And Another Thing....

(That's a photograph I got from work that was going to be tossed! Wow! Ganesh in red long johns! I absolutely love it, and it's not some print, but a real photograph! Good visual for my continued ranting...)
And another thing: not only are artists not factories, but their work isn't "product".
As I have saliently pointed out to anyone who will listen, art isn't like baling wire or underpants- designed for some particular occasion or specific need. Art is a strange and peculiar occurrence. The stuff we artists make (called "art") is unique and falls into its own universe, It's governed by its own discrete set of internal laws and those laws may or may not make sense to anyone else. That's why no one can tell you that your art work is stupid or pointless or anything else, because those statements are irrelevant. Art is whatever you as an artist choose to make. Now whether anyone else wants that stuff you produce is another entire discussion...
But returning to my central argument: you can make whatever you want and call it art. That's as long as it stays in your studio or is given as a gift or simply decorates your family members wall. As soon as it enters that exotic realm known affectionately as "The Art World" it becomes something else again. This is where the expectations change and the concept of art as "product" appears.
Products are admired for being uniform, intentional and pretty easy to describe. For example, if you make seating accommodations in your atelier, your product should bear some resemblance to a chair, that is, it should have (at minimum) a seat and legs of some kind. People quite correctly request an item that answers to their needs to sit.
Art is not always like this. When galleries or collectors or random cranks request art that resembles product, all kinds of  trouble ensues. For one thing, many artists have no idea what the next thing they make is going to look like. Yes, it may all fall loosely under the heading "painting" or "print" or even (heaven forbid) "sculpture" but other than that, it can look like anything. Or nothing. I suppose fundamentally that is a central sticking point to the need for galleries (essentially stores where art is sold) to sell whatever it is they sell. Art.
But when gallerists start demanding that the next picture be the same as the last picture (or last thirty pictures), that's a problem. Art shouldn't have to look like itself, although possibly over time, the mature artist develops a style and therefore is somewhat recognizable. A Matisse looks pretty much like a Matisse most of the time. A Degas looks like a Degas and on. But contemporary art doesn't always play by those rules and it's not uncommon for an artist (in full blown post-studio mode) to make a video, do a painting and also exhibit something altogether different (that looks like yesterday's regurgitated lunch.) That's okay. It keeps things interesting. I think high end established artists feel this less than early career artists who are persistently admonished to produce the same piece many times over... especially if that piece sold.
The sold piece is therefore more desirable, and everyone wants the same piece. This is where the art fair model starts looking pretty awful. We had the pleasure of attending one recently in NYC. There was a whole lot of product on hand- and not much art. So many galleries were selling things that resembled other offerings on display at another booth. There was lots of product.
I confess: art is not easy to sell. It's gnarly and stubborn and quirky, all attributes that defy easy sales. But what's the alternative? A slew of mediocre products that a few collectors want. Is anyone happy with this model?