Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethanappleby | Hacker News Reader

John, this is an industry with a huge graveyard of failed startups doing the same thing. And the only ones left - Artsy, just went through a huge firing and recapping and I wouldnt give them long. Leaf group is trying to get rid of Saatchi in a fire sale and ArtFinder is barely break even with a team less than a dozen and making money from charging artists.

So given this idea does not seem different than the many before (and far from the 10x YC talks about when the needed improvement of a product to win a space), what am I missing?

Is there an underlying technology, unique community angle, or do you believe the timing wasnt before from the time of Artix to 2019 but 2020 is the year.

I love artists and design, and am shocked this has not happened yet, so Im rooting for you.

View on HN

Tagging onto this reply..

As someone with particular domain knowledge (I worked in the art world for years and have many professional artist and gallerist friends), I don't I've ever seen an online art sales platform that actually understand the purpose of an art gallery--for both collectors and artists.

Galleries are not simply point of sale vendors for art. They establish a scene, they contextualize the art and the artists, and they make strategic decisions in how to cultivate the careers of their stable of artists via a number of different tactics:

0) By organizing solo shows. It seems silly to say this, but actually putting on shows is a critical element that is missing from these online sales platforms. Shows allow the artist to present a body of work and establish a narrative around it via reviews and and social scenes.

1) Connecting the artist, through sales or even social means, with relevant collectors. Collectors have different status' in the art world, different connections to other art world players, and have particular themes to their collections. By placing art in the right collections, a gallerist can make a significant impact on the career of an artist.

2) By organizing group shows, or using their influence to get their artists into other's group shows, which will then associate their artists with a scene or an institution.

3) Funding! A lot of art is _expensive_ to make. I have friends who have literally calculated how much it costs them per square inch to make a painting and it can be shocking. It is not uncommon for a gallerist to front a large sum of money leading up to a solo show.

Not all galleries will do all--or even any--of these things. However, these are the actions that define a good gallery. A good gallery is invested in an artist, much like a good VC firm is invested in a startup.

If a startup wants to 'disrupt' the art world, I think the first step would be to figure out how you are going to make a business that cultivates an artist's career over the long term and which establishes a real art scene involving both artists and collectors.

This just seems like a justification of what the art gallery does for the art industry as it exists _now_, perhaps this isn't the best model anyway? I can totally see myself buying a painting from this site if it resonates with me, Im not particularly worried about how the single piece I buy forms a story with other pieces that I'm not going to buy, all I care is what it says in my room. In that regard the single biggest impediment is that I can see myself buying art I want in my home without ever seeing it in person!

Also nothing here says that I represent a viable customer segment either so there's that.

This is a description of what a gallery does now, not a justification for it.

Here is a justification:

I would say that generally selling art is not the goal of artists. Yes, they want to be able to support themselves through making their art, but generally speaking their goals are likely some kind of combination of obsession with their craft and a desire to make it into the art canon and attain mass exposure via museum exhibitions/acquisitions, inclusion in biennales, inclusion in art history/theory texts, etc. Working with a good gallery helps to promote the (artistic) career of the artist and establishes their art as culturally significant.

Ramraj, if you just want it to look good in your room, are you really going to pay several hundred dollars more over time for what you could get a beautiful poster from art.com? This is the challenge all online platforms (not so much galleries) face - people just want something to look good, and that can cost fully framed $120 from art.com. If you're going to spend $400, $1000, $1800, etc you have to care about the artist.

> I have friends who have literally calculated how much it costs them per square inch to make a painting and it can be shocking.

Any medium/cost data you can share?

No specific numbers, but I have friend who uses thick impasto style with oil paints. At one point he was trying out cheap and expensive oils and had a studio visit with the owner of a major gallery.

The first thing the gallerist did was point out every painting that used the cheap oil paint. Now he exclusively uses Old Holland brand oils. some of which list for 300-500 USD for 225ml.

MKL this is something as an artist or a platform I would make much clearer. You're right that if you look at materials alone its more than folks are willing to pay. Then there is artists time. You could show like based on materials plus time this artist would be getting paid $10/hr. this may help people to justify costs. However its not necessarily the best measurement (some artists are faster, more experienced are faster)

As an aside, this view of how to establish a startup and 'disrupt' an industry isn't a very positive one. I hope artinres aren't aiming to take over the existing art market, but instead they want to grow the whole market and bring together new buyers who haven't bought from galleries with artists who want to sell their work.

Whenever a startup's pitch deck includes something like "The global market for this is $X billion, and we want to get 5% of that.", I always wonder why they want to fight the established competition who won't give up their business easily. Competing is hard. If you can find a way to grow the market by 5% instead you'll get the same result for much less effort (still a massive amount of effort though, obviously).

Another really important point I forgot to include is that not all artists are as financially viable as others, yet may still make really great art that is perceived as culturally significant.

Perhaps they make large scale installations that are difficult to sell, perhaps they are performance artists, or perhaps they are simply having a down period in the market.

A good gallery will leverage the sales of their more successful artists to support the production of work by their other artists

> I love artists and design, and am shocked this has not happened yet, so Im rooting for you.

I really appreciate it! And I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your questions.

One aspect is that we're not business people looking at this problem in a cold, analytic light: we care about the wellbeing of artists and the joy that people get from having art in their homes. I know from my experience as an artist that most artists are suspicious of new businesses – but we've found a way to work with artists where they really trust us. We do more for our artists than just provide a self-service tool for them to list commodities and get some sales – we coach them on selling; we help them build community with other artists; we're building new features to fit their workflows; and we'll even hop on the phone with them and let them vent to us about life as an artist, haha.

Artsy seems like a great platform, but we're mostly targeting a different type of buyer than they seem to be. We're also working with artists directly, rather than through their galleries. So, despite both being online art marketplaces, I think it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison between us and them.

Regarding the rest of the startup graveyard, when we talk to our users on the buyer side of our marketplace, they haven't heard of things like Saatchi, or even Artsy, in many cases. So I think that, to a significant degree, the mental category of "place to buy art online" is still open, at least for people who aren't already experienced art collectors.

So I think in our case the answer is timing + obsessive attention to our users.

My wife is a designer-turned-artist so I'm familiar with some of the comments above re: solo shows / the value of galleries. If you've read "The Case for the 12 Million Dollar Shark" then you must know that most people who buy art at high prices are wealthy, upper class folks who see art as much as a way to show off how cool / sophisticated they are and as an investment vehicle.

I've personally found the entire industry off putting at how much it's about prestige and how specific collectors see an artist or a piece.

But at the same time, I don't think normal people want to pay high prices for art. It just doesn't serve much value to them. If your users haven't heard of Saatchi or Artsy, what are they doing buying art and why do you think this is going to be a large market?

It seems like you'll end up with low priced artwork and artists who want to graduate to a "real gallery" when they get bigger, and so you really need volume to make to work. Respect the hustle from one YC founder to another but scratching my head on this one.

Well said Jason.

John, thanks for taking the time answer. I know artists are not suspicious but they will come around - thats not the hard part (tho it can feel harder than it should be).

Im not sure your argument that your buyers have not heard of Saatchi is a good thing (you're right artsy is different market). This means its going to take more education and cost for discovery. They should say I looked online and found these four places but dont like them because of X. Then you address X.

I can't help but acknowledge how accurate this comment is, this is a damn hard industry.

Here's all I'll add; you should really think about what problem you are solving and why. Is it true that artists don't sell art because buyers can't find it? Or is it rather that buyers are very specific about why, and from who, they buy art when they buy it?

One of the most important things successful artists do is market themselves well, even the "best" artist won't sell art without an audience and a brand, period. Perhaps instead of creating a marketplace you can create tools to help artists market themselves and build that audience, GL to you and the team.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com