Last month saw the debut of New York’s Gallery Week in which 50 Manhattan dealers organised a smorgasbord of events, from book signings to performances and special late openings (7-10 May, p81). The idea is not new: Berlin has a similar weekend, (30 April-2 May, p81), as has Zurich (12-13 June). In the more traditional fields, London has long boasted an Asian Art Week in the autumn (4-13 November), while both London and New York see master drawings dealers putting on grouped events (3-9 July in London; 22-29 January 2011 in New York).
But gallery week is new to the Big Apple and proved to be a novel display of collegiality and co-operation by contemporary art dealers. The event certainly brought in the crowds, with galleries reporting hundreds of visitors, and plenty of fresh faces, over the four days. The commercial impact was harder to determine—some dealers reported increased sales, but others said it was difficult to directly ascribe these to the weekend.
For decades, dealers have been looking for ways to make their voices heard above the noise of the auction houses. They constantly need to find ways of attracting new clients, meeting other dealers, discovering young talent and keeping abreast of trends. Art fairs seem to have proved the answer. But their proliferation across the calendar (and the globe) has meant that serious art collectors have less and less time and energy to fit old-fashioned gallery-going into their schedules.
The downsides are that fairs are expensive to do, create considerable upheaval for the smaller gallery, and can in no way convey the depth and range of a programme. Others argue that the profusion of satellite fairs around the most successful (Art Basel Miami Beach attracted 19 concurrent fairs last year and the Armory had nine this March) has created a confusing overdose, reducing the clarity and focus of the main fairs.
Meanwhile, many dealers say that, with collectors less willing to travel, they are selling more to their local clientele anyway, even at fairs. So, perhaps it makes sense to stay at home, make an event for the local audience, and hope that the hard-core art crowd will still get on the plane.
But the real benefit of gallery weeks is that they bring clients, curators and critics back into the exhibition space proper. The organiser, Casey Kaplan, saw New York Gallery Week as an opportunity for dealers to put forward a more friendly public face and dispel the myth of their “icy veneers”. The city houses a mass of beautiful, architect-designed galleries, in which dealers have invested heavily to showcase their artists in the best possible way.
For collectors, the chance to wander through the neighbourhoods of New York, Berlin, Zurich or London, guide in hand, resembles an experience closer to a biennale than an art fair. Visitors bump into each other in the streets, at parties, talks and performances, and share recommendations of what not to miss.
Financially, they have a major advantage. It can easily cost galleries a hefty six-figures to exhibit, ship art and fly staff, to an art fair. Gallery weeks, by contrast, cost nothing in terms of travel, shipping and hotel costs, and entry is relatively cheap—if not free. Zurich gallerists don’t pay anything to take part in gallery week, while New York dealers were charged between $1,000-$1,500 to cover overheads and Asia Week London participants pay £3,000 each.
Some cities have focused on those disillusioned with art fairs. New York Gallery Week, for example, has taken advantage of some dealers’ disenchantment with the Armory Show, which a number of significant New York dealers now shun—including Anton Kern and Kaplan. “I guess we thought of Gallery Week as an anti-fair!” said Jason Murison of Friedrich Petzel. Indeed, the organisers—with their requirement that each participant stage a solo show—deliberately strove to make the week unlike a fair.
The truth, though, is that fairs and gallery weeks are more likely to be complementary than in competition with each other—in most cases, at least.
The major international fairs can offer a reach and richness that no gallery week can emulate. Where else can you meet dealers from all parts of the globe, from Australia to Argentina? These dealers bring their clients, so giving other exhibitors potential access to collectors they would never otherwise meet. And because the major fairs create an event, with talks, private museum visits and special artist projects, they are on the agenda of everyone who counts in the art world, from the top dealers, advisors and saleroom specialists, to jet-setting curators, influential museum directors, wealthy collectors and star artists. And fair organisers have the resources to create a structure for this, with their VIP programmes, limo services, advertising and highly effective public relations.
Fairs are also a chance to get a snap-shot of what’s going on in the market, in one stop. Financially, galleries depend on the fairs for a good part of their annual revenues—at least half, in some cases. And, many galleries feel, rightly or wrongly, that their absence from a fair could be interpreted as a loss of influence or significance.
Gallery weeks, in contrast, have a more local audience and inevitably attract fewer heavy-hitters. There is no filter—not even an entry charge, which was an issue for Asia Week London last year, when a few freeloaders turned up for every event, including one person who, bizarrely, stole all the labels from the displays.
But, while gallery weeks, particularly those focused on contemporary art, reach a younger and less wealthy audience than the heavy hitters, they also provide an opportunity to develop future collectors. Alfred Taubman, former owner of Sotheby’s, said he made his fortune by overcoming buyers’ “threshold resistance”. Gallery weeks, by creating an event, throwing open their doors and displaying artists’ work in depth, can also have this role—of encouraging that first step into learning, discovering the artists and buying an original work.