Ansel's disciples: Ross, Witherill, Orland

[Frank Petronio]

The thread on Hunington Witherall's work prompted me to wonder, how are Ansel Adams' former assistants and disciples doing in terms of getting shows and selling prints? When Adams' work is selling in the tens and hundreds of thousands, and you could argue that in terms of print quality, people like Alan Ross, Ted Orland, and Hunington Witherall [at least his silver work... ;-) ] can make a print every bit as good as Ansel, if not better, what are they selling their prints for? Can they make a living at it?

Which of the living grand tradition western landscape photographers -- William Clift, Capanigro, etc. -- is doing the best and getting the highest prices?

[Hans Berkhout]

ask Russ Levin.

[RJ Hicks]

How well financially one does in the art world doesn't necessarily have much to do with how technically apt the artists is, it may be how groundbreaking their work is. I mean, I can surely paint as well as Pollack, but that doesn't mean much does it, he did it first and was marketed.

[Kirk Gittings]

A few years back when he was living in New Mexico, Caponigro told me once, in all sincerity (with some bitterness), that if were a painter and as well known as he was that he would be wealthy. As it was he was just getting by with print sales and the workshops.

In New Mexico it is clear that lesser artists in mediums other than photography can do quite well, where even well known photographers struggle. This includes at least one of Ansel's assistants. Clift and Ed Ranney are rumoured to have other sources of income. David Muench is the most successful that I personally know, but it is almost all stock sales. There are some very financially successful photographers here but they do more commercial work with New York clients etc.

[Steve Feldman]

I've heard that John Sexton get $750 + for an 11x14 B & W print. Workshops all over the place.

[John Mauser]

But how often does John Sexton sell a print? That's something I've wondered. How about some of the photographers in the same group that sell their limited edition 16x20's for $3,000? How often do they get an order for one. I love John's prints but could never afford one and I have a feeling that most of his income comes from workshops. But I could be wrong.
John

[Steve Feldman]

John,

I'll sell you one of mine for a lot less than Sexton's.

But I don't do workshops. No one would come.

[John Mauser]

Thanks Curmudgeon,
I think if I had $750 I'd spend it on film for the freezer. I was just looking and some of the "Yosemite" photographers charge upwards of $5,000 for limited prints (they are beautiful though)...John Sexton's photos are cheap in comparison.

[Steve Feldman]

How's 'bout $500 and I'll throw in the shipping.

[Steve Feldman]

$450??

[John Mauser]

$20 and you throw in a pack of Ilford Delta 100 and you got a deal.

Look what we did getting this thread all off of topic...sorry to the poster.

[Steve Hamley]

Several interesting thoughts in the thread.

Kirk's right, if you want to make a living, fine art photography ain't it. Even if Sexton sells 100 prints a year, that's not really much after taxes. If you do what they do, it's because you love it.

Need more proof? Read Weston's daybooks. How many of us would like to be as sucessful and admired as Edward Weston? Several times he writes about having less than fifty cents, and a time or two a dime or no money at all. His house was a cabin - try to talk your wife into that. He managed to support himself and raise his family (and mentioned this), but Weston, like his contemporaries, did it because that's what made his train go. He complains he could have made a nice living doing portraits, but portraits weren't what he wanted to do.

Adams had the best scheme, but one that was proposed to him IIRC - a business and marketing manager. I'm under the impression nearly all professional photographers self market, so I'm wondering how Weston and the folks mentioned above would have done/do if they had the business and marketing resources Adams had, and why more professional and fine art photographers don't.

Steve

[Bill_1856]

Adams was a self-starting go-getter who pushed himself to get out and make a living for his family, where Weston was a lazy womanizer who subsisted partially (and at times entirely) on money earned by his school teacher wife, whom he treated quite shabilly. Oh yes, but HE was an ARTISTE! Actually, both married well -- Adams' wife inherited the studio concession in Yosemite Park and raised their two children while Ansel galivanted around the county, and Weston's wife was of the California Chandler family with lots of land if not much cash.

For an interesting look at Fine Art Photography prices, check the October Auction listing for Christie's Auction House on the WEB. Most of the pre-sale estimates are about 1/2 of what they were a couple of years ago.

[Mark Sawyer]

Miscellaneous point...

His Anselness came from a quite wealthy family. While it's often said that his parents lost most of their holdings in the San Francisco fire/earthquake, several years after they still had enough to buy him a $5,000 piano. That sum would have bought quite a nice house in SF back then. Adams' prints were quite affordable even for the working class well into the 1960's

EW got a Guggenheim that was supposed to give him a subsistance-lifestyle for one year; he stretched it to nearly three.

Remember those $750 print sales, if made through a gallery, probably fetch the photographer $375.

If one wants to make a comfortable living doing "art" photography, one should start with a comfortable trust fund...

[paulr]

"... Weston was a lazy womanizer who subsisted partially (and at times entirely) on money earned by his school teacher wife ..."

I've always wondered what people got out of making judgements like this of people they don't know, based on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th hand gossip. To paraphrase Milan Kundera, "critics are convinced they know the intimate details of the lives of dead authors and artists, when they in fact don't even know the first thing about the erotic lives of their own wives."

[Mike Davis]

Paulr,

Weston was a womanizer, at least by some people's definition. And, Flora did help him to make ends meet long after they separated according to his own words in the "Daybooks."

But, I do not see how anyone could in anyway believe that Edward Weston was lazy. He often struggled to find enough hours in the day for art and commerce. He awoke before 5, wrote, and photographed throughout the day. He developed at night and was the center of attention at many a party long after he had retired the cape and cane of his salon pictorialist days.

Edward Weston was an artist. Brett Weston was an artist. They challenged themselves artistically and succeeded in ways that Adams didn't. But, Ansel Adams was also an artist. He challenged himself technically in ways that the Westons didn't.

This is an old arguement and ultimately a meaningless excercise. Take some photos.

[Bill_1856]

Read the "Daybooks," paulr. And Charis's account of their courtship and marriage.

[Frank Petronio]

I even read where St. Ansel had a fling with a pretty young assistant (Dotty?) in the 30s.

Maybe having a hottie on the side is what you need to get your art mojo going? Who here has tried it?

[paulr]

I'd be honored to be half the lazy womanizer that Weston was. Most guys who tell you otherwise are lying to themselves.

At any rate, the question was about people's professional careers, which we're in a position to see with some clarity. It wasn't about judging people's personal lives, which are irrelevent to the discussion and, in my humble opinion, none of our business. As you might guess, I did not side with the evangelicals who believed you can judge the worthiness of a world leader based on who blows him.

As Mike pointed out, characterizing Weston as a lazy artist is just ludicrous.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It wasn't about judging people's personal lives, which are irrelevent to the discussion and, in my humble opinion, none of our business.

This is about the smartest thing said in this thread so far.

[bglick]

Some very interesting responses.... and obviously this is something that interest many of us. At one time or another, everyone of us "art" photographers have contemplated selling some work to justify this black hole for money....if not for ourselves, then for our family.

I think Vancamper has an excellent point, although, I am not sure the outcome is often sweet. In my travels I have always been intrigued by the retail viability of this art from, and have met a lot of people in the retial trade, and have learned a lot. As John mentioned above, just because a print has a $5k price tag, doesn't mean they sell.

I am very aware of two high profile landcape, LF photographers.... I can't mention names.... but one sold very expensive prints, $4k+. In one of his galleries, he sold 1 print in 3 years, and it certainly was not from mediocre images, the work was stellar. Every person walked out of the gallery in awe.

The other well know Landscape Photographer took another approach, prints for the masses. His prints were just as spectacular, all shot on 4x5 and matted and framed hanging in a gallery in a well visted area. He took the Walmart pricing approach, framed and matted 24 x 30 prints, which the exterior of the frame was quite large, (32x40+) sold for about $850. Less for print only.... At this price, he was giving the print away for free - and in essence was selling matting / framing service. It took 5 years of losses to reach his first break even year, and with very low overhead. I was quite shocked when I learned this.

As others have mentioned above, it seems art photography is a "passion to create" based interest, which if sales follow, so much the better. Another indicator of just how well these photograpers are doing is watching the superstars all become full time workshop leaders.... hauling wanna be's in a Van to all the key locations where they made nice photographs. As people will pay $5k for this trip, and carry another $20k in photo gear, but never consider buying one of the leaders prints for a few thousand dollars. More evidence that art photography motivates people to create the art, more so then buying the art. Some I have known through the years are full time workshop leaders, which is not a bad option at all.

I also have watched several tricks employed by art photographers, whereas they offer limited editiion prints. You can witness on their web site as certain editions have sold out, which leads you to beleive your desired print will sell out, or got to the next tier pricing. Most often the "sold out" - is not true. But it may stimulate interest in the next edition.

It is interesting though, that the one VERY successful "wildlife" art photographer (at least in retail) is Mangleson. I have no first hand knowledge of his success, but only drawing from the fact he now has 26 galleries in the USA. It's rare that anyone continues opening galleries whereas the existing ones are loosing money. In addition to a few other wildlife photographers I have come accross that have their own small galleries, have done quite well...no Bill Gates riches, but they can make a living, which in this field is considered a major success. Having polled many of the Mangleson gallery sales reps, it seems Manglesons wildlife prints outsells his landscape prints 20 to 1. Mangleson also has some fantastic landscape prints. This motivated me to buy a long 35mm wildlife lens to carry with my 8x10 gear. :-)

I think in general, all wall art is hard to sell. Even oil painters suffer the same failure rate, but they don't have to buy $50k worth of gear to try :-) The Kincaids are the rare, very rare, exception to the rule. His style, similar to the Beatles music in the late 60's just struck a chord with the public. Then add the best art marketing machine the world has ever seen and you have a Disney in the making, well, till the art investors run dry, which finally started happening.

Wall art is not a neccessity, it is not often even needed, as there is some art on the wall now.... (except for the small % of new home buyers, second home buyers) so to make a sale, in most cases, the person must be really moved by the piece, as it often replace another piece. This precludes the Kincaid buyer who is buying a piece, to re sell in ebay in 3 years when the edition runs out. As Vancamper pointed out above, quite often, to move someone enough to buy, they have to see the art in person and almost make an impulse purchase.

Of course, just as in yesteryear, most of the photographers mentioned above have very supportive and quite often financialy stable wives. This extra income or trust fund allows them the 20 year start up time to get something rolling :-)

[Ellis Vener]

here's a smarter thing: I agree with Jorge.

[Bill_1856]

If all that one is interested in is the pictures on the wall, then I agree that the artist's private life is not anyone's concern. OTOH, art is not created in a vacuum. For example, without a knowledge and some understanding of Weston, one would look on his nudes as simply high-class soft porn being marketed as fine art. Does it matter in the long run whether his creative motives were Pure or Purile? It does to me!

[Kirk Gittings]

"without a knowledge and some understanding of Weston, one would look on his nudes as simply high-class soft porn"

I don't need any knowledge of Weston's personal life at all to see the difference between his nudes and soft porn as I see no titilation attempt in his images at all.

Weston's personal life on the other hand could be a rich source of material for soft porn novels.

[paulr]

I agree that insight into the person behind the art can be helpful, and certainly interesting. But it's not relevent to looking at the path of their careers. And real insight about someone's personal life rarely leads to a simple, closed, dismissive judgement, like calling someone nothing but a lazy womanizer.

If anyone has a copy of the centennial book of essays on Weston's life, I'd urge you to read Robert Adams' essay, titled "The Biography I'd like to Read." He handles these issues with great insight, as he usually does.

As far as Weston's nudes being soft porn, it's interesting to me that the more common criticism (even from the period they were created) is that they aren't erotic enough. A lot of people found it slightly disturbing that a beautiful nude could be handled as coldly and formally as a rock or a shell ... while right next to might be picture of a vegetable that's almost uncomfortably erotic. Personally, I never thought his nudes were cold, but I think this is interesting criticism, and some people still seem to react this way quite strongly.

[Mark Sawyer]

While I don't find EW's nudes "cold," neither do I find them erotic or sentimental. Usually they seem more of a formal study, echoing similar concerns in his dunes and veggies. Some peppers do seem rather erotic, but the cabbage and mushrooms seem more manifestations of a natural beauty. But then, out of 100 critics, 99 will have different ways of seeing his work. That may be EW's biggest strength.

Perhaps he was a closet vegi-sexual...

[Michael Jones]

I find it interesting that the one person in this thread so infatuated with Weston's morals also fits into a conundrum Weston pointed out in his Daybooks: who questions the morals of his butcher?

How does it matter? The result is that either the photographs move you or you got a good slice of meat.

By the way, Weston was not an "ARTISTE." He was an incredibly gifted and talented photgrapher; one of the most gifted thus far. He was human, however.

mike

[Mike Davis]

Paul,

I agree about Robert Adams essay. It's great writing and I like it.

That being said, I have read biographies and autobiographies of Weston, Ansel Adams, Diane Arbus, Stieglitz, Georgia O'Keefe and many others.

Biographical criticism is lacking, textual criticism can be lacking, deconstructionist criticism is certainly lacking. But sometimes, when we combine all of the above we can reach an understanding that helps to put an artist's work into focus. I don't care whether Weston was sleeping with Flora, Henietta, Tina, Sonya or Charis. I do care about his art, the rules he made, the ones he broke and the way he affects photography even today. It's interesting to read the daybooks and look at the photos that he's talking about making.

A revelation for me was a Latin American art exhibit at the Virginia Museum which included works by Bravo, Rivera and Orozco. Seeing works by artists that Weston wrote of in the Daybooks helped put some things into better perspective for me.

[Mark Sawyer]

"By the way, Weston was not an "ARTISTE." He was an incredibly gifted and talented photographer; one of the most gifted thus far. He was human, however. "

And an artist, excuse me, "ARTISTE" is not?

"I find it interesting that the one person in this thread so infatuated with Weston's morals also fits into a conundrum Weston pointed out in his Daybooks: who questions the morals of his butcher?"

I can understand how people could worry about the moral outlook of the artist who's work they hang on the wall, put on their bookshelf, or generally just respond too. Many people feel a personal connection to the artist/photographer/whatever through the work. We are responding to what he responded to, through what he created, through his vision carried by the artifact he created. If there is meaning in art, there is meaning in that connection. I suppose some of us are more comfortable making that connection with someone we respect on a personal level.

Weston was a bit irresponsible, a bohemiam womanizer, sometimes a jerk, I suppose, according to books and legends. I can live with that, though, and I don't feel bad making a connection to him through his photographs. EW was okay by me.

[Chuck_1686]

I have heard some people say that Weston's personal life affected how they felt about his photography. They all are female. Maybe women view this differently.