Roger Gastman on Why Visibility Doesn't Equal Longevity in Art

Summary

'State of Art' is a new HypeArt series inviting artists, curators, collectors and other leading voices to weigh in on the ideas, debates and cultural shifts shaping contemporary art. Through intimate questions and personal recommendations, the series offers a closer look at what is exciting the art world, what needs to change and where things may be heading next.

Getting noticed has never been easier for artists. A single post can reach millions, independent exhibitions can attract collectors, and entire careers can take shape outside the traditional gallery system. But turning that attention into something lasting is another story.

Few understand that distinction quite like Roger Gastman. The curator, filmmaker, and founder of BEYOND THE STREETS has spent decades championing artists from graffiti, skateboarding, punk, and other creative communities that built their own audiences long before receiving institutional recognition.

For the latest installment of State of Art, Gastman reflects on what separates a moment of attention from a meaningful career. While social media has given artists more independence, he argues that visibility alone isn’t enough. The relationships, infrastructure, and long-term thinking behind the work are just as important as the work itself.

From the value of gallery representation to the importance of making something undeniable, Gastman offers a perspective on what artists should really be chasing.

“The important thing is that somebody is thinking beyond the next sale.”

Has social media changed the balance of power between artists and galleries?
Absolutely. Artists used to need galleries, magazines, critics, museums and a handful of gatekeepers just to get their work seen or considered. Now an artist can make something in their studio in the morning and have a thousands of people looking at it that same afternoon. That’s incredible.

But visibility and career aren’t necessarily the same thing. Social media is very good at creating attention. Building a meaningful body of work and sustaining a career for thirty or forty years is something else entirely.

Artists have a lot more control today. They can build an audience and create momentum on their own, which means a gallery relationship can actually be a choice rather than the only path forward.

Can an artist build a serious, lasting career outside of the traditional gallery system?
Of course. Artists have been doing that forever. Some of the artists I’ve spent my career working with came from graffiti, skateboarding, punk, photography, publishing— all worlds that weren’t waiting around for permission from the traditional art system.

But eventually, if you want the work to live beyond you, you need some structure around it. Whether that infrastructure comes from a traditional gallery or something entirely different doesn’t matter to me.

The important thing is that somebody is thinking beyond the next sale.

“The name on the door matters less than what those people are actually doing for the artist.”

Do artists still need galleries? Why or why not?
Yes and no. Artists have more ways to build an audience and sell work themselves than they ever have and that’s good. But a great gallery should do much more than sell paintings. They provide context, relationships, opportunities and sometimes the person willing to tell you that the thing you just made isn’t as good as you think it is.

Artists don’t necessarily need galleries. They need good partners. Sometimes that’s a gallery, sometimes it’s a curator, a manager or agent, an institution, or a group of people they’ve built around themselves. The name on the door matters less than what those people are actually doing for the artist.

What can a gallery provide an artist today that they can’t easily build for themselves?
Time and infrastructure. An artist should be in the studio making work. They shouldn’t have to spend half their day answering emails, chasing invoices, organizing shipping, talking to customs, negotiating with collectors, planning exhibitions, and figuring out where a painting is going to be ten years from now.

A good gallery also brings relationships that take decades to build. Collectors, museums, curators, writers, other artists. You can have 1 million followers and still not have those relationships. And sometimes the most valuable thing a gallery can provide is perspective. Someone who understands the work, understands the history and can help think about the next twenty years instead of the next twenty Instagram posts.

What does gallery representation still signal to collectors, museums and institutions?
At its best, it signals commitment. A respected gallery putting its name behind an artist is saying, “We believe in this work, we’re investing in it and we intend to be here for awhile.”

That still means something to collectors and institutions because there’s accountability attached to it. There’s somebody responsible for the history, provenance, exhibitions, loans, archives and all the boring things that become important down the line.

Of course, having a gallery doesn’t automatically make the work good. There are plenty of bad artists with great galleries and great artists with no gallery at all.

“I’d want a great gallery, but I wouldn’t make ‘getting a gallery’ the goal. The goal would be making undeniable work.”

If artists can sell directly to collectors, what makes giving a gallery 50% worthwhile?
Fifty percent is significant and a good gallery should be able to demonstrate why they are worth it. If the gallery is just answering an email, sending a PDF and processing a credit card, I get why an artist would ask that question.

But if they’re funding exhibitions, producing catalogs, bringing the work to fairs, storing it, shipping it around the world, introducing collectors, building relationships, placing works carefully, managing press, protecting the market and working on the artist’s career when there isn’t something immediately available to sell— that’s a different relationship.

A great gallery earns its percentage over years, not on a single transaction.

Are galleries still built to nurture artists long term, or has the relationship become more transactional?
Both exist. There are galleries that genuinely spend decades building artists’ careers and there are galleries that are basically expensive retail stores with good lighting. Artists can usually figure out which one they’re dealing with pretty quickly.

The best relationships I’ve seen are partnerships. There’s trust, arguments, experimentation, mistakes, great exhibitions, bad exhibitions, dinners, phone calls at ridiculous hours… all of it. Careers aren’t built in a straight line, so you need people around you who aren’t going to disappear the second something doesn’t sell out.

If you were an emerging artist today, would gallery representation still be one of your main goals?
I’d want a great gallery, but I wouldn’t make “getting a gallery” the goal. The goal would be making undeniable work. I’d be looking at art constantly, learning the history, meeting other artists, building relationships, putting on shows wherever I could, publishing things, traveling, and figuring out what I actually had to say.

If a great gallery eventually wanted to become part of that, fantastic. But I wouldn’t sit around waiting for somebody to discover me. There are too many ways to make things happen now. Make the work. Give people a reason to come find you.