I was talking with the assistant director of a mega-gallery a few months ago--a very nice person who works very hard, but who hasn't risked any of their own money in opening up a gallery. I make that distinction because I was taken aback when they dismissed artists who have galleries, but who also need a day job to survive, as "hobbyists." They said it so naturally, it struck me it must be a commonly held opinion in mega-gallery-land.

Many years ago, before we had opened our own gallery, I had heard Jeffrey Deitch on a panel at the New School (I think) say he wouldn't work with any artist who wasn't dedicated to their art making full time (i.e., who also had a day job). It struck me as a valid choice for an art dealer at the time, but the economy was pretty strong back then and studio rents (perhaps the biggest expenditure for most struggling artists) were much more reasonable.





Flash forward to 2013, five years into the "recovery," and real estate prices across New York, but especially in neighborhoods where artists and galleries have set up camp, are pushing out all but the extremely wealthy, even among galleries. Studio rents in particular are insane, compared with what they were back when we opened the gallery, pushing artists further and further away from not only the neighborhoods that had long had big concentrations (i.e., communities) of artists in them, but the wealthy New Yorkers who might purchase their work as well.





In fact, it's gotten to the point that the only emerging artists who can afford to work full time on their art, and still live and work in New York, are the wealthy ones. This has become a hot topic in New York, with celebrities like David Byrne arguing that the soaring cost of living is crushing the city's creative culture, at least for non-wealthy creatives, and now The New York Times has published a debate on The Cost of Being an Artist, with varying view points on how to survive in these financially challenging times.





But back to the assumption (let's call it a bias) that artists who have a day job are not serious enough to be represented by the more "serious" galleries. My problem with that is, with the way New York (still the biggest concentration of powerful curators, collectors, and critics in the world) is evolving, is how it more and more favors rich artists. Mind you, I know some wealthy artists whose work is wonderful and a very welcome addition to the dialog (and hopefully canon). But I also know tons of wealthy full-time artists whose work is pretty awful (and some have high-profile galleries, as well). The more they gain an advantage in getting into galleries over other artists whose work may be better, but whose access is more limited, the worse our overall cultural legacy becomes.





I don't really understand the bias against artists with day jobs. Deitch implied it represented a lack of seriousness, but what's serious about being born with a silver paintbrush in your hand? Until there's ample, affordable studio space in the locations where it matters, to ensure we get the quality of art promoted that we as a society deserve, I think that old-fashioned notion of looking down at artists with other jobs has got to go.