The insights derived from the survey described below should be taken primarily as anecdotal indications of a culturally specific and popular sentiment. It would be pointless to weigh the clipped and constructed interviewer responses received by fewer than a thousand respondents as a form of indisputable truth when evaluating the almost incomprehensibly diverse and expansive practices of the art world.
Respondents’ preferences, though hint at broader application considerations. The survey raises thought-provoking questions about the future shape of online art sales in a variety of media:
“The percentage of art buyers shopping online has declined in the past year, and online art sales growth has slowed for the second year in a row, according to a new report. The findings may cause concern for artists who they make a living selling art online, although in general, the online art market has continued to grow.
The survey also found that mobile shopping has continued to rise and occupy a larger market share, and social media remains a key way for people to find new art. “The future of the online market is guaranteed, although the form remains a mystery,” writes Robert Read, Director of Art and Private Clients at Hiscox, the insurance company behind the report. He continues: “Buying art is still a lot of fun and exciting (and occasionally frustrating) and the continued influence of social media, especially Instagram, helps drive market growth.”
Sales change | The report’s findings, which also assess the impact of cryptocurrencies and cybercrime, are based on responses from 831 art buyers surveyed via Art Tactic’s client mailing list. About 43% of art buyers bought online in the last 12 months, up from 49% the year before. The slowdown was particularly pronounced for people under the age of 35. Only 36% of this group purchased art online in the past 12 months, compared to 44% the year before. According to the report, this suggests that the art market is “struggling to turn hesitant and occasional online shoppers into regulars.” Hiscox notes that while the online art market grew 20-25% between 2013 and 2015, the past 24 months showed signs of slowing down, “perhaps as the industry struggles to broaden and grow its base of 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 in January 2018 and is expected to surpass 1 billion active users by the end of 2018, was their platform of choice 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 sales to buy from, making it a potential obstacle to increasing sales.
Threats | The report also finds that more than half of the sales platforms surveyed had been targeted by cyberattack attempts 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 purchasing art online, and 82% said they would likely buy from platforms of which they had prior knowledge due to fear of cybercrime. Read concludes: “The art market is dominated by small and medium-sized businesses that have historically been on the less tech-savvy and more accommodating end.” These companies are vulnerable and our findings suggest that cybercriminals may be waking up to this, perhaps viewing the art market as an easy target. “
The medium is the message
Discussions refer to art sales in regards to typically smaller canvases, prints, or traditionally defined 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 explain, openly or unconsciously, 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, even if individually measured as positive or ultimately negative, to achieve the best result when their work is viewed. through this type of platform.
Similar contention can be exponentially compounded for mixed media, larger three-dimensional compositions, presentations, or any number of visual art forms. If understanding that the purpose of artistic creation is unfettered creation or the exchange of novel interpretations, such a self-reflective and influential delivery mechanism should perhaps cause some misgivings.
Who buys and why?
Galleries and advisers were once the gatekeepers, the world’s art authorities. Tate’s nearly two million followers on social media show that it can still be argued that the reputation and influence of the source may precede deference to personal interpretations. At the very least, formal reputation can function as a sort of collective quality filter indicator for an eclectically diverse or perhaps imperceptibly saturated field. And when viewed as investment vehicles, this assessment of collective work retains significant impact.
However, an inconsistency arises with the bureaucratically structured gatekeepers who now face democratized, self-controlled, and almost truly decentralized purchasing capabilities. Art transactions are possible directly between almost any producer and consumer destination market.
Through independent online channels, each artist has the potential to reach a relatively unlimited audience. Although his authority, experience and / or “formal” stature can be diluted before the breadth of the participants and the context of the presentation. At this time, galleries or consultants may retain an educated experience, 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 the value that can now be assigned collectively.
Fountain
Price transparency was indicated as the most important influencing factor. Security concerns and the use of reputable channels are more or less subsumed in that metric. If the site, channel or medium were not safe or secure, then any “transparency” in prices would naturally be secondary and false.
Transparency implies open valuation and clear accounting, from source to receipt. However, to quantify the price you have to give in to a collective or subjective interpretation. It is the price that can be obtained during resale or the one that is self-attributed by feeling or attachment. Transparency alone may not provide a stable and universally expandable foundation. The attributed value remains as variable as the art itself, it is derived from the eye of the beholder or the market. [beholders].
Publicly available options, online or offline, vaguely dictate that artwork sales are formed from a place of informed value recommendation or as a facilitation of subjective interpretation. Objective gradations and statements of the value of a composition cannot be applied equally or legitimately to everyone.