by Robert Maniscalco

In my recent column, "Should Government Support the Arts," I explored some of the positive roles the private and public sectors can play in a healthy arts market. I thought I had made a compelling argument. In response a few readers still insisted that the arts should survive only in the open market and not be supported by the government under any circumstances. Pete Waldmeir, of the Detroit News, framed government support for arts as a veiled effort to "saddle taxpayers with expenses to support our hobbies." One artist present proclaimed artists should "rise up with dignity and make our own way as other professions do." Rather than rehashing the debate over the importance of government funding for the arts, I thought we might focus this month on how serious fine artists might hold their own in the real world economy.

Let's take another good, hard look at the fine art market here in Detroit. Comparatively speaking, the retail value of art is lower here than in other comparable cities and much lower than in healthier models such as Santa Fe or Chicago. One would think this were great news for art collectors, who should, one would expect, be flocking to our fair city to pick up on all the great bargains. After all, where else can you find world-class talent producing compelling, original artwork for under $500? Could it be that Detroit has glutted the market with so much great art that the supply has simply exceeded demand? No, it's not quite that simple. So where is the breakdown occurring?

In the past I have railed about the many scams out there, taking business away from local artists. For example, we are now beginning to hear about lawsuits brought by galleries representing the prints of Thomas Kinkade. These galleries are complaining that Kinkade's company is undercutting agreed upon retail prices and selling cheaper images to Walmart and other chains. It remains to be seen whether consumers will continue to "invest" as much as $5,000 for touched up prints of sentimental landscapes by this most popularly appealing marketeer. His is a multi-million dollar empire. But it's only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to an expose' about some of the dubious marketing scams with whom our serious, local artists are competing, go to http://www.maniscalcogallery.com/essays/artofprofessionalism.htm. Suffice it to say, the commercial fine art business is a thriving industry - no need for charity there.

So, who is "supporting" this multi-billion dollar industry; who are all these "shallow" art buyers? Is all our "serious art" really going over peoples' heads or are there other forces at work? And why should legitimate artists and dealers care about this Reader's Digest constituency, anyway?

More to the point, how can serious, local artists get a piece of this action without compromising their integrity? Sadly, legitimate artists are shutting themselves out of the extremely lucrative fine art market because they refuse to play by the rules of supply and demand, leaving the market open to charlatans and savvy opportunists. So let's back up a minute. Rather than looking down our noses and blaming these marketeers, let's see what can we learn from their successful models. What has Thomas Kinkade been doing that has made him so successful?

Successful marketing requires organization. Kinkade has controlled the supply of his work, generated demand by developing incentives for his galleries and backed them up with an effective advertising campaign. He has thoroughly researched and targeted his market like a laser beam. He has essentially branded his style and effectively packaged and merchandised his product to the public.

How can Detroit artists do that and still have time to create? Until we have an effective gallery system in place Detroit artists will continue to flop around in the marketing void. But alas, Detroit artists simply do not support a gallery system, never have. Even though it's clear that in communities with a strong gallery system the fine art market is thriving, even in this sluggish economy. This is not to say Detroit doesn't have some great galleries. We do. But predominantly, Detroit's art scene consists of pockets of makeshift art spaces. We have incredible arty parties, beer fests, and spontaneous happenings. We are enjoying a grassroots explosion of talent pushing up through the pavement, appearing at nightclubs and free alternative spaces all over town. We are cool. We are hip. We are clever. We are culturally aware and artistically deep. But, let's face it, serious collectors aren't buying all the hype.

Sure, there will always be a few artists who will inevitably do extremely well in any environment because they are determined to do so. They have found and filled their niche. But for the most part, Detroit artists suffer under the delusion that our only problem is a matter of packaging. Maybe if we looked hipper or more "professional" we would be taken more "seriously." This is an egregious inauthenticity.

The problem isn't packaging; the problem is that Detroit artists are literally inaccessible to Detroit art buyers. Sure, they may turn up in a restaurant for a while, then a couple months later, at an art fair, then in a juried exhibition. They may even make an appearance at one of our hip art galleries but then they will inheritably disappear for a while. Collectors may take the initiative to follow the artist, if they can keep up. Those artists, and I'm talking about some of the best artists working in Detroit, who choose to remain unaffiliated with a commercial gallery are deluding themselves if they think they can thrive by arranging the occasional studio visit or develop a following with the periodic exhibit, here and there. It's the first rule of marketing: the buyer must know how to find the product easily. It's no wonder most of the top Detroit galleries prefer to work with non-local talent, and it's the primary reason why they work with the same few artists on an exclusive, ongoing basis.

The way for Detroit to develop an effective art market is for us to begin practicing basic marketing skills. Professional artists need to develop consistently high standards of excellence in their work, build and commit to a consistent retail value of their work, brand their work by developing a distinct style and body (or bodies) of work, control the availability of their work (glutting the market may be Kinkade's ultimate downfall), provide a logical range of prices (comparing values of like artists work), be continually accessible to the public during business hours (galleries are handy for that), develop a deep understanding of the market (know the demographics of the people who will likely buy their work), actively participate in the promotion of their work (devise and invest in an effective advertising campaign), expand their circle of influence inside and outside the Detroit metro area. Keep in mind, it's a waste of time trying to squeeze water from a rock. The most important marketing skill, however, is to be consistent and fair in all business dealings, backing the work up with integrity. As simple as this last part sounds, I assure you, it is most uncommon.

Galleries need to step up to the plate as well. Art dealers need to become the champions of the artists they were meant to be. Commercial galleries are not night clubs nor are they the stomping grounds of the elite. They need to be the place where people can go to see, learn about and buy fine art; the consumer must be able to trust the gallery to exhibit artwork that moves, touches and inspires them. We can no longer afford to be party to the revolving door practices of a failed model. I'm speaking primarily to the latest outcrop of commercial galleries, who are anxious to mount exciting exhibits. Galleries have to be willing to commit to their artists and groom collectors for their work. The more established galleries have already learned this lesson. They actually represent their artists.

We need to encourage open, honest dealings within our community. The fine arts community has to be willing to stop the catch 22 of mistrust, once and for all. The status quo will no longer suffice; unless we work together we will continue to flounder.

But what about all those people buying BMWs and granite counter tops instead of serious art? Certainly, there is a tremendous learning curve in educating the public about appreciating the value of owning fine art, not merely as a decorative element or status symbol but as a vital part of their way of being. Brow beating the consumer is not the answer. We must remember, wealth does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with cultural literacy. We must always be teaching. I'm probably preaching to the choir when I point out that decorative art rarely survives the redecoration process, whereas true art is eternal. We must accept that there will always be those who feel more comfortable matching a cheap print or a knockoff to their sofa than venturing into the realm of one-of-a-kind, original artwork that lifts the soul. We certainly have our work cut out for us.

This kind of education, incidentally, is the primary mission of most governmental arts & culture funding. As I said last month, the non-profit sector needs to be working in tandem with the private sector. If we truly want arts and culture to thrive in our community non-profits must focus on matching and/or replacing decreasing government funds with alternative private sources for essential programs and services. Meanwhile, we must also commit to building an effective commercial market for Detroit artists, able to hold its own in the real world. A strong gallery system is the key.

List of Essays