An interesting article popped-up a few days ago on Artnet, stating that predominantly red or blue monochrome artworks sell for considerably higher prices than all the other colour of the rainbow. And, while quite an interesting read, it did get me thinking about who exactly would be able to benefit from such information?

The article itself talks about various auction sales, and even the image they decided to pick for the article’s thumbnail is a silkscreen Self Portrait by Andy Warhol — makes sense, it is Artnet after all, and its target audience is more the gallery owner and/or collector than an average aspiring artist like you or me.

But no real market research is done on aspiring and mid-career artists and as such anyone of us that wishes to get some economic information about our craft may be forced to look at “studies” conducted in the higher secondary and auction markets.

The problem is: The primary (direct) market and lower secondary market (small galleries trying to sell you stuff for 300€ or so) are nothing like the higher markets. If in the lower markets art is sold on the pure basis of being aesthetically pleasing, the higher prices of already established names in the art world demand a more complex scheme of evaluation.

Art above 10k or even as low as 1k (depending on where you are) has to be evaluated on the merits of its potential value in the future and politics matter much more than what colour the artist used. While it surely helps to create captivating art, we mustn’t forget our position in the art market — especially if we’re just starting out.

Blue-chip artists like Warhol, Rauschenberg, Jasper Jones obviously sell better, if the work being sold is deemed a more successful example of their body of work — even the difference of a few shades of grey can be a deciding factor if a work sells or not:

“Lot 44. A Jasper Johns numbers painting from his heyday, 1960–65, gets bought in, despite the fact that Johns is the most expensive living artist.* Baer explains why it didn’t sell: “Some people think that Jasper’s signature color is gray, and that painting is black. Plus it’s so dark that it’s impossible to see the numbers.”

From Sarah Thornton’s wonderful book: “Seven Days in the Art World”

But the same factors just don’t apply to anyone starting out or even at their mid-career stage. Because due diligence hasn’t been paid yet (meaning they just haven’t been around the art scene long enough to show their devotion and commitment to the profession), their colour choices matter little in the eyes of any gallery owner or collector.

What matters is building connections.

We should take care in assessing what information applies to us and what is absolutely irrelevant to the current stage of our careers. Colour preferences are trends — unless the whole point of your art is a certain colour (think Yves Klein) — and at best serve those that asses and sell on the highest markets in the art world.

Unless your goal is to create pure aesthetically pleasing works and sell them directly via Etsy (or similar website), that are based on current colour trends — and I have friends that are incredibly successful with this business model — colour and other aspects of your work should only really be judged on the merits of innovation, not aesthetic preference.

And to prevent a contradiction: Aesthetics as a whole are incredibly important, but they are only the base upon which a novel and well prepared concept has to stand, in order for a work to be deemed successful and of a high quality.

If we keep this in mind and focus on both looks and content, our chances of getting through to a gallery and getting signed increase immensely.