J.T. Kirkland on Facebook as he ran a bunch of NYC galleries and museums and these thoughts began to surface again... so answer if you like, or add/define some of your own.
As productive artists (not as teachers, not technically as students, not as professional critics) how do you evaluate the commercial gallery art you view? Suppose you're spending a day or two running the galleries in a big city art district:
1. What draws you closer, what repels you?
2. Are you especially attracted to work similar to your own?
3. Or work you would like to call your own? I.e. techniques you might want to incorporate into your own work.
4. Do you begin to classify what you see as various 'schools' or followers of successful artists of note?
5. Do you compare to your own work: Is it as good? Better? "They call THAT art and I can't get a show?"
6. Would decorators or collectors be more interested in your work? (Collectors being loosely defined as people who personally buy for their pleasure, not necessarily as investment.)
7. What turns you off after visiting numerous galleries in a row? What type of work are you really tired of seeing?
8. When you finish a gallery run, how do you feel? Charged, drained, hopeful, defeated... or just, so what?
9. Can a gallery person identify you as an artist? Or can you pull of the potential buyer riff and actually have a conversation about the art?
10. Is it important to you if the artist of work you like has a "formal" art degree(s)?
11. Do you think art should ever be discounted or reduced in price? In this economy only?