Best friends?

It's always been a fractious relationship and one based not so much on a shared love of art as much as avarice and greed. The gallerist and the artist are two ends of a paradigm; they cannot exist without the other but that co-existence is far from cosy.

With few exceptions, gallerists are seen to feed off an artist's talent, making money (sometimes much more money) than the artist. And since their investment iself isn't huge to begin with (how much can space, a catalogue, an opening, cost the gallery?), that they're feeding off the fat of an artist's labours seems slightly abhorrent.

It is perhaps this that makes us consider the professional gallerist with something resembling loathing.

Among their multitude of sins is the fact that they deny access to artists (to artificially prop up prices), buy up many of their works to hoard and sell when the demand shoots up (unethical trade practice?), and enhance the perception of the prices of favourite artists through inter-gallery and auction purchases (in the commercial world this would be illegal).

There are exceptions of course, and increasingly they're becoming more the rule than the exception. To be fair, artists haven't always given gallerists a fair deal, refusing to work with limited galleries in key cities, often selling their works directly to buyers (obviously without the gallery "premium"), and then spreading themselves thin by giving works for the asking for mixed shows that may not have the approval of gallerists.

If art galleries are popping up all our cities, it's clearly because people see a "respectable" business that doesn't require a degree, and which they hope to do almost as a consequence of being a lady of leisure (most of these gallerists are women).

That, in fact, is the problem: there should be a minimum qualification for a gallery owner or manager "" perhaps a degree in art history, almost certainly an internship under a professional gallerist of some repute, and perhaps stints in artists' studios.

Today, there are many gallerists who have learned on the job; but there are many more who have learnt nothing at all except that the job involves sizeable commissions for very little work, and that all the blah about creativity and talent is just so much fuss.

It is this latter gallerist that artists and collectors must restrain, even if just to send out a message that curating, showing and collecting art involves very strong ethics.

Already, a culture is beginning to emerge of collectors wanting to pay for art by cheque, not cash, particularly if it is by way of investment (helps in the provenance). Tracing a particular work by an artist is also becoming somewhat simpler with gallerists and auction houses putting together detailed (and expensive) catalogues (and, now, books) that act as excellent references.

As gallerists professionalise further, they will find themselves offering services taken for granted in the West (yes, for a fee): tracking provenance, advising amateurs on how to put together collections and maintaining them over a set duration, identifying fakes, organising insurance and security.

And perhaps even coming together to form an association or guild of responsible gallerists from whom collectors can take faith about conducting business in an ethical environment.

Eventually, of course, it isn't just about making money. As Tyeb Mehta says, "Gallerists can offer to sell a painting for a high price, but it will be sold only if a collector thinks that is the right price." Maybe he's right.