Free Agent: a new interview series investigating the pros & cons of creative representation
The first interview will launch this coming Monday for paid subscribers
In professional baseball, when a player finds themselves between contracts and without a team, they are called a free agent. This stage of a player’s career can be a time of uncertainty and stress, but it can also be a time for the player to up their contract, get a substantial raise or make a move to a new city. It’s a blessing or a curse depending on the demand for their talent at that time.
There are parallels between the careers of athletes and that of entertainers (and the entertainment-adjacent), in that our value is, at least in part, determined by the fickle masses and the powers that be. Both professional athletes and many public-facing creative roles rely on the support of agents, institutions, and corporations to boost and support their careers, but it is their (our) names whose value goes up and down over time.
I thought it would be interesting to apply this concept of being a free agent to the lives and careers of creative people. Not a new concept I admit. Every week on this new interview series, I will ask an artist, writer, musician, or actor about the pros and cons of the choices they have made. Whether they have gone the traditional route and worked within the system, or gone their own way to great risk and sometimes reward.
What inspired this new thread of inquiry were the actions of two artists at opposite ends of the art market spectrum. You may have heard the news a couple of months ago that art star Peter Doig was leaving his gallery of more than 2 decades. This came as a shock to many as the gallery had been responsible for elevating his work and his prices into their astronomical six and seven-figure range.
Then a couple of days ago, an artist I follow on Instagram named David Esquivel did something similar when he announced he would be leaving his gallery to sell directly from his studio. Esquivel, in contrast to Doig, is a self-taught artist whose artwork sells for hundreds and thousands of dollars instead of hundreds of thousands. And his client base is made up of people who seem to genuinely care about his work and his well-being, instead of the investors and art flippers of the blue-chip market.
Seeing two people in vastly different stages in their careers both move away from the representation felt like a signifier of something bigger. Is this a sign that we as artists have more freedom? I don’t want to imagine a world in which my work would not be seen publicly at a gallery, museum, or some other venue. But I wonder, is the traditional model of representation as useful as it once was?
Or, is it a relationship that can evolve into something even more committed and sustainable where artists might be able to demand more for their partnership? Things like health insurance, 401k plans, royalties, and other benefits that paid employees usually earn from their W2 employers?
I am open to all of it and currently have no strong opinion either way - although I do have opinions about things that are not working. But more on that later. If you’re interested in seeing where this goes, please join me by becoming a paid subscriber of Art Date for only $5/month.
My first interview is with David Esquivel coming out this Monday. If anyone can put me in touch with Peter Doig to ask him why he did what he did, please DM me.
If you have your own story of success taking the path less traveled, or have strong feelings about staying with the tried and true, comment below or send me a note and I may feature you in a future interview.
Let’s play ball.