The Domestic Market: Pricing in the Home
The art trails are a very domestic ‘take’ what a market can be, in that most of the work is shown in people’s homes, and there are no organizational rules re financial aspects, including whether and how to sell. Indeed, there is no formal agreement regarding what the trail is ‘for’, let alone rules re ‘ways to do it’. Each trail has a voluntary steering committee which tends to change year on year, and each trail member has their own reasons for taking part, and their own ways of negotiating the unusual situation of bringing pricing and selling so deeply into what is usually an intimate domestic context.
This paper concentrates on the producers, but necessarily also considers the other side of the market - the trail visitors - as they are co-constructors of the situation and how it is perceived and performed. The vast majority of the visitors are people who live nearby, who see the trails as primarily a market event – ie a buying/selling opportunity – as well as an opportunity to engage in a community occasion, see inside other people’s houses and meet their neighbours.
Whilst the visitors primarily understand the trails as a market event, the producers or trail members frequently have more mixed responses regarding what their involvement in the trail is ‘about’. Some artists say that they take part in order to sell their work, embracing it as an important commercial opportunity. Some speak of it as a social and neighbourly event as much as a commercial opportunity. Others use it as an opportunity to show their work, with no intention of selling it. From observation over ten years, that ‘no selling’ position can change over time. For example one artist makes enormous and exquisite mosaics which are embedded in the fabric of her house & clearly un-sellable. She is not taking part in the trails as a marketing opportunity, as she does not take commissions. However, whereas she is adamant that for her the trails are not about selling, due to popular demand she does now sell cards of her mosaics.
Many of the artists are both interested in earning money to support their practice, and repelled by what they see as the ‘immoral’ or taboo idea of treating art and money as commensurate (“they’re my babies!”)– which means that the very idea of pricing their work is deeply problematic and painful. As a result, conversations about pricing are largely avoided amongst the participants, and for some thinking about pricing is not carried out unless a potential buyer asks directly for a price, or unless the artist is partnered with a more market-comfortable mentor.
It is not only the conceptual aspect of commensuration which is awkward - the practicalities or actualite can be too: some of the artists find the physical exchange of money uncomfortable, and one artist was vilified by others in that trail for using a credit card machine – a clear signal of commercial intent and preparation. And yet they are all voluntarily taking part in what the visitors understand as a market.
In other words, whilst choosing to play an active part in constructing a domestic form of market (in large part because the trails are seen as a more acceptable or at the very least, a more accessible form of market engagement), market-related activities can be enormously problematic despite – and perhaps because of – the domestic context.
It is this tension that is engendered by the artists’ decision to take part in a trail, and the artists’ routes to resolution/mitigation of that tension, which particularly interest me.
This is a fascinating site for the exploration of domestic negotiations of the market and its discourses - particularly the core aspect of a market exchange, pricing - as a source of distinction and identity, in that there is no formal training, no overarching rules or guidelines, just each participant’s understanding of ‘how it is done around here with an object like this, in this context (a home), by a person like me’.
References
Belk, R., Wallendorf, M. and Sherry, Jr., J. (1989). The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey. J CONSUM RES, 16(1), p.1.
Douglas, M. (1982). In the active voice. London: Routledge & K. Paul.
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger. New York: Praeger.Zelizer, V. (1994). The social meaning of money. New York: BasicBooks
Zelizer, V. (1994). The social meaning of money. New York: BasicBooks.