Why do galleries take 50%?
Why not 30%?
Why not 20%?
Why does the gallery get half of the sales when the artist is the one producing the artwork?
I remember seeing a discussion on social media a few years ago where someone questioned the 50:50 arrangement between artist and gallery. Along the way, others joined in. Some argued that 40% was already too much. Others felt that 30% should be the maximum.
More recently, someone left a comment on one of ARTO Movement's posts discussing artwork pricing.
The question was simple:
"How do I increase my artwork price if I have to pay 50% to the gallery?"
It is a fair question.
But it also reveals a misunderstanding that exists within our art ecosystem.
When people hear that a gallery takes 50%, many assume that the entire amount goes directly into the gallery owner's pocket.
As if the gallery simply opens its doors, hangs a few paintings, and waits for the money to come in.
The opening reception of Di Bawah Langit Yang Sama by ARTO Movement, 2025 (Photo credit: Amir Amin)
The reality is often more complicated.
Let us imagine a young artist holding a solo exhibition.
The exhibition does well.
Every artwork is sold.
The total sales amount to MYR 40,000.
Under a 50:50 arrangement, the artist receives MYR 20,000 while the gallery receives MYR 20,000.
At first glance, MYR 20,000 sounds like a substantial amount.
Until we start asking where that money actually goes.
There are utility bills.
There is rent.
There are staff salaries.
There is installation.
There is documentation and photography.
There is catalogue design and production.
There is marketing and promotion.
There are opening event expenses.
There is administration.
There are countless hours spent communicating with collectors, coordinating logistics, arranging payments, and ensuring the exhibition runs smoothly.
Suddenly, that MYR 20,000 starts looking a lot smaller.
When I have had this conversation before and explained some of the realities behind gallery operations, many understood the reasoning.
Some even changed their perspective.
However, a small number remained unconvinced and responded with another question.
"Why do artists need to pay for the gallery's operational costs? Isn't that the owner's responsibility?"
Again, it is a fair question.
But perhaps it comes from viewing the relationship between artist and gallery as a transaction rather than a partnership.
A gallery is not simply renting out walls.
Or at least, a good gallery should be more than that.
A gallery provides visibility.
It provides access to collectors.
It invests time in promotion.
It manages logistics.
It documents exhibitions.
It builds networks.
It creates opportunities that many artists would struggle to create on their own.
The commission is not merely payment for space.
It is payment for an entire support system that exists behind the scenes.
Of course, the artist is taking risks too.
Before the exhibition even opens, the artist has already invested time, materials, labour, and often years of developing a practice. There is no guarantee that the works will sell. There is no guarantee that the exhibition will succeed.
In that sense, both artist and gallery enter the relationship carrying different forms of risk.
The artist risks the production of the work.
The gallery risks the presentation and circulation of the work.
Of course, not all galleries operate in the same way.
Some genuinely invest in their artists.
Others provide very little beyond physical space.
At Taksu KL, 2024 (Photo credit: Amir Amin)
This is why I think focusing solely on percentages can sometimes be misleading.
A gallery taking 30% can still be a bad deal if it contributes very little.
A gallery taking 50% can be worthwhile if it provides meaningful support and helps develop an artist's career.
The percentage itself tells us very little.
What matters is the value being exchanged.
I am not writing this to defend galleries.
Nor am I writing this to defend artists.
I have seen enough of the art world to know that both sides are capable of making mistakes.
There are galleries that exploit artists.
There are artists who underestimate the amount of labour that happens behind the scenes.
Neither side is entirely innocent.
Neither side is entirely guilty.
What interests me is understanding how the ecosystem functions.
Perhaps because I have spent years moving between different roles within the art scene, I have had the opportunity to see things from multiple perspectives.
As an artist, I understand the frustration of parting with a significant percentage of a sale.
As someone involved in organising, managing, and curating exhibitions, I also understand how quickly costs accumulate before a single artwork is sold.
The truth is that many people today are beginning to understand these realities.
The conversation has become more open than it was a decade ago.
Yet there are still some who either do not fully understand how the system works or are unwilling to look beyond a single part of the equation.
And perhaps that is why this question continues to return.
Not because the answer is hidden.
But because the answer is rarely as simple as we would like it to be.
Maybe the real question is not:
"Why does the gallery take 50%?"
Maybe the better question is:
"Has the gallery earned that 50%?"
Because at the end of the day, a commission is not simply a percentage.
It is a reflection of the work, risk, resources, and opportunities that each party brings into the relationship.
And that is a conversation worth having.
Comments
Post a Comment