The first step is to like the work! If you believe in it, others may as well.

For us, it’s very intuitive. Not all galleries operate that way. One of the guiding principles for us is not letting trends dictate what we show. Meanwhile, we try to be relevant to our time. Often, that means contradicting what people are typically seeing at galleries. When I founded the gallery, I thought long and hard about the fact that there are so many galleries in NYC. It’s an oversaturated field. But then I started to think bout the artists I would advocate for, and many of them didn’t actually fit the criteria for what other galleries were looking for. I realized then that without even consciously doing it, the structure of the market and the gallery system was and continues to be led by elitism: through what school you went to, through who you know, how young you are. There is a lot of inherent ageism, elitism, racism in this field and I, from the outset, realized that my decisions will be led by great art regardless of credentials.

It can certainly help if an artist has buzz, but creating the buzz is based on so many factors that are hard to predict or control.

Once we make a commitment to work with an artist, we have to create a context and a narrative for the artist. It always matters, but the background of the artist is never a primary motivating factor in our decision to collaborate.

Medium is important. Paintings are top dog for a lot of people! Sculpture can be hard to sell, but it also has its devotees. Prints, photographs and works on paper all have different markets.

Over the last 10 to 20 years, it’s been amazing to see how paper has become a primary medium, like painting and sculpture. I would say that, thankfully, the patronage from collections and museum is so varied that there is support for all mediums of art. Sometimes, it actually just requires specializing in it or really focusing on it for patrons to find it. I use Microscope Gallery as an example. They’re very committed to film and video art. It’s not for everyone and not necessarily easy to sell, but because they are so focused on it, that niche community of support tends to find that gallery.

If you're an artist and you have somebody visit your studio, not having sold something shouldn’t be a source of insecurity. Maybe the work just hasn't found the right venue and the right audience. I feel the field is big enough now that there’s room enough for everyone. If you feel compelled to make it, someone will be compelled to buy it or share it. From my perspective, one of the things I’ve noticed with artists that we work with is a very genuine commitment to what they do. Some artists might be surprised that that comes across, but I feel that it comes across very powerfully. Authenticity is extremely powerful. When I talk about an artist I truly care about, it makes my job truly easy. My enthusiasm is infectious. I think that’s something artists should consider when they make a decision to be a part of this field because if you have that deep commitment, that’s what will get you through the bumps in the road. Inevitably, all great artists confront moments where they think they should quit. I think having a real commitment and passion for what you do will help you go far.

You put the work out there and suggest it; send it out; hope it hits; harass; cajole; impress; ignore. It all depends on the artist and the collector.

When I first opened the gallery, it was like a hail Mary in football where you throw the ball and don't even know where it's going to land, hoping your teammate catches it. When I started, I had zero guarantees that I would find an audience for the artists I wanted to show. There was a tremendous amount of risk involved. Lately, social media has been a great tool. It’s completely changed our field. That’s just something we’re constantly trying to develop.

When I participated in my first art fair, my anxiety about selling art was high because I realized I didn’t necessarily always enjoy the process of selling art. I ran into [gallerist] Gavin Brown in Miami and he asked me how the first day of the art fair went. I told him it wasn't great because I was really uneasy about selling art. He said you should find the art that sells itself. I think that's something I’ve kept in the back of my mind. While you can’t always predict that, it did help me shape my approach to selling art, which is really just trying to impart the qualities of the work on a formal or technical level, talk about the artists, talk about the more tangible things. I don’t really have to persuade people to buy the art because the artists that we show, their work really does do the job. We have to create the connection and get the work in front of those people, but there’s, thankfully, no hard selling necessary on our part.

Usually, I ask the artist about what they have sold before and at what price. Then I feel it out based on gut and what else I know is around that price, both in my program and others.

There are many analytical factors that we try to use in order to determine price, like exhibition history, schooling, scale of the work. We also try to see if a peer is showing something in a similar vein and consider if the pricing seems appropriate. There are a lot of intangible factors that can go into pricing, and oftentimes people may approach pricing in the manner of how much they think they can sell it for. That's usually tied to supply and demand, but I would say that’s also kind of sketchy to only consider what you can sell an artwork for at a given moment. When and if factors change around a work and demand isn’t quite as strong, then you’re stuck with pricing that was created in a bit of a bubble. That could be extremely detrimental to a career. We price work in an accessible manner, especially in the beginning, and just try to have a very organic development in pricing and try to be conservative about it because it has to be sustainable. It has to be something that begins a steady escalation of prices throughout a career. There's a very nuanced calculus that goes into that. We really take it on a case-by-case basis, and just try to price things in a responsible manner.

Not really. It is more the artist and the work itself–and where you see them fitting in. 

We try not to drink the Kool-Aid, basically. I think most great galleries have very expansive practices, genres, and disciplines in their program, so I think that inherently gives us a really grounded perspective on how to approach our artists' markets. Just because there might be a bit more interest in a certain artist because of a particular moment, that shouldn't mean they have a different set of rules in terms of how we approach their career from a strategic standpoint.

No, it really can't. You can't suddenly have a work that is $10K jump to 100K just because someone got auction fever. Or drop it down from $50K to $20K because it wasn't sold. Auctions are very unpredictable and unreliable for primary pricing.

I think it definitely impacts the price discussion and is a very important indicator of supply and demand, but it really operates on a whole different plane than the primary market. When it comes to auctions, our rule of thumb is to not play that game. We’re not really interested. A primary market gallery is not in a position to compete with an auction house that’s owned by a major corporation. I think it is a necessary part of the ecosystem because the gallery system is really closed off to most people in the world, unfortunately.

If we have an artist who makes 20 paintings a year, but we have hundreds of people who want works, we have hundreds of people who are shut out for an indefinite amount of time. That’s when the auction house steps in. Over the last five to ten years, I’ve been seeing much more auction activity focused on the younger artists right out of school and I do think that’s something to consider when they’re selling work out of their thesis shows. They may very well see that work at Christie’s if circumstances go that way, and I don’t know how many artists in school right now would feel comfortable with their school work being auctioned at Christie's or Sotheby's. That may be a great example of the predatory nature of the field itself.

We’ve observed artists who were considered the best thing since sliced bread with an incredible amount of interest and then the second show comes around and it flatlines. I see that all the time. It’s extremely fickle, unfortunately. It helps to have a good support infrastructure with the right gallery collaborator. Some galleries might decide to drop an artist when and if that happens. Other galleries will decide to work harder for the next show or work with the artist to recalibrate how and when they present the work. I would say it’s an extremely delicate situation with emerging artists and their relationship to the art market.

Good question! These terms are kind of pointless, but everyone loves a label. Maybe when they are suddenly thrust into "mid-career," which is another horrible category, or are showing at a major gallery. Is Anna Weyant still emerging at 27? It seems like she has ARRIVED!

Some people might say it’s when they’re over 40 or once a museum buys the work or once people start to recognize or know the name, generally speaking. But then some artists don’t start making art until they’re over 40 and they’re still emerging. I would say you don’t go from emerging status to being a canon artist. There’s the mid-career between that. The tipping point between emerging and mid-career is maybe when there’s a reliable exhibition schedule, expectations to show and get the work out there. Maybe when there’s a committed baseline and group of patrons supporting the work. Maybe there have been a couple of reviews. Maybe that’s what I think are good indicators of an artist breaking through that emerging status: having some shows lined up, some shows under their belt, and reliable support from collectors and museums.