Pricing per square inch

[Timothy C. Tyler]

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.

[Karin Wells]

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...

[Michael Georges]

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.

[Karin Wells]

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

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.

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 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?

[Timothy C. Tyler]

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.

[Chris Saper]

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

[Michael Georges]

Chris said:

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.

May we all have that problem.

[Lon Haverly]

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.