"Hanging Fees"

Warning: I am going to ask questions about a gallery exhibition policy. I am not criticizing the gallery, just looking for ideas as to why they have implemented this specific policy.

I was browsing the Web today looking for regional exhibition opportunities and I found the 36th Annual Laurel Art Guild Open Juried Exhibition held at the Montpelier Cultural Arts Center. At first, I couldn't find a required entry fee for this show. After reviewing the PDF announcement I saw that they charge a $15 hanging fee if you are accepted. Applicants can submit 2 works for consideration but only one work per artist will be hung. So, should an artist be accepted, they must pay $15 to show one work.

I recently wrote about the "participation fee" at Flashpoint. Their current show, Adam Fowler, has 18 works hanging. In terms of a per piece expense, Flashpoint charged Fowler almost $14/work to hang his show ($250/18).

Let me make up a scenario so that we can evaluate the policy in place for the 36th Annual Laurel Art Guild Open Juried Exhibition. Let's say that they will receive 90 artist submissions and they will accept a third of them, or 30. The income from the hanging fees would be $450. An alternative to this approach could instead be that they charged an entry fee for each submission. Assuming the same number of applicants above, the entry fee would only have to be $5/artist to bring in $450.

Granted, $15 is quite a bit cheaper than most entry fees and really it isn't all that expensive. But I'm curious why some ogranizations have instituted the participation fee policy (same as a hanging fee, really) instead of an entry fee.

The Laurel Art Guild Open Juried Exhibition is in its 36th year of existence. That's a remarkable achievement and the old saying likely applies, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This is just the second example of a participation fee structure that I've personally encountered and I just want to understand the merits of that approach.

Let's not discuss right or wrong... I'm interested in why.

Comments

[Dan]

I'm curious why some ogranizations have instituted the participation fee policy (same as a hanging fee, really) instead of an entry fee.

Perhaps in the spirit of fairness, perhaps to draw more submissions. Artists will be less inclined to enter shows as entry fees pile up. Tie the cost to the reward of acceptance and it becomes more or less risk-free.

And really, should a struggling artist really be asked to shell out $25 to have a juror give their work a twenty second once-over before rejecting it?

[J.T. Kirkland]

Good points Dan. I think you're right that the $0 up front entices more people, and once you get accepted you don't care about the $15 because, well, you got accepted!!

A struggling artist should definitely not be asked to shell out $25 on all entry fees. Those add up quickly. But in this case, given the numbers I assumed, I don't think a $5 entry fee would discourage any artists from submitting, and it wouldn't put undue burden on those accepted.

Sometimes when I think about this it almost seems like the ones who are accepted are punsihed for being picked.

How about this reference... I watched an old West Wing the other day and they brought up the "veil of ignorance." This means, if you had no idea if you would be accepted or not, what type of policy would you want to be in place? I think the current arrangement by this gallery works because if you don't get accepted you don't want to pay for a rejection letter or email. If you get accepted, you don't mind paying for it.

The question becomes, should the financial burden be spread out among all interested artists, or should a slightly higher burden be put on those fortunate enough to be accepted?

[Dan]

And for what it's worth, though I know you don't want to discuss the 'right and wrong' of it, I feel compelled to say that (on its face at least) such fees seem to be a different creature than what you talked about re: Flashpoint.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Dan,

Can you elaborate on what you think the difference is between this example and the Flashpoint example of "participation fees"?

[wwc]

I agree it's a different beast - because while 15 bucks to hang one work is no big deal, but 250$ starts to be a lot. $15 is a meal, $250 is half rent. And though we'd all like to sell in every show we're in, it's probably unlikely every artist is going to sell 250$ of art at Flashpoint.

I agree high juror fees blow, but another reason they're there is to weed out those who may not be as interested in showing. If all I haveto do is sens a disk of jpegs, thats easy, but a fee makes me thing twice.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Not funny Warren! $250 as half of rent! Ha! Don't I wish! I'm moving to Charlottesville!!

The thing is, $250 is for a solo show at a gallery that frequently gets reviewed by the press in DC. The $15 won't buy you anything but a line on your resume.

Adam Fowler has sold well over $10,000 worth of art in his show at Flashpoint. All you have to do is sell one piece and you've got the $250 back.

So, is the difference the cost?

[Rosetta DeBerardinis]

J.T.
I found the participation fee for the Laurel Arts Guild both enticing and fair. There are so many wonderful shows, however, the entry fees do add up. And, many of us cannot afford to submit to very many of them.
I entered the Laurel show and did so because there was no risk. How wonderful and unique an opportunity in the art world. But, I do appreciate the personnel and time it takes for a gallery to review and evaluate all the submissions they receive from "a call for entries".
I think the $15 is really a "hanging fee" and that is perhaps the art jargon they should have used for clarification.
Best,
Rosetta DeBerardinis

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Rosetta,

Thanks so much for chiming in. It's great to hear the perspective of someone who entered.

It's very possible that the fee is enticing and fair. And to be fair, they do call the fee a hanging fee, although $15 to actually hang each piece is a bit steep. If that were the case, I would offer to do it for $12 per piece and save them a fair amount of money!!

My guess is that the fee helps pay for the costs associated with the show. Perhaps these fees aren't so bad since there is a jury process incorporated. It would be much different if a gallery said anyone could show their work if they pay $X. There are galleries like this and I think they need to be criticized, especially if it isn't made public knowledge.

I guess we have the answer to the question of why some galleries use a participation fee approach versus the entry fee.

[Dan]

It would be much different if a gallery said anyone could show their work if they pay $X.

That's pretty much the difference I was getting at, though I should qualify this by saying that I'm not even remotely familiar enough with the subject to really comment substantively. Indeed, I only gave your post on Flashpoint and the comments that followed a cursory glance. It does appear to me, based on Kriston's defense of it, to be a far more legitimate enterprise than the vanity galleries you alude to (which, in any event, would be charging you much, much more than $250-$500). Nevertheless, there is a different dynamic at play there than with fees for juried group shows.

[Dan]

Not to mention that (unless read things wrong) Flashpoint works through a proposal process. Vanity spaces... eh, just interested in your cash.