Galleries commonly affix red dots to the labels that accompany works on display to indicate works that have been sold. The different ways that they affix the dots are problematic.
- The gallery affixes dots a to the labels without obscuring the prices.
- The gallery affixes the dots to the labels in positions that obscure the prices partly, so that ¥75,000, for example, appears as ●5,000.
- The gallery withdraws sold items from view and arranges their labels, red dots affixed, visibly but unobtrusively in a corner.
- The gallery removes sold items and their labels from view.
Affixing dots without obscuring the price or any other information on the labels (“1” above) is a natural and benign way of indicating sold items. Partly obscuring the price (“2”) appears to be, at least for some galleries, a polite gesture. Some would consider the amounts that customers have paid to be personal information, and obscuring that information is, in that sense, a discrete way of honoring customers’ privacy. That seemingly thoughtful logic breaks down, however, under even casual scrutiny.
Attentive gallery-goers who saw a work on display before it was purchased will recall the price. In any case, similar items of the same price commonly appear in close proximity, so the amount presumably paid for a work is evident on other labels. This is to disregard, of course, the possibility that the purchaser negotiated a discounted price with the gallery.
Withdrawing sold works from view (“3” and “4”) is inconsistent with the very term “exhibition.” A gallery that holds an exhibition is pledging to place the works in question on view for the specified period. Withdrawing works from view is an abrogation of that pledge.
To be fair, gallery owners have what they regard as a sound reason for removing works that have been sold. The owners explain that practice in regard to consumer psychology. They note that works accompanied by labels affixed with red dots can occasion negative perceptions of the still-unsold items. Visitors can get the impression, the gallery owners insist, that the works most worthy of purchasing have already been sold.
Withdrawing works from view while an exhibition is ongoing is thus objectionable. And leaving an array of red-dotted labels on view after removing the works is doubly objectionable. Withdrawing sold works and their labels from view essentially erases them from the marketplace and from history. We can even excuse that practice, however grudgingly, if the artists agree to the removal. But leaving the labels on view after removing the works simply teases the gallery visitors to no good end.
Let us reward gallery visitors with a full viewing of all the promised works throughout the span of each exhibition. And let the sight of works accompanied by red-dotted labels serve as positive admonishment. Let those labels encourage the visitors, that is, to turn out early for exhibitions by their favorite artists.
