You will find since the broad secondary art market includes very expensive work by contemporary masters to relatively inexpensive four-color offset lithographs, terminology is used differently depending on circumstances.
In order to address the question of what constitutes the secondary fine art market, you must first know what makes the primary art market. The answer, as with many things in the broad art market, is complicated. Since the broad secondary art market includes very expensive work by contemporary masters to relatively inexpensive four-color offset lithographs, you will find the terminology is used differently depending on circumstances.
The essence of a primary sale is the first transaction where art is sold, in most cases. However, complexities arise when you study the distribution chain.
It is simple when a deal is made between artist and collector. The situation is less clear when an artist makes a wholesale sale to a gallery that then offers the work at full retail. In this instance, the retail transaction made by the gallery is considered the primary market transaction. Of course, there are other methods of first sale to consider.
A secondary market sale occurs when the original buyer decides to put the work for sale a second time. Whereas this sale is most often initiated by a collector seeking to sell the work, there are cases when a gallery will put pieces directly into the secondary market. This usually not good because it means the gallery has too much inventory and too little demand for the work. No gallery is going to sell through the secondary market when it has buyers for pieces in the primary market.
The venues for the secondary art market range from the toniest auction houses and private dealers to established brokers and galleries all the way down to eBay. In November 2009, The Economist ran a piece titled “New or Secondhand?” that accurately depicted the upper end of the market. The information and concepts the article discusses do not apply to most readers here. Alan Bamberger has an useful illustrative article, “Retail Gallery Prices May be More Than Art is Worth,” on his ArtBusiness.com Website.
For our purposes, we are here to discuss the secondary art market as it pertains to the art print market that includes selling reproductions as prints. In the art business, there is a bifurcation in the print market. That is, there are those fine art prints made in time-honored fashion which, by the nature of their creation, are limited. These would include etchings, woodcuts, aquatints, engravings, serigraphs, stone lithographs and so forth. See Wikipedia for more details: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printmaking.
The other component of the print market primarily is made up of reproductions of original art. Some would call this the decorative art market, while others reserve that term for the open edition and poster market. How you describe it has as much to do with what end of the market you derive your income as anything.
If you are an artist, dealer or collector involved with etchings, your view of a giclée is likely to be a decorative reproduction. On the other hand, if you make your living selling giclees, or some other form or fine art reproductions, you may take issue with your work being called decorative art. Unfortunately, you can only control how you market your work.
If you study the work and promotional information offered over the years by artists and galleries at the New York ArtExpo, I doubt you would find one exhibitor characterizing their work as decorative art – especially those who sell limited editions. It is completely natural they would use descriptions designed to help sell their work.
The International Fine Print Dealers Association (IFPDA) also holds an annual show in Manhattan. You will find this small, but important, group of dealers generally eschews representing much of the work found at shows such as ArtExpo New York. Most will contend, as Kathryn Markel does on her Website, that the work found there is “wall decor.”
While not stating wall decor is necessarily a bad thing, dealers, such as Kathryn Markel, would not encourage buyers to participate in paying the set prices for much of the higher priced work at ArtExpo. Their reasons are the works primarily are reproductions, and that much of it these days is digital art. And, there you have the bifurcation in the art print market.
When it comes to the secondary market, there is an active market for many artists whose work is found at shows such as ArtExpo New York. You will also find many other artists whose work has transcended the “wall decor” mentality. In other words, it is a mixed bag. Arguably, the best example of a secondary market player is Art Brokerage. It carries a huge selection of work from a wide range of artists, including many who have exhibited at ArtExpo over the years and many others who have never set foot inside it.
There is an implication that art reaching the secondary market will have appreciated in value, having become more collectible along the way. For some artists, this is accurate, but for the few who enjoy seeing their art selling well above initial prices, finding an active secondary market for most is not a reality, especially in their lifetime. It is one of the reasons I have argued for not having limited editions of fine art digital reproductions.
In today’s market, if an artist is productive and continues to put new editions in the market place, it tends to lower the resale of earlier pieces. Although in the boom years of limited editions prints, this dynamic was not always the case, and is not now for select artists. If artists combats the problem of lowered prices on the secondary market with small editions, of say 200 or less, they cap their income for that work and need to either generate higher and higher prices for their new work or put more editions in the pipeline to maintain a steady income, both actions have consequences.
When it comes to the secondary market, artists do not participate in the inflated prices. Only California has droit de suite laws where artists are legally ensured a cut of the proceeds when it is resold in the state. The legislation is known as the California Resale Royalty Act. This type of law is more common in European Union countries. I doubt they will ever move beyond the borders of California.
Until the past few years, you could go to the back of Art Business News or Art World News and find several pages of small ads from dealers in the secondary art market. In a very telling sign of the times, those publications are today much smaller in overall ad pages and secondary market ads have nearly vanished. Coincidentally, in another telling sign, if you research art prints, particularly giclée prints on the sites of secondary market art brokers, you will find many pieces being offered well below their original price.
Another factor in the market that has diminished with trade magazine ad pages are secondary art market Websites offering works while having very little inventory. Attorney, Joshua Kaufman, a long time columnist for Art Business News, wrote, “The Online Secondary Market: Resource or Parasite?” It is an informative piece detailing the business methods of some rogue operators were having a negative effect on the market place. It also warned that much of the way they were operating was illegal.
While we like to think it was the industry policing itself that drove many shady characters out of the market, it was eroding market and economic conditions that took away their incentive. What remains to be seen for the industry is whether the market will return to a point where artists using the giclée medium will see an active market with rising prices for their work on the secondary market.
My estimation is it will be very difficult for the market to bring us back to the old days of a booming profitable secondary art market for several reasons. First, most artists working in multiple these days are using the giclée or digital printing format. I do not believe the public clamors for limited edition giclées. I think it would rather pay a little less and get to enjoy the art as an open edition. This notion is supported by evidence some longtime publishers in the giclée market are moving away from creating limited editions in this market. Lastly, once there is a widespread established pattern of digital prints not increasing in value, it will be very difficult to reverse such a trend.
This may be a market with a beautiful creative product, but it also a business that follows trends. If the trend grows stronger to open editions, it will depress the secondary market for fine art print reproductions. That is not all bad. I think it will force the art to be sold for its enjoyment rather than the implied notion it will increase in value. Buyers of giclees found before the current economic crunch they could not recover close to the sale price of prints they bought when they tried to take them back to galleries, sell them on eBay, or through an art broker. Things surely have not improved in recent years.
I think giclees are a wonderful medium to help sell more work. Rather than looking to maximize the sale of a limited edition, I suggest keeping the edition open. There is no reason the pieces cannot still be numbered using your own open numbering convention. If the artist’s work does become collectible, then the lower numbers will likely have some higher than retail secondary market value.
For those who feel a need for limited editions, I would consider producing a small edition of 200 or less that is hand-embellished by the artist. I believe if it is clearly stated the edition will be accompanied by lower-priced open edition pieces, there would not be conflict with buyers. Certainly, recently retired artist, Terry Redlin, was able for decades to sell both open and limited editions of the same images without creating a problem for his self-publishing company or the dealers who carried his work. I am guessing and would suggest that in such a situation the limited edition have exclusive dimensions.