Hi.
I show in various galleries, juried and otherwise and I’ve never heard this come up as a factor. Most buyers , collectors, gallery owners, and jurers are looking at the product and the medium (oil on canvas, or board, acrylics, etc.) not the process.
If a painting is stunning, whether Alla prima, or indirect it, it seems to me it is attractive and will sell to Collectors.
Collectors also look at who is “Hot” and not so much, technique.
There are artists whose techniques are well known such as Schmid with his Alla prima and Charlie Hunter with his washes of monochrome wipe out technique in water miscible oils.
Personally, I use both techniques and don’t find one or the other more valuable.
Happy Painting.
Derek

Individual galleries or collectors may have a certain preference, but I have never heard of the technique making a difference in terms of monetary value. In many cases, you cannot tell what exact technique was used. If I paint using direct painting (as opposed to glazing), then a painting done in one sitting may look no different than one done in two or three (or eight) layers.

Don

The techniques and the methods matter VERY MUCH – to us, the painters. To the other 99% of the population it is the finished painting. The methods are irrelevant, or at most an interesting curiosity.

To me personally, it is 95% the painting journey, the process, and only 5% the end result. Yes, I want and try for a very good end result, but once the painting is done then I have a small smile, maybe some quick notes about what I could have done better, but then it is on to the next painting. But to the buyer, the gallery, the public it is the other way around, 95% of the interest is in the finished painting they are looking at. If someone wants to know if it was alla prima or multilayer, 9 times out of 10 that person is another artist.

And there are artists that actually paint for other artists.

I’ve had people buy polished, finished paintings. And I’ve had them buy one color wash studies. I do price them differently.

People obviously buy art for a variety of reasons, I have never had a client ask what style a painting was painted in. My work has been purchased by people living in the US and other countries around the world. Primarily people decide “they” can’t live without it and most importantly open their “wallets”.

Learning marketing skills is important if you want to get your name out and build a client base.

There is a great deal to learn as a beginner and the learning is never over. Even famous painters went through years of training, blood, sweat and tears before selling their works of art…there is always a lot of competition out here. Most of the excellent artist giving advice on WC have been painting for decades and have put a lot of dedication into refining their skills and talents.

Enjoy the journey, try all styles and perhaps you will create your own style. Paint from your soul…that will be your gift.

Glazing has one great monetary advantage: You use a lot less paint.

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it would be about the expense of using thick impasto and whether buyers would know if the artist used a lot of molding paste instead and then painted over it. It was interesting to see the info about which type of painting wealthy people are investing in. Seems like I remember seeing a much more detailed breakout of that sort of thing a couple years ago.

is alla prima “knocking them out” in public opinion; and layered technique more valued as a technique?..is it a question of time? is it a question of skill as pervceived by the collector?.

I don’t think ronsu is asking about which method saves the artist a dollar or two on paint and medium.
It is a question about the the perceived value of the painting, to a buyer/collector, when considering which style of painting was used.

I have never known of any case where the method of painting is considered vs value. Value is all over the place. Other factors, like the artist’s name/reputation are what matters.
The reality of value of art is that a painting by me, that could take many hours of delicate layering, may only sell for peanuts, while another famous artist paintings, that are done in less than a day, with paint poured out of a can onto a canvas on the floor, while climbing around on a step ladder, may sell for millions.

Since Patreon/Youtube seems to be a large source of revenue for artists these days (at least for telegenic young girls), I would say whichever one gives you the most video coverage and hits :P