Talk:Vanity gallery

message: This article already was deleted once, apparently without the proper procedures.  user:DESiegel reinstated it on 6 May 2007.  Since then someone has removed a list of ostensibly vanity galleries, due to lack of citation.  I think some references can be found about whether the following actually are or are not vanity galleries:
Also, there seems to be a LOT of back-and-forth editing of this article, with no discussion whatsoever (Can I really be the first?).  This is apparently an important subject, or at least a touchy one.  Can we please have explanations for the edits here? Artemis-Arethusa 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did an almost total rewrite during the AFD discussion.  Concerns were expressed during the AFD that the article was original research, and I felt the best way of addressing these concerns was to write what I could from reliable sources.  I therefore went ahead and found some, and reported on what they said, mostly removing anything they didn't say (the last sentence, which I considered to be important but left unsaid by the sources, was the only exception).  The list of galleries was already gone by the time I did this, but I would have removed it had it still been there. JulesH 06:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensible.  The list of galleries is a distraction and not helpful to understanding the issue, never mind the potential legal difficulties.  And the last sentence is probably the most pertinent. Artemis-Arethusa 15:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Work

message: The Sylvia White article used as a reference on vanity galleries who charge artists to display their work is on artspan.com, a web site that, er, charges artists to display their work. Ms White herself, uhm, charges artists for consultations and studio visits. Perhaps there should be information on art web sites and art consultants on the same basis.
Tyrenius 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Art web sites and consultants can fall into the same definition of behaviour.  Just as in the literary world, in the art world definitions and practices have blurred.  What is the difference between a vanity gallery and a cooperative gallery, which also charges its members for shows?  Are online galleries to be considered in the same category?  Some part of the definition seems to be the "eye-roll" test: Does the presence of this gallery on an artist's resumé cause a knowledgeable person to roll their eyes; in other words, does association with this gallery actually reduce rather than enhance the artist's reputation. Artemis-Arethusa 15:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ironic

message: The article at the moment takes only negative aspects and is not written from a NPOV.  Ms White does not actually condemn the practice: she gives advice on how to maximise the potential of such a gallery. 
There is WEASEL wording: "Some consider...", "Many professional artists..." 
Tyrenius 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of the reason the article takes only negative aspects is that that reflects the vast majority of opinions of vanity galleries.  If there is someone out there who had a positive experience with a vanity gallery, they sure are keeping quiet.  It's a little like saying this article on bunco artists only emphasizes the negative aspects.  That said, if anybody has anything good to say about vanity galleries, it should be mentioned. Artemis-Arethusa 18:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my post again: "Ms White does not actually condemn the practice: she gives advice on how to maximise the potential of such a gallery", so such galleries clearly (according to her) have a potential and one which can, and should be, maximised by those artists using them. It is not all negative then. Tyrenius (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: There are some books that discuss vanity galleries. These may of course be vanity publications (I haven't checked). Tyrenius 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: in response to the last 2 sections, artist run galleries (and co-operatives mentioned above), including an increasing number of commercial galleries too (e.g. in New York, Japan, Sydney), charge the artist the rent for the duration, plus get a commission/cut, and get the artist to design and send out their own invitations. This can include the artist or artists manning their own opening and show time, installing and taking down the work, preparing the gallery space without being able to store works for future sales. Some offer a mailing list and increase the cut if they do any of these things for the artist. Yet there are such galleries that would be acceptable on an artist's cv but again the blur occurs between all of these. Sometimes the cv rates it because of the calibre of artist prepared to show there. It's blurring things for sure but a creeping thing just the same. 110.33.249.192 (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because more galleries are taking up predatory behavior doesn't make it any less predatory.  The principle in artmaking is that money is supposed to flow towards the author (or in this case, the artist). Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just saying 

message: many known vanity venues and their offshoots listed in this article:
http://www.artbusiness.com/artist-pay-to-play-list.html
don't have time to add the info.  anyone else wanna? Cramyourspam (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  resource