Insights derived from the survey outlined below must be taken primarily as anecdotal signs of hot, culturally specific sentiment. It would be foolish to consider interviewer-constructed, curtailed answers received by under a thousand respondents as some form of undisputed truth when gauging the art world’s almost incomprehensibly diverse and expansive practices.
Respondents taste’s do although hint at more widely applicable considerations.
“The percentage of art buyers making online purchases has fallen in the past year, and the increase of internet art sales has slowed for the second year running, a new report has found. The findings may lead to concern for artists who make a living selling art online, although overall, the online art market has continued to grow.
The poll also found that cellular purchases have continued to grow and take a larger share of the market, and social media remains a key way for people to find new art. He continues:”Buying art is still hugely exciting and enjoyable (as well as sometimes frustrating) and the continued influence of social media, especially Instagram, helps fuel the growth of the marketplace.”
Changing Sales | The report’s findings, which also assess the effects of cryptocurrencies and cybercrime, are based on feedback from 831 art buyers surveyed through Art Tactic’s customer mailing list. Roughly 43% of art buyers purchased online in the past 12 months, down from 49% the previous year. The slowdown was particularly pronounced for people under 35. Only 36% of this group purchased art online in the last 12 months, compared to 44% the year earlier. According to the report, this suggests that the art market is”unable to convert hesitant, in addition to occasional online buyers, into repeat customers”. Hiscox notes that while the online art market grew by 20-25% between 2013 and 2015, the previous 24 months revealed signs of a slowdown,”possibly as the industry struggles to expand and grow its online client base”. The industry growth rate fell to 15 percent in 2016 and 12% in 2017.
Accessing Art The three categories with the most Instagram followers were”museums”,”artists” and”galleries”, according to the survey results. Tate’s Instagram account has two million followers. 90 percent of new art buyers stated that cost transparency was a key attribute when deciding which online art sales to purchase from, which makes this a potential obstacle to increasing sales.
Hazards | The report also finds over half of surveyed selling platforms had been the target of attempted cyber attacks over the past 12 months. Around 15% stated that an attack had been successful. Just over 40 percent of internet art buyers are either concerned or very concerned about cyber crime when buying art online, and 82% said they’d most likely buy from programs they had prior knowledge of because of fear of cybercrime. Read concludes:”The art market is dominated by little – and medium-sized businesses who have historically been in the less tech-savvy, more complacent end of this scale. “These businesses are vulnerable and our findings indicate that cyber criminals may be waking up for this, perhaps seeing the art market as a target.” Arts Professional
The Medium Is The Message
Similar to the structure of the most popular promotional tool implemented, Instagram with it’s series of panels, a’gallery view’ is perfectly suited for these.
Here it might be argued that each stage of the process has been influenced. From concept, production to end-client delivery all parts necessarily either overtly or unconsciously account for the promotional restrictions that this type of medium inherently entails. Meaning an artist who profits from use of the’gallery perspective’ sales channels may coordinate their efforts, however individually measured as finally positive or negative, so as to achieve the best result when their work is viewed through this sort of platform.
A similar contention might be exponentially compounded for mixed media, larger three dimensional compositions, performance or any number of visual art forms. If understanding the purpose of artistic creation to be unencumbered creation or sharing of novel interpretations, such a self-reflexive and influential delivery mechanism should perhaps cause some misgiving.
Who’s Buying & Why?
Galleries and advisors were once held as gatekeepers, the art world authorities. The Tate’s some two million followers on social media prove it can nevertheless be argued that origin reputation and influence may precede deference to private interpretations. At the minimum formal standing may function as a type of collective indicator of quality filtering for what’s an eclectically varied or perhaps commonly imperceptibly saturated field. And when seen as investment vehicles, this collective work test keeps a considerable impact.
An inconsistency arises though with bureaucratically structured gatekeepers now facing democratized, self-controlled and nearly truly decentralized purchasing abilities. Art trades are possible directly between just about any gallery’s producing and consuming target markets.
Through internet channels independently each artist has the potential to reach relatively unlimited audiences. Although their authority, experience and or’formal’ stature might be diluted in the face of participant breadth in addition to presentation context. At this time galleries or advisors may retain an educated experience, discerning judgement and or appreciation far past the commonly grasped. Though a purchaser’s choice in choice could nevertheless be seen as a liberated one because of the multiple paths permitting ownership achievement.
Purchasers may decide to buy directly from an artist or upon expert influence. Do they appreciate a composition or did they purchase it because they believed it to be of value. The democratization of availability calls into question how value may now be jointly assigned.
Pricing transparency has been indicated as the single largest influential element. The safety concerns and utilization of reputable channels is more or less subsumed to that metric. In case the website, channel or medium wasn’t safe nor secure then any’transparency’ in pricing could obviously be secondary and untrue.
Transparency implies open valuation and clear accounting, from source to receipt. Yet to measure price needs to be to defer to a collective or subjective interpretation. It’s the price attainable during re-sell or what is self-ascribed from attachment or belief. On its own, transparency may offer no steady universally extendable footing. Value ascribed remains as variable as the artwork itself, it’s derived from the eye of the beholder or market [beholders].
Online or off, publicly available options loosely dictate artwork sales being formed from a place of informed value recommendation or as a facilitation of subjective interpretation. Objective gradations and statements of a composition’s worth can’t be equally nor officially applied to all.