online artworks

Insights derived from the survey described below should be taken primarily as anecdotal indications of popular and culturally specific sentiments. It would be foolish to weigh the abbreviated responses constructed by interviewers and received by fewer than a thousand respondents as some kind of indisputable truth when measuring the almost incomprehensibly diverse and expansive practices of the art world.

Respondents’ preferences, though point to broader application considerations. The survey asks thought-provoking questions about the future shape of online art sales through a variety of mediums:

“The percentage of art buyers making purchases online has declined in the past year, and growth in online art sales has slowed for the second year in a row, according to a new report. The findings may worry artists who are They make a living selling art online, although overall, the online art market has continued to grow.

The survey also found that mobile shopping has continued to rise and have a larger market share, with social media continuing to be a key way for people to find new art. “The future of the online marketplace is assured, although the shape remains a mystery,” writes Robert Read, director of Art and Private Clients at Hiscox, the insurance company behind the report. He continues: “Buying art continues to be a lot of fun and exciting (and occasionally frustrating) and the continued influence of social media, especially Instagram, helps fuel the growth of the market.”

sales change | The report’s findings, which also assess the impact of cryptocurrency and cybercrime, are based on responses from 831 art buyers surveyed through the Art Tactic client mailing list. Approximately 43% of art buyers bought online in the past 12 months, up from 49% the year before. The slowdown was particularly pronounced for people under 35 years of age. Just 36% of this group purchased art online in the past 12 months, up from 44% the year before. According to the report, this suggests that the art market is “struggling to turn hesitant and casual online buyers into repeat customers.” Hiscox notes that while the online art market grew by 20-25% between 2013 and 2015, the last 24 months have shown signs of slowing down, “perhaps as the industry struggles to broaden and grow its audience base.” online customers”. The market growth rate fell to 15% in 2016 and 12% in 2017.

access to art | 63% of respondents said that Instagram, which had 800 million monthly active users as of January 2018 and is expected to surpass 1 billion active users by the end of 2018, was their preferred platform for finding art. The three categories with the most followers on Instagram were “museums”, “artists” and “galleries”, according to the survey results. Tate’s Instagram account has 2 million followers. 90% of new art buyers said price transparency was a key attribute when deciding which online art sale to buy from, making this a potential roadblock to increasing sales.

threats | The report also finds that more than half of the retail platforms surveyed had been the target of attempted cyberattacks in the past 12 months. About 15% said that an attack had been successful. Just over 40% of online art buyers are concerned or very concerned about cybercrime when buying art online, and 82% said they would most likely buy from platforms they had prior knowledge of out of fear to cybercrime. Read concludes: “The art market is dominated by small and medium-sized companies that have historically been at the less tech-savvy and more accommodating end of the scale. These companies are vulnerable and our findings suggest that cybercriminals may be waking up only now, perhaps seeing the art market as an easy target”. Arts Professional

The medium is the message

Discussions refer to art sales as they refer to traditionally defined typically smaller canvases, prints, or compositions. Similar to the structure of the most popular promotional tool implemented, Instagram with its series of panels, a “gallery view” is perfectly suited to these.

Here it can be argued that each stage of the process has been influenced. From concept, creation to delivery to the end customer, all parties necessarily, either overtly or unknowingly, explain the promotional restrictions that such a medium inherently entails. Meaning that an artist who benefits from utilizing “gallery view” sales channels can coordinate their efforts, no matter how they are individually measured as ultimately positive or negative, to achieve the best result when their work is done. seen through this type of platform.

A similar argument can be compounded exponentially for mixed media, larger three-dimensional compositions, performances, or any number of visual art forms. If the purpose of artistic creation is understood to be the unencumbered creation or exchange of novel interpretations, such a self-reflective and influential delivery mechanism should perhaps cause some doubt.

Who is buying and why?

Galleries and advisors were once the gatekeepers, the authorities of the art world. The Tate’s nearly two million social media followers show that it can still be argued that source reputation and influence can precede deference to personal interpretations. At the very least, formal reputation can function as a kind of collective quality filter indicator for what is an eclectically diverse or perhaps commonly imperceptibly saturated field. And when viewed as investment vehicles, this assessment of collective work retains significant impact.

However, an inconsistency emerges with the bureaucratically structured gatekeepers now facing democratized, self-controlled, and almost truly decentralized purchasing capabilities. Art transactions are possible directly between the production and consumption target markets of almost any gallery.

Through online channels independently, each artist has the potential to reach relatively unlimited audiences. Although their authority, experience or ‘formal’ stature can be diluted in the face of the breadth of the participants, as well as the context of the presentation. At this time, galleries or advisors may retain educated expertise, insightful judgment, or appreciation far beyond what is commonly understood. Although the choice of a buyer in the selection could still be seen as liberated due to the multiple avenues that allow the achievement of the property.

Buyers can decide to buy directly from an artist or under the influence of an expert. Do they value a composition or did they buy it because they believed it had value? The democratization of accessibility calls into question how value can now be collectively assigned.

Font

Price transparency was indicated as the most important influencing factor. Security concerns and the use of reputable channels pretty much fall into that metric. If the site, channel or medium were not safe and secure, any pricing ‘transparency’ would naturally be secondary and false.

Transparency implies open valuation and clear accounting, from origin to receipt. However, quantifying the price must be yielding to a collective or subjective interpretation. It is the price achievable during the resale or the one that is attributed to oneself by feeling or attachment. On its own, transparency may not offer a universally extensible stable base. The value attributed remains as variable as the art itself, it is derived from the eye of the beholder or from the market. [beholders].

Online or offline, publicly available options freely dictate that artwork sales are formed from an informed place of value recommendation or as a facilitation of subjective interpretation. Objective gradations and composition value statements cannot be applied equally or legitimately to all.