Pricing per square inch
 

I have heard that some artists price per square inch. What do you think of this approach? I think it might work for me, but I am new to the oil painting market. I have gotten good response this way.

I think it invites undo scrutiny. I would rather get $100 an inch for painting backgrounds than for painting teeth. Somebody will acuse you of padding the background.

Lon,
I recommend studying the pricing methods of the artists on this web site. You don't necessarily have to charge the same amount, just look at the way they have the pricing structured. Some are quite detailed, some are very simple. The majority are similar. Find a method that seems to work for you, then personalize it to fit your needs. But, per square INCH? Whew!

I've heard people recommend pricing by the square inch but personally I'd rather paint a large full-length-figure portrait than a small full-length portrait any day, even for the same fee. The smaller it is the harder it is to get it right! A difference of a sixteenth of an inch has a big effect on a likeness if a face is only four inches high.

I think that's why most people on this site set their prices mainly based on the composition and complexity (head-and shoulders, three quarter figure, etc). I think sizes are often listed mostly as a guideline, once the composition has been decided on.

My thought is that you recommend certain sizes for the various subjects. A 3/4 would have to be 22" x 28", a full figure 30" x 50", etc. An infant face in a 9" x 12" works well this way, too. I never like to work too small. Landscape backgrounds have to be a bit larger, too. If you charge per tooth or finger, it is a little bizzare. I never cared whether the subject smiled or not. I kind of like the idea. Some portraits are harder than others anyway. It balances out.

I have some investigating to do on this issue.

It would be interesting to see if it works, what clients think of it and how involved the compositions are.

Well, let's put it this way - people aren't flocking to get one done yet. We will see!

Hi Lon,

I think that pricing by the square inch is reasonable, especially to the extent that the painting's size relects the amount of time you need to complete it. In this case, it also gives you some basis upon which to calculate price for odd sizes, too.

If you are starting oils, you probably won't know the relative time you need until you've done 100 or so, particulalry if they are a departure from the sweeping vignette style you often use in your charcoal/pastel work.

There seems to be a "standard" that oils run about 1 1/2 times the price of works on paper. Actually I doubt there's any real basis for that, and I do know of artist's who charge the same, regardless of the medium.

What I particularly shake my head at is the practice of discounts for multiple subjects...and I do it myself. The rationale is that it promotes multiple subject purchases (it probably does), the problem is that it ofter takes CONSIDERABLY more time to do, than the same number of separate paintings.

Chris

Lon,

After a long, hard trip around the block on how to price, I will tell you my thoughts. I used to price by the size, (i.e., 20x24, this price, 30x36, that price...), but found that people were always trying to fit as much as possible into the "size," i.e., "....if I make little Bobby 1/2 size and have him sitting holding his knees, we could squeeze his whole body into a 20x24....," ridiculous. The watershed came when I quoted a price for three children and gave an approximate size. The finished painting came in slightly smaller, and more of a square format than the original approximation. The client, a lawyer, figured out the price per square inch and wanted to deduct almost $600 from my price. It became a take it or leave it deal, so I took it. I immediately revised my pricing schedule.

This is what works for me, and it works beautifully. I price by body parts. Head and shoulders, head and hands, three quarters, full body. No discounts for more than one person. I like to work life size. Separate price schedules for adult (corporate) and children.

Intricate background? No extra cost. Teeth? No extra cost. Pets? No extra cost. Fancy dresses? No extra cost.

If someone says they want a head and shoulders to be 11x14, I tell them that the price is the same for an 11x14 as it is for a 20x24. (They invariably go for the 20x24 life sized portrait, my preferred size. )

As more of the body is painted, more background is required for a comfortable "space" behind the subject. I take that into consideration in my price schedule. I don't like the idea of charging extras for chairs, or desks or flowers in a portrait. Price the painting so it includes all that stuff. I can price out the cost for a portrait with four people and two dogs in about 30 seconds.

Keep it simple. I have worked a lot with corporate commissions, and they want to know what it will cost. They want a simple schedule, they want the bottom line, no surprises, no complications. You start talking price per inch, and you are into a lot of discussion.

I just say, "My prices start at $6500 for a head and shoulders and I work life size."
In and out. They are interested or they are not.

Hope this helps.

Peggy

Peggy, could you explain the concept of seperate pricing for corp., children etc. How do you explain that to the clients?

Mike,

Not a problem. Children are much smaller than an adult, and no one has questioned that a child's 3/4 portrait would be less than an adult male 3/4 portrait. The average size of a child's 3/4 is 28x34. The average size of a corporate 3/4 is 34x42.

Peggy

Hi, all,

I didn't mean to give the impression that pricing by the square inch should be an invitation to have the client get out the calculator! Using a square inch guideline is simply for my own needs. I think that what the client needs to know is that your price is based on the amount of time you will need for the painting. (And that, no, time sheets are not appropriate!)

I give the client a range of sizes/dimensions as to what to expect at a given price, and let them know that the exact dimension and shape are decisions they should leave up to me based on the painting's overall design. (Of course sometimes they have exact needs, ie an antique frame, a fireplace wall of a certain size, and then I design what will work.)

When you get down to it, all pricing is pretty arbitrary...it's just helpful to have some internal consistency.

Chris

I am so happy to trade in my headaches charging by the inch (when I did landscapes) to the painless, and non-negotiable charging by the body parts.

I also talk them out of teeth, and tactfully remove my Sargent examples of beautifully executed smiles from their view.

That is my thinking also. Determine the size that you are willing to do for a particular pose. Then, price it in accordance with so much per square inch. Then, as you gain in experience and precision raise your pricing as you dare. We do have to guard against being too low as well as too high. We owe it to our peers to keep our pricing within the range of all others. I'm not advocating price fixing. But, we do need to keep things uniform and reasonable. Someone recently suggested pricing in accordance with "how much would you accept to let your work go to a buyer?"
Regards.

How about multiplication factors of p.p.s.i. as follows:

background x 1.7
Landscape background x 3.2
hair x 2.8
patterned cloth x 3.9
flesh tones x 4.4
hands x 5.3
Torso x 1
teeth x 10
wrinkles x 6
whiskers x 3.2
Furniture x 3

etc

Open for any other suggestions ;)

How about a vanity premium? $50 a pound, $50 a year? How many carats you want that diamond to be?

CS

Yes, that is a definite factor.

Flattery should be calculated by the square inch of area that the flattery effects -
by a factor of 9.2, except where jewelry is involved. That would be the flat rate as above.

Ok. So if a ring goes from .5 ct to 3.0 ct, and assuming it reduces the visible hand to be painted by 12% (depending on the angle of course) therefore would you reduce the overall hand premium to 4.134?

Just wondering.

Chris

I should think not, since you would have to visualize the hand beneath anyway in order to know what is going on under the ring, and in all probability, paint it to a large degree.

Oh, you kids!

But seriously folks...
 

Something we might all keep in mind; works are valued in later years by size and complexity as well as importance of the artist, importance of the piece, and yes, the artistic merit of the piece.

Several of these things we may not be allowed to factor in just now and others the reality of the market will take care of for us. But keeping this in mind, size matters and per square inch is how it's done. I and most artists I follow, charge less per inch as work gets larger (on the curve) dollars per sq. inch.

Portraits are special and number of persons being represented plainly increases the task. Most everyone factors that into the math. This is one of those things that needs not be reinvented by us. Others have worked out logical methods over the years.

How NOT to do it....
 

When I was beginning, I made up a list of prices (and foolishly published them). Later, I found that I had to expand the list of sizes.

This was really tough, because the whole darn system didn't make a lot of sense.

Then I got the bright idea to charge by the square inch (more or less).

Unfortunately, I had to change a few prices on my original list. I couldn't go down in price (imagine the anger of those who had already paid the high fee), so I had to go up on some and was afraid that I'd price myself out of the market.

Now I'm OK with the prices, but it was dicey for a while there. My advice: figure out a fee system that will cover all of the sizes that you haven't even dreamed of painting yet...

I do a little of both.
 

I have come to realize that the amount of effort required for a painting is mostly the same regardless of size, but within a respected size. Meaning that painting a head is mostly the same amount of work if the head is 5 inches high as it is if the same head is 8 inches high. Now if it's 2 inches high....

None the less, the public needs some way of generally determining prices and publishing a price list gives you an excellent chance to set some customer expectations. For example, I have had people ask for an 11x14 inch full-figure portrait. Hand them a pricelist that sets their expectations.

Like most portrait artists, I have requirements for what size a composition needs to be in order for me to do it proper justice. Head and shoulders in oil begins at 16x20 inches - waist up begins at 18x24 - full figures begin at 24x36. I set these expectations by posting relative sizes and listing these positions.

I also have requirements of size for additional figures, hands, complex compositions, etc. Each generally also adds 1/3 to the price as they require additional work.

I don't know about pricing by the inch - as others have said, it kind of makes portraiture seem like you are purchasing a commodity - "portraiture by the pound", "people pulling out calculators" sort of feel which I don't think is how we want people to think of our profession.

IMO, it is not about the size, it's about the effort required.

Also, if you are at all concerned about the future value of one of your works and that work being resold, then I would recommend putting a resale clause in your contract - that way if the painting is sold down the line, you get paid a percentage.

I find that the bigger the canvas, the more time and effort it takes to cover it with paint. A full figure on an 8" x 10" canvas would be a lot less work for me than a 20" x 24" head and shoulders. But to be completely honest, nobody has ever asked me (yet) to paint such a small full length figure - thank heavens.

I never heard of such a thing! Is there a lawyer out there who would care to comment? Do you think the artist could sue, if the client damaged the painting and thus lowered the resale value?

Resale clauses
 

There are lots ideas out there and many may even sound fair to artists. Reality has a way of getting in the way of many ideas. Many books will tell us that we should insist on many things...be tough etc. The reality that I've found is the better galleries would never put up with such demanding artists.

I want people that buy my work to resell it for more money than they pay. It makes them glad they bought the work in the first place. I'm delighted when (I hear) it happens. My paintings cost me about $100. to make. I start the process.

Dear Karin,

Yes, I have read a great deal recently about an artist's (more likely the estate!) securing rights to participate in increased value of resold work over time.

Personally I think it would be more productive for all of us to take law school correspondence courses (during slow periods, of course). Unless one ends up being the heir of Norman Rockwell or Andrew Wyeth, it's an unrealistic enforcement notion to me. On the other hand, who'd've thunk?

For the most part, traditional portraits, in and of themselves, are unlikely to find great demand in the resale market. To the extent that they do, my sense is that their increased value is a by-product of the artist's general fame or notoriety.

Chris

Chris said:

May we all have that problem. :)

I say amen.

What an informative bunch of strings! Thank you all for contributing! I have gained from each and every one of your insightful comments.