By James Carter – Founder, Creative Flair

As another year draws to a close in the London art world, one thing has become increasingly clear: the art fair landscape is changing.

Not loudly. Not obviously. But structurally.

To most artists scrolling through social media, exhibitions and open calls can look broadly the same — well-designed graphics, promises of exposure, talk of opportunity. Yet behind the scenes, there are now very different business models operating under the same label of “art fair”.

Understanding those differences matters more than ever.

Two Models, One Name

Over the past few years, I’ve worked closely with a wide range of art fairs and cultural organisations across London. Through Creative Flair, I’ve partnered with events including Roy’s Art Fair, The London Art Fair, The Other Art Fair, and the Affordable Art Fair.

While these fairs vary in scale and audience, they share a crucial common trait: their success depends on collectors showing up, engaging, and buying work.

When I collaborate with fairs like these, the arrangement is clear and transparent. I’m paid a flat fee to highlight genuine opportunities to artists. I don’t take a cut of application fees or exhibition costs. My incentive is aligned with the quality and credibility of the event.  (Let’s not even talk about the numerous events I do without any compensation, simply because I’m passionate about their mission.)

However, there is another model becoming increasingly common!

In this second model, the primary source of revenue is not collectors or ticket sales, but artists themselves. Income is generated the moment an artist pays to take part, often long before the doors open and regardless of what happens during the exhibition.

At first glance, these two approaches can look identical. In practice, they produce very different outcomes.

A Moment of Clarity

Recently, I was approached about collaborating on a new exhibition project. On the surface, it appeared promising. But as conversations progressed, it became clear that the proposed partnership was not centred on the quality or success of the show, but on recruitment.

Rather than a transparent, professional fee for my involvement, compensation was tied to how many artists I could persuade to sign up, as a percentage of their participation fees.

That moment clarified something important.

When a fair’s financial success depends on recruitment rather than results, the incentive to prioritise curation, collector outreach, and long-term artist support is weakened. The artist becomes the revenue stream, not the beneficiary.

I chose not to be involved.

Why Incentives Matter

To be clear, paying to exhibit is not inherently problematic. Many legitimate fairs charge fees to cover real operational costs. The issue lies in how those fees are structured and where they are ultimately directed.

If a significant portion of an artist’s payment is absorbed by marketing funnels, affiliate commissions, or volume-driven recruitment strategies, that money is not being invested into:

• Collector engagement

• Exhibition quality

• Artist visibility beyond the application stage

In such cases, artists are not being supported; they are being processed.

This shift is subtle, but its impact is profound.

The Math of Exploitation

Let’s be crystal clear as what that offer really means for you, the artist.

In this model, the gallery isn’t incentivised to sell your art to collectors. They make their money the moment you pay your submission fee. If you pay £300 for a spot, £150 of that was offered to me as a bounty.

• You don’t get a discount.
• You don’t get better placement.
• You are simply paying a premium so an influencer can get a kickback.

£150 of that isn’t going toward hanging your work, marketing the show to buyers, or renting the venue. It is going directly into my pocket as a bribe for getting you to click a link. You don’t get a discount. You don’t get extra support. You just get sold.

This is not an art fair; it is a pyramid scheme with better lighting.

Drawing a Personal Line

At Creative Flair, my role has always been to help artists navigate the art world with clearer information and fewer costly missteps.

That means occasionally walking away from opportunities that would be financially advantageous in the short term, but misaligned with that mission. If my income depends on persuading artists to pay into something I wouldn’t personally recommend, that’s not a partnership — it’s a conflict of interest.

Integrity in this industry is built slowly and lost quickly. I choose to protect it.

How Artists Can Protect Themselves

Before committing to any exhibition or open call, artists should ask a few direct questions:

• Where does the organiser’s revenue primarily come from?

• Is marketing focused on attracting collectors, or on recruiting artists?

• How is success measured once the exhibition opens?

• Would this event still exist if artists stopped paying upfront fees?

These questions reveal far more than polished promotional materials ever will.

The Bigger Picture

London remains one of the most vibrant art cities in the world, filled with dedicated organisers, serious collectors, and genuine opportunities for artists at every stage.

But as the market becomes more crowded, artists are increasingly responsible for understanding the economics behind the offers they receive.

At Creative Flair, my commitment is simple: to promote opportunities I genuinely believe in, and to speak honestly when something doesn’t sit right.

The art world does not need more noise or hype. It needs clearer signals, better questions, and greater transparency.

Protect your value. Ask how the system works. And remember that not every opportunity is designed with your success in mind.

—

James Carter

Founder, Creative Flair

Recommend0 recommendationsPublished in Blogs