Well, The Pit finally received it's first comment that struck back at a posting. I am not going to publish the comment due to it's brash tone, but I will respond to the question it posed. Essentially, the comment brought up the issue of "transparency" and whether or not that should include the financial situation of a business's owner. I agree that a public company's financials should be made public, but a private company doesn't have to do that. Additionally, the finances of a business and the finances of an individual are two different things. The personal finances of an individual are certainly no one else's business.
When I questioned the transparency of the art-related business in the previous posting, I was using transparency as the business term. I know that Wikipedia isn't the be-all and end-all source, but I did find their definition of 'transparency in business' to fit what I was referring to. I was literally referring to prices being published. From Wikipedia, "There are two types of price transparency: 1) I know what price will
be charged to me, and 2) I know what price will be charged to you."
Publication of prices is still very new to the art world, but over the past few years I've seen it catching on. The first step, I suppose, is for galleries to include prices on their checklists, and the ultimate free market jump would be to advertise prices on a website (as Mixed Greens does, and always has).
So, in response to the person who commented on this, I hope:
1. I've clarified what I meant by transparency
2. one's PERSONAL finances are not a part of a BUSINESS'S transparency
3. you're inspired to be more supportive of people who use their money to support the arts
Recent Comments