Saturday, April 18th, 2009

Why Don’t People Buy Art?

On the Cusp, the premier contemporary art blog in Indianapolis, conducted an art survey to collect some facts about the local arts community and market. They recently covered the announcement of the results. The big topic of debate was around people buying art.

“Two questions sparked the most discussion. The amount of money people had spent buying art and the top figure most would consider for an art purchase hit a ceiling of about $500. Scott pointed out that there are many who easily spend $300 for a few hours of entertainment at a Colts game, but where is the mindset that an investment in original artwork lasts a lifetime?”

I speculated on this a bit in the comments and decided to repost some of my thoughts here.

Why do people not buy art? Or why are they willing to spend so little doing it?

Well, for one thing, the vast majority of places do not have a culture of art buying. Tyler Green brought this up during a lecture once when someone asked him why New York and Los Angeles are arts hubs. One reason is that people there buy art. In New York, collecting art is something one does as you acquire the means to do so, at least in a certain social set. That’s not true in most places.

Contrast this with sports. Parents most places bring their kids up to cheer for sports teams like they are instilling a religion. The number one thing that would convince people to buy art and buy more expensive art would be to be around other people who did so such that it was a normal and expected part of life.

The second reason I think people both don’t buy art and, if they do, they don’t want to spend much money on it is fear. Fear that they are are a sucker, are overpaying for something, and will look like an idiot one day because of it. Fear that they are being ripped off or taking advantage of by people much more knowledgeable than themselves. Fear that they can never get any resale value out of the work. Think about walking into a gallery like walking into a car dealership times twenty and you get the picture. Lots of angst.

The sad reality is, while these things might not be the norm, it’s actually possible any of them can be true. The art market is famously opaque. Most local artists in any city have no real established market value for their work. Indeed, it is certainly possible that they’ve sold few if any works to anyone who isn’t friends and family. And when it comes to contemporary art, there’s long been an aura of the emperor’s new clothes about the whole enterprise. The art market is caveat emptor like all others.

The average person is not an art expert, doesn’t know what art “should” cost, has no confidence in their own taste, and therefore is very uncertain. The fact that buying art is positioned as an act of monumental significance, and that you are being entrusted with some object that needs to be preserved for the ages, only heightens the angst. Note the quote above, “lasts a lifetime”. Who wants to sign up for that kind of responsibility?

Contrast with a Colts game. You have a known, well-understood commodity, with an established price in the market. Tickets can easily be resold if you can’t make the game. People know what they will get for their money. And they know that if they are getting ripped off by the prices, so is everyone else. They are confident in their choice to like the team. Plus, it is an ephemeral experience. People aren’t stuck at a football game for years. If the team loses or they have a bad time, they can psychologically write off the cost.

If we want people to actually buy art – let’s assume that’s the primary goal at present – then these are the issues we need to tackle.

The cultural of art buying will take care of itself if you can get the pump primed. One way to do that is to create a mental analogy, reinforced through the marketing of art, to a type of purchase people can already envision themselves making (see below).

The other points are:

  • How do you establish transparency in the market? Perhaps a local registry of prices paid, maintained by an independent party with solid documentation, and a ban on non-arms length or related party transactions would help. Put this on the web openly for anyone to consult. This could potentially also handle the secondary market to show the value over time (most art is likely to depreciate in my opinion – which is ok, if we know about it in advance). It might also help with tracking provenance.
  • How do you establish a viable secondary market that doesn’t totally destroy value? Perhaps some type of a “certified pre-owned” program, run through the same registry would help. Lots of thinking needs to be done here.
  • Art needs to be repositioned as a temporary purchase. People shouldn’t feel like they are buying a Patek Philippe when they buy a piece of art (“You never actually own it, you just take care of it for the next generation”). Instead, let’s make art buying more like any other consumer purchase where the item in question has a limited life span in your possession. I suggested fashion, but Jeffrey Cufaude had an even better idea in looking at it like home furnishings or decor. People are willing to pay a lot for a sofa. They know it will be there for a while, but they will eventually replace it. Similarly, it should be psychologically Ok to get rid of art you bought, even by throwing it out if necessary. That might seem anathema, but if your goal is to sell art, then people shouldn’t be made to feel like they are participating in some momentous civilizational event and that they are saddled with something they might change their mind about later for the rest of their lives.

Could this program be embraced? Who knows. The art world establishment in major markets seems to view transparency with horror. They like inefficiency. But do we need to pattern local art purchases in most cities after the same business practices used for high end art? I’m not so sure. Perhaps we could use a more clean disconnect between the two.


Topics: Arts and Culture

29 Responses to “Why Don’t People Buy Art?”

  1. Anonymous says:

    How big a problem is this? I live in the suburbs of Detroit and while I don’t consider myself an “art collector”, I do regularly buy prints, photos and sculpture that I like. I don’t have any formal background in art so I generally buy what I like and my willingness to pay is based on what it’s worth to me. I’m not buying for investment, I’m buying to get something I’ll want to look at and share with friends and to support artists creating those works.

    I haven’t spent over $500 on any one work but I know I probably spend in total a couple thousand each year. In the art world, that’s probably not much but for the artists I’m buying from, I know that they appreciate the support. I visit shows and art fairs in the Detroit area and I often see artists selling works for well over $500 and many of them seem to be finding buyers. I think it’s unreasonable to expect a large segment of the population to become art buyers. That’s true of a lot of things though, not just art.

  2. Alon Levy says:

    I think it’s the other way around. New York became a major US cultural center due to the print industry and the city’s overall size, so it also became the major art center. Similarly, LA became a cultural center because it’s where the movie industry fled to from New York. This made the upper classes want to buy art in order to look sophisticated. In New York it’s also because the East Coast upper class adopted a lot of European aristocratic mannerisms, but it can’t be that important or else Boston would be a larger art center than LA.

  3. The Urbanophile says:

    Alon, in fairness, Tyler Green didn’t say that was the only reason – just one of the four he gave. I don’t remember all of the others, but the presence of top notch art schools was another factor.

    anon 12:37, obviously spending a thousand dollars on anything is a major purchase to many people. So there is a purely financial angle. I think cheaper purchases also lower the psychological threshold in two ways. One, they make buying something less financially risky. Two, it is close to something lots of people do have experience with, namely buying and framing posters. This is probably around $150 these days. Prints and such probably fall into this category.

    And of course there is quite the renaissance in silk screen prints these days. I have a bunch of them I’m not sure what to do with. They are so cool and cheap and I just had to buy them though. I also really like collecting anime cels, which are both cheap in most cases and are original hand painted art works.

  4. JG says:

    If this database had easy parameters to search for prices by such as medium, canvas size, weights and material (for sculture), and style I think it could be helpful. One midwest city might be too small but in a region it could work.

    One thought is using a social networking site and incorporating this, either Facebook or one dedicated to artists and art collectors – with a easily searchable database. Encouraging data input and accuracy/honesty would be challenge but not a barrier. Potentially parterning with gallery owners primarily (rather than artists) could overcome this.

    Cool idea.

  5. thundermutt says:

    The more senses entertainment engages, the more popular and less “elite” it is, in general.

    More people buy tickets to auto races and amusement parks than buy original art. I would suggest that in part this is true because auto races and amusement parks engage the senses of sight, hearing, touch/feel/concussion and smell. While ephemeral, those things are all-engaging experiences.

    More people buy tickets to movies and plays and symphonies and operas than buy original art. Those arts engage two senses. Ephemeral experiences, still engaging.

    Likewise, sharing an exceptional bottle of wine or fine meal with friends, or even reading a book.

    For more on the “experience” concept, read “The Experience Economy” by Joe Pine and Jim Gilmore. Their premise: creating “experiences” is the highest kind of value creation.

    Even higher than artworks. For many people, I think art is not much more than a prop on the stage of a life well-lived. Or wallpaper.

    I think art museums are catching on to the need to provide experiences over and above a tomb-like home for works of art. Lots of people go to gallery openings and “First Fridays” without buying, because it’s an experience set in an artistic surrounding.

    People don’t buy art because they can experience it occasionally (or even regularly) without having to look at it every day. Like auto racing, football, plays, shows, etc.

    (I’m not a Philistine. Really. I actually own some original signed prints and photographs, one of which is the first print a very good artist ever sold. But I spend far more on other kinds of entertainnment experiences.)

  6. Alon Levy says:

    Thundermutt: music engages only one sense. And yet pop music is extremely popular, while at the same time classical music, which engages the same sense, is considered high-brow.

    Aaron: the art schools only came after the art. This was true in Paris and New York, and this will remain true in the Midwest.

    Though now that you mention price tags, I think expensive art requires an upper class that is both able and willing to pay for it. New York and Los Angeles have classes of extremely rich people, more so than other US cities. These people are also likelier to think art is cool than the super-rich of Houston. On the other hand, the Boston Brahmin class is as entrenched as New York’s financier class and arguably more into high-brow culture…

    A third explanation I can think of is increasing returns. Once a city has been established as an art center, it draws the type of people who make art. Detroit has an in here by capitalizing on its rock-bottom housing prices and proximity to Ann Arbor, but I don’t think any other Midwestern city can compete there.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I agree with a lot of what you say,
    However, is it possible that a lot of typical people just don’t like art work of today?
    I’ve seen art in normal homes.
    It is average art that you typically purchase at a store or market, but art.
    People buy art when they buy decorated dishes, ornate furniture, a fancy rug, or a decorated vase.
    Art is on nearly everything.
    The emperor’s new clothes I agree with.
    A lot of people in the modern art community have this ‘I get it’ attitude that I think turns a lot of people off.
    Really, how do you know it isn’t just a dot on a canvas someone made to rip people off?
    You don’t.
    Another thing, I’ve noticed most of the art the average person owns is traditional, whether it is garden sculptures or decorative details on everyday things.
    Rarely, in the average home have I seen modern pieces of art.
    The wealthier citizens seem to be the ones who buy today’s art (outside the art community itself) but the middle and working class don’t seem so interested and it seems the same with architecture.
    Is it possible that today’s art is considered pretentious by the average person?

  8. Anonymous says:

    According to the news section of their blog, the Thomas Kinkade Gallery in Zionville seemed to have no problem selling out its Snow White Collection.

    Perhaps the problem with galleries in the area is that they are failing to do a good job of responding to consumer demand?

    I suspect a Thomas Mangelson Gallery would also do pretty well in the region.

    Perhaps the art consumers in Indy are just a very discriminating bunch?

  9. Scott says:

    Thundermutt, thanks for “The Experience Economy” suggestion, I will certainly search it out.

    As an artist and independent curator, I never expect to reach a large swath of the masses I am fully grounded in the fact that I will only ever really reach a small percentage of even those that enjoy art. The work I make and prefer to curate tends to be much more of a niche market. A rather smallish niche at that. I understand that art is not understood or even appreciated by all, but, for me the numbers that were most worrying to me was in the questions, What is the most you would ever spend on a work of art? The most common response, $500-$1000. While I understand that this to many people is a large amount of money. For me especially. But the question is open ended. I had assumed people would look forward to perhaps a time when they may in fact have more money to spend on some work of art they love. This was not people who did not already buy original works of art but people, who for the most part purchased 2-3 works a year. While I did not expect the number to be much higher, I did think it would be closer to the $2500+ range.

    What I have been enjoying here, is the discussion of this topic from those out side the arts.

  10. The Urbanophile says:

    Scott, thanks for the contribution – and for doing the survey.

    anon 9:13, don’t be so quick to dismiss Kinkade. He has obviously figured out how to sell art. Clearly, the man (or people he hired) have studied marketing extensively and applied it to their business. You may recall an article I wrote a while back called “Building New Audiences for Our Classical Music Institutions“. I suggested repositioning classical music as an aspirational luxury product, with exclusivity, but a low barrier to entry and a pathway to higher levels of initiations.

    Kinkade has done just this. I’m a bit going on news accounts here, but my understanding is that he has some lower cost prints, but also more expensive “limited editions”. And you can have some local certified painter add highlights to a print at an extra charge, etc.

    Kinkade figured it out. Now maybe he also panders to popular taste in a way that many artists would not. As I hinted, my suggestions are if your goal is to sell art. There may be other considerations. But I think it is clear that our serious art organizations have not absorbed the lessons from the business world on marketing that they need to.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Somebody’s got to say it – Kinkade ≠ Art

  12. CARR says:

    I think you guys have pretty much nailed most of the reason why most people don’t buy art.

    1) Am I paying to much for this?

    2) What am I buying?
    2.a) who is this artist anyway?

    3) Is this suppose to be art? IF so what is it?

    4) Where and how do you buy art?

    5) What is art?

    Art is so subjective, it’s hard to put a price on it. What moves me may not move you. I still can’t figure out all of the hub bub about the Mona Lisa. just an example. Unless you hang around art buyers and artist it’s really hard to figure out what is what.

    I notice in Louisville (and I’m sure every other city as well) the coffee houses/restaurants have started to sell art made by local artist. Most of the pieces are somewhere between $25-$300. I think this is a good price point to introduce the average person to art buying. It’s not in an intimidating environment and the price wont scare you away. This could be a good impulse buy. The best part is that the artist usually leaves their contact info. That way you can always get the background story on the piece or get to know your local artist. This might increase sales as well.

  13. Anonymous says:

    “I understand that art is not understood or even appreciated by all, but, for me the numbers that were most worrying to me was in the questions, What is the most you would ever spend on a work of art?”

    I wonder how much of this is a limitation of the survey method? I would expect that a certain segment of your survey group limited their response simply because they’ve never been in the market for the higher-end piece and so don’t picture themselves paying that much for a piece. You’re expecting survey takers to project a future experience but some people won’t do that, they’ll rely on their actual experiences to inform their answer.

    What might be more informative would be to run this question by them again after showing them a series of pieces by artists that they admire or collect along a range of prices from those comparable to what they pay now to prices at a level that you would hope they would pay in the future. Once they had an idea of what $2,500 buys versus $500, you might get a more informed response.

  14. thundermutt says:

    Alon, CD/pre-recorded pop-music sales are declining. Yet the live-music scene (including YouTube downloads of live performances) seems to have a lot of demand.

    I was thinking of live performances, or DVD recordings, in suggesting that music engages two senses (sight and sound). Live performance of high-culture music differs from pop in that it imposes strict dress and behavioral codes that turn a lot of people off. I am sure there are class distinctions that apply, as it is often the crude and unwashed at non-classical concerts.
    (I have never worn my tuxedo to a stadium concert.)

  15. thundermutt says:

    I think anon is on to something about good design and “pretty things” that surround us in our everyday lives. Useful things can be rendered artistically (remember the Graves line of household goods at Target?), and they serve two purposes: useful and handsome. Again, it’s a multi-dimensional experience.

    Let me turn Aaron’s question around: is “art” today defined too narrowly? Are the artists who think they’re in the know really the ones who don’t get it?

    One of the best descriptions of an “expert” I ever heard:

    Someone who knows more and more about less and less, until s/he knows everything about nothing at all.

    I realize I am poking Scott a bit here; the “niche” comment made me think of this. Perhaps some artists’ condescending to the universal urge to decorate one’s everyday surroundings has detached “the art community” from art in everyday life.

    Occasionally a piece of elite art addresses the urge to decorate, such as Opie’s “Ann Dancing” on The Cultural Trail in Indianapolis.

    And it’s kinetic, which makes one look.

  16. Carla says:

    Art is about niches; rich niches of ever more complex and interesting experience. I regularly will view work and feel I just don’t get it, or I get it but don’t understand why it’s interesting to others. Five years later I may have the same reaction, or I may gain a new perspective and really find something worthwhile. I’ve been at this a long time, and I can handle being out of an art work’s comprehension loop. I like that it’s sometimes difficult and I don’t get it. There’s always more and better ways to understand art.

    If one is not interested in exploring these niches, that’s fine, but why deny their validity? Why do people have such a defensive reaction to artistic experiences which require more than peripheral engagement?

    As for selling work, the local market for explorative, nondecorative art is small, and mostly limited to other artists.

    re prices. A cardinal rule for artists is pricing consistency and integrity. Most artists agonise over pricing. We are already selling something which is not really commodifiable, and the general wisdom is to make this part as objective as possible. This is why square inch pricing is so common. This is why our retail price stays the same regardless of the venue. Charity auctions should honor an artist’s minimum requests for this reason, but this is not always done locally. For most artist, pricing is not in any way arbitrary.

  17. Bonnie says:

    I think you have the reasons for the problem right. People are afraid because they know they are ignorant in this area and are not sure how to be more informed. So as a result they stick with what they know. I have an aunt who is an artist and she likes to say that for most of America, art is something you buy to go over the fireplace or the couch and its primary feature must be that it match the drapes.
    Art can be a very personal experience for the viewer as well as the creator. I recently purchased some abstract art from an artist located in St. Louis. I was very deeply moved by her art but completely unable to articulate why.
    I have that art work in my office. Also in my office I have a painting of penguins. The painting of penguins cost me more than the abstract pieces but does not move me nearly as much. When people come into my office, they almost always mention the penguins. Those who actually comment on the abstract pieces usually say something along the lines of I just don’t get abstract art.
    I not sure that transparency solves the abstract art problem but I do think it is a step in the right direction in getting people to feel comfortable with the monetary value of art.

  18. thundermutt says:

    There was a highly complimentary review in the Wall St. Journal today of the European Design Since 1985 show at IMA. It touched upon some of these themes. (Unfortunately I think the review is behind the “pay” curtain on the site.)

  19. Jocelyn Teal says:

    I wonder what sort of literature exists exploring the connection of public art and private purchase. I think a community that prioritizes art displays/performances in highly accessible, highly visible ways fosters an appreciation for art in the home. Buying art in such a community becomes a way of participating in something larger than yourself. I have some pieces that I got from First Friday shows in Indy, and I consider them beautiful, but also a constant reminder of my interaction with Hoosier production. I feel incredibly willing to think of crafts and wares, and more traditional prints, etc. as art at festivals like Penrod, First Friday, and the art fests that spring up in the warm weather.

    Conversely, I share the concern that some of the other commentors have about art as an overwhelming, too-fancy, bordering on swindling enterprise when I encounter art such as those electronic walking people installed downtown. I think that is because I find those electronic walking people in poor taste (they’re UGLY!) but also because it seems disconnected from Indianapolis living. Whereas those rubber sculptures speak to the “Crossroads of America” culture that proliferates in Indiana, and while they still seem a little too high-fallutin’ to be a personal investment of mine, their presence is a reminder of the importance of interacting through artwork.

  20. Anonymous says:

    What Jocelyn wrote is one of the most eloquent and to the point things I have read about art in Indianapolis. Her perspective of public art and a private purchase is very interesting and food for thought.

  21. The Urbanophile says:

    anon 8:45 – I agree. Jocelyn, thanks for a thoughtful post.

    The public art angle is an interesting one. I happen to think the Booker exhibition (the tires one) is very nice. I’ve seen all sorts of cool interactions with them from the general public. I like them better than the Julian Opie (i.e., wavy electronic people). My reaction is not as negative as yours, however.

    I think your feedback is good, however. In particular, so much contemporary art and architecture is contextless. While there is a time for bringing the best of the world to Indianapolis, we also need some things that are of this place, that look like they sprung from the native soil. We need a balance of both.

    I’m not averse to negative reactions though. Trying to please everyone means you please no one. One of the weaknesses of Indy as a city is a willingness to self-confidently put a stake in the ground on certain things.

  22. Flounder Lee says:

    One thing that is being completely ignored here is the fact that a LOT of contemporary art isn’t made with MONEY in mind. Yeah it would be nice to sell a piece now and then but compromising your artistic integrity for it isn’t something many of us are willing to do.

    Many of the comments are looking at art like it is a commercial industry. It isn’t. It is an endeavor that people embark on that can’t see themselves doing anything else. You make art because you have to not because you want to make money from it. If you are making art simply to make money, you are in it for the wrong reasons. Before everyone gets up in arms at me over this statement, I am talking about contemporary fine art. The art that you would go see in MOMA or MOCA or galleries in Chelsea. There is plenty of room for functional or decorative arts but that isn’t what a significant portion of us do.

    I will tell you why I don’t think the database would really work. First, you can’t compare one artist to another in terms of print size, sculpture weight, etc. One artist could spend months on a single 10 inch painting while another’s style is to paint 10 foot paintings by the dozens. Another is terms of the stage the artist is in their career. It isn’t all about selling. Maybe you don’t sell much work at all but you regularly have shows in prestigious galleries/museums.

    And the statement about experiences that engage multiple senses selling more can’t be true for art otherwise performance, video art, installation, etc would sell more than paintings and flat photographs and this simply isn’t true.

    Kinkade=McDonald’s of art. ’nuff said.

    From the survey as a whole, I think too much time is being spent on the topic of selling art and not enough on how do we get people excited about art? How do we get the city and state to think about how they slash arts and parks budgets when those are the types of things that people enjoy FOR FREE (at least usually) while pumping more money into private industries? (not saying don’t do that, just saying don’t do that and then cut arts, artists are citizens too) Even during the Great Depression, government pumped more money into the arts instead of taking it all away.

    Glad to have an art discussion on this great blog!

  23. Anonymous says:

    I don’t think that most good artists work “for money”. But artists have to pay the rent, eat once in a while, etc. That’s why economics and the grubby dollar have to be part of the discussion. Communities that embrace local artists and quality art can help the people who make the art spend more time on their art and less time just trying to keep a roof over their head.

  24. Michelle says:

    I agree with many of the points made by Flounder Lee, especially the last one, that we need to focus on getting people excited about the arts. People go to First Friday events, people go to art fairs and open houses. How can we expand on these experiences to make the next jump to museum or gallery? The fear factor (so to speak) is very real – isn’t there a sense, if you’re not already an “art person,” that when you step into a gallery you feel you don’t belong there? I do believe the arts community needs to be less cliquish and more inclusive, but the answer is not in sacrificing the quality of the work. People need to learn how to engage with contemporary art the same way they with more “popular” arts/crafts. I think education, and a friendly, open demeanor, are part of the answer. It’s like that Picasso quote: “Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.” Children are not afraid of art, so how did we as adults get to a point where we say, “Art?? Oh, no, that’s not for me”? I am all for artists pricing their work however they see fit. (And yeah this includes the few pranksters that are out there putting dots on canvas to see how much they can get for it… if there’s someone who wants to buy that, well, then, more power to ’em. I see all of that as more of performance art than anything else, so… whatever.) I think once the general public understands that atists are indeed citizens and very much like “the rest of us,” and that 95% of the artists you’ll find selling work in your town aren’t in fact trying to swindle you but rather just need to feel adequately compensated for their efforts (just like the rest of us – how many have left a job because the money just wasn’t worth it??), that the price tag on a piece of art will stop dictating how we feel about it.

  25. The Urbanophile says:

    Flounder, thanks for the input. I agree there can be values besides selling art. That is sort of why I prefaced it with “if your goal is to sell art”. Some people have very different motivations.

    The idea of the database wasn’t to compare between artists, but only to show the rough prices that works by a given artist go for. There is a ton of metadata you could collect such as format, size, sale type, etc. I don’t know if such a database would work to instill confidence in art buyers. It was just an idea.

    Michelle, thanks for your additions too.

  26. Jon says:

    We are big art fans. This started a couple years ago while on a cruise. We purchased some works by Anatole Krasnyansky ( Ever since, we host wine and art parties every few months. Our art dealers bring original works from artists we’ve never heard of and show to the guests. These are available for purchase. It’s a great time. Perhaps some of the local artists could do the same sort of thing and/or connect with these art dealers.

  27. Fleur Allen says:

    I believe because the majority of the population aren't familiar with purchasing art then those of us selling art need to provide more information and methods on how to do so. If we all contributed to this it would assist the entire industry. We have an art rental service which allows clients to 'try before they buy' very successful because it takes away alot of the perceived risk and pressure.

  28. The Urbanophile says:

    Thanks for sharing perspectives from someone in the art sales business. I like the try before you buy model.

  29. Dennis from Philadelphia says:

    I am an artist with many artist friends who are more successful than I am. I am going to be opening a gallery in six months or so, and I guess I'm going to be showing our work, but I am going to be as selective as humanly possible. My niche will be to only sell the cream of the crop. Too often I go to shows and gallerys only to find that I like two paintings out of fifty! I think that gallerys need to really tighten the screws in determining which works to show. I think that artists must also really bring there work to the highest possible level because at the end of the day your work is going to be put up against Rembrandt and Titian, etc… I think that fine art is one of the places where elitism is acceptable. It's what makes it all mysterious and great and almost sacred in a way. An art gallery Should create some sort of weird feeling in the gut because of the quality of the work inside. It sounds like some people want walking into a gallery to have the same feeling as walking into Burger King and I think that that is exactly the wrong way to go, it lowers the bar and cheapens everything.

    I also feel strongly about having affordable selections for people on tighter budgets, this is where small pieces, prints, works on paper come into play… But I think galleries known for there high standards of selectivity are the venues that will thrive because people will trust that what they sell is good.

The Urban State of Mind: Meditations on the City is the first Urbanophile e-book, featuring provocative essays on the key issues facing our cities, including innovation, talent attraction and brain drain, global soft power, sustainability, economic development, and localism. Included are 28 carefully curated essays out of nearly 1,200 posts in the first seven years of the Urbanophile, plus 9 original pieces. It's great for anyone who cares about our cities.

About the Urbanophile


Aaron M. Renn is an opinion-leading urban analyst, consultant, speaker, and writer on a mission to help America’s cities thrive and find sustainable success in the 21st century.

Full Bio


Please email before connecting with me on LinkedIn if we don't already know each other.



Copyright © 2006-2014 Urbanophile, LLC, All Rights Reserved - Click here for copyright information and disclosures