The author, Miles Mathis, finds it amusing that 2010 Gallery in Kansas City is still prominently featuring one of his paintings from 2010, despite him having no association with the gallery for fourteen years. The painting, priced at 32,000) and Pino ($24,000) are also listed, yet his painting is used as a draw. He also notes the gallery owner hasn’t raised the price of his painting in 20 years, to the point where it would yield no profit if sold, suggesting the owner doesn’t wish to sell it. Mathis posits that potential buyers are deterred by seeing his work alongside much pricier artists and mediocre pieces, leading them to devalue his art and question the gallery’s prestige. He also reveals that purchasing a similar painting directly from him would cost double the listed price.
He then recounts a humorous attempt to inquire about the painting under a pseudonym, only to be told it was sold, a claim he doubts given the gallery’s long-standing display of the piece. He suspects it’s a private collection item used for decoration, never intended for sale. Mathis expresses concern that the unchanged price of $8,000 could negatively impact his current valuation, as potential clients might perceive it as his standard price range. He also mentions being told by the gallery owner (under the pseudonym) that “Miles Mathis was no longer painting as he did before,” a statement he finds unclear.
Mathis reflects on his negative experiences with galleries, citing their high commission rates (50% or more), poor treatment of artists, lack of promotion, and general ignorance of art and business. He believes galleries are often run by wealthy individuals seeking prestige rather than genuine art promotion, contributing to the decline of the art world. He explains the split with the Kansas City gallery occurred after he wrote an article criticizing a newsletter from a California gallery that advised artists to do all promotional work for galleries while giving them 60% of sales. Although he didn’t receive the newsletter directly, the Kansas City gallery alerted to his article, severed ties with him. He notes that this gallery had only sold one piece directly from him while he lived in Europe, and others on consignment didn’t fit their clientele. He views this as further evidence of his inability to fit into contemporary galleries and his subsequent decision to stop dealing with them due to insulting contracts.
He concludes by mentioning he has written other accounts of his gallery experiences and provides a link for readers to access them.
Summary with Marked Entities:
The author, Miles Mathis, finds it amusing that 2010 Gallery in Kansas City is still prominently featuring one of his paintings from 2010, despite him having no association with the gallery for fourteen years. The painting, priced at 32,000) and Pino ($24,000) are also listed, yet his painting is used as a draw. He also notes the gallery owner hasn’t raised the price of his painting in 20 years, to the point where it would yield no profit if sold, suggesting the owner doesn’t wish to sell it. Miles Mathis posits that potential buyers are deterred by seeing his work alongside much pricier artists and mediocre pieces, leading them to devalue his art and question the gallery’s prestige. He also reveals that purchasing a similar painting directly from him would cost double the listed price.
He then recounts a humorous attempt to inquire about the painting under a pseudonym, only to be told it was sold, a claim he doubts given the gallery’s long-standing display of the piece. He suspects it’s a private collection item used for decoration, never intended for sale. Miles Mathis expresses concern that the unchanged price of $8,000 could negatively impact his current valuation, as potential clients might perceive it as his standard price range. He also mentions being told by the gallery owner (under the pseudonym) that “Miles Mathis was no longer painting as he did before,” a statement he finds unclear.
Miles Mathis reflects on his negative experiences with galleries, citing their high commission rates (50% or more), poor treatment of artists, lack of promotion, and general ignorance of art and business. He believes galleries are often run by wealthy individuals seeking prestige rather than genuine art promotion, contributing to the decline of the art world. He explains the split with the Kansas City gallery occurred after he wrote an article criticizing a newsletter from a California gallery that advised artists to do all promotional work for galleries while giving them 60% of sales. Although he didn’t receive the newsletter directly, the Kansas City gallery alerted to his article, severed ties with him. He notes that this gallery had only sold one piece directly from him while he lived in Europe, and others on consignment didn’t fit their clientele. He views this as further evidence of his inability to fit into ANY contemporary gallery and his subsequent decision to stop dealing with them due to insulting contracts.
He concludes by mentioning he has written other accounts of his gallery experiences and provides a link for readers to access them.
List of Subjects, Names, References, Locations, Companies, etc.: