I have just read, on Facebook, a post from a friend of mine who is also an artist. He was desperately unhappy because he has shown work in two venues and sold nothing. The project was one which he believed to be a sure-fire success. As it is, he is dreadfully dejected. I tried to be supportive in my response.
The first thing that came to mind is that it can take a long time for work to be recognised as worthwhile. At the Ilkley exhibition last month I sold three copies of a print which I actually made back in 2005. Prior to that there had been relatively little interest in it, and I had given away several copies as presents. After several years without detectable commercial interest I had almost despaired of actually selling any of them.
The format in which work is presented can be relevant also. I have discovered that one of the pieces I painted as a part of my “Presente!” series* is quite popular as a print. The original painting is fairly large, and the cost of purchase goes against it. It is very hard indeed to sell original art works in the Bradford area, as it is a pretty low-income region. It does seem that it is possible, however, to sell items at a more modest price.
I also tried to reassure my friend that a central consideration in judging whether or not art is worthwhile is the conviction of the artist. We have to have faith in the worth of what we are doing. This is difficult to sustain if one has made a commitment to being a “professional” artist, making a significant income from the sale of work. I know very few colleagues who are in this situation. The majority of them have another source of income (often teaching) or are dependent upon the support of a partner. I would say that this is true even of people I know who are generally regarded as “successful”. Not to be able to live solely on the sale of one’s art-work is not, in my opinion, to be considered as a mark of “failure”.
*This is the series of images I did on the subject of Italian experience doing the Great War.