An Index for Artists -
24hr live service
It took me almost two years to get paid for a sculpture of mine that she sold.
It's not what she can do for you as an artist, it's what you can do for her as a dealer. Are you friends with John Currin or half the writers at Artforum, Vogue or W? Then you've got a show. Are your students at Columbia suddenly making it big? Does hot new so and so gallery show you in LA? Then you've got a show. Are you not involved in any kind of scene and your not kissing anyone's ass? Then forget about it.She's gotten better about paying b/c that's the fastest way to lose artists, but there's no real love of art itself or knowledge. Just a shitload of go-getter attitude and a revolving door of assistants.
Albeit. That makes a lot of sense. She's an art dealer because she hates art and knowledge. (Which also explains why she's married to an artist). And connections are worthless in the art world as we all know, so why would she want any of that? As for go-getter attitude - that sounds like her worst fault!Fact is, the woman works her butt off promoting her artists; the gallery regularly gets top press; and she's been working her way up the food chain for a decade and half the hard way - by actually doing the work. Which is what you snivelling c*suckers should start doing. And stop your goddamn whining.
"working her way up the food chain"?Are you one of her artists or her lawyer?She's had 2 different partners both of which fled after a year each.If you're really into business, work with her. If you're really into art, work with someone else.
nothing but good dealings w\e.dee
Failed artist turned dealer. Ask her why she doesn't make work any more.
From her site:The gallery subscribes to the highest standards of ethical practice and integrity within the profession. Moving forward, it is our mission to actively participate in the forefront of change and innovation of the gallery model.Lies. She's changed her program to stay hip, might be good for her, but it'll be bad for her artists when they get dumped for being unhip a few years from now in her next transformation. Most people only do one show with her. So perfect that Matthew Higgs has a show up at her space. A match made in heaven. XXX.
she's having money trouble, was on the nada list, but then dropped out.
"she's having money trouble, was on the nada list, but then dropped out."Yes she did drop out of NADA but do you know why? I know first hand why she did and it had NOTHING to do with money problems. This site is now becoming a rumor mill that is totally unproductive and not informative to artists in anyway. It feels like some silly high school blog. BN- this site is supposed to be based on actual and first hand experience. You have let this get totally out of hand and have drifted far from your "mission" statement.. At the beginning it was a place to get informed but it has lost all accountability and respectability.
I think she should be respected for having the guts to get out of an art fair during a full economic meltdown (I mean this seems like common sense but in the deluded and delusional art world it's somehow daring). Her artists should thank her because now she can spend all the money everyone else lost doing that fair on little things like, say, rent and openings. Odds are she'll survive the meltdown. Oh, and curators love her and her artists which helps too.
People only drop out of fairs for a couple of reasons, neither of which inspire confidence in the gallery.
I was in the gallery years ago. It's all about her. Ask any of her ex-artists, partners or clients. I left the gallery, that year a bunch of others left to. She was awful, a mean, insincere, slow payer. Looks like she's trying really hard to be a hipster now. I don't think she's going to fool anyone. She'll keep shifting to whatever is cool, it may make her some cash - but in the end I'm glad I left - it's not a legit gallery. She's had trouble getting into fairs in the past (even trouble getting into NADA+The Armory Show), so not sure why she dropped out - but it's either part of her climb to queen dee land, or a money problem. It's most likely the later.
I bought 2 paintings by an artist whose gallery later closed due to the death of the gallerist--Dee picked up this artist--he had 2 shows there but when I tried to buy more of his work, she wouldn't give me the time of day but then wanted me to give her artwork by my own hand for "cost of materials".The artist that she showed left the gallery--I never asked why.
I have known Elizabeth Dee gallery for a couple of years from different contexts and I think she is doing an awesome job in creating a programme that is still business-oriented (it's not a non-profit after all) but tries to find positions that challenge a dialog with the artworks that goes beyond saying "awesome" all the time. Unlike many other Chelsea galleries she does not show predictable paintings but gives artists like Mika Tajima and Ryan Trecartin or Harry Dodge and Stanya Kahn space to show their works. As far as I have heard, she really supports those artists. She is surely not an intellectual but since when is that a must for a gallerist? I think she is a clever but fair businesswoman and has a vision for her gallery and I hope she'll make it through the difficult time of the recession. Also, that group show in the fall, "After October", was really good and not aiming at commercial success but at showing interesting positions in the first place. It was by far the most interesting group show I had seen in a long time at a gallery and I hope she will get the chance to show more things like that. Right now they're showing films by Derek Jarman. You can say of many gallerists that they love business more than art but that's definetly not true for Elizabeth and her staff. And as far as I can tell, a great many of collectors, artists and journalists think the same way.
WTF - "You can say of many gallerists that they love business more than art but that's definetly not true for Elizabeth and her staff." We need a shill alert function, like eater.com or curbed.com to flag these kinds of posts. She wanted to be Mary Boone before it was unhip to be market focused. Now that it's hip to be anti-market, she's anti-market. This gallery is a fake.
NY Times - Feb 6, 2009 - page: C30.Inside Art: New Use for Dia Site - "In October, when business slowed, the Chelsea dealer Elizabeth Dee and some colleagues began to exchange ideas about what to do in such an unusual moment." Located in the former home of the Dia Art Foundation, at 548 West 22nd Street, in Chelsea, X will open on March 7...so Dee represents Mika Tajima and is showing from the estate of Derek Jarman, who are both opening here March 7. Also Christian Holstad and his “Leather Beach,” he is represented by Daniel Reich Gallery. I hope they are not creating some sort of non profit to validate their artists to improve sales. Dee was a major player in setting it up and 4 floors are dedicated to her two artists? Something smells fishy.
There is a bottom line with Elizabeth Dee. On the studio visits, if she's going to show it, she wants to know who (by name) will collect it. She was totally polite and upfront about how she works. This is business, she has a gallery with an operating cost. She tells it like it is and has her own bills to pay...
Now you know why she did not do the NADA fair. I TOLD YOU. You did not want to listen. Not every decision a gallery makes is based on $. Her sights are on something more profound. Something that really benefits artists. The art world is a very complicated place and artists need to understand that there is a much larger picture out there.
dude get over it
I am owed from a sale and have not been paid. You previous posters say it's a gallery and it's a business. If I call a lawyer to get the money owed, my lawyer fees will exceed what I would collect. She knows this, if I sue I still lose, so why pay the artist? It's all profit for her.
Go public with it. Send everyone an announcement of the work sold, the amount owed to you and how long you have waited to get paid.
As a former employee of Ms. Dee, I can say in the short time I worked there I saw various employees come and go, all because they disliked working for her. She had no regard for people's feelings; she would tell me one thing and then get mad at me because she changed her mind without telling me and tell me what a horrible job I did. She is a shrewd business woman, I'll give her that. However, she treats her employees like dogs. She actually told me not to say hello or great people, unless of course they were important clients. She also owes LOTS of people LOTS of money.
To Feb 11, 2009 @ 12:10amYou didn't tell us WHY she's not doing NADA, just that it is not about money. Sounds like it is about money because there are TOO MANY people on this post saying she doesn't pay or owes alot. Could be she can't afford her dues; doesn't want to be confronted at the fair by the people she owes; doesn't have the money to go; was kicked out because she didn't pay her dues. It could be any one of these things. Soooo please 12:10am, illuminate clearly, because you're not...are you the gallery BTW....
All I know is that nowadays Elizabeth Dee's staff is voraciously pursuing payment from buyers in a manner that, in my mind, indicates either some sort of financial distress or a very short-sighted and money hungry attitude. I know this from my personal dealings and I find it very off-putting.
sounds like you owe her some money. pay up already!
If Elizabeth Dee owed "LOTS" of people "LOTS" of money, than I doubt she would have the support and ongoing collaboration of affluent artists like Adrian, Josephine and Vito. All gallerists have their problems allocating payments at some point. This is the result of an industry that is altogether unorganized and informal in its appreciation for business. Elizabeth however, as of the last couple years, is proving to be one of the most creative, business savvy, and intelligent dealers in the world. And her newest selection of artists, helps attest to that.Dont let jealousy get the best of you.
As another former employee of Ms. Dee's, I have to corroborate earlier negative postings. She IS mean and very aggressive. She IS insincere. She does forbid you from talking to visitors she considers unworthy. She will steal collectors from advisors to keep the commissions. Her delusional sense of entitlement lets her justify not paying her bills. Artists are judged not by their work, but by the people they know.I have to laugh at the previous post which calls her intelligent, since she is nearly illiterate and can't write a decent piece of correspondence. W Magazine is her level of arts comprehension. The X Art Initiative and Independent fair were obviously purely self-promotional endeavors borne from a real estate deal (can you say "conflict of interest"?), not done to save the Chelsea gallery community she has ridiculed as being "intellectually bankrupt."
She's a bit of a fraud. I have personally witnessed Dee implore an artist (whom she does not represent, but who is close friends with an artist she does represent) "talk up" her artist and "explain" her artist's work to a museum curator. In effect, doing her job for her. The only reason she's working with Adrian Piper is because Piper has burned about a million bridges with other dealers around the world.
As someone to whom Elizabeth Dee stiffed about the time started her gallery around 13 years ago, I can attest to her delusional sense of entitlement that supports a habit of not paying bills. She did not pay for an apartment rental and left behind a huge phone bill with the comment, "We had a verbal agreement, so you don't have a leg to stand on." I found out later that a friend designed her first business logo and got the work ripped off after being told it was good enough.I am simply hoping that poetic justice will rule in the end: misery begets misery. I believe her ugly attitude will eventually be written all over her face, which is not a pretty thing with the sneer it sports even now.
Well, Gareth James, Renee Green, and Mika Tajima have all left. More are leaving soon. All she cares about are Trecartin and Meckseper. And maybe Sparks. She does not pay her artists, is a dim bulb, and can go f*** herself.
Heard about artist exodus too. Not surprised. The gallery is a ghost ship. Just look at their website. Other shoe will drop on this gallery and art fair soon.
I worked at the gallery for approximately four months. She is an evil woman with a huge butt.
Trecartin left. That's cold, man. Can Fitch possibly stay now?
fitch left before trecartin did. green left. bag left. meckseper recently left. once piper comes out of savasana she will leave. you wouldn't know any of this by the website because its owner is in denial and for good reason.
not cold that trecartin left, she's been shady-dealing/gipping collectors since his first show with her back in LA. in spite of the criminal activity and sociopathic business practices, it still makes one cringe a little to see an exodus like this. some consolation that that's precisely the sort of empathic feeling of which she's incapable.
She's avoided having to remove Trecartin and Meckseper from her website by simply changing "Artists" (which means artists she represents) to "Artists Exhibited". She is very very desperate.
While it is a momentary egg in the face when an artist leaves a gallery, it's also a very common occurrence in the art business. I don't think Trecartin's leaving signals a rapid descent or any real desperation for the gallery. Perhaps not always warm, Dee is an adept business person. She will adapt. As I understand it, Trecartin wasn't exactly paying the gallery's bills and in fact may still be financially indebted to the gallery for production expenses and advances. It's unfortunate that there isn't a facet of the blog devoted to artists who jump ship once a gallery launches their careers. Yes there needs to be accountability and commitment from galleries, but also from artists - it works both ways.
It wasn't "an artist" who left. It was half of her artists and all of the more well known ones.
This gallery and owner is in denial of its death spiral. The previous comment is thinly veiled and toxic (wonder who posted that?). All straight out of the Madoff playbook.
There is no doubt that Elizabeth Dee has a very good eye and certainly she will adapt. But if you speak the gallery’s name in virtually any art world context, you get a barrage of horrifying anecdotes (very close to what the various blog comments say here)—and this was long before she had artists leaving her en masse. She would do very well to take stock in what is happening, stop pointing the finger at everyone else, and talk to a professional (like now!) to figure out what the fuck is going on. Maybe the $250 she spent on her “New Media Channel” would have been better spent on this. That’s not an insult—that’s honest to goodness great advice.
Regarding Feb 7th’s comments: artists aren’t supposed to “pay the bills” and only a dealer who sucks at selling art would say such a thing. A dealer is supposed to earn their 50% and sell the art they were entrusted to champion. And why should an artist stay with a gallery simply because they “launched” their careers? The dealer has to up their game when an artist finally reaches a certain level of success—if an artist leaves, it’s generally because the dealer can’t deliver what the artist needs anymore. That failing is entirely the dealer’s, not the artist’s.
hey martin - would you do a trade where you take down this whole blog for a show in a manhattan gallery? most of us know who you are, and I'm sure you'd get a lot more traction with the career if this thing came down and you didn't have so many dealers pissed off at you.
dealers need to be called out on their shit. keep up the good work Buck!
This kind of site is a blessing. is there the risk of slander? yes. has someone who is simply disgruntled posted something inflammatory here? Maybe. But in the case of those dealers who caught the most flak for their practices, events have borne out their criticism. And the good ones have been duly noted. Shady practices need to be made public. Knowledge is power....
I’ve been at it for almost 20 years and have been taken advantage many times. My father ( who is 94 ) is a painter and has told me many of his own stories. A good movie is " The agony and the ecstasy " . About 20 minuets into the film, Michelangelo and the Pope are going at it over unpaid debt. Michelangelo’s way of outing the pope was by penning a poem in which he refereed to him as a medusa. It is an age old problem of artists being taken advantage of.
Silly comment. William Powhida and Jennifer Dalton have built entire careers based on critiquing the art world. They both seem to be doing pretty well.
There are plenty of examples of the dealer operating with integrity only to be screwed by the artist. It's an industry with few standards and a short memory. Dealers simply make the easiest targets.
"There are plenty of examples of the dealer operating with integrity only to be screwed by the artist"maybe. usually the dealer holds most of the cards, and the money goes through the dealer to the artist, not the other way around. so i'd say 95% it's the artist getting screwed, not the dealer. And no, I don't think when an artist whose career gets bigger than their dealer can handle leaves, that constitutes screwing the dealer.
There is already a forum for people to talk about and criticize artists. It's called "art criticism". You can pick up any newspaper and most magazines and find it.
This gallery lost another one. Virgil Marti left last week. The bleeding continues!
Mark Barrow and Meredyth Sparks are about to jump ship.
ED is throwing tantrums again over one of her last remaining ''stars'' and money.
Post a Comment