How many times have you heard contemporary artists say that getting exposure for their art is a good thing, no matter what it costs? I'm afraid I've heard it too often.
Unless you were born wealthy or recently won the millionaire jackpot, you do not have unlimited funds to spend on exposure. That means the real question is, what is this exposure worth compared to other options you might have? And when considering the cost, don't forget the value of your time.
Artists today have myriad ways to get exposure for their art, but maybe "exposure" is the wrong word. If you change it to "advertising," "marketing" or "promotion," you may have greater expectations for payback. It is one thing to be happy with an admiring audience, another to expect sales or commissions.
It is confusing out there, especially for new artists. When you're starting out, you might need to show your work in restaurants, libraries, and banks, even if no sales result. You may need to pay $25 for the right to enter a juried show, and then if you get selected, pay to ship your work back and forth, even if no sales result. You are building a resume.
Or perhaps you make your living other than through sales of your art, and have no desire to "make art that sells." In this case, an appreciative audience may be all you're looking for.
But any artist who hopes to live by selling her art will need to carefully evaluate the cost and probability of success for each opportunity that comes along promising "exposure."