Spring has officially sprung, and with it I will be leaning heavily on metaphor. Seasoned readers of this Substack will know I have a long and committed relationship with water metaphors, particularly when explaining the complicated mechanics of how art moves as an economic good. This piece will be a bit different but similar in metaphor reliance.
Today we're borrowing from game theory. Specifically, what game theorists call a non-zero-sum game. A zero-sum game has a loser for every winner. A non-zero-sum game is a system where the value created together exceeds what either party could generate alone. Where both sides leave with more than they arrived with. This is my last public assessment of game theory in relation to the art market, that conversation continues exclusively in the Salon, you can sign up here if that is of interest.
The entire argument I am making, about the dealer-artist relationship, about my career and philosophy of dealing, and about what Lion & Lamb is built to be is a case against the way most people misread this dynamic. Which is as zero-sum. Artist versus dealer. Commission as extraction. Belief as the only currency. Win-lose.
What I am describing in this essay is the opposite. When it works, both the artist and the dealer win in ways neither could have achieved separately. It is a misunderstood one.
