This topic was automatically created for discussion of the article:

When galleries sell dreams instead of art

In recent years, a growing number of artists have received flattering messages from so-called galleries. The language is warm, enthusiastic, and often oddly urgent. The sender claims to have “discovered” the artist’s work, praises its originality, and offers an opportunity to exhibit in a prestigious city, commonly London, Paris, New York, Venice, or Barcelona.

The catch arrives quietly, sometimes dressed up as an administrative detail rather than the heart of the offer: a participation fee.

This model, commonly known as vanity publishing in the literary world, has been thriving in the visual arts under a more seductive label: pay-to-exhibit. Not every paid exhibition is unethical, and not every fee is a scam. However, a significant proportion of these offers are structured to profit from artistic hope rather than artistic merit.

This article looks at how vanity exhibitions work, why they persist, what they cost artists in both money and momentum, and how to protect yourself without becoming cynical or closed off to genuine opportunities.

What is a vanity exhibition?

A vanity exhibition is one where the organiser’s primary income comes from charging artists to participate, rather than selling artwork to collectors.

Fees may be described as “exhibition costs”, “administration”, “handling”, “catalogue inclusion”, “marketing contributions”, or “shared costs”. They can range from a modest amount to several thousand pounds.

The key distinction is simple:

In a reputable gallery relationship, the gallery invests in the artist. In a vanity exhibition model, the artist funds the gallery.

When the gallery’s profit is secured before the doors even open, the incentive to curate carefully, attract collectors, or actively sell the work often evaporates.

Back to top

How these galleries find artists

Vanity exhibition organisers rarely operate like traditional galleries. They do not typically build their programme by developing relationships over time, attending degree shows, visiting studios, or growing a collector base by championing a coherent vision.

Instead, many rely on scale and outreach:

• Mass emails or DMs scraped from social media, portfolio sites, and online art platforms
• Generic praise that could apply to almost any artwork
• Claims of being “selected”, “shortlisted”, or “curated” without meaningful evidence
• Artificial deadlines to create urgency and reduce scrutiny

The acceptance rate is often extremely high. Rejection is rare, because rejection does not generate income.

Back to top

The psychological hooks

These schemes succeed not because artists are foolish, but because artists are human. They are expertly designed to press on soft spots that most creatives carry, even the most accomplished ones.

Common hooks include:

• The hunger for validation and professional recognition
• The glamour attached to major art cities and “international exposure”
• The fear of missing a once-in-a-lifetime chance
• The belief that visibility automatically leads to progress

The language is usually crafted to feel personal:
“We have been following your work…”
“Your vision is unique…”
“We believe you are ready for an international audience…”

None of this requires the organiser to truly believe in the work. It only requires the artist to believe in the promise.

Back to top

What the exhibition often looks like in reality

Once the fee is paid, the reality can be underwhelming. Not always, but often enough that artists should approach with eyes open.

Common outcomes include:

• Overcrowded group shows with dozens, sometimes hundreds, of artists
• Minimal curation or theme, resulting in a random, incoherent hang
• Poor lighting, rushed installation, or temporary pop-up spaces presented as “prestigious”
• Little or no meaningful press coverage
• No credible collector outreach
• No active sales support beyond “your work is on the wall”

Some exhibitions are short, a few days, sometimes even a weekend. Others are barely attended. In many cases, artists ship work internationally at their own expense and are not present, meaning there is nobody to advocate for the work in person.

The uncomfortable truth is that the organiser’s success is not measured by sales, attendance, or reputation. It is measured by how many artists paid to take part.

Back to top

The catalogue illusion

One of the most common justifications for the fee is inclusion in a printed or digital catalogue. It is framed as a professional asset, something that will “live forever” and be “shared with collectors”.

In practice, many catalogues are primarily distributed to the participating artists themselves. Some exist only as PDFs hosted briefly online, then quietly removed or forgotten. A catalogue no one reads is not prestige. It is a souvenir.

If a catalogue is used as a selling point, it is reasonable to ask:

• How many copies are printed?
• Who receives them, specifically?
• Which collectors, which institutions, which press?
• Can you provide examples of meaningful outcomes from previous catalogues?

If the answers are vague, or “private”, treat that as information in itself.

Back to top

“But some artists do make sales…”

Occasionally, an artist does sell work through a vanity exhibition. This fact is often used as a defence of the model, and it can sound convincing, especially to artists who are desperate for traction.

But isolated sales do not make a system ethical or sensible.

If an artist pays £1,500 to participate and sells one £300 piece, the organiser has still profited. The artist has not. Even worse, the artist may be encouraged to repeat the experience, chasing the idea that “next time it will pay off”.

Genuine representation involves risk on the gallery’s side. When the organiser takes no financial risk, there is little incentive to build the artist’s career, develop their market, or support them beyond the transaction.

Back to top

When vanity galleries appear on legitimate art platforms

These organisers do not only target artists privately. Occasionally, they also seek visibility inside established art communities and platforms, including spaces that are otherwise carefully moderated and genuinely artist-focused.

As a site manager, I have seen this first-hand. When an exhibition organiser appears in a community space, I will often ask them for clear, upfront details before allowing any promotion. Sometimes they do provide basic information about the format, the dates, and the location. On the surface, this can make them appear more credible than the typical cold email.

However, a consistent and telling pattern emerges.

When I ask publicly and directly about financial requirements, fees, or costs to artists, the response frequently shifts immediately to:
“We will explain that privately to interested artists.”

From a professional standpoint, that reluctance is a serious red flag.

Any opportunity that is confident in its value should be able to state costs clearly and openly. Transparency protects artists. Secrecy protects the organiser.

Private disclosure prevents artists from comparing experiences and discussing value openly. It makes it harder for artists to warn one another, recognise inflated fees, or notice inconsistent pricing. It also creates a one-to-one environment where persuasion can be applied without scrutiny.

Reputable galleries and ethical exhibition spaces have no reason to hide their financial structure. They understand that clarity builds trust, and that artists talk to one another. For this reason alone, refusal to discuss costs publicly is, in my view, a black mark. It does not automatically prove malicious intent, but it strongly suggests a model that benefits from opacity rather than openness.

Back to top

The long-term damage

The harm of vanity exhibitions is not only financial. Over time, they can quietly distort an artist’s sense of progress and pull them away from actions that build real professional traction.

Potential consequences include:

• Spending large sums on “opportunities” that do not meaningfully reach collectors
• Burnout, disappointment, and growing distrust of the entire art world
• Inflated CVs that experienced curators may recognise as pay-to-play
• Chasing prestige instead of building a genuine audience and collector base
• Internalising failure, assuming a lack of sales reflects the work rather than the structure

The most unfair outcome is this: artists begin to doubt themselves when the environment was never designed for their success.

Back to top

How to spot a vanity gallery quickly

Ask direct questions. A reputable organiser will not be offended by clarity.

• Who pays whom? Do artists pay to participate, or does the gallery earn through commission on sales?
• What exactly do fees cover? Be wary of vague phrases such as “shared costs” without a breakdown.
• How do you market to buyers? Ask for specifics: mailing lists, collector relationships, outreach strategy.
• What is your sales track record? Not promises, but real outcomes from previous shows.
• Is this curated? How many artists are included, and what is the selection process?
• Will you state all costs publicly? If not, ask yourself why not.

If the organiser avoids these questions, deflects, or applies pressure to commit quickly, treat that as your answer.

Back to top

Ethical paid opportunities do exist

It is important to say this clearly: not every paid exhibition is a scam.

Artist-run spaces, co-operatives, and community galleries sometimes charge modest fees to cover real overheads. The difference is transparency and intent.

Ethical paid opportunities typically:

• Explain costs upfront, clearly, and publicly
• Do not promise career transformation or false prestige
• Encourage artist involvement and honest expectations
• Operate on mutual benefit rather than flattery and urgency

The issue is not payment. The issue is deception, and the way some organisers sell an illusion of professional advancement while delivering little more than a transaction.

Back to top

A hard truth worth hearing

Exposure is not currency. Prestige cannot be bought. A gallery that truly believes in your work will invest in it, not invoice you for the privilege of being noticed.

Artists deserve honesty, not flattery designed to extract money. The art world is already difficult enough without systems that profit from hope while offering nothing solid.

If an opportunity feels too affirming, too easy, and too expensive, pause and ask one simple question:

Who truly benefits from this exhibition?

If the answer is not “the artist”, then the answer is already clear.

Back to top

Read the full article: https://ourartsmagazine.com/blog/the-dark-side-of-vanity-exhibitions/

—
Source: Our Arts Magazine