organization, and the gallery, is that the association does not have a hired employee. This creates a problem concerning long-term development and sustaining the gathered knowhow since part-time working staff and volunteers have to learn things anew every year. When thinking about the Rajatila Gallery and as a more general issue a question rises; do artist-run galleries benefit the livelihood and practice of artists that exhibit there? In Finland the artist-run galleries aren’t actively selling the works of the artists exhibited. In addition to that, some artists want to keep the prices of the works “under the counter”. It seems that in Finland there is a twofold attitude towards selling. On one hand artists want to sell, and on the other hand it is considered shameful to market one’s own art. One would assume that it would be in the realm of interest of the artist-run gallery associations to consider the livelihood of artists. What is causing this distortion? In the current situation, the gain for an artist paying to present
his /hers art is left to minimum. One could ask if galleries run by volunteers have the time or the will to really think what is the benefit for the exhibitor. Then again what does it mean if the artist-run galleries are turning from organizations offering alternative spaces more towards imitations of the commercial galleries? It seems that the relatively passive gallery spaces paid by the exhibiting artists have become somewhat of a conventional model in Finland. It is possible that at least for some of the artist-run galleries the exhibiting itself has become some kind of a secondary activity, and that people are more interested in different kinds of projects and other activities, which the gallery program and the association can enable.
20