Skip to content Skip to navigation Skip to collection information
Inside Collection (Report): The State of Scholarly Publishing in the History of Art and Architecture
Talk of a "crisis in art history publishing" is not new, according to several of the sources interviewed. One recalled a symposium held ten years ago on "The Death of the Monograph," but agreed that opportunities to publish monographs have nonetheless continued to decline since then. There was also general agreement that the current crisis in art history publishing is more than just a part of the general crisis in scholarly publishing, due to the additional costs associated with publishing in this field.
The economic downturn of 2001-04 factored strongly into the decline of opportunities to publish in art history, according to one source. University presses, in particular, were hurt because these pressures coincided with corresponding cutbacks in university library budgets. The policies set by deans and provosts exacerbated the problem, she continued, because at the same time that library budgets were being cut (thus driving down the market for scholarly monographs), administrators continued to set challenging criteria for achieving tenure, such as the publication of two books.
The humanities were disproportionately affected by these economic changes, while the sciences tended to be better positioned to continue to bring money into universities. This led some presses, according to this source, to begin thinking about university disciplines as A-list, B-list, or C-list departments insofar as the marketability of scholarly publications was concerned. Art history publishing, needless to say, was not considered an A-list department.
In addition, university presses may have "over-published" during the 1990s, further contributing to the current sense of crisis in art history publishing by setting expectations for expansion that could not be maintained. Also during the decade, books ballooned to as much as 50 percent longer than they were in the 1980s, according to one source. Another added that, up until about 1995, the trend in art history publishing was mostly monographic, with black and white images. The typical work in the field tended to be "text-heavy." Since 1995, though, there have been more exhibition catalogues, more trade art history books and more color in scholarly monographs. As a result, the expectations of art history scholars have changed. They now want or expect lavish four-color treatment for their scholarly monographs.
Art history publishers are dealing with substantial economic changes. One source said that single-author monograph sales to libraries used to be in the 800 to 900 range. But now the press is happy to get 300, mostly to universities with strong art history departments. To break even on a title requires sales of at least 2000 copies and price becomes an issue. Nowadays, she says, single-author monographs never meet the break-even point.
Another source said that publishers used to expect sales of about 600 to 700 copies of art-related titles to libraries. In addition, she said, books could be priced relatively high, as a way to support an art publishing program. Sales to libraries today, though, are down to about 100 to 150. In terms of total sales, 1200 to 1500 copies would be considered break-even today, whereas the press used to talk in terms of 2000 copies as the break-even point.
At a third press, single-author monograph sales of between 1000 and 1500 copies are hoped for, but sales in the 800 to 1200 range are probably more realistic. At that level, such books might break even if they are given what the press calls "standard treatment," as opposed to the more lavish treatment art history titles tended to receive during the late 1990s. This source also noted, parenthetically, that it is a myth that "big, beautiful books" sell better than monographs with more modest illustration programs. She also pointed out that library purchases are down across almost all disciplinary categories, because journal publishers have been ratcheting fees upwards, which has squeezed out the library budget for monographs over the past 20 years or more. If it were to achieve single-author monograph sales of 500 to 600 copies, she said, a press would have to count itself lucky, whether in the humanities, literature, philosophy, or the social sciences.
At a fourth press, it used to be the case that as much as 80 to 90 percent of its monograph sales were to libraries. As this source put it, "we could count on selling 1000 copies of anything." In the early 1990s, though, sales fell by about 20 to 40 percent, followed by a continuing slow decline in sales over the remainder of the decade. This was followed, around 2001, by another large drop-off in sales of 30 to 40 percent.
Other factors contributing to the problems facing publishers of art history titles include shrinking floor space given to art books at museums, declining demand for art history-related titles at bookstores that sell to the general public, and declining sales of books associated with university courses. While the museum-based "book store" still exists as a niche outlet for arts-related titles, books face increasing competition for floor space at museum shops. As a result, "few museums have the caliber of bookstores they should have," according to one source. Museum stores are becoming more "consumer-oriented," said another. A third said, "Museum stores seem to focus more on merchandising trinkets rather than books. I don’t consider museum stores to be venues for serious readers anymore."
Bookstores serving the general public are also less willing to stock art history-related titles than they used to be. As the market becomes more and more saturated with colorful, low-cost, image-heavy, and text-light art books put out by publishers such as Taschen, stores become less willing to allocate space to more scholarly titles that are not likely to generate significant sales. Compounding the problem, says one source, is the fact that "our reps are trying to sell our titles to people who don’t know who Picasso is." And because traditional sales outlets are drying up, university presses must rely increasingly heavily on direct marketing efforts, such as producing seasonal catalogues and engaging in electronic marketing campaigns, which creates additional costs.
The decline of independent bookstores in recent years has also hurt sales of art history titles. As one source explained, "Independent bookstores and museum stores used to get the sales going [for particular titles]. Now, it’s much harder to initiate a buzz to aid in the sale of a truly successful book."
Another challenge created by the shrinking shelf space given to art history titles is selling backlist. One person said, "Although Amazon helps, it doesn’t make up for the lack of independent bookstores and other changes in the way books are marketed and sold today." Another person said, "Sales had better come in the first year, because later the interest trickles. The trajectory of sales over 1 to 3 years has changed. After three years, you better have sold two-thirds of the books if there is going to be any hope of selling out the run." A third person pointed out that generating quick sales of art history titles is further hampered by the fact that scholarly journals in the field are traditionally slow to publish book reviews that draw attention to new titles.
Sales of course-related books are also declining. One source said that while 1700 copies of a book might be ordered for a course, perhaps as few as 500 might actually be sold. Whether the problem is related to pricing, the availability of used texts, greater sharing of resources among students via electronic media, other factors, or some combination of all of these, declining course-related sales add another dollop of red ink to the mounting economic challenges facing publishers of scholarly monographs.
An additional burden faced by publishers of art books is that of copyright and reproduction costs (though this burden is typically off-loaded onto authors). One source explained that since about 1990, the world of copyright has changed, causing image costs to spiral upwards. The phenomenon of third-owner copyrights, along with the attachment of restrictions (e.g., no cropping allowed) has made the use of images more difficult. The problems are especially acute in the areas of 20th-century and contemporary art history. Even older material that ought to be considered in the public domain is being "held hostage" by the holders of the objects who ask for fees. Photographs of art works are also being copyrighted.
Another source contrasted the situation in the United States with that of Europe. In Germany, she said, no one has to pay museums for the rights to use an image, while in the U.S., "rights and permissions fees are eroding the small margin that used to exist in the field of art and art history." As she explains how things got to this point, "artists’ rights societies started the rights protection movement and museums followed along. Museums will admit that rights granting is a money maker." She is now concerned that the practice of charging for image usage may have contributed to the decline of object-oriented works of scholarship in art history.
According to a third source, existing property laws apply much better to the textual world than to the art world. The concept of "fair use," for example, is applied fairly liberally in the sciences, but not nearly as generously in the humanities. She characterized the current publishing climate as one of conservatism with respect to copyright matters. Publishers fear lawsuits, although technically they are supposed to be protected from such problems through their standard arrangements with authors. Nevertheless, in such an atmosphere, content owners hold the upper hand.
There is some disagreement among editors as to who should be responsible for obtaining permissions to reproduce an image – the press or the author. While this has typically been the responsibility of the author, some editors believe that the process of obtaining permissions has become so complex that it is unrealistic to expect authors, especially new ones, to do it competently. One source said, "Since we cannot trust the author to be accurate, we do [all of the permissions work ourselves]. The expenses and procedures for requesting images and reproductions are more complicated than they used to be, and young scholars in particular cannot be trusted [to get it right]." Another said, "I find that even the most conscientious authors cannot always accurately find the right people from whom to request the illustrations."
Permissions fees are one half of the additional cost burden associated with art history publishing. The other half is reproduction costs. Some presses are better positioned than others to deal with such costs, although all presses find the situation more challenging now than it used to be. More than one source said that opportunities to obtain grants to cover costs are shrinking. At one press, it has become standard practice for a letter to be sent to prospective authors from the press director asking them to approach their universities for funding to cover illustration costs. At another, the policy is very straightforward – "there is no color [in the book] without outside funding."
More about this module: Metadata | Downloads | Version History
This work is licensed by Lawrence McGill under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.
Last edited by Chuck Bearden on Sep 21, 2006 3:08 pm -0500.
