Art Exchange

Perception of Watercolors

On January 16, 2007 Jeremy Browne wrote:
Hey Jerry,
As a watercolor painter, I find that oil paintings have a high perceived value than watercolors do. I have recently starting painting in oil and though I am a ways away from selling my oils, I am curious what people think about pricing paintings when an artist is painting in both. I currently price my watercolors according to size, as do most artists. I am wondering how I should approach pricing my oils. Do I keep my price's similar in both the oils and the watercolors when they are similar sizes, or should I be pricing my oils at a higher rate. This is all assuming that they are both of good quality and such. This is a question that has been nagging me for a while, so any feed back would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Jeremy Browne

Comments

On January 17, 2007 Jerry Markham wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Hmmm, that is a head scratcher isn't it? I agree with you that the perception of watercolors is lower and I don't know why that is, however, in theory I would say price your oils the same as your watercolors. Maybe you will even have to raise the price of your watercolors, as you say if the quality is the same. But I am not sure you can do that with the perception the way it is. I have started looking around in the last year or so in galleries for watercolors and I will say that a really nice watercolor does seem hard to find. So maybe the ideas of people will start to change if there aren't as many out there. I also look forward to seeing some other comments on this.
Jerry

On February 1, 2007 Maxime Casavant wrote:
As watercolor being my first love and considering myself a beginner in the art world (8 years with the last 3 yrs in oils) I would say that mastering watercolor is more challenging than oils. It is the education to our viewers that has to be presented. I usually explain to our viewers that it is much like musical instruments - if one learns piano and all rudiments you have a much easier and better understanding of all other instruments. Therefore, pricing a good executed watercolor grants equal, if not more than other mediums. Just keep in mind no one realizes watercolor is not as forgiving, one cannot just wipe or scrape it off or paint on top of a mistake.

On February 14, 2007 David Repyak wrote:
"Art Talk" is a great concept. Thank you Jerry. Pricing is simple. Perception is not. For thousands of years the masters sketched in watercolor and used these as studies for their great oil works. The public perception is that oils have higher value and gallery curators price them as such. They should be offered at double the cost of watercolors. And this is hard for me to say after painting in watercolor for 12+ years and switching to acrylic for the last 2. Granted, as an emerging artist price is typically lower until one gets established. Look around - go to shows - see what the market will bare and match it. Good luck.
David Repyak - artist

On March 6, 2007 Jean Geddes wrote:

Dear Jeremy,

You will probably get lots of opinions from your artist friends, and others, about which medium is better, or which is the more difficult to execute, or which deserves the most respect or the bigger dollar signs and so on. But, just remember that these opinions can often be based on the understandable personal bias that causes the artist to perhaps favor the medium he learned first, or is most comfortable with.

Keep the pricing of your oils quite separate from your watercolors, and try not to compare apples and oranges. There is no reason to have the prices the same, or even close. Historically, oils have pretty much always been at the top of the "pecking order" as far as prices are concerned. I don't know why this is, except that perhaps collectors have the mistaken belief that oils are more durable than water media on paper, when in fact the opposite is true. Anyway, this disparity remains a fact of life, and probably has as much to do with the value the artists have put on their work, as with the medium's degree of difficulty, or anything else of a technical nature.

To find a proper price for your oils, compare the quality of what you are doing with other oil painters whose work you admire and who are painting similar subjects. Visit galleries and take notes about quality, sizes and prices. Is your work comparable? Better? Not as good? Get some expert professional criticism of your work. Adjust your price scale according to what you learn. If your critic suggests you are not ready to sell your paintings, listen to him. Continue pricing by the square inch. Don't deviate much from your formula. Consider devising a base price, which will establish the absolute minimum you will accept on any painting, no matter the size. If a work is of exceptional quality, you may choose not to sell it, but keep it for the "artist's personal collection". I strongly support this option. If a work does not meet your standards, then don't sell it. If you do, your reputation may be at risk, and it's just not worth it in the long run. Market only those works that reflect the best you can do at each stage of your development as an artist.

What follows addresses the concerns of the watercolorists, many of whom feel their work is undervalued. There seems to be a tendency among many of them to blame public ignorance for this inequity, and that the public needs to be "educated". However, it is my belief that quality work, no matter in what medium it may be executed, or of whatever genre, should stand on its own, needing no explanation of its merits or defense of its price. That said though, I agree that there is a public perception that watercolors are somehow "inferior" to oils, even though, let us say, a certain watercolor may actually be technically superior to the same sized oil at three times, or more, the price! But, should the watercolor community not have to bear some responsibility for much of this disparity? On the whole, are watercolors habitually being sold too cheaply? If so, is this why the public does not respect the medium as much as, say, oil paintings for example? Should watercolorists not set prices that more properly reflect what they feel the stature of their medium deserves? Therein lies the root of the current dilemma.

I hope this has been of some help, Jeremy.
All the best.
Jean

On March 7, 2007 Gale Gould wrote:
The web site looks wonderful Jerry. Art under glass does not seem to be in favour with the art buying public. I have watched this trend develop over the last few years and does not seem to be changing. Oil is the number one medium that sells, I have recently added a wonderful pastel artist, Pamela Copeland, to the gallery. The images are stellar. They are framed in a simple format, hardwood frame, one mat and regular glass. I have asked her to consider using non-glare glass on her images to test if clients are bothered by the glare of regular glass. With one mat I think any distortion is not discernable to the average eyes.

On September 7, 2007 we added Robert Genn's twice weekly newsletter from www.painterskeys.com as his newsletter pertains to this subject of discussion:

For those artists inclined to sell their art, the concept of rarity is worth understanding. "Keep 'em rare," said one of my dealers when he named me "The fastest brush in the West." As part of his ploy, he kept a lot of my stuff in the back room. It never bothers me when dealers do.

From a marketing point of view, not only the work of one artist but also genres of art need thoughtful control. The world is awash with florals. Landscapes are thick on the ground as well. They have to be darned well done or different from the crowd to get noticed. Figurative works are less common, mainly because not many painters do them well. Some might say they are less popular anyway, but I don't think so. Quality in figurative work is allusive.

Media have to be watched as well. The wildlife-photo-litho-print market went up the spout a few years ago when the market became oversaturated. This has had a negative effect on all print-like art, including hand-done limited-edition prints and original watercolours. Sad to say, in many areas people currently distrust flat art under glass.

The business of supply and demand has an effect on all collectables. Back in the 1890s, a New York printer, Nicholas F. Seebeck, obtained the rights to print sheets of South American postage stamps for the benefit of what he thought were eager collectors. The collectors rebelled, and to this day the "Seebecks" are mainly worthless. Currently, stamp collecting is in decline because of general overproduction. Pictorials from small countries in the Middle East are known as "sand dunes."

What's an artist to do? Many respond by making art a challenging hobby and accepting the occasional sale as a pleasant bonus to go toward art materials. As well, some satisfaction comes from knowing that fashions and taste are cyclical. Today's orphan could be tomorrow's pride and joy. But that doesn't help the living artist who needs to make a living. Artists should know that creative personality, stylistic uniqueness and the handmade look will forever be art's main virtues. That works of art are uncommon and hard to get is also part of the game. Also, the degree of skill required may count in the long run but may be overlooked in the short. No fun for the speedy among us but no comfort to the slow ones either.

Best regards,

Robert

PS: "All excellent things are as difficult as they are rare." (Benedict Spinoza 1632-1677)

Esoterica: "Rare" and "perceived to be rare" are two different things. During the North American photo-litho print bubble, the system of controlled distribution and limited access popped when too many folks got into the game. Bears, wolves, eagles and ocelots became as commonplace as McDonald's hamburger wrappers. The misguided investor with piles of paper under his bed suddenly had no recourse. Collectors soon revived the wisdom of original art. As the wise man said when he was asked for a few words that might stand the test of time, "And this too will change."

On February 3, 2008 Robin Roberts wrote:

No one has mentioned yet that part of the perception of the price difference between watercolours and oils is the framing. The man in the street cannot tell the difference between a print under glass and an original (and excellent) watercolor. And we know that viewing anything under glass is unpleasant. Many times the glass is a distraction in a home or office setting, and gallery owners know this. So many times I worked hard to define values in a watercolour, only to have the values significantly altered by the glass and framing. It will be interesting to know if the new watercolour canvas will bring equality in pricing.

Add Your Comment:

By filling out the form below. Submitted comments are subject to approval before being displayed.