by Robert Maniscalco

After 9-11 we all were forced to take a deeper look at our lives and what was important to us. As an active member of Detroit’s arts community I found myself taking a hard look at how each of us defines success. One art dealer/artist from Windsor once described Detroit as the “wild wild west of the art world.” “Anything goes” is the first and only rule. I imagine Detroit is not unique in this chaotic soup of mavericks fighting to promote themselves in a competitive world. In Detroit’s market driven mind-set one might assume that what floats to the top is the
cream. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.

What are the main criteria for success in the art community? Is it money, as in most other businesses? Is market driven art somehow better art? I’ve talked with many who believe the
answer to both questions is “yes.” But there is a lot of schlock that commands a large percentage of the profits in the huge commercial fine art industry. So-called “starving artist” art, made anonymously in a factory, is sold at wholesale for the cost of a bad haircut. It is the then marked up as much as a hundred times the original price by commercial galleries and decorators. By any standard of quality, appealing to the lowest common denominator does not make for the most “successful” art. On the other hand, many established contemporary artists sell their work for thousands or even millions of dollars. But does a high price tag
necessarily mean the art is better? Is money really the only criteria for success? Of course not.
So how do we define success in the art world? To answer that question we have to take a look at how successfully our arts organizations and artists are serving the various stakeholders in their community.

The hallmarks of success vary widely, depending on whether we’re talking about galleries, art dealers, art brokers, art consultants, appraisers, museums, educational institutions, nonprofit
art centers, service organizations or the artists themselves. In a healthy arts community, each of these entities works in tandem to serve the various stakeholders that make up the
community as a whole (by the way, if you have read this far, you are hereby an official member of the arts community!).

I have noticed that these distinctions are a little blurry in Detroit’s arts community. Many organizations (even artists) want to be all things to all people. While on the surface this sounds like a good idea I have found it often leads to confusion and diffusion
of services. What many people don’t realize is that each of these entities has an implied primary constituency. Firemen put out fires and protect the public. The public is their primary
stakeholder. Stockbrokers trade stocks to the advantage of their clients (well, at least they’re supposed to!). A Doctor’s primary stakeholder is his or her patients.

Likewise, in the arts community, the non-profit art guilds/clubs serve their member artists. They exist to showcase, educate and promote their members. When these organizations try to become art dealers on behalf of their member-artists a conflict naturally arises, as the art buyer then becomes their primary stakeholder. Having art for sale may be one way a guild or club can promote their artists. But when the art buyer then becomes their stakeholder then the organization has changed it’s purpose and should change its mission accordingly.
A non-profit museum or art center, such as the Detroit Institute of Art, serves primarily to educate and enlighten the public. They are not answerable to the artist or the art buyer,
though they may serve them. They depend on public funding to operate, such as grants, ticket sales, contributions and endowments.

By definition, the art dealer, consultant and gallery serve the collector. In the process of serving the buyer the art dealer serves the artist, who benefits from the sale of his/her work. The art dealer’s primary stakeholder must be the buyer. If an art dealer attempted to operate as a museum or an art guild, without the benefit of public funding (or personal wealth) to support the operation, it would be a recipe for failure, serving no one. Sadly,
this is often the case. Fortunately (or unfortunately) we have a number of vanity galleries, which are insulated from the market by personal wealth.

Who is the primary stakeholder of the fine artist? Are they their own constituency, as many fine artists believe? Or are their stakeholders their past and future buyers? If so, what are the ways in which the fine artist reaches these buyers? Fine artists promote themselves in a number of ways: they exhibit, compete for awards, apply for grants. They may occasionally sell through art guilds, art fairs, even restaurants. Some artists create their own unique opportunities for exhibition and publicity. Some fine artists promote/support themselves through teaching while others have “day jobs.” To be “successful,” however, fine artists hire brokers/agents or work directly through an art dealer, whose job it is to serve his/her buyers, which in turn, serves the artist.

Many artists misunderstand this relationship. Rather than treating them as partners they resent the art dealers and begrudge the crucial role they play in the community. In addition, many art dealers have turned their backs on artists in response to this resentment.

Unfortunately, that’s one reason there are so few contemporary galleries specializing in local talent. I have noticed two things that distinguish successful art markets like Chicago, Santa Fe and Ashville: 1) The value of artwork is higher and more consistent and 2) there is a strong sense of gallery loyalty on the part of artists. Consequently, in these centers, collectors know where to find the artists work and how much it will cost. Detroit’s fine artists misguided practice of showing their work wherever and whenever possible, essentially flooding the
market, is driving the value of everyone’s work down the tubes. I’m sick of hearing about how there’s no demand or appreciation for contemporary art in this town. Trust me, there’s a huge untapped market for serious contemporary art in metro Detroit, as there is in most economic centers.

Let’s just say it’s currently a buyer’s market (which on the surface would seem to be great news to fledgling collectors). Our artists and art dealers need to wake up and begin working for the greater good if they ever want to be taken seriously by the thousands of potential art collectors who don’t as yet know we exist.

Now is the time to take action in our community. There is a critical need for unity and clarification as the many arts organizations and artists compete for funding and support from
their respective constituents during this economic slow down. On the bright side, there are a number of excellent models within our community. The Detroit Institute of Arts is doing a fantastic job of identifying and appealing to their stakeholders— the general public. Smaller non-profits, like the Detroit Artists Market and the Grosse Pointe Artists Association, are thriving as they focus on their stakeholders—their members. There are a few contemporary commercial galleries/dealers, who are very quietly identifying their stakeholders (the collectors) and moving local art into people’s homes and businesses while others are scrambling to please other artsits.

Fortunately, I work with a great many artists and others in our community who are committed to creating a viable Detroit art market. Likewise, artists and the organizations that serve them
need to organize and build on successful models from other communities.

It comes down to each of us taking personal responsibility to reach out and to educate. Collectors need to be taught to tell their friends about their latest acquisition. Artists also need to be taught how to participate in the effective promotion of their work. I believe together, we can serve the best interests of the entire community, making it an even more compelling and exciting place to live and raise our families. After all, that’s what success is all about.

List of Essays