She was force to closed the show early on Saturday (3pm) because of the Bears game. She had to fight to keep the show open that late. For what I understand the Friday and Saturday traffic was slow and Saturday morning because of the rain the field was a mood bath according to several artists. For what I saw today I could not tell. The walking rows are to small, the layout a bit confusing, I can tell that set up and break down are just worst you can think in nice day (dolly in and out) and long waits. Most of the artists are hoping to make sales today and break even. I think that should be able to that because it was pack today. In my down several time the show was mention in the radio. She post banners about the move in old area of the show. She manage to get the School of Art Institute to purchase 10 spaces. I think with time she will make this a great show. Not this year but in the near future.
Amy has prove me wrong.
Comments
This artist was in a good location, had a good show and thinks that it will be successful once things like drainage problems in case of rain are worked out. Contrary to what was mentioned here, he wasn't happy with load in/out and thought that was a nightmare.
Anyone who did any research at all before attending this show would have known that this show was "risky". First it was a new and untested location. And everyone who knew anything about the Grant Park area would tell you of the nightmarish forecast that they envisioned (both for difficulties in load-in/out as well as patron attendance). And for the most part, it's flat and on grass. So if it rains (which it did Wednesday night and Friday night), it has the potential for being very muddy. We already know Amy was increasing the number of artists to 450 before we accepted the invitation. [Sure the booth count was much high, but I don't know how many of those were double booths or vendor booths or food booths, etc.] Regardless we were aware she was having a lot more artists that she had at the old location.
Most people agree that Amy had a great show in its previous location. But when it was necessary to move, and Grant Park became the new venue, it definitely opened up the possibilities for larger spaces (as well as more artists). And I would definitely suspect that Grant Park is a "high rent district" for sure. I'm sure it costs a ton to produce a show there. Until I know differently, I will give Amy the benefit of the doubt and assume that she was making her decisions with the success of the artists in mind. I'm convinced that she knows that, in the long run, if artists are not successful at her shows, she will no longer have a show.
OK, the bottom line for most of us is sales. And sure they sucked for most people at this show. But almost every show review that I have read on ArtFairInsiders this year has talked about the vast majority of artists who zero'd or didn't make expenses. Like it or not, that is the new sign of our times. The economy is continuing to take a serious toll on art fairs across the board. Frankly, by reading all the ArtFairInsider reports this year, I even wonder how more than 5% of us can possibly be making a living doing this.
Exceptional product will still sell in even the worst markets (albeit not as much as better markets). If you do not have something that is far better or different than anyone else the road to success will be extremely difficult. Sales will not come to you just because we have a large number of patrons at a show or we keep the number of artists to a small number.
It's only fair to wait and see how Amy adjusts for next year's show.
Does anyone know what the fees were to rent Grant park and all the police, insurance, etc..would be curious as I use to run shows in the 80's/90's and you need millions of dollars of liability insurance (people trip over anchor wires from tents and will sue at the drop of a hat and did) , police at overtime, entertainment permits...it goes on and on.....I'm sure won't complain to Amy as they may want to do her other shows.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next