reintroduction to Monique Michel

The @theartbystander’s (Roland Philippe Kretzschmar) recent post (see link at the end of this article) articulates a now widely acknowledged reality in the art world that exhibition openings no longer function as a primary point of sale for galleries and artists. Openings now serve as part of a much bigger ecosystem.

Kretzschmar’s is an accurate diagnosis in my view. His post resonates with so many people because his thoughts reflect what many in the field have already been living. His is an articulation of an observation. Kretzschmar’s argument emerges retrospectively from observing changes within an already changed environment. 

“Here, he names the shift once it has happened, visibly, statistically, and undeniably.”

In this way, it functions as commentary that all of us art-interested folk can relate to. The post puts words to what we have been thinking and feeling, a moment of, “Aha! Yes, he’s right. That’s what I have been seeing and sensing but couldn’t quite put my finger on.”

Decisions to purchase artworks now unfold somewhere other than a show opening, or even the exhibition period. These decisions occur over time, across platforms, and via various modes of communication, and in emerging art markets often after many attempts to connect with and purchase directly from artists first. Purchasing artworks at physical openings as performance or public statement of support is no longer “the done thing”. Perhaps this is because digital audiences now outsize physical ones and performance now takes place elsewhere?

What is sure, like it or not, people are now seeking more from the gallery experience. With the gradual erosion of intimacy in modern personal connections, people are looking to their commercial experiences for this closeness in lieu. Not only do they want experiential depth, but more emotional engagement. Enter the rise of workshops, groups, retreats, digital and physical communities, and “walked-the-path” life coaches and mentors. People are hungry to see and be seen. This yearning for personal contact in traditionally professional or educational contexts, is not surprising in a culture quantitatively high in connection but qualitatively low in it.

Galleries are not exempt from this. Functioning primarily as a point of sale is no longer enough to keep commercial galleries relevant now or into the future. Value is no longer found in databases and contact lists, with galleries holding the power via who they have capacity to connect. Artists and collectors can now do that themselves. Value now lies in personal integrity: what you offer, who you are, and what you do that has capacity to bring people together.

“My own post, written last year and reposted to @19karengallery with mixed response (some felt it was too vague and aspirational, others met it with cynicism, others applauded), theorised a way forward for galleries.”

It proposed the way forward as less hierarchical, more proximal and intentional, relationally and community focused; in essence, it proposed a more fulfilling experience for gallerists, artists, and buyers alike, a perspective born from a different position to Kretzschmar’s altogether.

It was foresight rather than commentary.

From the decline in sales on opening nights (despite reasonable attendance numbers), I observed that openings were still important, still popular, but their role had changed. Openings had become a place to commune in the name of art. They functioned as a goal point for artists to create new bodies of work and for galleries to bring people together into the physical space. They provided an environment to create marketing content, to start conversations, and to connect.

As a speaker at 19karen openings, I observed how audiences would visibly open and uplift in response to my words, and how individuals would eagerly approach me afterwards to share their own reflections. Yes, there is a commercial side to art today, but its ancient origins are rooted in community and expression. What I was seeing was an opportunity for the two to merge, uniting art’s value as both cultural anchor and social currency.

“Opening nights had transcended commerce and become a place to come together in the name of art.”

Last year, my predictions were derived from deliberate conversations with people on the ground and in the community (not just those of us who pound the pavement) but those who paved it. Not singular commercially minded operators afraid of losing their grip on status. Not blue-chippers looking to make a quid. Not the top five percent puppeteering the industry. I watched and conversed with the market, the very people we purported to serve.

Now, let me be clear, I fully realise I am no Roland Philippe Kretzschmar. I’m not even a Terri Lew. But as I asserted then, when academics and cynics called for clarity from me, everything begins as concept; a whacky idea we are inspired to dream up due to a problem that needs solving or an opportunity that arises. As creative people, as humans, isn’t that what we do?

When you serve a market driven by want rather than need, as with art, you must serve them what they desire, and in an art world that is now increasingly accessible to both artists and collectors, appetites have grown.

My assertion was not about openings declining in sales (or gallery sales in general, although this was happening then and has sustained), nor was it about digital platforms replacing physical galleries. It was about a need for structural change in values within the gallery-artist-collector dynamic itself.

I argued that the relationship would become more intimate, more collaborative, more community-driven, more symbiotic and fulfilling – less hierarchical.

This was not media or market analysis.

It was relational experience.

Rather than focusing on where and why sales occur, as Kretzschmar has, my focus was on what sustains relevance when sales are no longer the primary organising principle of a business or place. This distinction matters, especially in the mid-economic space, I believe.

As commerce becomes easier and objects and art more accessible, experience and relationships are king. In my view, our attachment to objects and stuff (including art, in some cases) has always been a diversion on our evolutionary path back to humanity back to each other. Now, as the art world changes and power shifts, we are presented with an opportunity to commune in new and nourishing ways through art and creativity.

Where Kretzschmar frames openings as “miscast” within a new market, my post framed relationship dynamics of trust, transparency, mutual benefit, and creativity, as the foundation of the future gallery model.

One post is descriptive.

The other was, and is, a proposition for change.

“Crucially, my post did not intend to romanticise community. I think this was lost. It intended to posit community as a structural necessity for galleries. I concede now that this was the point I needed to make clearer last year.”

Terms like “less hierarchical,” “no power-play,” “no puppeteering,” and “no at-arm’s-length relating” are not buzzwords or fluffy ideals. They are responses to long-standing systemic tensions within the art world, where power can subconsciously pose as service and exclusionary representation models can pose as artistic legitimacy.

Let me be clear, the individuals within this system are not the problem. The majority of gallerists, staff, artists, and collectors I meet have the best intentions and work hard to sustain everyone involved. But as sustenance becomes harder to achieve (and far less satisfying) it becomes apparent that the structure and function of galleries and creative practices must evolve. This is not easy when significant money for a critical few is at stake.

My perspective draws on lived professional reality working inside a mid-level gallery, engaging openly with artists across the spectrum, talking to buyers, observing trends, and importantly, recognising and experiencing the emotional labour involved in cultural production.

The argument is quite simple and age-old: without relational integrity, trust collapses and with it, cultural relevance. In commercial terms? Without connection to a group of people, you have no market, and the meaningful connections we seek as humans, is in a state of reinvention…or, if not, extinction. What does this mean for galleries? Evolve (provide more, function better, offer higher emotional return), or die.

“This is why my emphasis was never on selling differently, but on relating differently.”

This relational shift is not without empirical backing. Art history repeatedly demonstrates periods of cultural resurgence when artistic value is intrinsic to social exchange rather than reduced to market fodder. From collectives and networks to artist-run spaces, art has long depended on relational ecosystems built on trust, proximity, and like-mindedness to sustain both creative innovation and economy.

Contemporary art sociologists such as Olav Velthuis have shown that art markets do not operate purely on price, but as socially embedded value systems where reputation, story, and relationships shape value more than any objective metric.

“Some argue this is the problem with art, but it could also be argued that this subjectivity is its most human quality, where value is tied not only to function or metric, but to the integrity and character of those associated with it.”

This aligns closely with my own research and practice at the intersection of art, embodiment, and meaning making. Studies in arts-health and cognitive aesthetics consistently show that sustained engagement, emotional resonance, and reflective time deepen both personal attachment and perceived value. In this sense, the current move toward slower decision-making, dispersed yet immersive attention, and trust built through genuine connection with community (not just those who jingle their purses) is not a loss of momentum, but a return to conditions under which art meaningfully integrates into lived experience and culture.

“Consider, that what we are witnessing is not the erosion of the art market, but its expansion and maturation, prioritising depth over display, accessibility over exclusivity, consistency over trends, and care and connection as culture.” 

Unsurprisingly, the possibility of this shift is testing those who have benefited from hierarchy (social, academic or commercial) and is being heralded by those who simply wanted their chance to share their art with the world and connect more deeply through it.

The fact that my position and Kretzschmar’s now share some alignment is not coincidence. It is evidence that the industry has caught up to a grassroots relational reality that was previously felt but not yet clearly or collectively articulated.

Kretzschmar labels “distributed attention, quiet decision-making, and trust built over time” as outcomes of a problem. My post proposed the conditions needed for those outcomes to function sustainably: transparency, collaboration, collective agency. Community, not commerce.

One post describes the symptoms. The other describes the underlying cause.

The truth? Last year I was a different woman to the one sharing these reflections. 

I archived the post in question (and many others) on my own meagre social media account and 19karen gallery’s because I couldn’t handle being criticised, indicative of someone unsure of who they were and what they valued. I couldn’t understand why I was being questioned for openly sharing potential ways I had actively investigated to support art and artists.

But inspiration doesn’t wait for permission before showing itself. That’s what popularity does.

Sometimes, inspiration sprouts quickly, with knowing, after years of preparation, right when you are in the trenches dodging bullets.

Commentary matters when informing people about what is happening or articulating what they are unable to themselves. But proposing something before it publicly manifests, shaky, quietly, and unmotivated by applause, comes from passion, not platform size.

The woman of this year knows this. And she knows herself a whole lot better.

If there is a conclusion to be drawn, it is this: the contemporary art world is not simply reorganising how it sells artwork. It is renegotiating how value, trust, and creativity exist between people.

That is the conversation I entered last year. And it matters to me — not as commentary, or to be right in the eyes of others, but as a commitment to a way of being that simply feels right.

Written by Monique Michel Di Russo January 2026.

For reference:

@theartbystander

https://www.instagram.com/p/DNuaj2N5BN6/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

@moniquemichel.creates

https://www.instagram.com/p/DTX8GhwiBA0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==