Q: I received a stipend from a gallery for about nine months based on a verbal agreement between myself and the owner. During this time, he made more and more requests of me. He wanted me to send everything I produced and hold nothing back. This prevented me from stockpiling work for future shows. He also wanted me to paint a certain way and, to my way of thinking, wanted all the art to look alike. After a while, his monthly payments started getting late, I started holding work back, our relationship became strained, and eventually the arrangement fell apart. Isn't the purpose of a stipend to encourage an artist to explore new territory?

A: The purpose of a stipend is whatever a dealer and artist agree it to be. In your case, the dealer apparently took it to mean one thing and you took it to mean another. The two of you did not adequately hash out the details of your arrangement ahead of time, including the meaning of the word "stipend," and that's why things ended up the way they did. But back to this later.

Anytime money is to change hands for art on a regular basis and over an extended period of time, a written contract is necessary. The process of drafting it forces all parties to identify, address, and quantify specific issues that often get overlooked in casual verbal agreements. It also provides a concrete framework for how the business relationship is to proceed. A good contract includes payment schedules, penalties for late payments, what types and amounts of art are to be produced and delivered within what periods of time, penalties for late art deliveries, the time period during which the contract is enforceable, and all other specifics that both parties agree upon.

Another key to successful business relationships is that all issues be explored fully ahead of time. A problem with so many negotiations is that what is not mentioned at the outset turns out to be at least as important as what is. All parties must be clear, honest and forthcoming about their needs, expectations, and requirements.

Problems are bound to occur when issues are deliberately avoided or held back. A certain amount of this, or 'sandbagging' as it's called in poker, may have gone on between the two of you. For example, you may have been so excited about the prospect of receiving a stipend that you were purposely vague about how the money would allow you to experiment with new types of art. The dealer, on the other hand, may have withheld the fact that he only expected you to produce art that he could easily sell. If this was the case, you conned each other into accepting an arrangement that was destined to fail.

Returning to the subject of stipends, you're correct in assuming that they're ideally designed to finance artistic exploration. In the real world, however, a major reason why dealers pay artists stipends is to acquire art that can be sold to cover initial outlays and eventually produce profits on a continuing basis. A certain amount of artistic exploration can take place, but at the same time, some art must also sell in order for everyone to remain happy.

Artists can't simply accept money from dealers, go off, create whatever they feel like creating, regardless of salability, and expect those dealers to continue as benefactors. Dealers, on the other hand, can't fill artists' lives with so many restrictions that they begin to feel like art machines cranking out whatever is most commercially viable. All parties must enter into the relationship with a certain sense of risk and adventure in order for the experience to be a positive and rewarding one. Dealers have to be sensitive to artists' creative needs; artists have to be aware that dealers make their livings by selling art.