I have been carrying out research into the book publishing industry in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The relationship between booksellers and authors back then raises some interesting thoughts about that between artists and galleries (or online galleries) today. For those unfamiliar with the eighteenth-century, I’ll start with a little historical context.

Fearful of sedition, the State controlled the press in the seventeenth century and had even limited printing presses to just three in the country. The Licensing Act was passed in 1662 where every book had to be registered at the Stationers Hall (the home of the medieval stationers’ guild) and licensed by a governmental official. This act lapsed in 1695 and printing presses were freely set up everywhere. This was a time without any concept of authorial copyright. Literacy rates were around fifty per cent. If you could read fluently, you still might not be able to write at all. If you were paid for writing, you were not a ‘gentleman’ but a hack (therefore most authors were anonymous with not a few being female). What copyright existed was held by booksellers (who were also the publishers) and perpetually forever. It would be fair to say that the industry was monopolistic and a cartel. The world’s first copyright law came into being in 1710, which limited copyright to fourteen years. However, authors were still not recognised as holding copyright. Much of the eighteenth century saw booksellers in Scotland and England fighting in law courts over perpetual or limited copyright. The first recognition of authors came in 1814 with a new act limiting copyright to twenty-eight years or the lifetime of the author. Royalty was introduced in mid century. With this historical prelude done, let’s move to the art.

When an author wrote a book in the eighteenth century most sold the manuscript outright to the bookseller. However, there were sometimes two other types of contract between authors and booksellers. The first was to divide the profits after the expenses of the bookseller had been paid. If we think of artists like authors and galleries like publishers, this bears a striking resemblance to the commission-based system today. The artist contracts their products to the gallerist (or online gallery) and the gallery divides any profits in the form of a commission. We often hear artists singing the praises of this system because, as they so often naively think, it means no risk to them. But as the eighteenth century author fully understood, nothing could be further from the truth. There have been many cases of galleries becoming insolvent and artists never receiving payment. With most galleries often dependent on bank credit and loans, and often heavily indebted with interest payments, the reality is acute today. This is the risk that the artist takes, not to mention the imbalance of power and high commission rates. Indeed, bankruptcies were common in the eighteenth century just as they are today, and authors, unlike artists, understood well that they were often at the mercy of the bookseller’s finances with such a contract. The third type of contract involved the author paying the bookseller a fee plus commission to produce the book (which was very expensive in the eighteenth century). All sales generated from the promotion of the book were then paid to the author. This is actually how Jane Eyre published some of her novels in the nineteenth century. This is very similar to pre-service galleries (sometimes labelled ‘pay-to-play’ - a derogative term invented by 1980s dealers to stop artists from becoming independent). In this type of gallery, the artist pays for a service upfront. However, these galleries, unlike in the eighteenth-century contracts, sometimes ask for a commission directly from each sale too. One of the biggest problems, which was well known in the eighteenth century, is that pre-payment can sometimes lead to unscrupulous galleries not promoting the artwork. Having already received their fee, there is no need for them to work aggressively on behalf of the artist. However, if they are also taking commission, then this perhaps changes that dynamic. Nevertheless, artists should never contract with pre-service galleries if they have no intention of visiting them or asking someone else to visit them. I want to add, as an expansion to this last point, that one should never enter a biennale exhibition without visiting either. If you are paying for exhibition space and all exhibitors are requested to ship without attendance, it likely means your work will receive little to no audience beyond the private view. There is no need for them to promote the event for the public opening days once they have your fee because you will not be there to check on the audience footfall.

That wraps up some thoughts and connections between the relationship of authors and booksellers in the eighteenth century and artists and exhibitory means today. It seems problematic to claim that there is no risk in the commission-based system, and we have also seen the potential pitfalls in the pre-service galleries. One extra point must be made though. We do not see the first type of eighteenth-century contract between an author and bookseller happening today in the visual arts. But this would make the most sense if we think of the artist like a wholesaler and gallerist as retailer. In the same way that a supermarket buys products from wholesalers to retail to consumers why should galleries not be doing likewise with artists? Why should the artist risk their stock on loan without immediate pay believing the gallery is doing them a favour? This wouldn’t happen in most other retail industries. This historical loophole is in dire need of legislation. As the twenty-first century progresses and artists, via digital means, become there own gallerists, it makes perfect sense that galleries and online galleries should all be purchasing the work of artists as stock for retail.

Dr C G Barlow. Copyright © 2024 C. G. Barlow.