[itcrowd]

I like the idea of making art more accessible by spacing out the payment. Congratulations on the launch!

I won't comment on the art for sale, because I think it is too much in the eye of the beholder but I will give some feedback on your website and concept.

- Why fixed installments? Why not say "this piece costs 300$ buy now, or pay 10 installments of 35$ or 20x20$" (forget the numbers, just an example).

- why are there so few pictures of the work? If I buy a piece of art I want to look at it from all angles, get up close, see the structure, see it from far, see the frame etc.

- since you got excited from seeing artists' workspace, why not show them to us? Why not show those cool warehouses/storage containers/houses where the art is piled floor to ceiling?

- When I click on an artist's bio, the last thing I want to see is a full-bleed picture of his face. I want to see where he works, how he is inspired or how this piece was formed.

- out of curiosity: how did you come up with the 30/70 split between fees/artist's check? How do the artists respond? Have you had anyone say the fees are too high?

[JohnFriel]

> - Why fixed installments? Why not say "this piece costs 300$ buy now, or pay 10 installments of 35$ or 20x20$" (forget the numbers, just an example).

We're considering adding more options like that. The only reason we haven't so far is that we're weighing it against overwhelming people with too many options and also other features we want to implement.

> - why are there so few pictures of the work? If I buy a piece of art I want to look at it from all angles, get up close, see the structure, see it from far, see the frame etc.

I totally agree with you on this. This is actually one of the features we want to add before adding additional installment options.

> - since you got excited from seeing artists' workspace, why not show them to us? Why not show those cool warehouses/storage containers/houses where the art is piled floor to ceiling? > - When I click on an artist's bio, the last thing I want to see is a full-bleed picture of his face. I want to see where he works, how he is inspired or how this piece was formed.

Again, I couldn't agree more. For the time being, we've been getting our photos from the artists themselves and they tend to have better portraits of themselves than shots of them visible in their studios.

- out of curiosity: how did you come up with the 30/70 split between fees/artist's check? How do the artists respond? Have you had anyone say the fees are too high?

Traditional brick-and-mortar galleries take a 50% cut so we're taking significantly less than that. We also 'insure' the art ourselves: if someone stops paying and the artwork can't be reclaimed, we pay the artist their full cut anyway, even if it's a loss to us.

[itcrowd]

Thank you for the extensive reply :)

[my_green_book]

The cut is too high for the platform. I guess you take this number from Google/Apple store's commission.

The difference is software on Google's store has infinite leverage and takes almost 0 to scale sales. Every piece of art takes lots of work and cannot scale in the same way. Art works do not scale like software.

With this cut, I feel your platform is taking advantage of artists (they do not know where to sell) rather than helping them.

Even auction commission is only between 12 & 25%.

[solomonb]

I worked in the art world for years. First as a studio assistant, then as an art prep for large galleries, then eventually I ran my own art fabrication business with a few employees.

A good gallery--emphasis on good--does a lot more then simply sell art to the highest bidder. They strategically place artists into 'important' collections, work with museum curators to bring the artists into a more critical narrative, get the artist into group shows and fairs internationally to contextualize the artist in a current scene or trend, collude with art critiques and magazines, and generally help to promote the artist's career over the long term.

All of this sounds somewhat silly outside the art world, but you have to remember that this is a very particular industry based around historicizing high-brow cultural production. When a good collector buys a painting, they are doing more then just buying a physical object they like. They are throwing their own clout behind the artist and saying "I think what this person is doing is important and I stand behind it."

All of this is done with the intention of increasing the profile of the artist which benefits--each in their own way--gallery, the artist, and the collector over the long term.

As far as the sales split between gallery and artist, standard split is roughly 50% with some variance around material expenses and whatnot.

Note, everything I am saying is the sort of ideal story and there are a lot of bad actors in the business. In reality I find the art world rather gross and the premises it is built upon to be deeply flawed.

[ForrestN]

I don't see the relevance of app stores to the sale of artworks...?

Auctions take a small cut because they are resellers of art. The artist doesn't get paid when a work sells at auction, the previous owner does.

Art is usually sold by galleries, and the standard cut there is 50%. On top of that, artist and gallery often share discounts, so a work that is sold for a 20% discount means the artist will only see 40% of the total price. For artists, this will be a pleasant surprise rather than a steep expense.

[danmchugh]

We spent a considerable amount of time deciding this split, and consulted with many of our artists on what they felt was fair.

While the customer facing portion of the website appears like a more traditional marketplace, our artist facing website contains tools for artists, and we do more than just list their art, we help them get better at selling, help them promote and market their art, and we provide support wherever needed.

We are artist centric first and foremost, and always heavily consider and consult our artists point of view.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I live in a village in NM filled with artists. I continue to be surprised to hear the stories of how their galleries take 40% or more. I'm even more suprised that they are happy with this, but the general rule seems to be that they are happy because the gallery they use now increased their annual revenue by more than 100%.

[JohnFriel]

Early on, when Art in Res was just an idea, we played with a model where we took zero commission and monetized other ways. But, when we talked to our artists about it, they were skeptical and would ask "but how will you make money?"

I hear you that, when looked at in a certain light, it might seems high – but we work closely with our artists and they seem to all like that our incentives are aligned. Plus, we do our best to use that 30% in ways that benefit them, e.g. by guaranteeing that they get paid if someone absconds with their work without paying it all the way off.

[jonnycomputer]

The relevant comparator is SaatchiArt online, which takes a 35% cut.

[lovemenot]

>> Why not show those cool warehouses/storage containers/houses where the art is piled floor to ceiling?

This feels right. The site name seems to promise something it doesn't deliver: the process of production as education / entertainment. This could be a major differentiator vs bricks and mortar galleries. Lots of streams of the work in development.