from Hacker News

Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

by bkudria on 12/3/24, 3:18 AM with 189 comments

• by krisoft on 12/3/24, 8:16 AM

  The problem here is that I don’t trust the author on being able to tell who is the “best artist”. Clearly he has opinions. But for example in point 3, he says he can predict which exhibition will be great based on how easy it is to work with the artist. He predicts that some exhibition will be crap and he is right! Which sounds impressive until you notice that he is not measuring his judgement against something objective, but just against his judgement. He decides something will be crap and then he feels crap about it once he sees it. Did others, who did not know that the artist was slow to email back also feel that those exhibitions were mediocre and the others not? Who knows? All we have is this one man’s opinion. Maybe others thought differently.

  Even more so in his point 6. He writes “What you see in the biographies of great artists, great writers, great anything is that they are good at figuring out where the vectors align.” Which is just plainly and absolutely not true. There were plenty of people who we now recognise as “great artist” who absolutely could not figure out where the “incentive vectors align”. Thus they lived in abject poverty, or needed to support themselves from something other than their art. But if your definition of “great art” is that it is commercially succesfull then of course what you will find that the “great artist” are all like good businesman. But that doesn’t tell you about what it take to be an artist, just only what you value.

• by grammarxcore on 12/3/24, 4:15 AM

  I refuse to believe that not answering every single email within an hour is a good predictor of anything other than being glued to your phone. I think extending it to a reasonable amount of time, maybe a business day max, works out pretty well. Sometimes people respond really fast because they’re taking regular breaks and other times they don’t respond all evening because they’re putting on their kid’s birthday party. Even at work, sometimes very good colleagues are doing things back-to-back for hours and using short windows to do things like go to the bathroom.

  On the other hand maybe this is some art thing I’m too far away from to understand? Maybe really good artists to work with never need more than twenty minutes of deep focus at a time for anything?

• by balderdash on 12/3/24, 4:56 AM

  I enjoyed reading this, but I felt that 90% of this person’s experience was simply the result of being a real contributor in an organization with non-existent expectations/completely un-optimized state/no other real contributors.

  In other words it’s easy to make a difference as a high performer in a low performance organization.

  Again not detracting from this persons achievements, I just don’t think these most of these observations apply in high performIng organizations

• by p1nkpineapple on 12/3/24, 6:25 AM

  Thanks for sharing. Henrik Karlsson is one of my favourite writers on the internet at the moment. His other piece called "Everything that turned out well in my life followed the same design process" [1] left such a big impression on me and I return to it frequently, highly recommend.

  1: https://web.archive.org/web/20240816150009/https://www.henri...

• by anshulbhide on 12/3/24, 7:44 AM

  The article itself is fantastic. However, this is a great example of what makes catnip for HN -

  1) Use scientific terms (e.g. vector fields, waves resonance) 2) Cite tech influencers (e.g. Sholto Douglas, Tyler Cowen) 3) Make the subject an abstract novel field that most developers or tech folk don't really pay attention and use #1 and #2 to make it relevant

• by thih9 on 12/3/24, 8:32 AM

  > If we want to make the world a better place, we can’t just think about the lofty stuff: we have to get our hands dirty and make sure the economic engine works.

  This seems a very narrow if not conformist view of art.

  Artists doing graffiti, participating in hobby groups, state funded projects, discovered by later generations, etc - they don’t care about making viewers feel good about funding; and yet their art can very much make the world a better place.

• by zenogantner on 12/3/24, 12:34 PM

  People here in the comments seem to focus on whether it is possible to predict an artist's success based on secondary "civic" virtues, and criticize the author for having subjective criteria for what "success" means. I'd argue that independently of how you measure success, all other things being equal, having diligence and other civic virtues will get you further, on average.

  That said, the most interesting lessons are in the first and sixth (the 2nd 6th, the actual 6th) item: How to do a better/more widely scoped job than what you got hired for (by understanding how interests, incentives and responsibilities align in an org) and the fact that in most places, most people are not serious (meaning they tend to not go deeper, look at the big picture, etc.).

• by exitb on 12/3/24, 6:58 AM

  The article glosses over the bosses and board members, but it feels that’s where the story is. Often art institutions are not optimized to make money for the organization, but rather to employ specific people or make specific people visible in a desired way. Hence the workshops and fundraisers. I suspect that’s why the boss, eventually becomes just a „first boss”.

• by resonious on 12/3/24, 8:14 AM

  > But if someone else isn’t measuring up, I have no idea how to convince them to do so. So I look for people who have already decided.

  This reminded me of the part in Good to Great where one company's success was attributed to setting up a steel factory in a agriculture-heavy area, where the residents were farmers who were already predisposed to working hard.

  I'm curious if, on the flip side, anyone has any strategies for "convincing someone to measure up" as the author puts it.

• by harisankarh on 12/3/24, 5:56 AM

  Nice to read. I didn't guess that the article would be so fun to read and insightful. I wouldn't have even read it if it wasn't ranked 1 in hackernews.

• by beltranaceves on 12/3/24, 4:05 AM

  Some years ago I decided that, at some point in my life, I would try and involve myself with a gallery or museum.

  As with all things, it depends, but it seems to me that in such places you can find some of the most authentic and driven people out there. And it's probably quite fun to work with them.

• by broabprobe on 12/3/24, 1:38 PM

  Curious they say in the first paragraph, "didn’t speak the language" but then seemingly very quickly started attending board meetings and taking notes? With no further mention of learning Danish. Seems like a notable achievement!

• by KaiserPro on 12/3/24, 10:34 AM

  Another, perhaps less triumphant account of the art world is here: https://profilebooks.com/work/all-that-glitters/ which for me is a very interesting read. If reading isn't your thing then it has a good audio book, but also this might be of interest https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m001nwhs

• by iamleppert on 12/3/24, 3:53 PM

  How dare someone not respond to the email of a gallery coffee director within the hour! Obviously that makes them a bad artist. I like how the OP has anointed himself as the judge of other's work but instead of actually judging the work itself based on its own merits (which he can't be bothered to do) he instead relies on personal attacks and poor measurements like how fast someone responds to an email from him.

  Maybe these artists were put out by the odd relationship of corresponding with the guy who runs the coffee stand for their show? He strikes me as the kind of person who needs to be involved in everything, but doesn't really care about anything. Huge ego and constantly judging everyone around him. He would make an excellent manager in corporate america.

• by lesostep on 12/6/24, 11:42 AM

  I cannot stress enough how the whole thing reads as a parody. Like modern Jerome K. Jerome. To be given such slack by your boss where they just allow you to do "whatever whenever", while not doing a lot, and then attribute your successful bout of work evading to your "work culture". And not only that, but learning lessons from it! Learning how you must work more and better, while gradually doing less and less!

  I especially enjoy the little math&physics section, where he introduces few metaphors that are never explained or used.

  I really hope that this a parody. It's kinda too sad if it's not.

• by JoeAltmaier on 12/3/24, 4:50 PM

  He set them up for success, and then left. With no mention of choosing a successor! Without that, they will fall back into bad decisions in months and blow through their 'war chest' the first year.

  My wife reorganized the after-school program for our elementary school, got it on an upward trajectory, got grants and some money in the bank to pay for exceptional bills. And left, without choosing a successor.

  Of course, the staff blew through the savings instantly, because they didn't know the budget or the purpose of having some margin for safety. Had to raise rates and reduce hours and all the bad things, just to keep going. All the time thinking it wasn't their fault, just the bad old world that didn't want to give them money for free to blow on their whims.

• by gwbas1c on 12/4/24, 1:40 PM

  > The worst exhibitions take the most work

  I suspect Henrik missed the more important part of that lesson: Sometimes you have no choice but to work with someone who's difficult.

  Why? To be quite frank, finding someone to work with is difficult, too. As Henrik states:

  > I was the only person who applied for the job at the gallery

  I suspect that, if the gallery chose to fire the artists that Henrik didn't like working with, there would be no art to show; and thus no gallery.

  The way to solve that would be for Henrik to be more involved in choosing the artists; and for the gallery to cast a wider net when searching for artists. That implies a sense of exclusivity that may or may not be part of the gallery's core mission.

• by oseph on 12/3/24, 6:17 AM

  Lovely article! It induced an unexpected feeling of nostalgia for me personally as I previously worked at an large public art gallery. I was part of the marketing team and my role focused mostly on the digital side: web updates and digital signage throughout the space. The description of great artists in the article resonated with me; the best ones where those that truly did it for the art and were surprisingly humble.

  That's not to say that all amateur artists are self-centered; I met plenty of up and coming artists that felt like wizened "old souls" without ego, and playful at heart. I think they were just great artists in the making!

  Even though it wasn't the most high paying job, it was really fun being part of the visual art heartbeat in a city.

• by WaitWaitWha on 12/3/24, 2:48 PM

  I think the biggest win for this job was not the six points identified, but the author gained their boss's trust; got project alignment to the organization's mission, and earned more autonomy.

  In essence the task-oriented leading was switched to area-of-responsibility leading. That is, instead of giving a list of tasks to complete by the author, an AoR was given, and all tasks initially verified, then allowed to move forward as the author saw it fit. It is task-oriented vs. AoR-Oriented leadership.

  Basically, in large part this worked because of the job context and the leadership of the boss.

• by tmilard on 12/3/24, 2:04 PM

  This essai reminds me of someone a few years back telling me that Artists and Startups where very similar. - "What ?" I replied confused. - "Yes ! We work for nothing, crafting a unique skills and hoping to find Product Market Fit. Of either an original Software or an special Sculpture. The economic is for both an economic of big incertinity.

  Galleries bet on a few Artists among many just like YCombinator bets on a few startups every years hoping for the best.

• by quantum_mcts on 12/3/24, 8:58 AM

  0. There's money laundering.

• by wslh on 12/3/24, 2:14 PM

  I grew up immersed in the art world—my father is an artist, and my sister is a curator working on exhibitions for institutions like MoMA and the Reina Sofia Museum, and linked to a known dead artist. Based on my lifelong experience in this environment, here are my thoughts:

  Art as a Business: Selling art is predominantly a business, and, frankly, quality often doesn't play the leading role. Market dynamics, branding, and influence have a much stronger impact on an artist’s commercial success. Many buyers lack a refined taste for art but are guided by curators, galleries, or social trends to invest in one artist over another. This is particularly true outside the realm of blue-chip artists like Picasso, van Gogh, or Bacon, where established market signals guide decisions.

  Theory and Practice: while I love the theoretical discussions around art (e.g. Walter Benjamin) I find these ideas largely irrelevant to the business side of the art market. Theory has its place in academia and criticism, but it often feels disconnected from the pragmatic realities of selling and promoting art.

  If you're interested in understanding how the art world operates, I highly recommend visiting Art Basel or similar art fairs. These events showcase the intersection of commerce, curation, and culture, providing a fascinating snapshot of the art market's priorities and trends. I personally did my own art intervention with technology and received known artists who wanted to participated in the experiment and beyond the project originality it would not work in other contexts without some validation (being in a space in Wynwood [1]).

  [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynwood

• by bradley13 on 12/3/24, 9:18 AM

  I went into this article with a lot of skepticism, but the author has some excellent points. Here's one, as an example.

  On dealing with people (in his case, artists): "if...someone isn't measuring up, I have no idea how to convince them to do so. So I look for people [who do]." I.e., don't waste your time on people who are "demanding or confused or slow at answering their email".

  Lots of other interesting points!

• by outlaw42 on 12/3/24, 5:51 AM

  i was a security guard at an art museum for a long time. it was the only job i could find after being laid off from my software gig. thanks for sharing

• by akoboldfrying on 12/4/24, 12:03 AM

  >So instead of selling coffee, I looked into how we could streamline the café and the cash register so that the volunteers who help out at the gallery felt comfortable doing my job, then I made myself a small office where I sat down to analyze the business and figure out how to improve it.

  So he persuaded unpaid volunteers to do the work he was being paid to do?

  Nobody has a problem with this?

• by xg15 on 12/3/24, 12:08 PM

  > I am very much in that direction myself; I found it, for example, almost shameful to turn on paid subscriptions on my blog.

  Almost.

• by gwbas1c on 12/4/24, 1:31 PM

  > In August, King Frederik X, the new Danish King, made an official visit to the gallery during his first tour. Since I’m not in the least a royalist, I was surprised at how sentimental the event made me

  This is something a lot of people don't appreciate about a modern constitutional monarchy with a functioning democracy: The modern role of royalty.

  In the US, (I'm American,) we don't have events like this. Why? Elected officials (the President, a governor, mayor, ect,) has to perform these roles. They can't do these as often because they (elected officials) are busy running the country / state / city, trying to get reelected, or helping someone else get reelected.

  When these events happen in the US, they are always inherently political. You always have an opinion of the leader. Even when event isn't supposed to be political, there's always a remark or an attempt to schmooze to get you to vote some way.

  In this case, my understanding is that the King's primary role is an apolitical (because he's not elected) representation of the government and culture. We (in the US) simply don't have this. We get movie stars and Donald Trump.

  I'm not trying to say that one form of government is better than the other: There are always people who are power hungry seeking power, and there are always people who are wealth hungry trying to manipulate the system. What I'm trying to do is point out that Henrik's system (constitutional monarchy) has its own advantages.

• by HackYourGrowth on 12/4/24, 3:00 AM

  The insights on how the best artists resemble top startup founders hit home. It's amazing how professionalism and a relentless drive to improve can make someone a joy to work with—and how the opposite traits predict mediocrity and headaches.

• by ParadisoShlee on 12/3/24, 1:25 PM

  Linkedin is leaking?

• by ideasphere on 12/3/24, 10:12 AM

  How many deep insights can you really gain on an entire industry by working in it for 2 years? And starting off in a separate industry which just happens to be located within the other?

• by greenie_beans on 12/3/24, 12:50 PM

  artists aren't like startup founders. let's stop using that archetype to describe everything.

• by jheriko on 12/3/24, 7:09 PM

  this is kind of mindblowing... just... WAT?!?!

  getting through that first section makes me want to take nothing this guy says seriously. the insanity of it...

• by octopusRex on 12/4/24, 12:19 PM

  Does anyone else cringe at the grifter vibes?

• by Adam121 on 12/5/24, 10:55 AM

  Thanks for sharing such insightful feedback, will keep in mind on my next visit there