The New York Times article I read highlights the smaller galleries in Los Angeles that aren't necessarily the most popular but are featuring emerging Black and Latin artists, ultimately helping to diversify the art and museum world. They talk about how larger art dealers are stealing the artists that used to be exclusive to these galleries. Personally, I see both sides and as an artist, I'm sure it can be difficult to refuse what the larger galleries have to offer.
I think that if larger and more well-known galleries and museums start to showcase more diverse and emerging artists, it will give so many new people the chance to get their work the praise it deserves. I think about how many opportunities it opens up for new artists like myself who would jump at any opportunity to display their work in a gallery, and the potential that can come from larger galleries highlighting smaller artists.
However, I do understand the importance of supporting small galleries and ensuring that they have enough funding to stay afloat. Without the appreciation and exposure that these smaller galleries have to offer, there would be no option at all with these larger dealers, so I'm a bit torn. I suppose it would depend on the relationships with the gallery and how important it was for me to remain loyal—if I were to put myself in the shoes of an artist at a smaller gallery considering leaving for a larger one.
Comments