Not everyone who is asked to contribute works is as conscientious. Critics say that the quality of material available at these galas is uneven and warn that because of the number of appeals artists receive, some of them keep a ready supply of less-than inspired prints and drawings just for charity sales. “I wouldn’t recommend building an entire collection from benefits,” cautions the New York dealer Ed Winkleman, who represents young talents. “The work the artists are willing to donate is generally not their strongest.” The New York– based art adviser Wendy Cromwell further warns that art purchased for charity can carry a stigma: “Coming from a benefit doesn’t ding the art, but it isn’t a great provenance.” That said, most benefit organizers recognize that the work won’t sell if it’s not high quality, no matter how deserving the cause.

Although charity sales have helped collectors discover new names, some in the business say the events come with a cost to the trade. Artists aren’t the only ones giving up a chance to profit on their donated works; their dealers don’t get their cut, either. Christopher Wool contributed a large black-and-white silkscreen on paper to the May MOCA auction at Phillips that was tagged with a retail estimate of $70,000 to $90,000. His New York dealer, Roland Augustine, says Wool was happy to help in this way to enrich the museum’s “cultural coffers” and also ultimately benefit 75 artists. But Augustine notes that bidders don’t appreciate the dealers’ part in the donation or understand why they are sometimes listed alongside the artist in catalogue credits. “Works that go out are given collectively,” he says.

Furthermore, while buyers can deduct part of their purchase’s price on their taxes, artists are allowed to claim only the cost of their materials—a few dollars for a sheet of paper, say— rather than the fair market value of the gift. Augustine, who is president of the Art Dealers Association of America, has made it his mission to lobby Washington lawmakers to change this tax regulation, which he considers “patently discriminatory.” The Dallas-based patrons Howard and Cindy Rachofsky have contributed money to the ADAA in support of this cause. “There’s no reason to carve out artists and say, ‘You don’t deserve the same benefits as patrons,’ ” Howard Rachofsky explains. For his part, Cotton, who estimates that he donated $100,000 in art last year, expresses frustration with the tax situation: “Every year I go to my accountant and ask, ‘Has anything changed?’”

As charities compete for donated works to sell at their benefit sales, it has become increasingly common for the event organizers to offer artists part of the sale proceeds. The Kitchen, a nonprofit space known for performance art, offer contributors 50 percent of the suggested retail price. Other nonprofits in New York that hold benefit auctions—including the Lower East Side Printshop, Artists Space and Momenta Art—also provide donor artists with percentages, ranging from 10 to 30 percent.

Dealers and artists have begun asking for protection from another recent phenomenon: flipping charity purchases for profit. The solution, according to Anne Livet, whose New York–based event company has managed art auctions for more than 40 organizations, is resale agreements that discourage speculative buying. These agreements require buyers to offer works back to the artists or dealers at fair market value if they decide to sell. “An artist is giving something to a charity auction,” says Livet. “I don’t want it to end up at Sotheby’s.” She adds that anyone found to be buying to flip won’t be invited to future events.

Cindy Rachofsky says that all lots sold at the Two by Two event she runs in Dallas—a glitzy black-tie affair that raised $3.4 million last October, with proceeds split between the Dallas Museum of Art and the AIDS charity Amfar—come with resale agreements. “Dealers and artists are tired of donating works only to see them appear at auction,” she says. “They are comfortable giving works to us because they know they won’t be turned around for sale.” Dealers, however, claim that the agreements are difficult to enforce and, with many charity auctions allowing online bidding, virtually impossible to police.