessibility to exhibition space and
 

the interaction of artists and exhibitors.
 

In addition, some individual interviews
 

and informal discussions were held with
 

local critics, art notables, and artists.
 

These sessions provided practical perspectives on the four art markets and
 

influenced development of the questionnaire.
 

The artists’ discussion groups were
 

roughly divided by medium (painters and
 

sculptors, printmakers and photographers,
 

and avant garde) and better-known artists
 

were separated from those with less experience. Exhibitors were grouped by type
 

of space (museums, private galleries,
 

public spaces, cooperatives, alternative
 

spaces, and other spaces) and sometimes
 

by reputation. These divisions were made
 

to form more homogeneous groups that would
 

focus on issues of common concern. Attendance at artist sessions ranged from six
 

to twenty and averaged fifteen participants. At exhibitor sessions, attendance
 

depended on the number of spaces in each
 

category; all types of galleries were
 

represented in each city.
 

Table 1 Exhibition spaces for locally produced art 

Museums, universities,
 

and art schools
 

Private galleries and
 

conzinuously operative
 

alternative spaces
 

Artist cooperatives
 

Total
 

Houston Washington San Francisco 

10 27 17 13 

71 78 99 20 5 

2 5 6 15 

83 ii0 122 233 
The primary objectives of the survey
 

questionnaire were to determine the
 

economic conditions of artists and the
 

processes by which they attempt to exhibit. Additional information was requested on art form and demographic characteristics to examine their relationship
 

to the two primary objectives. Data on
 

exhibition history were also collected.
 

Guidance for the development of the questions came from the group discussions and
 

from the staff of the Visual Arts Program
 

of the National Endowment for the Arts.
 

The survey was conducted by mail, with an
 

introductory letter sent to each artist.
 

Questionnaires were mailed subsequently,
 

and a reminder sent ten days later.
 

After three weeks, registered letters
 

containing new questionnaires were sent
 

to all nonrespondents. Once the survey
 

was completed, respondent identification
 

was dissociated from the survey, making
 

all results anonymous.
 

Questionnaire response is shown in Table
 

2. The overall return of 940 questionnaires produced a response rate of 47.4
 

percent, not counting undeliverable questionnaires. The response rate was lower
 

than desired; however, the returned questionnaires represent virtually all art
 

forms and all levels of artist exhibition
 

experience.
 

Table 2 Survey response 

The response rate of 47.4 percent indicates the need for caution in interpreting the results. The greatest problems exist in projecting results to a
 

total population and in looking at very
 

fine details for the individual cities.
 

For these reasons, many of the tables
 

in this report present only aggregate
 

data for the four cities.
 

Questionaires delivered
 

Questionaires completed
 

and returned (percent
 

of those delivered)
 

12
 
ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
 

Both group discussions and data analysis call attention to economic conditions
 

that affect the lives and professional
 

practice of artists. Two conditions of
 

the art market are fundamental to the
 

issues raised: very few artists sell
 

enough work to support themselves and
 

much more art is created than can be exhibited or sold, causing competition for
 

exhibition space. These conditions are
 

at least indirectly related to all discussion of producing, exhibiting, and
 

selling art in the secondary market.
 

Producing art and the support system
 

Most artists do not support themselves
 

by selling their work. Median art income
 

for the artists sampled was $718 in 1978.
 

Median production costs were $1,450,
 

approximately twice the median income.
 

Not only do artists fail to make much
 

money from their art, but they generally
 

spend much more producing it than they
 

make. Obtaining the necessary resources
 

through other kinds of work can cut down
 

time available for creating art, inhibiting the artist’s chances for exhibition
 

and economic success. These financial
 

facts lead to consideration of the amount
 

of support that artists should receive
 

and from whom, the creation of art-related
 

jobs to help ease financial problems,
 

and the cost and availability of studio
 

space.
 

Support for artists dominated the discussions, with attention focusing on how
 

much and by whom provided. The intent
 

of outside support is to relieve artists
 

of some economic production difficulties
 

so that they can be free to pursue their
 

work. Most of the artists, many of them
 

established, favored support for the
 

visual arts, although the exact kind of
 

support was open to a wide range of views.
 

Most had never received any form of government support.
 

Competition for limited funds is great,
 

not only among artists but between artists and institutions. One argument
 

for institutional support is that many
 

artists can benefit from a single award.
 

Support for museum-level exhibitions,
 

for example, could increase exposure for
 

a number of artists. However, additional
 

shows for successful national and foreign
 

artists resulting from grants would not
 

affect exposure or sales opportunities
 

for local artists.
 

Most artists advocated individual support
 

ow~r institutional support. Larger individual grants would theoretically alleviate the economic plight that besets
 

artists. There was general agreement that
 

artists, being the best judges of one
 

another’s work, should have a greater role
 

in awarding grants. Another aspect of
 

the selection issue is local or regional
 

control of selection. The San Francisco
 

artists were especially vocal on this
 

topic, feeling that decisions made in
 

Washington were not appropriate for California artists and that local or regional
 

committees would be more sensitive to
 

local artists’ achievements, trends, and
 

styles.
 

One criticism of government support held
 

that it distorted the relationship of
 

the artist to society. On the other hand,
 

supporters of subsidies, including most
 

exhibitors, viewed government influence
 

with little alarm. Discussions of federal
 

support for art centered on the National
 

Endowment for the Arts.
 

Some government programs mandate a percentage of building costs for the use of
 

contemporary original art in public buildings. More widespread adoption of this
 

policy was urged to create opportunities
 

for selling art although questions of
 

selection and local control were unresolved. Whether local or less prominent
 

artists would benefit is an open question.
 

If artists are not selling their work,
 

they must hold outside jobs or be supported by someone else. For many artists,
 

outside jobs restrict their ability to
 

produce art. Even part-time employment
 

reduces working hours in the studio. The
 

data in this report make clear that time
 

spent producing art has a direct relationship to success at selling art.
 

The vast majority of artists work at outside jobs. Nearly 60 percent of the
 

responding artists held art-related jobs
 

but only about 25 percent worked full-


time at these jobs. However, income
 

earned from outside employment far exceeded income from art sales. One issue
 

is whether more art-related jobs should
 

be created to help artists earn their
 

livelihoods in some sort of artistic
 

capacity. Art-related jobs allow artists
 

to use their talents more than other
 

types of outside jobs. Currently over
 

one-half of these jobs involve teaching
 

and 60 percent are part-time. Some
 

museums and other agencies reserve jobs
 

for artists. One indirect advantage of
 

art jobs is the development of personal
 

relationships advantageous to the promo13
 
ting of an art career. Increased income
 

helps artists to cover costs of materials,
 

but whether art-related employment contributes to producing art that will be
 

exhibited is doubtful. For some artists,
 

gainful employment is limited to the art
 

field because they have no experience or
 

skill to bring to other types of jobs.
 

Artists in all four cities complained
 

about a lack of reasonably priced studio
 

space. One proposed solution is government-subsidized or government-purchased
 

buildings where rents could be stabilized.
 

Many artists, especially young artists,
 

cannot afford studio space, and adequate
 

space is difficult to find. A majority
 

of artists solve the problem by working
 

at home. However, this solution presupposed the financial capacity to own or
 

rent a house or other large space, and
 

even among those who can own their homes,
 

allocation of adequate space for studio
 

use may not be feasible.
 

Exhibiting art
 

The study focused on artists who have
 

achieved a showing in at least one exhibition space. This section discusses
 

some of their frustrations and difficulties with access to exhibitions.
 

Obtaining the economic support necessary
 

to create art is an immediate concern
 

for artists, but in the long run, exhibiting is the most important factor in
 

career progress, even if exhibiting does
 

not initially lead to sales. Art exhibition is the dominant means of reaching
 

the market, and exhibition can also contribute to other advancement in an artist’s career. However, the current
 

supply of exhibition space is sufficient
 

for only small numbers of local artists.
 

Even artists with fairly solid exhibition
 

histories have difficulty advancing their
 

careers through more prestigious spaces.
 

The main problem in gaining access is
 

quite simply intense competition. More
 

interest is being shown in the work of
 

artists in the secondary market, but the
 

number of artists seeking exhibition
 

opportunities exceeds the market’s growth.
 

For example, the number of active painters and sculptors rose 76 percent between
 

1970 and 1980, as reported in the 1980
 

Census of Population.
 

Other major factors discussed in the
 

group meetings as determining access to
 

exhibitions are work quality and style.
 

This study did not address quality of
 

work issues except to observe that
 

artists and exhibitors frequently disagree on the quality of work chosen for
 

exhibition. Other selection factors
 

include artist preferences for certain
 

exhibition spaces and the personal relationships between artists and exhibitors.
 

The debate over selection of art based
 

on style and form is one of the murky
 

areas of exhibition preferences. Exhibitor selections are made largely on the
 

basis of marketability and the aesthetic
 

criteria of the gallery operator. If
 

exhibitors demonstrate preconceived notions of what styles of work they are
 

willing to show, as most of them do,
 

these commercial influences create
 

pressures on artists to produce work
 

acceptable to exhibitors. However, most
 

artists who have been successful in
 

galleries claim to feel no pressure.
 

Many younger artists must develop their
 

styles before achieving appreciable exhibition experience. At some point, an
 

artist’s style and an exhibitor’s preference must come together.
 

There is a perception that galleries
 

are unwilling to show such forms as
 

video and conceptual and environmental
 

art. Generally, the artists surveyed
 

viewed galleries and museums as conservative in their choice of works. Only
 

in San Francisco did the artists feel
 

that significant attempts had been made
 

to regularly exhibit such forms. Artists
 

working in the more traditional forms
 

of sculpture and photography indicated
 

severe limitations on their opportunities
 

to show work. The study confirmed that
 

sculpture, photography, and drawings
 

were shown less frequently and in fewer
 

spaces than other traditional forms.
 

Many artists look to museums, alternative spaces, and public spaces to fill
 

this need.
 

The many problems arising from the issues
 

of selection and exposure of art are
 

rooted in the philosophical questions
 

concerning the value of art and the role
 

of the artist and, especially, in the
 

postulate that art has an intrinsic
 

value independent of its market value.
 

It is obvious that the secondary art
 

markets operate on premises other than
 

the subjective judgment of quality. If
 

in theory the artist’s role is to create
 

a work of aesthetic or intellectual
 

quality, with sale a less important goal,
 

the artist may frequently feel at odds
 

with the economic system that influences the capacity to continue working.
 

Both the exhibitors and artists complain
 

about the exhibition process. The potential for disagreement, accusation,
 

and misunderstanding is great in an area
 

where personal relationships, judgments,
 

and economic considerations play vital
 

roles in the artistic output of professional artists.
 

14
 
To better understand where artists fit
 

into the exhibition system, it is necessary to comprehend some of the problems
 

perceived by exhibitors in conducting
 

their business and their relationships
 

with artists. Finding new artists whose
 

work fits the criteria of the space is
 

a crucial aspect of the exhibitor’s job.
 

But if quality of work is an important
 

variable in selections made by exhibitors,
 

the quality of spaces in which to exhibit
 

is important to artists. In developing
 

their careers, artists seek to move
 

upward in the quality of their shows.
 

Those artists with greater experience
 

dealing with exhibitors and an understanding of their perspectives have an advantage in coping with this situation.
 

To the extent that artists disregard personal relationships with exhibitors and
 

other people capable of making referrals,
 

they limit the potential marketability of
 

their art. Some artists still attempt to
 

rely on the strength of their work by
 

entering open competitions (30 percent in
 

the sample said they usually or always
 

use this method), but unless their work
 

attracts the attention of galleries, the
 

possibilities for economic success are
 

limited.
 

Artists most active in their attempts
 

to show, including using the network of
 

personal relationships, succeed more
 

often than artists who limit their marketing activities. Opportunities to gain
 

exposure only on the basis of quality are
 

relatively few and most exhibitors do not
 

use open competitions as a means of finding new artists. Some kind of intermediary is usually necessary for successfully bringing art to the attention of
 

exhibitors. As a consequence, talented
 

artists can be excluded from the market
 

because of their marketing failure rather
 

than the quality of their work. A concern of many artists is that the time
 

spent on marketing is time they prefer
 

to use to produce art.
 

A complaint against exhibitors is that
 

they lack loyalty to local artists. Many
 

exhibitors prefer to show artists from
 

the primary markets. Presumably art produced in New York is more prestigious and
 

salable. Some exhibitors consciously mix
 

their exhibition schedules to include
 

local artists, but very few concentrate
 

exclusively on exhibition of local art.
 

The situation that is particularly galling to artists who work in the four
 

cities that were studied occurs when
 

artists from other places have success
 

in gaining shows, especially in prestigious spaces, at similar stages in their
 

careers. This phenomenon is attributed
 

to the exotic reputation of outside artists. In the group meetings of the
 

study some better-known artists said
 

that they were not able to show locally
 

until they had achieved success in New
 

York.
 

Selling art
 

Gaining access to exhibition space is the
 

first of a two-part problem for most
 

young, less experienced artists; the
 

second part is selling work once it has
 

been exhibited.
 

Becoming associated with a gallery has
 

three main advantages for selling art:
 

an established marketplace, prestige,
 

and a salesperson to act for artists who
 

do not want direct involvement with the
 

Sale of their work. However, there are
 

sometimes factors that weigh against the
 

advantages of gallery association. Artists mentioned failure of galleries to
 

pay on sales, discount pricing, lack of
 

care in handling, overhead costs, and
 

demands for exclusive selling rights as
 

problems. High commissions are also a
 

drawback, and many artists prefer to make
 

their own sales to avoid paying them.
 

This practice can bring artists and exhibitors into competition for sales.
 

The discussions and the responses to the
 

questionnaires indicated that this problem tended to be resolved by the more
 

experienced artists by forming associations with galleries.
 

Setting prices can be difficult. Too
 

frequently the market will not support
 

prices high enough to cover costs of
 

production. Even for experienced artists,
 

particular works may not find a market.
 

Cutting prices to solve short-term sales
 

problems can have the effect of devaluing
 

work over the long run. Because art has
 

an investment value, artists and dealers
 

are conscious of the lasting effects of
 

each price decision. Resale of work is
 

another issue related to price. Artists
 

argue that they should receive some payment on resale of their work, especially
 

when the price has increased from the
 

original sale.
 

Many of the newest forms of art are inherently unsalable. These works are part
 

of important new directions in contemporary art and exhibition, but artists cannot depend on commercial galleries, which
 

depend on sales, to show unsalable art.
 

They must search for alternative exhibition space because the opportunity to
 

exhibit provides a powerful stimulus for
 

continuing their work and the lack of it
 

is a great source of discouragement.
 

15
 
Other issues
 

Artists view the open competitive juried
 

exhibit as desirable and ask for more
 

open shows. This idea correlates with
 

the attitude that artists are the best
 

judges of each other’s work and that open
 

shows resolve the question of exhibiting
 

work on merit. The expansion of the
 

local commercial gallery market combined
 

with open juried shows is thought to
 

have the potential for alleviating some
 

of the sales and exhibition needs of
 

local artists and also some of the selection biases in the current system.
 

Related to these other problems is the
 

time needed to advance an art career.
 

The vast majority of artists seem resigned to waiting for attention; the
 

phrase, "wait their turn," was used by
 

many successful artists when discussing
 

the plight and anxiety of younger artists.
 

However, the length of time spent building a career to the point where one gains
 

prestige and greater economic rewards can
 

be frustrating given the conditions
 

brought forth in this study. Another
 

aspect of this problem is waiting for
 

exhibition space. Even quite deserving
 

artists must sometimes wait years for
 

space to become available.
 

Also brought up for discussion was the
 

need for effective artist organizations.
 

However, the individualistic nature of
 

artists and the fragmented nature of
 

market processes seem to inhibit the
 

growth of such organizations.
 

16 
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARTISTS
 

The demographic profile of exhibiting artists responding to the questionnaire included such characteristics as age, years
 

as a professional, gender, race, marital
 

status and dependents, education, and art
 

form. The median age for the combined
 

sample was thirty-eight years, and the
 

median length of time as a professional
 

was twelve years. The survey respondents
 

were 51 percent women, but there were
 

wide variations among the four cities.
 

About 91 percent of the artists were
 

white. Although 62 percent were married,
 

only 53 percent said that they had dependents. About 64 percent of the artists had at least a bachelor’s degree in
 

art. Not surprisingly, 33 percent said
 

that they were mainly painters; however,
 

another 20 percent indicated that they
 

worked in several art forms.
 

The reader will note that the total
 

number of responses (N) varies in the
 

following figures and tables. While
 

total questionnaire response was 940,
 

some respondents omitted answers to some
 

questions. Because of rounding, table
 

columns may not add to exactly 100 percent, as shown. Ethnic groups may be
 

underrepresented in the sample because
 

there was difficulty obtaining lists of
 

artists from minority galleries in
 

Houston and Washington.
 

17 
Figure I Age of artists 
 

 

Figure II Professional art experience 

~pto 5 6- 10 11- 15 16~2~ 21~25 26~ 30 O~er 30
 

yea~s years years year~ y~  ̄ years
 

Median years 12 | ~=.u~ i 26.6%
 

Houston
 

Minneapol~s


(N)=282
 

Mean years 15 I 17.7%
 Median years 12 18.1% I
29.1%


Washin~ton~ DC
 

(N)=214
 

Mean years 15


Median years ii
 

S an
 

(N)
 

Mean years 17
 

Median years
 

19
 
Table 3 Ethnic and racial composition of artists 

Black
 

Hispanic
 

Native American
 

Asian American
 

White
 

Other
 

Total
 

The sample showed minority group
 

concentrations--blacks in Washington
 

and Houston, Hispanics in Houston, and
 

Asian Americans in San Francisco.
 

Figure III Sex of artists 

2O 
"[able 4 Dependents of artists 

Dependents ’ancisco 

o 52.1% 

1 20.7% 

2 12.7% 

3 10.8% 

3.3% 

0.5% 

100.0% 

(213) 

The number of dependents tends to reflect 

the city differences as well as the proportion of married artists. Minneapolis, 

which had the largest proportion of male 

respondents and married respondents, also 

had the highest mean number of dependents. 

Only 62.4 percent of respondents were 

married (in contrast with the national 

average of 86 percent) and there was considerable difference from city to city 

(Houston, 57.6 percent married; Minneapolis, 69.9 percent; Washington, 71 percent; and San Francisco, 50.9 percent). 

The division of male and female survey
 

respondents was nearly equal in the combined sample, but there was considerable
 

variation from city to city. In addition,
 

comparison of respondents’ gender with the
 

identification of local artists by given
 

name indicated that Washington women were
 

more likely than men to respond to the
 

questionnaire as well as being more numerous.
 

21
 
A great majority of the artists hold college degrees in art or art education, but
 

there were significant differences in
 

type and extent of formal training from
 

city to city.
 

Figure IV Education or training of artists 

22 
 

Table 5 Art forms 

Art form Four c~ties Houston Minneapolis Washington San Francisco 

Painting 33.0% 30.7% 33.9% 33.3% 33.3% 

Sculpture 13.5% 12.5% 17.5% 11.6% 12.4% 

Printmaking 6.5% 3.6% 2.4% 12.0% 8.9% 

Drawing 4.1% 5.7% 3.1% 4.4% 3.6% 

Photography 10.0% 8.9% 9.9% 10.2% i0.7% 

Video, 

conceptual, 

performance, 

environmental 3.1% 2.1% 4.1% 1.3% 4.4% 

Crafts 6.4% 2.1% 10.6% 5.8% 5.3% 

Two or more 

forms 20.9% ~ 32.3%  ̄ 15.1% 19~6% 20.0% 

Other 2.2% ~= ~ 2.1% 3.4% 2.2% 0.9% 

Total 100.0% 

(225) 

There were few differences in art form 

from city to city--except that 12 percent 

of Washington artists were printmakers 

compared with 2.4 percent of Minneapolis 

artists, and there was particularly strong 

participation in sculpture and crafts 

among Minneapolis artists. Since few artists work in new forms, they were combined into one category comprising 3.1 

percent of the sample. These artists reported greatest difficulty in exhibiting. 

They were not included in the lists obtained from exhibitors and may be underrepresented in the study. 

23
 
ECONOMIC AND WORK CONDITIONS
 

Income
 

For calendar year 1978, median household
 

income for the artists responding to the
 

survey was slightly under $20,000. Within
 

the total household income they reported,
 

the artists themselves (including 12.5
 

percent with no earnings) accounted for a
 

median contribution of $7,000.
 

The most important income factor investigated that affects the artist’s activity
 

is support from the household. In the
 

study, income was divided into three categories: low ($I0,000 or less), medium
 

($10,001-20,000), and high (more than
 

$20,000). Predictably, support was highest at the high-income level and lowest
 

at the low one. Women were more likely
 

to receive high support in conjunction
 

with medium and high household incomes,
 

men less so. The proportions were more
 

nearly even in the low-income group.
 

High support was most common for those
 

thirty to fifty-nine years of age. Nonwhites were likely to receive low support.
 

Marriage partners are probably the greatest source of support and would explain
 

the high percentages of women receiving
 

high support.
 

Table 6 Total income of artists’ households 

Income
 

$0-2,999
 

$3,000-4,999
 

$5,000-6,999
 

$7,000-9,999
 

$10,000-12,999
 

$13,000-15,999
 

$16,000-19,999
 

$20,000-29,999
 

$30,000-49,999
 

$50,000 up
 

Total
 

(N)
 

24
 
Sixty-two percent of the artists in the
 

combined sample from the four cities provided the main source of income for their
 

households. The patterns differ for the
 

individual cities, with 68 percent of San
 

Francisco artists providing the main income compared with 49 percent of Washington artists.
 

Figure V Total income of artists from all sources as a 

proportion o! their total household income 

25 
Table 7 Art income by art form 

Art income
 

$0
 

$I-500
 

$501-1,000
 

$i,001-2,000
 

$2,001-4,000
 

$4,001-I0,000
 

$i0,001 up
 

26 
21.1% 24.1%
 30.1% 26.3%
 

13.1% 14.7%
 25.2% 14.5%
 

20.1% 8.1% 14.3% 15.0%
 

~
 11.7% 12.5% 26.3% 11.8%
 

7.2% 7.6% 11.2% 12.1%
 

2.9% 18.3% 10.0% 13.7%
 

2.9% 12.6% 4.0% 8.7%
 

100.0% 100.0% ’ " 100.0% 100.0%
 

There are appreciable differences in
 

art income of artists working in different art forms, with painters and craft
 

artists alone reporting that over i0
 

percent of their number had art earnings
 

over $i0,000.
 

The data in this table, and in others
 

following that combine the four cities,
 

have been weighted to reflect differences
 

in response rates. Details are given in
 

the original research report.
 

27
 
The median of artists’ income from art
 

sales, commissions, and grants or awards
 

was $718 in 1978, and only 8.5 percent
 

reported over $10,000. Even though all
 

the artists had exhibited in the three-


year period covered by the income question, over one-fourth earned nothing at
 

all from their art. While 68 percent of
 

the San Francisco artists earned most of
 

their household income, fewer than 15
 

percent of them earned over $10,000
 

through their art. The highest art incomes were found in Houston and San Francisco. By far the greatest part of such
 

income came from sales. Commissions accounted for less than i0 percent of art
 

income and grants and awards less than
 

5 percent.
 

Table 8 Art income of artists from sales, commissions, and grants or awards 

Income
 

$0
 

$1-500
 

$501-1,000
 

$1,001-2,000
 

$2,001-4,000
 

$4,001-10,000
 

$i0,001 up
 

Mean art
 

income
 

Median art
 

income
 

28
 
 

Table 9 Income of artists from art-related jobs 

I ncome
 

$1-2,999
 

$ 3,000-4,999
 

$5,000-6,999
 

$7,000-9,999
 

$i0,000-12,999 ....iiiiii!
 

$13,000-15,999 ..........
 

$16,000-19,999 .....i .......
 

$20,000-29,999
 

$30,000-50,000
 

TO ta 1
 

(N) 


Mean ar t-


related income
 

Median art-


related income
 

i~:i
 

41.2% 

13 ~8 % i0.7 % 

i0.7% 

5.3% 9;9% 

7.4% 4.6% 

2.1% 1.5% 

i00.0 % 

(131) 

$3;050 $4,000 

Since artists in general do not earn
 

enough to support themselves through art,
 

they receive the rest of their incomes
 

from other sources, either by holding
 

other jobs or by support from their households. Sixty percent worked at paying
 

art-related jobs, with median income from
 

those jobs of approximately $5,000. Over
 

63 percent of art-related jobs were part-


time, and teaching jobs accounted for 62
 

percent of them.
 

29
 
Table 10 Income of artists from nonart-related jobs 

Income
 

$1-2,999
 

$3,000-4,999
 

$5,000-6,999
 

$7,000-9,999
 

$10,000-12,999
 

$13,000-15,999
 

$16,000-19,999
 

$20,000-29,999
 

$30,000-49,999
 

$50,000 up
 

Total
 

(N)
 

Mean nonartrelated income
 

Median nonartrelated income
 

Income from nonart-related jobs was reported by about 34 percent of artists responding to the survey, with the median
 

nonart-related income of $4,900 being
 

nearly the same as the median income from
 

art-related jobs. Washington artists’
 

high nonart-related income probably correlates with the relatively low art-


related income they reported.
 

30
 
Expenditures
 

Production cost comprises materials and
 

equipment, studio space, and exhibition
 

expenses. Median expenditures for these
 

items in 1978 were $1,450, approximately
 

double the median art income. This 2:1
 

ratio appears to be fairly stable for
 

the majority of artists, although the
 

ratio varied from city to city. The lowest median production cost was found in
 

Washington. In combination with the
 

equally low Washington artists’ art-


related income, it suggests a lower activity level than in other cities. An
 

important variant in the findings was
 

the high proportion of San Francisco and
 

Houston artists reporting art-related expenditures over $4,000.
 

Materials and equipment constituted the
 

major portion of production costs.
 

Artists in all cities complained of lack
 

of reasonably priced studio space. The
 

median cost was $500 in San Francisco
 

and $400 in Minneapolis and Houston. In
 

Washington, where half the artists reported no studio costs, the median was much
 

lower.
 

Exhibition expenses were about the same
 

in all cities, with medians ranging from
 

Table 11 Total art-related expenses 

Expenses Four
 

$0
 

$1-500
 

$501-i,000
 

$1,001-2,000
 

$2,001-4,000
 

$4,001-10,000
 

$i0,001 up
 

To t a i
 

Mean art-


related expenses
 

Median art-


related expenses
 

$150 to $250. San Francisco had the
 

most artists with exhibition costs in
 

excess of $i,000. In Houston a comparatively high 37 percent reported no exhibition expenses.
 

Total art-related expenses--including
 

dealer commissions and educational and
 

informational activities as well as
 

production--were about $400 higher than
 

production costs. Most of the additional
 

sum went for commissions. While one-third
 

of the artists reported paying no commissions in 1978, one in seven paid over
 

$2,5OO.
 

ton San Francisco
 

2% 16.4% 11.1%
 

3% 14.6% 5.3%
 

.4% 14.1% 10.2%
 

.1% 20.4% 13.7%
 

.5% 18.6% 29.6%
 

.7% 13.3% 17.3%
 

2.6% 12.8%
 

100.0% 100.0%
 

$2,404 $4,415
 

$1,i18 $2,401
 

31
 
Table 12 Art production costs by art form 

Production costs
 

$0
 

$1-500
 

$501-i,000
 

$I,001-2,000
 

$2,001-4,000
 

$4,001-10,000
 

$i0,000 up
 

Total
 

32
 

Studio space was a universal problem because of unavailability or expense. The
 

majority of artists in all four cities
 

solved this problem by working at home.
 

The likelihood of having a studio at home
 

increased with income, probably a reflection of greater ability to own a home. The
 

number reporting no studio space ranged
 

from 6.3 percent of Washington artists to
 

a low 2.2 percent in San Francisco.
 

Time
 

A major factor affecting artists’ work
 

was the amount of time they were able
 

to devote to art activities. Artists with
 

full-time jobs had less time than part-


time workers for art. Conversely those
 

who earned less may not have adequate
 

resources to draw on. Over half the artists dedicated at least twenty-one hours
 

per week to art-related work: about 21
 

percent spent less than ten hours per
 

week and nearly 18 percent spent over 40
 

hours. Washington and Minneapolis artists allotted less time than others to
 

art-related activities; they also had
 

lower art incomes and costs. In general,
 

art income and costs increased with time
 

spent producing art.
 

Artists were asked to estimate the time
 

they spend actually producing art. The
 

data demonstrate the correlation between
 

time spent creating art and income produced by that art. On the other hand,
 

a significant minority devoted substantial time to producing art but did not
 

try to sell work or were unsuccessful
 

selling it.
 

Women tended to spend less time in art
 

production than men. In view of the studio time/income relationship, less time
 

spent producing art explains some of the
 

difference in earnings between men and
 

women. No significant difference in
 

studio time was reported by white and
 

minority artists nor was any difference
 

observed in their production time/income
 

relationship. The relationship between
 

production time and costs is very similar
 

to that for production time and income.
 

Table 13 Art income by production time 

All artists
 

Art income
 

$0
 

$1-500
 

$501-1,000
 

$1,001-2,000
 

$2,001-4,000
 

$4,001-10,000
 

$i0,001 up
 
Figure VI Distribution of production time 

Artists were asked about relative amount
 

of time spent producing work for sale or
 

show as opposed to experimenting with new
 

The data do not reveal what motivates ideas or techniques. A majority devoted
 

the "most" time to work that they show or
 artists in their allocation of time,
 

but there is a predictable relationship sell. While over one-half spent "some"
 

between concentrating on production for time on experimentation, only about one-


sale or show and higher income. The fourth reported concentrating on it.
 

relationship between experimental time These responses tend to confirm the
 

and income is weaker but nevertheless problem of commercial demands limiting
 

significant. While artists who earn time available for persona! development
 

most do not spend "most" of their time voiced in the group discussion meetings.
 

experimenting, 60 percent in the top
 

three income groups do spend "some" time
 

experimenting. Costs of production for
 

sale or show are about equal to expenditures for experimentation.
 

Table 14 Art income by experimental time 

Experimentaltime
 

Most Some Little None
 

All artists 27.4% 51.3% 18.1% 3.2% 

Art income 

$0 29.4% 23.3% 24.8% 40.6% 

$1-500 20.1% 17.3% 17.9% 10.2% 

$501-1,000 14.0% 14.4% 13.4% 30.8% 

$1,001-2,000 14.1% 9.5% 14.2% 6.1% 

$2,001-4,000 10.1% 14.1% 8.5% 12.3% 

$4,001-10,000 8.1% 11.6% 9.6% 0.0% 

$i0,001 up 4.2% " 9.8% 11.6% 0.0% 

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
 
EXHIBITION AND SALES
 

The study analyzed some basic patterns
 

of exhibition and investigated how artists are selected for exhibition and how
 

they sell their work.
 

Exhibition record
 

Bringing work to the attention of the
 

public is a key step in an artist’s
 

career. Exhibitions leading directly
 

or indirectly to sales constitute a major
 

endeavor of the art market. The study.
 

examined relative success of artists by
 

categorizing types of shows and spaces
 

where artists had exhibited in the three-


year period 1976-78. Shows were identified
 

as one-person, small group (two or four
 

artists), and large group. Spaces or
 

locations were identified as museums, private (commercial) galleries, public spaces
 

(including libraries with regular exhibition facilities), cooperative galleries, alternative spaces, and other
 

spaces. Alternative spaces exhibit work
 

not likely to be shown elsewhere and are
 

supported by independent funding sources.
 

Table 15 shows percent of artists in each
 

city reporting exhibition experience.
 

The most common exhibition in all four
 

cities was the large group show, and artists showed most frequently in private
 

galleries and public spaces. The major
 

difference from city to city was in location rather than type of .show. Many artists reported several types and columns
 

add to more than 100 percent.
 

Table 15 Type of exhibition in various spaces 

Museums
 

One-person
 

Small group
 

Large group
 

Private @alleries
 

One-person
 

Small group
 

Large group
 

Public spaces
 

One-person
 

Small group
 

Large group
 

Cooperative @alleries


One-person
 

Small group
 

Large group
 

Alternative spaces
 

One-person
 

SMall group
 

Large group
 

Other spaces
 

One-person
 

Small group
 

Large group
 

Total number of artists
 

who have exhibited
 
Table 16 Exhibition clusters 

ave£age 

5 

6 3.3%


Some 9.6%
 

1.5~
 

and
 

Cluster analysis grouped artists with
 

the same type of show in the same locations approximately the same number of
 

times. Ten types of exhibition history
 

were grouped as having distinct characteristics. In general, analysis of the
 

clusters indicated that decreasing numbers
 

of artists achieve progressively more
 

prestigious exhibitions and that the most
 

successful artists exhibit in many different types of space.
 

The study also measured exhibition experience by means of an index, assigning
 

scores in three areas: type of show,
 

type of space, and quality of space as a
 

measure of prestige. Shows were assigned
 

scores of 4 for one-person, 2 for small
 

group, and 1 for large group. Similarly,
 

museums and alternative spaces were
 

given more weight than other locations
 

because they were judged more prestigious
 

and assigned scores of i0 and 7, respectively, in a range from 1 to i0. Records
 

were weighted by multiplying show score
 

by location score for each show reported.
 

The resulting index numbers were categorized into five groups. About 25 percent of male artists had an index of
 

0-10, and 13 percent had an index higher
 

than 40. For women, nearly 40 percent
 

had an index of 0-i0 and 9 percent had
 

an index higher than 40.
 

The study found no relationship between
 

cluster membership and age but did find
 

that artists thirty to fifty-nine years
 

old were likely to have the highest
 

weighted exhibition index. As artists
 

increased in experience, they would fall
 

into clusters having more exhibitions
 

in more traditional spaces. Less professional experience tended to be a characteristic of those artists with a low
 

exhibition index.
 

Women were somewhat more likely than men
 

to appear in the "low number of exhibitions" cluster i. Men had a greater
 

probability of exhibition in one-person
 

and small group shows in the more prestigious spaces. Cluster 4 was the only
 

one dominated by women. If the prestigious spaces are less likely to exhibit
 

women artists, they may turn to cooperatives and alternate spaces to increase
 

exhibition opportunities. In the group
 

discussions, exhibitors claimed that no
 

bias existed, but artists of both sexes
 

disagreed.
 

Exhibition index and cluster membership
 

results were generally the same for
 

all races. However, shows in minority
 

galleries could have played a role in
 

augmenting the exhibition records of
 

minority artists. Selection bias is a
 

problem perceived by some minority artists, and there is some justification
 

for the claim that their work is stylistically different from other artists and
 

is mainly exhibited in galleries devoted
 

to the work of minority artists. This
 

point does not mean that minority artists
 

are excluded from mainstream exhibition
 

but that art produced in styles distinctive of these groups is generally not
 

preferred by exhibitors. The exhibitors
 

do not view this bias as active discrimination but as a preference for styles
 

consistent with their tastes and prospec37
 
tive clientele. The net effect, however,
 

would seem to be restriction of access
 

to prestigious spaces.
 

Selection for exhibition
 

To extend the analysis of exhibition
 

patterns, the study examined the mode of
 

selection by which artists obtained their
 

most recent shows. Three general modes
 

were identified for making the analysis:
 

artist-initiated, invitation, and gallery
 

agreement.
 

Artist-initiated methods include entering
 

competitions, joining a cooperative, arranging an exhibit in a place that does
 

not usually or primarily exhibit art,
 

initiating a show in a commercial gallery
 

by contacting the exhibitor, and renting
 

space. Showing by invitation is initiated
 

by the exhibitor. Artists may also have
 

exhibition agreements with galleries or
 

dealers as part of a business relationship.
 

The cluster analysis showed relationships
 

by type and location of show. For example, art in group shows in cooperatives
 

and alternative spaces was selected on
 

an artist-initiated basis. In museums
 

and galleries group shows were available
 

to artists by invitation.
 

The formation of cooperatives to get
 

around resistance from established spaces
 

is most effective for young inexperienced
 

artists who want to make some career
 

exhibition progress. It may provide an
 

intermediate step before access to commercial spaces and more prestigious shows.
 

There were some interesting findings
 

when art form was considered in connection with mode of selection. Not one
 

of the artists working in new forms or
 

in two or more forms had gallery agreements. Of those working in new forms,
 

70 percent showed by invitation. For
 

those working in two or more forms,
 

artist-initiated methods were used by
 

60 percent. Photographers showed by
 

invitation in 60 percent of the reported
 

cases. These results confirm earlier
 

contentions that exhibitor preferences
 

influence artists’ ability to exhibit
 

various art forms.
 

As one might expect, artists with a low
 

exhibition index obtained their most
 

recent shows through artist-initiated
 

methods and artists who exhibited most
 

frequently were proportionately more
 

likely to exhibit by invitation. Agreements with galleries were least used in
 

al! four cities. Difficulties in forming
 

associations with galleries and exhibitors, discussed in the group meetings,
 

may explain this finding.
 

Table 17 Mode of selection for exhibition by exhibition index 

Gallery
 

agreement
 

Invitation
 

Artist-


initiated
 

38
 
Sales methods
 

The study distinguished three basic
 

methods for selling art: through galleries, dealers, or agents; through direct
 

sales by artists; and other methods including by commission, through collectives, or through other intermediaries.
 

Direct sales were most common among artists who sold fewer than ten works per
 

year; for sales of more than ten works,
 

dealers are of equal importance. Artists
 

who sell through the other methods generally sell very little.
 

Because of its prominent place in the
 

market, sale through dealers or agents
 

is examined here in more detail than
 

the other methods. Successful use of
 

galleries, dealers, or agents is beneficial to artists in many ways. Buyers
 

have access to the art; agents have
 

greater expertise than artists in business dealings and relieve artists of
 

spending time selling; and finally, the
 

prestige of dealing through a recognized
 

space enhances the artist’s reputation.
 

Although dealing through agents can boost
 

sales for artists, 36 percent of the artists with an exhibition index greater than
 

30 did not use agents. It was also determined that about half the artists need
 

this method to be represented outside
 

their local area.
 

As the level of exposure increased, artists earned more income. Although there
 

was a positive correlation between income
 

and exhibition, substantial percentages
 

of artists with a high exhibition index
 

appear in the low-income categories. Traditional spaces earned more for artists
 

than alternative and cooperative spaces.
 

Even large group shows at the traditional
 

spaces produced more income than the more
 

exclusive shows at other spaces.
 

Table 18 Art income of artists by exhibition index 

Art income
 

None
 

$1-500
 

$501-1,000
 

$1,001-2,000
 

$2,001-4,000
 

$4,00 i-i0,000
 

$i0,001 up
 

39
 

All artists 

13.2% 26.1% 

4% 18.0% 

13.1% 14.3% 

9.7% 11.7% 

19.7% 11.8% 

18.1% 9.8% 

16.9% 8.3% 

100.0% 
Exhibition patterns and other conditions
 

The study gives insight into the relationship between exhibition and income
 

and between use of studio time and exhibition.
 

Examination of the exhibition clusters
 

reveals that artists in clusters characterized by low exhibition index numbers
 

had low production costs and those with
 

high index numbers of exhibitions had
 

higher costs. But like the exhibition-


income relationship, there is an intermediate group in which production costs
 

were variable. Because one-person and
 

small group shows often involve producing
 

a number of new pieces, artists exhibiting in these shows probably reported
 

higher expenditures than artists exhibiting in a similar number of large group
 

shows.
 

Artists without studio space tended to
 

have an exhibition index of i0 or less
 

(68 percent of the sample) and artists
 

with a high index tended to have studio
 

space outside the home. Perhaps exhibition success makes outside studio space
 

more affordable or more worthy of the
 

expenditure.
 

The study showed that artists with exhibition success were most likely to
 

devote time to selling their work. Those
 

employed full-time in other work tended
 

to have the lower exhibition index numbers. Artists holding art-related jobs
 

had a slightly better exhibition index
 

than others holding nonart-related jobs.
 

The tendency to spend most time preparing
 

work for exhibition and some time experimenting that was observed among artists
 

with high incomes was more dramatically
 

reinforced when experimentation was analyzed in relation to exhibition. However,
 

half the artists in cluster 8 (high number of exhibitions in all types of spaces)
 

spent most of their studio time experimenting in contrast with the more predictable proportions reported in cluster 3
 

(high number of exhibitions in traditional
 

spaces). Exhibitors expressed interest in
 

seeing evolution in artists’ work, and the
 

more successful artists did spend some
 

time experimenting to improve the quality
 

of their work or advance in new directions.
 

40
 
Table 19 Experimental studio time by exhibition cluster 

.o% 

ioo .o% 

2.2% IO0 .o% 

2.o~ lOO .o% 

I00.0% 

i00.0% 

in 

i00.01 

0.01 

100.0% 

i00.0% 

100.0% 
EXHIBITION PROCESS
 

The effort that artists put into obtaining shows and the type of action they
 

take should have a bearing on their
 

relative success. The complexities of
 

the exhibition process reach well beyond
 

the quality of art exhibited. Well
 

established artists may need little effort to exhibit, as the data on exhibition by invitation indicate. For other
 

artists, particularly the young, determination and understanding of the market
 

can influence success.
 

Artists must choose among the variety of
 

exhibition spaces to approach. Information networks may supply them with descriptions that will help them determine the
 

ones that are most suitable and what efforts to make. Art coverage in loca!
 

publications may provide artists with
 

facts about the art market that will aid
 

in finding the way into the exhibition
 

process.
 

Table 20 Efforts to obtain exhibition 

Frequency
 

Never
 

Sometimes
 

Usually
 

Always
 

Total
 

Efforts to exhibit
 

Artists were asked about actions they took
 

to achieve exhibition in 1978. Their
 

responses relate to the selection modes
 

already discussed (artist-initiated
 

methods, invitation, and gallery agreement), and 42 percent said that invitation was usually or always used. The
 

second most frequently used route to exhibition was open juried competitions.
 

The least frequently used route involved
 

artist-initiated visits to exhibitors.
 

These findings are at odds with dealer
 

complaints about artists seeking reviews
 

of their work. However, the survey
 

respondents included only artists who had
 

exhibited, so the artist who seeks such
 

reviews may not yet have an exhibition
 

history. Artists who exhibit may have
 

learned to stop this practice.
 

42
 

Table 21 Exhibition effort clusters 

Clusters were formed to draw conclusions
 

about how artists are likely to approach
 

getting exhibitions. Few artists rely
 

on only one technique except those
 

exhibiting almost exclusively by invitation (cluster D). Those in clusters C,
 

F, and G (60 percent of respondents) use
 

all of the techniques with greater than
 

average frequency.
 

Some notable variation in effort was observed. Sculptors and new-form artists
 

(about 14 percent each) showed lower
 

levels of effort than other artists.
 

The techniques used by most new-form
 

artists suggests difficulty in finding
 

effective ways to obtain exhibitions.
 

Artists who make prints or drawings
 

generally fell into clusters characterized by artist-initiated efforts. One-


third of printmakers and 27 percent of
 

those exhibiting drawings appeared in
 

cluster G. In general, however, artists
 

working in these two forms used less effective techniques and are concentrated
 

in cluster B. In contrast, 39 percent
 

of photographers depended on invitations
 

and personal relationships, probably because of limitations in number and type
 

of spaces showing photographs.
 

Men were more likely to favor invitations
 

and gallery agreements (clusters C, D,
 

and F). Women tended to use the artist-


initiated cooperatives and juried competitions (clusters E and G).
 

There were some differences in exhibition
 

efforts made by members of racial groups
 

but these were small. Minority artists
 

had higher percentages in low-effort
 

clusters. However, clusters marked by
 

high activity showed no difference by race.
 

44
 
Exhibition factors
 

Because of frequent discrepancies between exhibitor preference and the form
 

or style of work offered by artists for
 

exhibit, the study raised the question of
 

what factors artists consider when approaching particular exhibition spaces.
 

Exhibitors claimed that artists all too
 

frequently brought them work without considering its appropriateness for the
 

criteria characteristic of the space.
 

Questionnaire responses revealed that 17
 

percent of the artists never considered
 

compatibility, about 12 percent never considered the quality of work exhibited, and
 

20 percent never thought about whether exhibitors understood the artist’s ideas and
 

objectives. While only a minority failed
 

to consider such important factors, many
 

of the artists seldom considered all important exhibition factors concerning
 

individual spaces.
 

Almost half the artists had not considered whether galleries were taking on new
 

artists. Many felt it was sufficient that
 

in their judgment, their work was of
 

higher quality than that being shown.
 

About. 81 percent of the artists said that
 

they usually or always considered quality
 

the key factor that should determine exhibition.
 

The discussion meetings made clear that
 

artists and exhibitors approach the
 

development of personal relationships
 

from opposite directions. The survey
 

showed that 82 percent of artists seldom
 

or never consider personal relationships
 

as an exhibition factor.
 

Table 22	 Exhibition factor 

consideration clusters 

Percent
 

of artists
 

7.9%
 

12.8%
 

6.7%
 

24.6%
 

factors
 

A cluster analysis based on the artists’
 

consideration of various factors as they
 

approached exhibitors was related to
 

demographic characteristics.
 

Art form generally had little impact on
 

cluster membership, but new-form artists
 

did tend to gravitate toward cluster V,
 

which focused on exhibitor understanding
 

of ideals. Women were somewhat more
 

likely than men to consider all exhibition factors (clusters III and VII).
 

They were less likely to be represented
 

in cluster II, giving little consideration to factors. Women more than men
 

tended to give consideration to quality
 

of work, but the reverse held true for
 

considering reputation of space. No significant differences were found based on
 

race. Artists with higher levels of art
 

education paid more attention to a broad
 

range of factors and were less likely to
 

focus mainly on quality of work.
 

45
 
Information networks
 

To gain further insight into how artists
 

go about exhibiting, the study sought to
 

discover what sources of information
 

they drew on. Theoretically, the well-


informed artist can make more effective
 

and efficient efforts to exhibit; but
 

about 32 percent of the artists did not
 

consider exhibition factors in the first
 

place or did not seek any outside information. The most-used information source
 

is other artists; 66 percent cited this
 

source. Almost 65 percent said that they
 

relied on personal knowledge as a primary
 

source of information of exhibition prospects. One-third named the intended exhibitor as a source. The least-used
 

source was art service organizations
 

(7 percent). The data indicate limited
 

contact and communication between artists
 

and others in the art market. Differences in approaches between artists and
 

exhibitors are often not bridged effectively through existing information networks.
 

The questionnaire sent to artists concluded its examination of the exhibition
 

process by attempting to find what art
 

topics interested artists most and how
 

well they attempted to keep abreast of
 

developments at local and national levels.
 

The exhibition system iteself received
 

least attention, only 45 percent claiming
 

that they sometimes or always kept up
 

with this topic. Local ideas and developments, the local art scene, and shows
 

in important local spaces received the
 

most attention, with over 80 percent
 

sometimes or always following these subjects. In the group discussions it was
 

suggested that occasional workshops or
 

seminars would help artists to gain current information on exhibition opportunities.
 

Exhibition success
 

From analysis of the exhibition process
 

it is possible to make some generalizations about exhibition success.
 

The most successful artists had high-


quality shows, high income, and commercial gallery orientation and gave moderate amounts of effort to exhibition and
 

exhibition factors.
 

A second, moderately successful group
 

worked hard at obtaining exhibits, considered most of the exhibition factors
 

when attempting to get a show, used a
 

variety of information sources, and
 

showed interest in many art-related
 

topics. These artists seemed to make a
 

substantial effort to market their work.
 

A third group had had some success but
 

probably had less experience than the
 

first two. The approach to exhibition
 

usually involved some self-initiated
 

method rather than invitation or personal
 

relationships. Other artists were the
 

main source of information.
 

Finally, there was a group of artists who
 

were not successful or were not interested in marketing their art. Some of
 

these artists were older people with
 

less professional experience and non-


exhibiting artists who worked mainly
 

for their own satisfaction.
 

46
 
APPENDI X
 

Approaches to the definition of visual


artist
 

In Research Division Report #5, Where
 

Artists Live: 1970, estimates were
 

provided for the population of artists
 

in thirty-two cities including Houston,
 

Minneapolis, Washington, and San Francisco. The figures were based on data obtained in the 1970 Census of Population.
 

The Research Division is now preparing
 

similar estimates with data from the
 

1980 Census of Population.
 

The survey of Houston, Minneapolis,
 

Washington, and San Francisco artists
 

that developed the data for this report
 

utilized definitions of artists and
 

techniques for locating them that are
 

different from those used for the census
 

and the resulting universe of artists is
 

not directly comparable with that described in Research Report #5. There is
 

probably substantial overlap in these
 

universes, but the extent of overlap and
 

difference cannot be precisely determined.
 

The definition of visual artists used
 

in the study underlying this report
 

reflects the artists’ exhibition history
 

during the three years 1976-78. The
 

artists in the study universe were obtained by requesting lists from recognized local art exhibitors. Those included were identified by an exhibitor
 

as having had their work shown or sold
 

at least once in the three-year period.
 

The exhibition or sale had to be local
 

and the artist had to live in the city
 

or its immediate vicinity. About 75
 

percent of exhibitors in the four cities
 

cooperated by providing this information.
 

In comparison to this approach and definition, the census occupational classifications are based on work activity in a
 

very short and im~nediate reference period. The census month is April and the
 

reference period is the last week of
 

March, so persons are enumerated in the
 

census as artists if in the last week of
 

March they worked for pay or (intended)
 

profit in their artist occupation for
 

most of the hours that they worked
 

during the reference week. The census
 

locates artists through a general population survey rather than through such
 

informed sources as exhibitors.
 

It is useful to have these two perspectives on the artist population with
 

different but often complementary information. The data obtained from the
 

census yield national estimates of basic
 

characteristics of artists that can be
 

directly compared with persons in other
 

occupations, and the regular periodic
 

collection of census data makes it possible to analyze trends. On the other
 

hand, such studies as the one described
 

in this report make it possible to examine such details and characteristics
 

as artists’ income from sale of their
 

art and both art-related and nonartrelated jobs and their relative satisfaction with conditions in local art
 

markets--information that is not available through the census.
 

47
 
REPORTS IN THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS RESEARCH DIVISION SERIES
 

Since 1976 the Research Division of the
 

National Endowment for the Arts has been
 

studying matters of interest to the arts
 

community and issuing reports based on its
 

findings. Copies of the reports may be ordered from the Publishing Center for Cultural Resources, 625 Broadway, New York
 

City 10012.
 

Checks should be made payable to "Publishing Center." Prices include postage and
 

handling; no state or local sales tax is
 

applicable.
 

#1 Employment and Unemployment of Artists:
 

1970-1975. 32 pages. April 1976. $5.00
 

#2 To Survey American Crafts: A Planning
 

Study. 32 pages. July 1977. $5.00
 

#3 Understanding the Employment of Actors.
 

36 pages. September 1977. $6.00
 

#4 Arts and Cultural Programs on Radio and
 

Television. 92 pages. September 1977. $9.00
 

#5 Where Artists Live: 1970. 80 pages.
 

October 1977. $8.00
 

#6 Economic Impact of Arts and Cultural
 

Institutions: A Model for Assessment and
 

a Case Study in Baltimore. 96 pages.
 

November 1977. $9.00
 

#7 Minorities and Women in the Arts: 1970.
 

32 pages. January 1978. $5.00
 

#8 The State Arts Agencies in 1974: All
 

Present and Accounted For. 160 pages.
 

April 1978. $13.00
 

#9 Audience Studies of the Performing Arts
 

and Museums: A Critical Review. 106 pages.
 

November 1978. $i0.00
 

#i0 Self-Employment, Migration, and Household and Family Characteristics of Artists:
 

1970. 32 pages. November 1978. $5.00
 

#ii Conditions and Needs of the Professional American Theatre. 132 pages. May
 

1981. ISBN 0-89062-076-8 $12.00
 

#12 Artists Compared by Age, Sex, and
 

Earnings in 1970 and 1976. 56 pages.
 

January 1980. ISBN 0-89062-077-6 $7.00
 

#13 Craft Artist Membership Organizations
 

1978. 52 pages. January 1980. ISBN
 

0-89062-089-X $7.00
 

#14 Audience Development: An Examination
 

of Selected Analysis and Prediction Techniques Applied to Symphony and Theatre Attendance in Four Southern Cities. 48
 

pages. January 1981. ISBN 0-89062-097-0
 

$6.00
 

#15 Economic Impact of Arts and Cultural
 

Institutions: Case Studies in Columbus,
 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, St. Louis, Salt Lake
 

City, San Antonio, and Springfield. 104
 

pages. January 1981. ISBN 0-89062-106-3
 

$Io.oo
 

#16 Artist Employment and Unemployment
 

1971-1980. 44 pages. January 1982.
 

ISBN 0-89062-135-7 $6.00
 

#17 The Arts Public in the South. 64
 

pages. March 1984. ISBN 0-89062-147-0
 

$7.00
 

#18 Visual Artists in Houston, Minneapolis,
 

Washington, and San Francisco: Earning
 

and Exhibition Opportunities. 48 pages.
 

October 1984. ISBN 0-89062-191-8 $8.00
 

48
 
Produced and distributed by Publishing Center for Cultural Resources, 625 Broadway, New York City 10012.