Thoughts on How to Price Art

Hi Clint,
You are right about the price per square inch. I use that method, but the price per square inch adjusts as the size increases. For example I might charge $8.35 per square inch on paintings sized 9x12-12x16 and $8 per square inch on 14x18-18x18 and reducing it to $7 per square inch on a larger one like a 30x40. I adjust the price per square inch if I add it up for one size and it doesn't feel right, I will then use that price per square inch as the painting sizes increase until, again, it doesn't feel right. I sat down one day to figure it out and made a list of every size I havedone or might do. Now I just look at the list to let the galleries or shows know what to charge. I agree it is hard to price your work. If it's too high no one will buy it, if it's too low people think there is something wrong with it. If you are just starting out, I would shoot low and raise them when you are selling well (supply and demand). I would raise them when it feels right rather than a scheduled increase. I know some artists raise their prices a certain percentage per year, but what justifies that? Again raise them when you can't keep up with demand, or you win an award, get a magazine article, get a new more prestigious gallery. When you do raise them I would raise the 10-20, not so much that people notice but enough to make a difference to you.

Thanks Josh, I agree a gradually LOWERING square-inch price works too, I just thought a "base" plus flat square inch price would be conceptually easier to explain. Mathematically they accomplish the same goal. We're investigating the percent bug, thanks.

Dear Clint,
All you have to look at is the recent Prix de West Show on who bumped their prices up too much. The collectors took notice and sales were affected. Or you can take a look at an artist like Mian Situ whose prices really didn't take off until Terpning told one of his collectors about him. Look at the record of Greenhouse gallery sales and what a renown collector can influence pricing. For us who toil or are not the emerging artist, sell for what is fair, if it is not moving, then you have three issues: quality, poor subject or a poor pricing practice.
In today's marketplace recently Dan Gerhartz had a show and only one sold...So don't get discouraged. Weather the downturn, improve your art and build one collector at a time as Clint did at Greenhouse.

I would like to comment on the last two articles:
Artists need to stay grounded. It has been my experience that artists catch waves. I have seen this in galleries (I have worked in them and also show my work in them). An artist will sell like hot cakes and then a time comes when they can't give it away. If they are in a gallery they sometimes blame the gallery for the slow down in sales. I have seen this sooooo many times. I live in Santa Fe and know many artists both gallery and emerging. Be patient a wave will come around for you again. Keep doing the work and maintain a tough butt. You are an artist and this is a tough business. Never ever let others define who you are, what do they know about you anyway.

As for Pricing art. I do the square inch thing but I have two price ranges. A bit higher for works under 24" x 24" and a lower for work over that. I was once called on by a customer in the gallery: "why is this work so much more than this other work that is about the same size?" I went to the square inch method after that. I have not had problem since.

Thanks, Clint, for this very useful advice. You hit the exact issue I've pondered - the base amount of work I put into a piece, regardless of the size. I'm pretty new at this, having sold only one painting, but I've had requests for pricing on other pieces and had a hard time knowing what to ask. I'd heard the square inch formula without your twist and found exactly what you said, the price on the larger pieces was just too high.

Even the piece I sold was poorly priced: after the cost of framing and the gallery's cut, I made only a few dollars. I had put a price on it when I submitted it to be juried for a show and had no idea how to figure out what to charge. Still, it was wonderful to actually sell something and hopefully it was the beginning of a trend:-)

. One does not base creativity on the square inch. It is absurd to limit a gifted artist to such barriers. No one I have ever known to use this. It has been discussed by my gallery artists just as a guide to the range but then you have framing. The quality of the show, etc.

I have been doing my prices by sq. in. It seems to take the emotion, time, energy and angst out of the pricing equation. BUT it is true that my small pieces are inexpensive and the larger ones too expensive. So I fudge on the bigger ones until it "feels" better. Weird but true! Thank you for the comments above because maybe I can figure it all again in another way. Thanks! I am not a member of Twitter but I saw Clint's Twitter words about the word should. It seems the words "should" and "should'nt" connote right/wrong" and "good/bad" They are both judging terms which are every present in the bigger world outside our studios...to use or not to use?

Sue, you can load a different image in the "Photo of Artist" section of your focal point settings - choose a more square image for that.

Now you tell me. Perhaps surprisingly,I have never heard of this approach to pricing. Even though I have known that my art was priced too high to sell very much of it;I have been reluctant to reduce prices because of all the advice against doing so. The problem is that most of my better pieces are bigger than the smaller ones that seem to sell best for most artists.

I'm not sure what to do now.

Sam, it's not a hard and fast rule, just a general rule, if what you're doing works for you don't change it.

Although "headless sue reporting" has a catchy ring to it.....

I go by square inch, making the smaller ones more expensive and the larger ones less expensive than the actual square inch price would warrent.

Currently I am painting smaller to suit the economy. My issue is that some of my small ones are simple - one piece of fruit, for example, and others are a lot more complex and take a lot longer. I am just not willing to sell the complex ones at the price of the simple ones..........do I raise the price of both? Or is it fairly clear to someone looking at them together that one was more time consuming to paint and the higher price is justified?

In response to Dian - in the 70s I made and sold candles for a living. One night I made what I thought was a particularly fetching candle which I didn't want to sell, but which I wanted others to see. So, the next morning I put it out with a $50 price-tag - high for a candle even now, but really exorbitant for the 70s. To my utter surprise the candle was snatched up within an a few minutes of setting up for business the next morning. I still remember what that candle looked like:-)

Jea70n Sullivan - that's exactly the phenomenon we discussed in the following article:

http://clintwatson.net/blog/2700/Does-Expensive-Art-Just-Look-Better

Scott, I agree with you that the "formula" should be extremely flexible. Some artists like have a square inch formula.

However, if two paintings are the same time and one of them was a lot more work, or, as you say, you feel one is "better" for some reason, I personally have no problem with two paintings of the same size having different prices. You might have to be prepared to explain why to collectors, but that's OK.

Jean - I thought that was some clever internet thing like hackers do, like calling someone a "n00b" or something. . . .

I am very interested in how your constituent artists price work under glass--usually watercolors or pastels. The two main choices based on size would be the frame size or the image size. Since works under glass almost always involve matting, and mat sizes can vary widely for optimum presentation, the size of the frame is perhaps not a reasonable way to go, unless perhaps the artist always uses a standard mat width and can take that into account. Obviously, larger frames, mats, and glass can add substantial cost. I would really be interested in any formulas anyone has developed for pricing their works under glass.

Lori--Thanks for the response. I have a question--does this mean that you would have a different price (even for the same painting) if it is selling through a gallery or other venue that takes the 50 percent commission than if you were selling it directly? I try to avoid this, and wonder if I misunderstood you. Thanks--Claudia

Pricing is hard and thanks for visiting this subject again.
I just went through a breakout exercise to see if my prices were near where I want them to be - not just the same as all the other local artists.
I began with my standard 11 x 15 size at current retail price, then deducted gallery commission and framing expense, including my estimated labor to assemble. The balance of money (my net) was divided by the number of average painting hours it takes to create. My actual hourly rate was 30 less than I wanted.
I'm working on pricing the smaller and larger pieces, but unsure what percentage they should go from the base price. I'll be very interested to read other artist comments.

I tend to price my art according to how long I have spent painting it, and how successful it has turned out. Size seldome enters. Katherine S. Harris

Hi fellow painters... how's the art coming?

I would love to have more conversations via e-mail with other members.

I pleinaire paint a landscape (usually of the pacific ocean, the rivers and bays 8x10, 11x14 and 12x16 on canvas board) to begin with. Once I have the colours and composition I can go do a pencil in a duplicate to scale (some what) and then paint it on canvas... (prepared with a couple of coats of gesso with a brush for the finish in general).

I use the pricing according to size... $400 for small out door scetches that look good enough to sell, $600 for 16x20 and $800 for 18x24... though I do do larger and smaller paintings... I think it depends on whether their worthy of putting some where in someone's home.

Any advice is welcome. I live in Northern CA.

http://www.oceanpainterchick.com

Thank you,
Heather

Hi... thanks for responding.

I really have no idea how to price my work... I just gave it a go.

One of the responses stated price according to how you really like how it turned out.

I have an appt. with my "dream" gallery today and I could sure use some help.

What do think about my pricing? I have very good frames done locally that are not cheap but make the piece look wonderful.

Thank you again,
Heather

Same size = same price....sometimes. I have seen artists who, for example, do two or three different types of work. Say landscapes and detailed portraits. It's not uncommon to charge more for a portrait than a landscape, even if they're the same size. In that scenario, I think most buyers would understand why they are priced differently. I knew one artist who charged a LOT more for his pencil drawings than his oil paintings....because his drawings were a LOT more work.

These are all just guidelines, each artist does have to tailor the pricing to his/her own situation, of course.

Lori, I was NOT talking commissions. The artist charged more for figurative works than landscapes. The pencil works sold for SUBSTANTIALLY more than his paintings and he sold ALL of his pencil works (I'm talking like $16,000 apiece for the pencil works and $2,000 - $5,000 for oil paintings)

Clint, I think that is an exception but not the rule. You can charge whatever you wish or feel but ultimately it comes down to how you sell yourself. People buy the artist as much as the painting.

Lori, I was NOT talking commissions. The artist charged more for figurative works than landscapes. The pencil works sold for SUBSTANTIALLY more than his paintings and he sold ALL of his pencil works (I'm talking like $16,000 apiece for the pencil works and $2,000 - $5,000 for oil paintings)

Wow, Clint - that is impressive. I guess when you're good at something, no matter the subject or the medium - it creates value.

I also price my work according to size as well as other factors. I began with the sq inch method and then I adjusted allowing for frame, gallery commissions. I then did price comparisons as to what other artists whose work was similar in genre, size, and reputation were charging. That seems to work for me. I do not change my prices according to geographics of galleries, etc.

I have read articles and blogs, written articles and blogs, consulted with consultants and argued with artists over this very issue. There is no formula, and no system that works. There are however a few things to guide you. Research what other artists in your media, that you feel are your peers, are charging. You can usually get a good high low spectrum from that. Take into consideration your socio-economic region if you are selling in art show or gallery venues. Consider your presentation. Is your work framed with a linen liner and gold leaf frame or is it matted with glass and a metal frame. Is it well done or thrown together. The price should be the same if you are selling it yourself or through a gallery. Never price a piece according to how well you think it turned out. That sends a really bad message. Your prices are a reflection of your reputation as well. I have never heard of pricing by subject matter but I can see how that might figure, in some areas. Commissions are a completely different subject as the parameters can vary widely from job to job. A gallery "should" never change a price without the artists input and agreement.
Here is a link to a good blog on the subject by a Corporate Art Consultant.http://artid.com/members/corporate_art_advice/blog/post/190-pricing-your-art

Fascinating and instructional discussion. Glad you raised the age-old topic as the discussion itself has been interesting to follow.

I was also intrigued by Lori's suggestion to double the cost of the framing then add it to whatever your pricing structure is. I've never done that and it does make a lot of sense!! (I've sort of just swallowed the framing costs as an "oh well" that the gallery gets.... hmmmmmm.)

One pricing consideration I have not seen discussed thus far is something I will call the "dead zone," an area of pricing that is too expensive for average working people to afford and too low for collectors and wealthy buyers. This is something that was brought to my attention by a gallery owner in Sedona, when I was showing there some years ago. Factoring in this phenomenon, it would seem counter-intuitive to the suggestion of lowering the price on larger paintings. In considering price levels, perhaps this should be part of the equation. Personally, I like the idea of having my art being accessible to people of lesser means. The painting a day approach of selling small paintings at LOW prices has several advantages, even though it would, again, seem counterintuitive to the pricing convention suggested earlier of putting higher prices on small paintings. The current economic situation may require rethinking how we determine our prices.

Thanks Tom. I have decided to do a series of smaller works... just for that reason... to sell them! I'm useing ready made frames as well to keep my costs down.

Truly,
Heather

I went to a lecture on "The Business of Art" given at the Oil Painters of America national show a couple of years ago by Bill Bush, CPA, owner of Fredericksburg Art School and husband of artist Nancy Bush. He said that the frame should be about 10 percent of the cost of the piece of art. Really makes you look around for professional looking frames at wholesale prices. I like Franken Frames in Tennessee. They are online.

Thanks Clint,

I used a similar approach to Josh Elliot (gradually lowering the square inch price as sizes increase). A few years ago I was curious and did some math and found what my base price would be. To my surprise, I found that my gradual reduction in square inch price aligned perfectly with having a base price plus a constant square inch price.

Simply put, a smaller painting costs more to produce per square inch than a large one. This approach takes that into account.

An added comment. Sometimes the amounts will end up being odd. I will usually round these to the nearest comfortable number. So there is not a perfect correlation, but it is very close.

Keith

I found it useful at the time. I understood that if I was selling my painting for $300, I should not be putting a $100 frame on it. If I sell a painting for $300 and get half, minus $30 for a frame, I get $120. If I sell a $300 painting and get half and have put a $100 frame on it, I get $50. So it really made me look for a professional frame at a good price. I still get compliments on the frames, from my galleries and collectors.

I am trying to understand what is being said about doubling the cost of the frame. It seems like in the example above, I would take my $300 price, and if the frame was $100, I would add $200 onto the price, making it $500 instead of $300. Is that correct? So I would get $250 instead of $150 - IF it happened to sell at that much higher price. And if I had a painting the same size, and put a $50 frame on it, only raising it to $400, then I would have one painting at $400 and the same size painting at $500. Most of this discussion has been about having same size paintings be the same price.

Yes, Sydney - as Clint said in an earlier comment, if you don't double the cost of your frame, you don't get that money back when the gallery sells the painting.

If you're not making a decent profit on the sales of your painting, then your work is under-priced. At the very least, I like to have the same amount in hand after the sale that the gallery gets. I like it even better when the gallery only takes 40 percent commission... then I get more than the gallery.

Here's a good point that I feel needs to be said. Artists are in business and need to make a decent profit from the sale of their work. If you're not doing that, then your prices are too low.

As for different frames... that's why it makes sense to use similar frames (similar in cost and look) for all your work. That way it keeps your prices consistent. Try to buy your frames at a discount.

Maybe we should start a new thread here - on framing... ???

What's particularly difficult is the regional differences of prices. Not everybody from different parts of the country will pay the same prices. Ideally artists are supposed to keep their prices the same everywhere.

Also what to do if your prices go very high and then there is a recession. Wait it out? Lower them? Does that devalue the work? How does one price the work at that point?

Claudia, when I purchase art, I don't mind having to contact the artist, in fact, most collectors like contacting the artist. You are correct though that waiting for a shipping price is kind of a drag. When I owned my gallery, I just made myself a chart of sizes of paintings and what I would charge to ship each size, that way, when someone called, I could give them the bottom line price right then and there.

Claudia, good point about pieces under glass - not nearly as easy to switch frames.

I think it would be fine to put that on a "How to order" Page.

Well, if we are talking about how to price one of an artist's paintings compared to another of the artist's paintings, but a different size, then maybe a price per inch on a curve is a good starting place. Then, like has been said, maybe 15 percent more for figurative works, or 15 percent more for painting subjects that you can't keep in the gallery. Also, /- 15 percent based on how I feel about the painting personally and another adjustment for varying framing costs.

But what I hear in this thread, too, is new artists wanting to know how to establish their prices early in their careers; and that is all about how your work/pricing fits into any particular gallery. What is the price range of the gallery that you will be or want to be showing in? How do you compare to the prices of other artists that you feel are your competition? These comparisons are fluid based on the quality of any particular gallery, it's stable of artists and the art market it is located in. This holds true for the entire country of artists and galleries and where you fit in based on artistic style, quality and the reputation that you have garnered.

When I began over 30 years ago, I wanted to offer a respectable deal to clients, so I began by pricing my paintings lower than that of the other artists in the gallery with similar genre. I was then taught by my first gallery owner to go up on my prices slowly and consistently through the years. I have basically gone up 10 percent-15 percent every year. When times were good, I sometimes went up 10 percent twice in the year, usually before the beginning of a season. When times weren't as good, I still went up 10 percent per year. This accomplishes several things: Clients will begin to feel that your work is a good, steady investment. People ultimately buy what speaks to them, but it doesn't hurt for them to feel comfortable in their purchase. Clients that are 'on the fence' about buying will know that your prices are going to increase by next season. I also leave paintings that were already in the gallery at their original price when I set an increase on the new paintings. This price difference will tend to help clean out older inventory.

An artist should be honest with themselves when it comes to what their work is worth. Again, it is supply and demand. By going up on prices steadily, an artist can 'feel' the resistence to a price point for their work before it becomes a true problem.

I don't really agree with the idea of a 'dead zone' within the art market other than for your particular work and in your particular gallery. You will find that galleries will have their own 'comfort zone' for what they can sell. If you work is the most expensive in the gallery, you will feel the lack of sales. But, the same work in a gallery with a higher average sales price that puts you in the middle of their comfort zone, is likely to have less problem selling your work.

Finally, remember that every time you increase your prices, you change the artists with which you are ultimately in competition. It is very hard to retreat from prices once you set them, so being consistent in your work and pricing will keep you out of difficulties later.

Hi Clint, This was a valuable article that I will keep evaluating and thus keep evaluating my prices. I do price my work by the square inch; small and large. When someone is asking for a commissioned painting I must be square with them and give them a fair price. Each customer then knows up front what I will be charging. To be consistent in my pricing toward my collectors I must have the same pricing mechanism for all pieces. This brings me to charging by the square inch; small and large, there is not a setup fee. A large painting will require more time than a small one so I see that as a fair exchange of pricing.
Tell me this; when can you see raising your prices and charging a setup fee for all works? I just think that's part of the work of the artist to begin the work. Help me understand.

Peace and Joy,
Helen Horn Musser

Dear Keith, Thank you for sharing the details of your pricing. This seems to be a fair way of presentation to your collectors. I'm sure they would understand your need of paying everyday bills. Their patronage gives you the freedom to paint.

My needs are different from you because my husband is my benefactor and helps me to have the time to paint. As I have thought about the pricing habit, I will continue to charge by the square inch and raise the price by square inch as the market will bear. Your guidance in figureing the base set up will be included in the square inch price as the market can bear. I have a great framer who gives me discounts, as he can, on all my frames. A frame for a 30X40 painting will cost considerably more than say, an 8X10.

You've been very helpful toward guidance in my pricing.

Thank you!

Peace and Joy,
Helen

The way you have spelled this out is is quite useful, Keith--thanks. After some helpful comments recently from some of the "big guns" I am fortunate to paint alongside at plein air competitions (essence (kindly put): "your prices are all over the place" and "let the buyer, not you, decide the merits of the painting"), I have been revising my prices closer to a scaled sq inch price for oils--works under glass remain difficult to price this way for me. The scaling probably accomplishes building the frame cost for the smaller paintings in without having to specifically add it. Your example shows me that you can give away the frame, basically, in a large painting without hurting yourself. I am still interested in Lori's idea of doubling the frame cost to protect it from commission espense. The other concept I am wrestling with is perhaps deciding what the potential prize winners are--maybe it's 10 percent of my output?--and just making those NFS and holding them for now,instead of putting them out there at prices that put the scaled square inch pricing off.

Dickson,

I agree with you and do also take that into account. I like you article and I am taking the liberty to link to it for you. The problem is determining what your IP is worth. It isn't an easy task. Thanks for reminding us of this.

http://dicksonbrown.com/2009/08/25/pricing-contemporary-visual-arts/

Keith

@Keith Bond: Yes it's difficult to determine what an artist’s IP is worth ...and in my opinion the tendency of most artists is to undervalue what can be the most important element of a piece.

@Helen Horn Musser: Intellectual Property is a term used to encapsulate non-tangible assets such as ideas and ‘brand values’. For example in one of my paintings Sasha Obama is holding a honkywog [a white golliwog]. Putting whether you like the painting or not to one side, as an idea [Intellectual Property] it’s an original, one-off piece of art. Obviously paintings which depict landscapes or still lifes are inherently less likely to contain Intellectual Property.

The ‘brand value’ side of IP relates more to the look and feel. Coca-Cola can sell their fizzy drinks at a premium price because of the Coca-Cola brand. Likewise, most of us would recognize a Picasso without having to look at the signature. It’s my opinion that over time it’s possible to build-up ‘brand value’ IP in relation to an artist’s practice.

Just to interject here:

The ideas being discussed are correct, however, I have to point out copyright law is *not* designed to protect "ideas."

If you have the "idea" to paint lake Tahoe at sunset, I am still free to also paint lake Tahoe at sunset without violating your copyright.

Copyright law only protects the *specific* expression of a particular idea. IE - your particular painting cannot be copied brushstroke for brushstroke.

That is, of course, if I could *actually* paint :-)

Hi Clint,

Sorry if I failed to explain myself properly. My position on Intellectual Property is not related to copyright law. It's about recognising and putting a value on the ideas contained within a piece of art ...inline with your original post.

Yes of course you could paint Sasha Obama holding a honkywog, but your artwork would not contain the original IP. That's only ever going to exist as original IP in my painting.

On an aside, I've had several experiences where I've had to revert to copyright law ...and quite frankly in the UK protection under copyright is a farce.

All the best : )

Thank you for your incites and opening up this dialogue; it is gratifying to realize other aspects of our work.

Esther - If someone copied your drawing, that would be a violation of your copyright. However, you *cannot* copyright the "idea" of making a paper doll. Someone else can make their own paper doll. They can even make one similar to yours. But not an exact copy.

If they make one that is "too similiar" (but not an EXACT copy) then you get into a grey area where a court would have to decide (if the two parties didn't resolve it out of court).

BTW - if you ever have to enforce a copyright it must be registered with the federal government.

Trademark is a different issue. Mattel can't trademark the idea of a doll. THey are trademarking the name "Barbie" in the toy space applying to a doll. I couldn't make a "confusingly similar" doll and call it "Barbie." I could make a similar doll and call it something else that is not likely to be confused with Barbie. Or, let's say I wanted to name a website that sold shrimp "Barbie" - I could do that too because it's not in a competitive industry to Mattel.

Trademark and Copyright law is not as cut and dry as people think it is. A lot of times there are shades of grey if an issue goes to court.

Clint, I liked the last comment your made; in respect to the web information always cover your behind LOL

I broadly agree with most of what's been said on the copyright subject ...however, reader's should be in no doubt that copyright infringement is rife, and the reason that it's rife is that in reality it pays-off a lot of the time.

One of the biggest problems you face when your latent/basic copyright has been stolen is that it's you who has to take legal action, and when you start that process, you realise that the outcome depends on how the 'grey areas' are interpreted in court. If it goes wrong, you could end up not only paying for your legal expenses, but also your opponents ...and that's about the time that you start questioning whether you're prepared to lose your home over it.

It's an unfortunate fact of life, but if you create something original that's also good ...it's going to get copied.

Anyhoo, maybe the copyright tangent is a little bit off-topic, and perhaps could be the basis for a future post by Clint?