Price: The impossible problem

Perhaps the greatest difficulty facing a new artist other than getting his work is seen is arriving at a sensible price.

In the light of the post I put up on Saturday but took down again on Sunday (enthusiasm is a wonderful thing, but I don't like tempting fate like that!) it is something that has been playing on my mind a lot. In fact it has been ever since I picked up a brush again last year.

There are several difficulties.

• There is no intrinsic value in a painting
• Direct market comparisons with your competition are meaningless as there is just so much you don't know - how many established collectors do they have, how well known are they, how long did that take etc
• There are huge local variations - travelling the 20 miles to London would have a massive impact
• Amateurs showing work are often so desperate and/or grateful for a sale that they effectively give their work away
• Art publishers like Washington Green take fairly ordinary work, make digital reproductions in large editions and then, in a frankly genius piece of marketing, mix it up with art work done by celebrities. This they use to effectively give many independent dealers the feel of being part of a national chain of galleries - the important thing being they have created a market I find strange and alien in which reproductions of very ordinary paintings can sell for four figures
• The upper echelons of the art market include members of the super rich - oil sheikhs, Russian oligarchs, footballers, musicians and senior people from the City. For these people, prices have a different logic altogether and money I could never dream of spending is but loose change. As a result for the right face in the right place at the right time, there is no limit on pricing - the YBAs are testament to that

This was really brought home to me on Saturday. I am toying with the idea of joining one of the local art groups. One of them had an exhibition so I went along. One lady had a stall with a table and on the table were an assortment of OK watercolours and pastels, all nicely window mounted and on nice paper. Sizes ranged from maybe 3 inches square to 10 by 7. Prices ranged up to £10.

Lets break this down. £1 for paper and £2 for the mount leaves her with £7, assuming there is no commission. She spends 30 minutes travelling each way, 30 minutes setting up and 30 minutes clearing up. The exhibition was open for 6 hours so the exhibiting alone - not including making the work - has taken 8 hours. Minimum wage is currently £6.19, so to pay herself that she would need to sell (8x6.19/7) 7 of her highest priced pieces, or about half her stock. Only that doesn't include any contribution she made towards the cost of the hall, any expenses incurred or anything at all towards the time that went into the pieces. Obviously, money isn't her priority, but she kind of mucks it up for the rest of us. Just as Washington Green raise people's expectations of price while reducing their expectations of originality and integrity, so she reduces people's expectations of price. Anyone charging a reasonable price in that exhibition will have seemed outrageously expensive in comparison.

Like it or not, any professional artist - especially in a popular genre like landscape - is in indirect competition with people who give their work away. But he also exists in a market where what are effectively posters can sell for thousands of pounds.

Somewhere in the middle is a fair price, but I I'm dashed if I can work it out.