View Full Version : Would you sell your work to decorators?
David Spivak-Focus Magazine
8-Aug-2009, 23:52
Very simple question -- would you sell your art to someone so they could decorate their home or office with your work?
Should art be used as decoration?
Is this a trick question?
spiky247
9-Aug-2009, 00:34
What is art? Can art serve any other functional purpose? At that point is it still art? How else can you use art? Is photography art?
Yes, this is indeed a trick question!
kev curry
9-Aug-2009, 01:22
If a bunch of little Left leaning Red and Green Muppet's from the planet Koozebane contacted you requesting subscriptions to your magazine, expressly to be used as special toilet paper by their esteemed leader Kermit the Great, would you take their bank details?
Should art be used as decoration?
HAH!
I'm sorry and no disrespect, but that is clearly a question asked by someone with no understanding of art history, culture or context. That's like asking a builder, "should bricks be used for housing?"
Tom Conway
9-Aug-2009, 04:11
My photography hangs in many homes and offices, sometimes with the assistance of decorators, and sometimes over the objections of same!
Robert A. Zeichner
9-Aug-2009, 04:13
I would think anyone that hopes to sell their prints would be glad to have yet another outlet for doing so, particularly in the current state of the economy. Where I think you are going with this (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is the difference between having say, a good gallery promoting ones work to specific individuals who might appreciate the artists style or technique (perhaps a collector of photography who doesn't necessarily have a space on the wall he or she is trying to fill) vs. an interior decorator who is more apt to be looking for something to specifically fill a space on a wall in a certain style of frame and of a certain size without necessarily having a particular artist in mind. Am I on the right track with that?
Well, a sale is a sale and photographers have to eat. I wouldn't refuse to sell through a decorator, but in doing so, I would have to be prepared for some of my work to be re-framed and re-matted in ways I wouldn't care to imagine and placed in spaces that might not be lit in ways I would prefer. That's not to say there aren't some decorators somewhere who would get it right, but I haven't met any yet. I would also have to be satisfied to live with the disconnect of the decorator not being able to discuss my work or who I am with the potential buyer. In other words, my work is not going to be promoted as my art so much as an accessory that might look good over that end table in that corner there. And, the decorators customer might not really care anyway. This is why a lot of Ansel Adams calendars and similar reproductions get cut up and dry mounted and framed. There is a restaurant near my place of work who had a decorator come in to do their thing and this is exactly what happened. There are 6 of Adams calendar pages framed as a group on one wall and two of the 6 are the same image! The restaurant is packed at lunchtime every day and nobody else seems to notice.
A lot of marketing going on in this forum these days. Shouldn't this be in the For Sale (Sell At Your Own Risk) section?
Robert A. Zeichner
9-Aug-2009, 05:27
A lot of marketing going on in this forum these days. Shouldn't this be in the For Sale (Sell At Your Own Risk) section?
If you look carefully at the category this was posted in you will see that it is exactly appropriate.
"Business Business aspects of LF photography, including legal, marketing and promotion."
Greg Lockrey
9-Aug-2009, 06:02
Yeah, I'll "prostitute" my work and help others do the same. Decorating homes and offices is where the money is. This is a silly question.
If you look carefully at the category this was posted in you will see that it is exactly appropriate.
"Business Business aspects of LF photography, including legal, marketing and promotion."
Robert you are correct about the category, but this guy contributes NOTHING to this forum except lounge lizard waste and marketing for his rag and I would not be defending him or his practices. He uses this forum as part of his marketing plan and unknown newbies to the photo making club are his target.
I am not selling any print to a decorator unless I can make sure that it truly complements the sofa and coffee table it is supposed to match.
Bruce Watson
9-Aug-2009, 06:43
Very simple question -- would you sell your art to someone so they could decorate their home or office with your work?
Should art be used as decoration?
My answer is the same for both questions: Absolutely!
Boy, It really is a dumb question. Does a car maker worry how the car is used? Or the mouth exploding, tooth repairing tooth past maker care if I were to polish perspex with it? Hell the ethics police are out now, you buy, you pay but by hell you'll do what I tell you with it.
Hmmm, ????????, Does it come with an embedded chip by any chance?
Brian Ellis
9-Aug-2009, 07:26
[QUOTE=David Spivak-Focus Magazine;495134]Very simple question -- would you sell your art to someone so they could decorate their home or office with your work? . . QUOTE]
Only in a heart beat.
Frank Petronio
9-Aug-2009, 07:36
Every married man needs a 30x40 of Meagan's boobs in his office. It sets the right tone.
Ted Stoddard
9-Aug-2009, 07:36
Of course money is money as long as your getting paid... I have many images all over the US selling to a decorator is just another avenue of making some CASH....
"Money talks bullshit walks" end of story...
David Spivak-Focus Magazine
9-Aug-2009, 08:50
Good -- I expected this kind of reaction from most of you.
I'm having an interesting conversation with a photo dealer who refuses to sell any of the work he sells to people who want to use the art to decorate their home. He only wants to sell to SERIOUS photography collectors.
He states that people who would purchase art for the purpose of decorating are "NOT collectors" and that he doesn't want those kinds of buyers, because they cost you to much, versus a life-time client. I do indeed pre-qualify them."
He's not the first person I've heard say something to this effect. Other people I've spoken with, some even photographers, have said that their work is art and not decoration.
Where does the disconnect occur between people who want to buy a beautiful photograph to hang over their fireplace and someone who is a "serious collector?" Can anyone in today's economy truly turn business away from a casual buyer who wants to purchase something for their home or office vs. a "serious collector" even though the casual decorators number in the millions and the serious collectors number only in the high thousands?
art isn't decoration ... you are kidding, right ?
what do "serious collectors" do with their "art" ?
Very simple question -- would you sell your art to someone so they could decorate their home or office with your work?
Should art be used as decoration?
No way. I only sell to people that hate my work and use it exclusively to uglify their home or office. :rolleyes:
Richard M. Coda
9-Aug-2009, 09:20
Why not? In fact I have a meeting next week with a person who deals with decorators for corporate and hi-end homes.
Art is meant to be enjoyed... not sit in a box.
kev curry
9-Aug-2009, 09:23
A ''photo dealer who refuses to sell any of the work he sells to people who want to use the art to decorate their home''.
Among many many other things, I'm convinced your a fantasist.
You should hire an animator and start writing and producing your own weekly comic.
Is this ''photo dealer'' another one of your numerous alter ego's or does he/she have a real name, business address and web site?
He states that people who would purchase art for the purpose of decorating are "NOT collectors" and that he doesn't want those kinds of buyers, because they cost you to much, versus a life-time client. I do indeed pre-qualify them."
Well, defining investor-collectors as the only true type is native or boneheaded. But it may be perfectly valid for him to restrict his sales that way - if his personal skills are strongly biased towards art investment, he can expect to be reasonably successful selling to investor-collectors, while getting into business with people that collect for reasons he can't understand is likely to end in disappointments on either side...
David Spivak-Focus Magazine
9-Aug-2009, 09:26
A ''photo dealer who refuses to sell any of the work he sells to people who want to use the art to decorate their home''.
Among many many other things, I'm convinced your a fantasist.
Come join the conversation then.
http://www.facebook.com/s.php?q=photography+collecting&init=quick#/group.php?gid=7096866250&ref=search
Mark Sawyer
9-Aug-2009, 09:32
I'm having an interesting conversation with a photo dealer who refuses to sell any of the work he sells to people who want to use the art to decorate their home. He only wants to sell to SERIOUS photography collectors.
Maybe the question should be, "As you try to support yourself through selling your own work, would you want to be represented by a dealer who repeatedly turns away willing buyers of your work because they don't meet his qualifications as "SERIOUS" collectors?"
Robert A. Zeichner
9-Aug-2009, 09:34
Where does the disconnect occur between people who want to buy a beautiful photograph to hang over their fireplace and someone who is a "serious collector?" Can anyone in today's economy truly turn business away from a casual buyer who wants to purchase something for their home or office vs. a "serious collector" even though the casual decorators number in the millions and the serious collectors number only in the high thousands?
I now see where you are going with this. At first, I thought you were asking about marketing ones work through a professional interior decorator, someone who gets paid to pick drapery patterns, lamps, wall color etc. And that's not a slam directed at that profession. It's just not the ideal way I would like to see my work marketed. Others may have no problem with that. In such a situation, the disconnect is between the artist (or gallery reping the artist) and the ultimate owner of the image. The professional interior decorator may know nothing about the artist or photography and won't be able, in most cases to answer questions or say anything to help promote the work or encourage buying more of it.
It appears that by decorator, what you really mean is a person who is not necessarily seeking to collect photographs per se, but has in mind, buying a photograph to occupy a specific spot on his or her wall(s). I rather enjoy selling photographs to such individuals and equally like it when my gallery owner does so as well. This is how you cultivate interest in photography as art and one way to get people started in collecting. I can't remember who first said it, but if you own more photographs than you have room to display, you are a collector. If that's true, than the difference between owning photography and being a collector is at some point just one photograph!
QT Luong
9-Aug-2009, 11:21
A ''photo dealer who refuses to sell any of the work he sells to people who want to use the art to decorate their home''.
Among many many other things, I'm convinced your a fantasist.
Actually, it is not uncommon for high end art galleries to sell only to the "qualified" buyers. The thinking goes like that: as a gallerist with long-term thought, you want to help your artists increase their reputations. One's reputation is enhanced by placing art in museums and prominent collections. Since gallery prices are fixed (unlike auction prices), there is no point of selling to a "decorator" if you can sell the same piece to a collector. Some pieces are in such high demand that you will sell them anyways. There are even waiting lists.
Note, however, that in general those pieces are one-of a kind (paintings, sculpture) rather than photographs. Also, the original question is provocative, because nobody on this forum (and maybe no living photographer) has a status in the art world that would justify such strategies.
Duane Polcou
9-Aug-2009, 11:55
Read photographer's resumes. For many their degree of cred, it would seem, is dictated by how many museums and collections hold their work. It's like saying in order to be respected in the art world, your prints must sit largely unseen in archival boxes somewhere just so you can lay claim to have achieved the status of someone saying your prints are worthy of being there.
Jim Galli
9-Aug-2009, 12:33
My dream has always been to flick on Archie Bunker and have my B&W's gracing the walls in those movie sets. Call me a whore but if someone pays for a print from me I don't care if they put it out in the garage floor for the British car to drip oil on.
David Spivak-Focus Magazine
9-Aug-2009, 12:47
Also, the original question is provocative, because nobody on this forum (and maybe no living photographer) has a status in the art world that would justify such strategies.
Then are galleries doing a disservice to a photographer by over-qualifying potential customers? If I want my photography in as many homes as possible, but my dealer refuses to sell my work to just anyone, how do I make money? Would there be more "rich" photographers if galleries sold a photographer's work to anyone who wanted to buy it? If so, would the "status" of a photographer be diminished by the overwhelming availability of the work? And does status matter when you have enough money to pay off your mortgage in 10 years because of all of the photography you've sold?
Why can't people who love a photograph simply just buy it?
I've read about some people's quibbles about Michael Kenna lately - how he is producing more and more work that is the same thing as it's always been. And yet his work is selling -- very well I might add. But the quality of the work may not be as good to the eye of the serious collector - but might be just fine for the average person who wants a Kenna hanging above his fireplace.
The art world is certainly full of contradictions. No wonder there are so few photographers who make their living strictly off of sales of fine art photography.
Duane Polcou
9-Aug-2009, 12:50
Call me a whore
Aren't you in Nevada? I believe they're called hostesses..:D .
My dream has always been to flick on Archie Bunker and have my B&W's gracing the walls in those movie sets. Call me a whore but if someone pays for a print from me I don't care if they put it out in the garage floor for the British car to drip oil on.
"One of these days, Jim, one of these days!"
Actually, it is not uncommon for high end art galleries to sell only to the "qualified" buyers. The thinking goes like that: as a gallerist with long-term thought, you want to help your artists increase their reputations. One's reputation is enhanced by placing art in museums and prominent collections. Since gallery prices are fixed (unlike auction prices), there is no point of selling to a "decorator" if you can sell the same piece to a collector. Some pieces are in such high demand that you will sell them anyways. There are even waiting lists.
QT, I suppose anything's possible, but I've never in my life heard of anything like this. In cases where a piece is actually in such high demand (and these are very rare cases), the market price takes care the dilemma elegantly: only collectors are going to spend the big money on art.
It's true that most high end galleries put their resources into selling to collectors, rather than to decorators or walk-in buyers. But that's just smart business. They got to be top galleries by knowing their customers, and at the higher levels that's going to be collectors of one kind or another.
To a degree, I understand the dilemma posed by the original question. Artists often care about their work beyond its value in commerce. There is a difference between art and decoration, even there is often a big overlap. I'd rather have my work on the walls of someone who gets it and loves it, rather than have it on the wall above a couch that it happens to match.
And as someone mentioned, artists often care about sales for career reasons ... a sale to a collection is worth a line on the resumé; a sale to Motel 6 probably isn't.
Still, not too many of us have the luxury of being so picky. If someone wants to buy one of my prints to decorate the doghouse, I'm in no position to argue. Yes, I'd rather be selling to the Whitney or the Tate Gallery. Yes, I'm going to keep my mouth shut, except to say, "thank you."
The art world is certainly full of contradictions. No wonder there are so few photographers who make their living strictly off of sales of fine art photography.
No surprise that there are apparent contraditions, since there's really no such thing as "the art world." There are many, many art worlds, some of which share a few inhabitants, some of which barely know about one another.
Michael Kenna is not in the same world as Andreas Gursky. And he's not in the same world as my Aunt who sells paintings at art fairs and at shows in health clubs. These are all art worlds. They don't all follow the same rules.
QT Luong
9-Aug-2009, 14:16
> QT, I suppose anything's possible, but I've never in my life heard of anything like this. In cases where a piece is actually in such high demand (and these are very rare cases), the market price takes care the dilemma elegantly: only collectors are going to spend the big money on art.
Ah, but like all galleries and artists are not equal, so are collectors, and money is not everything.
> Then are galleries doing a disservice to a photographer by over-qualifying potential customers?
As I wrote, this strategy is rarely, if ever, applied to living photographers, because the supply is not scarce enough.
> If I want my photography in as many homes as possible, but my dealer refuses to sell my work to just anyone, how do I make money?
Find another dealer
> Would there be more "rich" photographers if galleries sold a photographer's work to anyone who wanted to buy it?
No (see above).
> And does status matter when you have enough money to pay off your mortgage in 10 years because of all of the photography you've sold?
If you are a true art world star, you'll buy your house cash.
pablo batt
9-Aug-2009, 14:22
photography is not art
QT, can you show me an example of this practice? I'd be curious.
Especially with dead photographers; they don't have a resume to build, and any issues of scarcity will be reflected in market price.
In my experience, the galleries that specialize in the Famous Dead are more purely intrusted in money than those who take risks on the fickle, the not-yet-famous, the living.
Some "A list" artists have more buyers than art and have the enviable conundrum of choosing which buyers to favor with a deal.
Some canny, or conniving, depending on one's point of view, galleries make quite a big thing out of having a waiting list for certain artists works. With some artists and their galleries, you don't even get to choose what work you will get, if you want to stay on the buyers list, unless you are an especially active buyer. No matter how much the system stinks, it does exist at the very high end.
At the low end, where I live, I'll sell to a decorator, and I'll be grateful. An artist who argues about what sort of individual is buying on some lofty artistic/moral grounds sounds immature and self absorbed.
David Spivak-Focus Magazine
9-Aug-2009, 14:37
No surprise that there are apparent contraditions, since there's really no such thing as "the art world." There are many, many art worlds, some of which share a few inhabitants, some of which barely know about one another.
Michael Kenna is not in the same world as Andreas Gursky. And he's not in the same world as my Aunt who sells paintings at art fairs and at shows in health clubs. These are all art worlds. They don't all follow the same rules.
What's with the Michael Kenna knock?
I say only Yes....
Stefano
Greg Lockrey
9-Aug-2009, 14:45
photography is not art
It's more craft.
What's with the Michael Kenna knock?
Did I knock him? I just said he's in a different art world from the other two. I'd be surprised if there's much overlap between the buyers of those artists.
It's more craft.
Or how about just calling it a medium. Like painting, or sculpture, or film, or video. If you want to make art, use your medium of choice to make art.
PViapiano
9-Aug-2009, 15:34
I've read about some people's quibbles about Michael Kenna lately - how he is producing more and more work that is the same thing as it's always been. And yet his work is selling -- very well I might add. But the quality of the work may not be as good to the eye of the serious collector - but might be just fine for the average person who wants a Kenna hanging above his fireplace.
Who's quibbling about Kenna? He has a style, a look and it is meticulously printed. You either like it or you don't.
But to say the quality of the work is not there, is just plain wrong.
Many people in the art world, and elsewhere, want to see the evolution of artists and hate what they perceive to be standstill, but it's not up to them to decide when it's time for the artist to move on, it's up to the artist themselves to decide when they have exhausted their inquiry.
Collectors can remind me of critics sometimes, they make these comments because they can't do for themselves. A lot of uncreative people try to weasel in to the arts world, and because of their own inadequacies try to spoil everyone else's party, be it it music, art, dance or photography.
QT Luong
9-Aug-2009, 16:26
QT, can you show me an example of this practice? I'd be curious.
Especially with dead photographers; they don't have a resume to build, and any issues of scarcity will be reflected in market price.
In my experience, the galleries that specialize in the Famous Dead are more purely intrusted in money than those who take risks on the fickle, the not-yet-famous, the living.
I don't know if dead artists are part of it or not, but this practice is mentioned in several accounts of the Art World, including the most entertaining and well-researched I have seen, "Seven Days in the Art World" by Sarah Thornton. Note that I used capital letters for Art World, because as you wrote correctly there are several of them, but you understand which particular one I am referring to. Think about it, if anybody could buy on the primary market, why would there be auctions ?
The pieces being sold at auction tend to be the most buzzworthy, not the least. And they're generally bought by collectors.
I see auctions as a way to really milk the rarity/exclusivity of certain works ... not as a way to bring the art the rabble. The blue chip galleries with storefronts seem to serve that role much better. I can walk off the street into PaceWildenstein or Yoshi Milo or Yancey Richardson on any day of the week. All the work on the walls and in the flat files comes with a price tag. The only thing between me and it is the required $$$!
Anyway, I'll see if I can find a copy of the Sarah Thornton piece, so I can get a better idea of what you're talking about.
QT Luong
9-Aug-2009, 17:32
I see auctions as a way to really milk the rarity/exclusivity of certain works ... not as a way to bring the art the rabble.
"Rabble" doesn't really apply there, but there is some elite status that mere money cannot buy.
Wayne Crider
9-Aug-2009, 17:53
I'm having an interesting conversation with a photo dealer who refuses to sell any of the work he sells to people who want to use the art to decorate their home. He only wants to sell to SERIOUS photography collectors.
He states that people who would purchase art for the purpose of decorating are "NOT collectors" and that he doesn't want those kinds of buyers, because they cost you to much, versus a life-time client. I do indeed pre-qualify them."
So I'm wondering what happened here; Someone walked in and wanted a lower price on this serious and supposedly high priced dealer art work, with perhaps a mention about future business for the dealer (notorious line) and he said scram? Or was it a case where the dealer didn't want to be associated with decorators in general which might turn off his/her's collecting customer base if word got out they were dealing with the 20 for a buck people. Of course nothing diffuses the value of art like too many editions/prints circulating around; And on den walls.
I lived with a decorator with impeccable taste in art. If she had the (customers) money to put a "supposedly" valuable piece of photographic art on a wall, then I would say that the owner was lucky to have a person with "an eye" guide them; And maybe they might think about collecting. Or was this just a $500 sale.
I worked for a multi-millionaire photographic/art collector. He got all the collectors magazines, bid by phone or thru someone in auctions or bought privately thru dealers. I seriously doubt much of it was on shown on a public store front wall.
If I even had the chance to be represented I would question the gallery a little more about their sales policy's, and I wonder just how the supposedly collectible people got to the position where they became collectible without doing the hard times?
Just my crazy thoughts. :rolleyes:
Feck it, no curator is going to look at me-
if I wasn't represented by architects and designers
(we don't say 'Decorators' in Ireland unless we mean someone to hang your wallpaper,
and even then, the skill levels are variable)-
none of my stuff would go on a wall.
At least this is a forum, and not an elitism.
So I get to stir my plebian oar.
Of course, your meterage may vary-
joseph
Greg Lockrey
9-Aug-2009, 19:36
Or how about just calling it a medium. Like painting, or sculpture, or film, or video. If you want to make art, use your medium of choice to make art.
Actually thay are all crafts, how well it's done (originality etc.) makes it "art".
Drew Wiley
9-Aug-2009, 19:55
Would you sell your work to someone who just left it in a little box under their bed?
When they die, their nephew will probably just throw it in the dumpster anyway.
I know a museum which had the full collection of a frontier photographer who
roamed the plains setting up a 48" plate camera. Think of what he went through taking each shot! Because the insurance company wouldn't allow the museum to store the negatives, they deliberately burnt them all. What makes you think
anyone will give a rat's a. about any of our own pictures 50 years from now?
Doug Dolde
9-Aug-2009, 20:42
Why the hell not?
something that might be a big part of the issue: decorators often work with art dealers who are specially set up for the job. When a decorator buys art, it's very different from a collector buying art; they buy piles of it at a time, and have a completely different set of requirements than either a serious collector or a casual one.
The typical client is a motel or restaurant or office ... or a chain of one of the above. The decorator needs work that's the right size, has the right look, the right vibe, the right quantity, and the right price.
It's not like they're going to a gallery and plopping down $5000 for a print that wil look just right next to the client's piano. At least that's not the bulk of the job. I doubt any gallery would have a problem with that kind of sale to a decorator.
Drew Wiley
9-Aug-2009, 23:22
Well, I do find this thread stupid. But I should give a specific reason. In the past I've
been approached by decorators, art buyers, whatever you want to call them, who
were also advisors to major museums. OK, let's call it moonlighting. But their clients
were in fact collectors who wanted framed works for personal decor. Why can't a
fine print be on the wall? Or maybe you want a portfolio box for a 30X40? Not all
decorators work for banks and motels! In a couple of instances I've had people fly
clear across the country to look at prints, or in one instance, to purchase a single
one an fly back with it. Their estate recently contacted me. Can't tell me those folks
didn't have money - especially since nobody knows who the hell I am except for
word of mouth. No cool books, no nothin' except some gallery gigs way back. But
I still hear from people who have my prints safely hung away from sunlight and are
enjoying them right on the walls. I was asked the value of one of them recently -
how should I know. Take what you paid for the thing and extrapolate for inflation,
blah, blah, blah! All I care is that the thing is still appreciated!
Not all decorators work for banks and motels! In a couple of instances I've had people fly clear across the country to look at prints, or in one instance, to purchase a single one an fly back with it.
This thread probably suffers from us lumping all kinds of buyers/dealers/middlemen/consultants together under one title. When I say decorator, I have in my head one kind of person (described in a previous post). You're describing someone in a very different role.
I'd also suggest that hanging art on a wall doesn't make it decoration. Art hangs on walls at museums ... it hasn't been chosen to make the room look spiffy or to match the rug. It's there to be looked at as its own thing.
When I hear "decorator," I think of an interior design consultant, not an art collecting consultant. Their interest is primarily the room, not the art. The art for them has primarily an esthetic role, and a purely subordinate one.
William McEwen
10-Aug-2009, 06:00
I'm having an interesting conversation with a photo dealer who refuses to sell any of the work he sells to people who want to use the art to decorate their home. He only wants to sell to SERIOUS photography collectors.
I thought Stieglitz died in 1946.
Actually, that was part of his method. It's said that he would wear some customers down about their worthiness to the point they were begging him to sell him artwork.
William McEwen
10-Aug-2009, 06:02
If a bunch of little Left leaning Red and Green Muppets from the planet Koozebane contacted you requesting subscriptions to your magazine, expressly to be used as special toilet paper by their esteemed leader Kermit the Great, would you take their bank details?
LOL
Kev, this is probably the funniest post I've ever read on this forum.
David Spivak-Focus Magazine
10-Aug-2009, 07:45
LOL
Kev, this is probably the funniest post I've ever read on this forum.
You haven't been here long enough. The Lounge was a real knee slapper back in the day!
Scott Davis
10-Aug-2009, 08:34
I think the biggest issue with decorators vs gallerists/collectors is the idea of having a relationship with the art and/or artist. I did sell a piece to a decorator once- she was more concerned with the framing dimensions, which as an artist, felt demeaning to me. I was happy enough to cash her check, but it left me rather cold at the end of the transaction. I suppose I can get away with feeling that way about my work because I don't have to rely on sales to put food on the table; were that the case, I'd probably be more aggressive in pursuing those kinds of transactions because they're relatively easy money. Since I have the luxury of not needing to make sales to survive, I prefer the pain in the ass from an over-involved customer than the pain in the ass from the disinvolved customer. I make my art because I WANT to, and because I have a personal emotional investment in each image. I'd rather not sell directly to someone who doesn't, and if I have a gallery that does business with that kind of clientele, I'd rather not know about it.
I understand why some galleries don't like that kind of business, and I also understand why some galleries will refuse to represent artists who do that kind of business - decorators, especially those who buy in volume, want discounts on price. They want to treat art as a commodity. The volume discount in turn lowers the value of the artists' work across the board. It undercuts any other gallery representing that artist, and it undercuts the artist him/herself.
Since galleries are not in business to lose money on a transaction, if they have to discount the price of the work to make a sale, they'll discount the payment to the artist so they still get their cut. How many artists would stay at a gallery that consistently sends them less than the agreed upon selling price for their work because " I needed to discount your work to make a big sale"?
Dave Wooten
10-Aug-2009, 09:35
Edward Curtis portraits are sold by museums on jewelry boxes. Notice all the art work sold by museums in their gift shops....ties, hats, umbrellas, purses. Art of the old masters was commissioned-commercial art- to adorn and often glorify those commissioning the work. Designers and decorators are excellent sources for the sale of photography...if one is fortunate enough to be able to make photographs that another would actually want to purchase and put on display, well then I guess one has entered the coveted ranks of professional.
Answer to the question is Yes.
Louie Powell
10-Aug-2009, 09:50
Many years ago, I stayed at the Vanderbilt Plaza Hotel in Nashville. I was very pleased to see that the guest rooms were decorated with photographs of flowers by Robert Mapplethorpe.
The fact that his pictures were used for decoration didn't compromise his integrity, and didn't diminish the artistic merit of his work. It did pay the rent and helped moderate his somewhatly tarnished reputation among the rednecks of Tennessee.
That ain't a bad thing.
I also stayed at the Sheraton Hotel on Canal Street in New Orleans where the guest rooms are decorated with photographs by Louis Suhac. Seeing his work in my room inspired me to make a special effort to visit his gallery.
That ain't bad either.
Publicists claim that the only issue with notoriety is that you're name must be spelled correctly.
Daniel Grenier
10-Aug-2009, 09:56
The difference between a decorator and a collector is that one of them cares more about the frame than the art work.
Brian K
10-Aug-2009, 10:17
The bread and butter of most artists and most galleries is not the hard core collector but rather art consultants representing commercial clients, interior designers, hotels,offices, etc. Sales to people coming in off the street are also a big part of sales. Now maybe the highest end, and most expensive galleries only sell to collectors, but that is a minority.
Personally I'd rather sell my work to someone who will hang it in their home, live with it, make it a part of their lives, than someone who is just going to put it in a box in a cabinet and look at it once a year. Selling to collectors is good for your ego, selling to people who truly love your work is good for your soul.
The bread and butter of most artists and most galleries...
I'd ammend that by saying most artists of a certain type, and most galleries of a certain type.
I rarely stumble into galleries that are representing the kinds of work and artists that get sold to decorators. They're out there, no doubt. But I don't think galleries in every class are doing this kind of business with any regularity.
The higher end galleries make virtually all of their money by selling to collectors. Their greatest asset is the client list that they've built up over years and years. For a lot of these galleries, the exhibition space is mostly for publicity, prestige, creating a buzz. Very few sales come from strangers walking in off the street. Those sales are certainly welcome ... they're just infrequent and unreliable.
Gary Beasley
10-Aug-2009, 12:58
I have and will continue to do so as long as anyone wants to buy a print.
nathanm
10-Aug-2009, 15:07
Very simple question -- would you sell your art to someone so they could decorate their home or office with your work?
Yes, but only under any circumstances.
All kidding aside, I only sell my prints for display in sheds. This can be any reasonably small structure used primarily for storage and not human dwelling. Outhouses do not count unless they have been converted for shed use. I like to think of my work being surrounded by rakes and shovels and the scent of cut grass and gasoline. A propane or tool shed is also acceptable in certain cases. Since people only enter their sheds for brief moments of time this ensures that my photo will not wear on the owner as it would if it were hanging over a couch or in a hallway. Some people have asked if they could buy a print for treehouse use, which I may consider allowing, but my gut feeling is that it's not quite sheddy enough.
Nathan, there aren't enough Conceptual Artists on this forum.
Thank you for redressing the balance.
Joseph
Nathan, isn't your work actually on the wall of this shed (http://www.theonion.com/content/magazine/americas_worthless_old_sheds)? (not visible in the picture).
Your post made me laugh ... but deliberately or not there's a seed of truth in there. People make art (or wicker baskets, or toaster cozies, or whatever they do) for all kinds of reasons. Some sell as a priority, and some don't like to sell it at all. So it follows that some will like to sell under some circumstances but not others. given this, I don't feel justified ridiculing people just for having preferences about who they'll sell to.
Granted, some may be motivated by high principles, while others are motivated by self-agrandizement, snottiness, or preciousness. There are many cringeworthy motivations in life. But If I don't actually know why an artist choses to sell only to collectors, or only to outhouse administrators, I'm not going to pretend i do.
Jim collum
10-Aug-2009, 16:49
I rarely stumble into galleries that are representing the kinds of work and artists that get sold to decorators. They're out there, no doubt. But I don't think galleries in every class are doing this kind of business with any regularity.
Although i suspect there's been a downturn in the current economy, a gallery that has represented me has made a very large number of sales to corporate clients... and not in collections, but decorations (law offices, corporate headquarters, hospitals, etc). I've had my prints sold in lots that contained prints by Roman Loranc, George Tice, Charles Cramer.. all for decoration.
Mark Sawyer
10-Aug-2009, 16:53
I have some of my own work hanging in my living room. Guess I'll have to either take it down or get a couch it doesn't go with...
:(
Although i suspect there's been a downturn in the current economy, a gallery that has represented me has made a very large number of sales to corporate clients... and not in collections, but decorations (law offices, corporate headquarters, hospitals, etc). I've had my prints sold in lots that contained prints by Roman Loranc, George Tice, Charles Cramer.. all for decoration.
That's interesting. Sounds like clients with a serious decorating budget?
Do you mind if I ask the gallery?
Brian K
11-Aug-2009, 05:44
This whole thing about collectors versus work being purchased as decoration seems to be more about ego than the work. The vast majority of the art considered to be the greatest of all time, from Michelangelo to Monet, the art that fills the most prestigious of the world's museums, was originally used as decoration. While it's nice that people with a larger knowledge of the photography or art world find merit in one's work, many of those same people collect work not based on the merit of it but on the notoriety of it. Collectors often prefer a more rare, but less important piece by a known artist, over a more highly regarded, but more available piece. Scarcity is a desired criteria for many collectors, which is why many galleries pressure photographers to limit their edition sizes.
I for one have no delusions about my work. I produce the images that I want to see, and if someone wants to hang it over their couch, or bury it in an archival box, that's their decision.
D. Bryant
11-Aug-2009, 05:46
Very simple question -- would you sell your art to someone so they could decorate their home or office with your work?
Should art be used as decoration?
Not only yes but hell yes. There is potentially a good "hidden" market that can be exploited by photographers of all walks by selling to interior design companies that work closely with architectural firms to help decorate interiors of new structures.
These are the types of projects where original "art" is sought out at "reasonable rates" to their clients. They can produce a very handsome income for a photographer and I know a couple of pro photogs that have turned to that market with the downturn in commercial assignements. It has worked very well for them once they established there contacts.
Don Bryant
John Bowen
11-Aug-2009, 07:28
Very simple question -- would you sell your art to someone so they could decorate their home or office with your work?
Should art be used as decoration?
This question reminds me of a story told to me by my good friend, Bruce Barlow (a frequent contributor to this forum). Bruce shared with me that "back in the day" he worked for IBM as consultant. While attending a conference at an IBM conference center located somewhere in CA, he noticed his room had ORIGINAL AA prints hanging on the wall. Bruce inquired of the person who was in charge of the conference center how they acquired the prints and was told "Oh, Mr. Adams would load a bunch of prints in his car and bring them by for us to view/purchase. We paid about $150/print." :eek: Bruce tells me the next time he attended a conference at said conference center, all the AA prints were removed from the walls. I guess someone at IBM figured out they were worth a small fortune.
So, as they say "if it was good enough for Ansel......"
Some of my facts may be off a little bit, but the just of the story is accurate.
John Kasaian
11-Aug-2009, 07:30
I'm a bit late joining in---a virus had the 'puter fried good and crispy and my bride (& macafee) finally just exercised the little critter.
IMHO, art thats hanging on a wall somewhere and appreciated, contributing to life is preferable to art sitting in a vault, which is rather the proper repository for gold boullion and Carson City Silver Dollars, etc...
I'd say the "art dealer" in question is muscleing in on the turf of investment consultants. If it makes him a living, good for him. Bizarre as it is.
My issue with decorators (my sister had one do her home) is that art it seems is more often selected for a room, rather than for the people who live there. A small issue.
Give me an old cracked print propped up on the piano of Uncle Al standing next to his tank after Kasserine Pass, or a shot of the mountain lake with the mist rising to remind of the vacation we took last summer.
Struan Gray
11-Aug-2009, 07:46
We're about due another arts and crafts revival. If I could team up with a contemporary Wiener Werkstätte, Rennie Mackintosh or Carl and Karin Larsson I'd do it in a flash.
For now though, my gesamtkunstwerk high point is my mum re-doing the spare room.
The vast majority of the art considered to be the greatest of all time, from Michelangelo to Monet, the art that fills the most prestigious of the world's museums, was originally used as decoration
I just don't agree with this.
Something isn't decoration just because it's been put on a wall. Wall displays are historically used for all kinds of things, including religious icons, awards and diplomas, and other objects that have some kind of symbolic value to the room's inhabitants (family crests, quilts, symbolic artifacts like swords, etc. etc.).
Going back to classical European art, you'll find that most of the paintings were commissioned by the church, to create images that were iconic and often narrative, and intended for public spaces. Or, they were commissioned by nobility, who wanted portraits, presumeably for self agrandizement. Both of these uses have something in common ... they present an image that's in some way iconic and demanding of reverence. It's a projection of power that draws from the common culture of the institution, the artist, and the viewers.
This isn't decoration, in the sense that the wallpaper and the moulding and the flowers on the table are decoration.
Even as art gradually became secularized and democratized, the best of it held onto deeper roots than just surface esthetics. Artists that I know want to move you. They often want to make you think. They want to share something with you that they found important.
Matching a rug, looking good above a couch, fitting a corporate style, fittng cohesively with the architecture, bringing a room together ... these are qualities high on the priority list for decorators. I don't know any artists who thinks about these things when painting or photographing. And I don't know anyone who considers themselves a collector who thinks about these things when buying.
Brian K
11-Aug-2009, 11:00
Paul most of the commissions of art historically were from the Church or wealthy individuals and lined the walls of homes, churches or centers of commerce. Not archival storage boxes. While art was used to convey messages to mostly illiterate populations, and that is just the work that was publicly displayed, most work was not, it is that the work was beautiful that made it desirable to view. It was it's decorative value that added to a person's home, or a even a church's sense of grandeur, not just the inherent message being communicated. it was about the aesthetics. These works of art are not historical documents but are idealized, beautified interpretations.
Going back further why did early man paint on his cave walls? One could understand painting on a cave wall the location for food or water so that all could see where to get them, now and in the future, but early man painted animals and even his own hand print. Is that so different than people hanging a print on their walls? Hanging something that meant something to them? Even meaningful work can have decorative value.
As for matching a rug I think very few people buy art to match their rug. And even then who is saying that the rug itself is not art? Or the couch?
I do agree with you when you say that you don't know any artists who think about that when producing their work.
I think there is a difference between collecting and just buying work you like to hang in your home. The work that i have bought over the years all means something to me. I buy art nearly every year but I would never consider myself a collector. And I would never buy work that I wouldn't display in my home. I think that for many collectors a big part of collecting is the acquiring. That is the act of getting a piece is the point, not the piece itself.
How different is art collecting, the type where the work is not displayed in one's home, than the collecting of toys and action figures that are never removed from their original packaging?
nathanm
11-Aug-2009, 11:12
I can understand the revulsion towards decorative use of one's work because then it's no longer about the expression of the artist, but now it's being used as a virtual 'throw pillow' for someone else's interior design goals. Personally I want people to like my work for its own sake and not as a potential accessory for their home, but I can't really do anything about their motivations. As long as I'm willing to accept their money my control ends there. I shudder to think of my stuff in some ghastly gold leaf frame I can't stand, but thems the breaks. That's why I try to create non-modular, self-contained art if at all possible where you can't mess with it too much, just take it or leave it.
I look at art as the one area of your life where you have absolute control. (yes, echoes of Bob Ross) This is fine up until the time you desire to share it with the rest of the world, then your control is lessened in one way or another. Once it leaves your house or computer then you forfeit certain things in exchange for others.
I say more power to anyone who has the luxury of being able to choose who they sell too. Sure it might seem elitist and snobby, but hell, if you can pull it off that's excellent. People in such an enviable position must have done something or other to make it through a tough marketplace and have their options open up like that. It's not a world I can personally fathom, but apparently it does exist for some.
Actually thay are all crafts, how well it's done (originality etc.) makes it "art".
Major thread drift warning ... this is the classicist approach to art, but I think we've long outgrown it. For one thing, it doesn't allow for bad art. Which doesn't make sense to me.
But more significantly, it presumes that something created as a craft object (like a chair) if done especially well, becomes art. I happen to think it just becomes a really great chair. Whether or not it becomes art has less to do with how good a chair it is than with its attempt to serve the purposes we associate with art.
If the 20th century had anything to say about the subject, then "art" has almost everything to do with context. If you present something as art, it will be viewed as art. And judged as art. The last part is important; something that would make a great craft object in many people's minds might make a worthless sculpture. So asking people to look at something as art has at least as many risks as benefits.
Paul most of the commissions of art historically were from the Church or wealthy individuals and lined the walls of homes, churches or centers of commerce. Not archival storage boxes.
We're not disagreeing, Brian.
I'm trying to make a point that simply hanging on a wall, or being enjoyable esthetically, does not somehow recontextualize something as decoration. It may have gobs of decorative merrit, but that still doesn't mean that decoration is its primary role.
We've agreed that there are probably a number of kinds of decorators/interior designers/art consultants, just as there are a number of kinds of collectors. My only experience with decorators is ones who deal in volume with large commercial clients, so they're the only ones I feel I can say anything about.
It's their job to find art that will fit a type of decor, a type of mood, a type of clientelle. If they deal with content or metaphor or message in any way, it's usually in the context of making sure there's nothing within the frame that could possibly offend anyone. It's really a different approach from that of an any art collector I've met ... even very casual collectors.
Barry Trabitz
11-Aug-2009, 14:29
Would anybody please give my name to any decorators that they know. I have several dozen matted and framed prints that they can purchase for any reason they wish. The funds received will he;p purchase film, chemicals, and paper.
Thank you,
Barry.
William McEwen
11-Aug-2009, 15:24
Would anybody please give my name to any decorators that they know. I have several dozen matted and framed prints that they can purchase for any reason they wish. The funds received will help purchase film, chemicals, and paper.
Thank you,
Barry.
Same here. If anyone has a mailing list of decorators who sell photography, feel free to send me a copy!
Same here. If anyone has a mailing list of decorators who sell photography, feel free to send me a copy!
A great person to talk to would beMary Virginia Swanson (http://www.mvswanson.com/). Or just get her book that she updates annually. She can steer you toward art-related stock agencies and consultants who specialize in the corporate decorating market.
Don Dudenbostel
14-Aug-2009, 06:10
Absolutely I would and do sell to decorators. Interior designers account for about 25% of my gallery sales. I don't care if a person collects or simply feels my work enhances their environment. My wife is a painter and sells through galleries and feels the same way.
Many of the great masters survived because they took commissions and did essentially commercial art for rich patrons. The Catholic church commissioned many works of are simply to decorate and convey their message. The church wasn't acquiring art to build a massive art collection. You might equate the masters paintings commissioned by the church to modern day advertising posters. The church was decorating space and promoting a religion or business if you want to call it that through art.
AThe Catholic church commissioned many works of are simply to decorate and convey their message.
Decorating and conveying a message are two wildly different goals.
Don Dudenbostel
14-Aug-2009, 12:16
Certainly it is but you can do both with one piece of art. I decorated my office with original WWI and WWII war posters strictly for cover the walls with art. During the war these same posters were used to convey a message and not as art.
rdenney
14-Aug-2009, 12:20
If the 20th century had anything to say about the subject, then "art" has almost everything to do with context. If you present something as art, it will be viewed as art. And judged as art. The last part is important; something that would make a great craft object in many people's minds might make a worthless sculpture. So asking people to look at something as art has at least as many risks as benefits.
In An Experiment in Criticism, C. S. Lewis suggested that art be defined and evaluated on the basis of how it is viewed and appreciated rather than (of course) on the tastes of the critic or (more subtle) the currently popular styles of art. He suggested that if viewers loved and appreciated a work as art, it had to be accepted as art, even if none of the critics particularly like it. That seems to me as though it would allow for bad art (at least art that I think is bad), and would also respect the appreciation given to art by regular people.
One of the problems I see here is the difference between how New York works and how the rest of the country works. (There may be a similar dichotomy between London and the rest of the UK, etc., but I'll limit myself to these shores.) The notion that regular people hire a decorator seems to be a New York concept--everyone I know (here in Loudoun County, VA, the county with the highest median income in the country at least a couple of years ago) does their own decorating and buys stuff they appreciate.
This conversation also brings up a notion of pricing that Paul hinted at but that I think needs further consideration. If I have 10 of something, then it is entirely reasonable for me to want to sell those 10 products to the 10 richest people who want one, in order to obtain the highest price. While it is popular to characterize this as greed, it is not such and in fact many who characterize it that way supported Enron-reaction laws that make it potentially illegal for corporations to adopt any other approach.
But the mechanism for achieving that is in how one sets the price, it seems to me. If the price is going to be low enough for regular people to buy it, then I think the only qualification they need to demonstrate is that their check won't bounce. If a work is worthy of exclusive placement because of its rarity, then it's worth that high price, it seems to me. It's one reason I'll never own an original Adams or Strand, even if I was a serious collector.
And it seems to me that the reason a gallery owner would want to place art in fancy collections or museums is to improve their ability to command a high price for regular people who might want to buy it. Many commented that artists want to be able to brag about those placements, but it seems to me the only value in such is that it improves their value in the market.
I have known artists who dramatically lowered their prices to sell to someone who demonstrated real appreciation for the work but who was not rich. It's a lot easier to do that than to refuse to sell something cheaply priced because the buyer does not measure up to the seller's standard of appreciation or social status.
Someone recounted how Stieglitz would reduce his customers to begging to be allowed to buy works from his gallery. Frank Lloyd Wright had a similar reputation. In an even more different example, I knew a very well-known orchestral musician who was trying to sell a unique (in his mind, at least) instrument, and he would only sell it to another orchestra professional so as to keep it in its intended application. In all three cases, these seem like tactics used by good salespeople to increase the value (and therefore price) of the product by appealing to the exclusivity and buyer's desire.
Any artist is free to place whatever price they choose, and to sell to whomever they choose using whatever legal tactic they think will work. They are also free to go broke if their work does not measure up to those tactics.
Rick "who spent big money on art works over the last year, but would have walked away from someone trying to work him using 'exclusivity' tactics" Denney
In An Experiment in Criticism, C. S. Lewis suggested that art be defined and evaluated on the basis of how it is viewed and appreciated rather than (of course) on the tastes of the critic or (more subtle) the currently popular styles of art. He suggested that if viewers loved and appreciated a work as art, it had to be accepted as art, even if none of the critics particularly like it. That seems to me as though it would allow for bad art (at least art that I think is bad), and would also respect the appreciation given to art by regular people.
Also ... if viewers hate and lambast a work as bad art, it likewise has to be accepted as art. The viewers are regarding it as such. Calling something bad art means you're applying a different set of standards than if you're evaluating it as journalism, document, furniture, etc. etc.
One of the problems I see here is the difference between how New York works and how the rest of the country works.
I think I understand the line you're drawing between markets, but I don't think it's that neatly geographical. There are plenty of NY-style "blue chip" galleries and museums and collections in other urban centers, too. And probably also in a few not-so-urban areas.
Likewise, other more democratic markets are present in NYC and other big cities.
rdenney
14-Aug-2009, 13:59
Also ... if viewers hate and lambast a work as bad art, it likewise has to be accepted as art. The viewers are regarding it as such. Calling something bad art means you're applying a different set of standards than if you're evaluating it as journalism, document, furniture, etc. etc.
That seems to me a necessary corollary.
Rick "using New York as an icon for a certain approach to life, as New York is so often used" Denney
"using New York as an icon for a certain approach to life, as New York is so often used" ...
some of us unwashed new york wretches forget we live in an icon!
tim o'brien
14-Aug-2009, 15:24
I am afraid you all don't have enough money to buy my work, decorator or not...
But you can sure try hard. Make me an offer. *L*
tim in san jose
No doubt, Tim. I don't have enough money to buy my own work.
Mike Putnam
16-Aug-2009, 20:52
Personally, I love decorators who sell my work. They take a smaller percentage than the galleries I've dealt with and they do the leg work. Perfect! Has anyone on here said that they wouldn't sell to decorators?
Mike Putnam Photography (http://www.pacificcreststock.com/blog/)
Photojeep
23-Aug-2009, 20:56
Yup.
Mike Putnam
22-Sep-2009, 21:55
Let me re-phrase my question. Who out there in the online world who happens to be reading this thread and makes more than 50% of their annual income from photography would not sell their work to designers? I suspect the numbers are low. The idea of selling only to discriminating collectors and making a healthy living is elusive at best for most photographers. Sure, someone will chime in with a few names of famous photographers who do very well purely with high end collectors paying their mortgage but in all honesty, if the kids are hungry, are you still not willing to sell to designers? I doubt it, unless you had already planned a hunger strike/crash diet for some other reason.
Mike Putnam
Pacific Crest Photography (http://www.pacificcreststock.com/blog/)
Jim Noel
24-Sep-2009, 09:49
Very simple question -- would you sell your art to someone so they could decorate their home or office with your work?
Should art be used as decoration?
One of the major functions of art has always been decoration. Yes, I would sell to a decorator if they want to spend the money!
toyotadesigner
27-Sep-2009, 10:38
Sure. I do it. Because I never know who might walk in into his shop and purchase my product.
A joiner doesn't care who is going to purchase his handmade table or closet.
As long as the customers pay cash the can get whatever they want. I really don't care if they will frame the print or just nail it to their wall - I'll never see it again.
For me photography is art and crafts and a business. For the decorator it is a high priced commodity. The more he sells the better for me.
Simple as that.
Preston
27-Sep-2009, 17:34
I would sell to a decorator, as well. A skilled decorator would choose location, a mat and a frame that would compliment my work...making for a nice presentation.
It's a good thing for them, and for me.
-Preston
kkeller
30-Sep-2009, 21:34
Those that do deal with decorators how have you approached them?
toyotadesigner
30-Sep-2009, 23:39
I just visited them with some 20 hi res fine art prints on Artist Matte Canvas 13" x 19" (A3+) packed into my presentation box (no reflections, very important). Then asked them if they would be interested in unique decos and showed them the images.
When they showed interest I offered these prints and also larger formats up to 2x3 meters for office, lobby or hall/room decoration, identical quality, hi res. Plus individual images, custom made to the specs and wishes of his clients. You will be amazed how many clients want something related to their town or region in their offices...
Some said 'wow', many didn't know what I meant or had more interest in selling their prefabricated garbage from China (weird situation in Spain).
My personal experience: if they don't invite you into their office but leave you in the show room, forget them - they will be an endless hassle to deal with. They will treat you like an undesirable rep from a parts manufacturer.
Pick only those who show interest and are fascinated themselves, and spend more time with them. In most cases they have very good connections. Once I had a decorator who picked up the phone and asked his client if he had time to talk with someone who delivers solutions. That was one of the best deals with a decorator I've ever made.
BTW, I never agree on commission deals. If they want it, cash into my hands, if not, sorry, good bye.
By no reflections do you mean from the print surface as in use a matte or lustre surfaced paper.
toyotadesigner
2-Oct-2009, 00:55
Yes, the print surface must be matte. Not like a matte or lustre paper - like canvas. AFAIK canvas is the only material that doesn't reflect anything (unless you have applied a protective spray). It literally pulls the viewer into the image because of the rich dark tones and the popping up colors. Just make sure you have some images with a lot of depth, that means a 3D effect.
The advantage of canvas is that you can show it anywhere, no matter how the lighting conditions are - you don't have to twist and turn the image to get rid of flares. OK, artist matte canvas is expensive, but IMHO it's worth the extra money in all aspects.
Jim Ewins
3-Oct-2009, 13:58
if someone appreciates it enough to pay for it why worry if it can or can't be called art. The owner can call it what ever he wants.
Mark Sawyer
3-Oct-2009, 16:11
Very simple question -- would you sell your art to someone so they could decorate their home or office with your work?
Should art be used as decoration?
All things considered, perhaps a decorator should be the favored customer...
A "serious collector" is probably seeking a trinket for status or an investment for profit...
An "art critic" will likely read more into it than is there, or studiously see something else entirely than what it was...
A museum or archive will almost assuredly stash it away, seldom if ever to be seen again...
A "decorator" will show the work to many, and ultimately pass the work on to someone who simply displays and enjoys the work for what it is...
But most of our work by far will follow none of these paths... a more realistic query might be, "will you stick your friends and family with something they don't want, give it to the Salvation Army, or burn it?" :(
pretty much what toyotadesigner said ...
they like to see BIG, and on canvas .. nothing behind glass.
toyotadesigner
3-Oct-2009, 23:14
But most of our work by far will follow none of these paths... a more realistic query might be, "will you stick your friends and family with something they don't want, give it to the Salvation Army, or burn it?"
The answer is simple: wrong!
I shoot most images for clients. The rest will be sold one way or the other. 'Friends' can purchase it, but they want it for free - and you know there is nothing like a free lunch. Family? I don't have a family except my girlfriend. Of course we have decorated our home offices with large prints because we like them. Something like a private gallery to feed our pride. However, they'll be changed every 2 months.
Salvation army or burn it? No way. I don't burn a value. Never.
If it isn't good enough to be sold I don't scan or even print it.
But most of our work by far will follow none of these paths... a more realistic query might be, "will you stick your friends and family with something they don't want, give it to the Salvation Army, or burn it?" :(
you are such a realist mark ...
Mark Sawyer
4-Oct-2009, 11:14
The answer is simple: wrong!
I shoot most images for clients...
I think for a professional commercial photographer, for whom photography itself is primarily an act of commerce, questions like the one at hand don't apply. Not a criticism, just different approaches and concerns...
you are such a realist mark ...
And on behalf of reality, I apologize! ;) (Reality seems to have a lot to apologize for...)
toyotadesigner
4-Oct-2009, 13:27
Not a criticism, just different approaches and concerns...
You assume that I give away prints to family, friends or neighbors. I don't - as I said. The reason should be obvious: They like different things than I do. I could easily give away some prints from my 'gallery' and archives, but why should I go through all the hassle... at the same time I really appreciate that they don't give me their self made dolls, puppets, planters, teddy bears, bbq grills - you name it. It's better they sell this stuff at local markets and avoids embarrassing situations for all of us.
And to be honest: if I read somebody is giving his prints to the salvation army or burns them - well, then I'd say he had missed a lot in his life, especially if it is his personal, private hobby.
.A "serious collector" is probably seeking a trinket for status or an investment for profit...
Do you know any serious collectors? The ones I've known love photography, display it proudly, act as reliable patrons to photographers who need the money, and often make major donations to public collections. I think you're describing frivolous collectors, not serious ones.
An "art critic" will likely read more into it than is there, or studiously see something else entirely than what it was...
You're describing bad critics, not good ones. Anyway, they aren't typically customers; they write about work. Someone writing about your work is generally a Good Thing. Even if they happen to see some things that you don't see. More to the point, they'll get people to look who otherwise wouldn't.
A "decorator" will show the work to many, and ultimately pass the work on to someone who simply displays and enjoys the work for what it is...
At least until the client decides to redecorate :)
a more realistic query might be, "will you stick your friends and family with something they don't want ... :(
That's always a sad question. I've stopped giving pictures as gifts, unless someone has dropped a pretty obvious and specific hint that they want something. I'm a little past the age when my mom's obligated to stick my pictures on the door of the fridge.
Mark Sawyer
6-Oct-2009, 11:04
Do you know any serious collectors? The ones I've known love photography, display it proudly, act as reliable patrons to photographers who need the money, and often make major donations to public collections. I think you're describing frivolous collectors, not serious ones.
I suppose you're right, but you're taking all the fun out of being a contrarian... :o
You're describing bad critics, not good ones...
There are good ones??? :confused:
;)
At least until the client decides to redecorate :)
Well, they can always give them to their kids! Oh, wait, then we're back to that last scenario...
Seriously, though, I think most of us are quite happy when someone is taken by our work enough that they want to purchase it, regardless of the reason. And if it's a decorator who is likely looking to resell it, at least it's an educated buyer who recognizes the work's appeal to someone else's appreciation, whatever that may be.
Perhaps a more practical and business-like question would be, "would you give a professional discount to a decorator who, in reselling your work, is arguably acting in the same capacity as a gallery owner who receives a considerable commission?"
toyotadesigner
6-Oct-2009, 11:56
Perhaps a more practical and business-like question would be, "would you give a professional discount to a decorator who, in reselling your work, is arguably acting in the same capacity as a gallery owner who receives a considerable commission?"
Hm. Why should I give a discount or rebate? Do I get a discount or rebate at the supermarket, gas station, hospital, bakery, car dealer just because I am a photographer?
Gallery owner considerable commission? Nope: if someone wants my prints he can buy them by placing cash on the table. It's the same procedure as with any other 'commodity' I collect in the supermarket: no pay no way through the cashier's lane.
On xmas markets I sell my prints for cash. No discussion. Like my car dealer: car for cash, no discussion.
OK, I just refuse to participate in the dirty rat race of realtors, gallery owners, 'good friends', recommendation partners, etc. Reason: If I would have intended to finance somebody's life I would have chosen a career in a bank. Simple as that.
I don't know who ever had set up this weird system, but it's time for a change. A radical change.
Mark Sawyer
6-Oct-2009, 12:38
Well that would wipe out all private fine art galleries. Whether that's for better of for worse, I suppose we could argue... ;)
A gallery owner provides the space and staff, publicizes the show, and brings in an established clientele to whom he/she presents the work as a desireable purchase. So a work that sells for $1000 may see 40% to 50% go to the gallery, and the rest to the photographer. They have a business to run, and mouths to feed too. The commission is as fair as the mark-up at any other business.
The question is whether a professional decorator who purchases your work might deserve the same discount. On one hand, the decorator may be going out on a limb, hoping it sells to a client. Or it may be used as a "decoration" to help sell something else. But remember, a gallery may insist on exclusive rights to represent your work, and they may never sell a single piece. In the case at hand, the decorator is buying the work immediately. And the decorator may also be putting your work before a large number of people, and may refer buyers to you directly in the future, asking for no commission or commitment.
Worth maybe a 25% discount?
Hm. Why should I give a discount or rebate? Do I get a discount or rebate at the supermarket, gas station, hospital, bakery, car dealer just because I am a photographer?
Gallery owner considerable commission? Nope: if someone wants my prints he can buy them by placing cash on the table. It's the same procedure as with any other 'commodity' I collect in the supermarket: no pay no way through the cashier's lane.
It is okay to be your own retailer, as long as you don't mind undertaking all the effort of retailing. But many would prefer to keep working at what they enjoy and are willing to compensate someone else for doing their retailing for them. If you think retailing anything is easy, then I suppose you won't value it much. Personally, I think it's much harder than making good, salable photos.
Why is that somehow evil, as the tone of your post suggests?
Rick "happy to rent services and not expecting to get them for free" Denney
toyotadesigner
6-Oct-2009, 14:06
I guess I have to clarify something: I don't mind if a gallery makes 50% on the object / products. Each boutique, shop, etc needs to make a profit. That is normal. What I object is that they want to run a 'no risk' business: you have invested time and money into the prints you give them. They keep **your** work, time, investment for free for months, and you can't give your work to anybody else.
It would be more than fair if a gallery would purchase your products right away and pay for them. Then they can add a markup and sell it. Because they know the market and their clients they can pretty much evaluate the value of your product and estimate their profit. If not they have the wrong job.
The decorator: ok, he makes money selling your product with a markup. Why an additional discount?
It appears to me that society ended up in thinking 'rebate, cheap, discount' instead of values. Some people even dare to call this system 'marketing' - which it is not.
When I sell a print to a decorator for i.e. 100 Euro and he can sell it for 200 or even 400 - so what? It depends on his cleverness if he can make a small or huge profit. I can't tell him not to charge more than 200 and his commission will be 50. Far too much hassle, and I can never control him (and to be honest I never will - there are other important things in my life I want to pursue).
Imagine this scenario: I drive up to the gas station, fill up my tank with 100 liters diesel for 1.10 per liter. Then I tell the cashier: listen, I want a 25% discount on the diesel and if I should ever get a new project today or tomorrow or in a month I will mark it up so you'll get the rest. Guaranteed.
Then I go to the supermarket with the same story...
Do you think I'll have the slightest chance to leave the gas station with the full tank and the supermarket with a packed shopping cart?
I'm going to buy a new camera. I'll tell the manufacturer: Hey, I have to feed my office overhead, secretary and assistant - give me a discount - you can be lucky if I purchase my camera from you and not the other guy...
Are you convinced this will ever work?
As long as this won't happen I don't see any reason to give discounts or rebates.
What I object is that they want to run a 'no risk' business: you have invested time and money into the prints you give them. They keep **your** work, time, investment for free for months, and you can't give your work to anybody else.
This is something you have negotiate with the dealer. You have to be comfortable that they'll invest adequate resources in selling your work. It takes considerable resources to sell work; if they manage to sell it then they've earned their commission.
You're right that you don't want your work sitting in a flat file while they spend all their efforts on someone else's work. You have to be comfortable asking specific questions about this. Good gallery contracts include specifics about how often they'll show your work, etc.
It would be more than fair if a gallery would purchase your products right away and pay for them.
More than fair, but less than plausible. It's hard enough for galleries to stay in business selling on consignment. They just don't have the capital to buy work outright. Especially when you see how artwork sells; typically a whole body of work is shown, and a handful of individual pieces end up selling.
The decorator: ok, he makes money selling your product with a markup. Why an additional discount?
Quantity discounts on art are commonplace. If someone's offering to buy several pieces at once, it's generally worth your while to give them a deal. For one thing, you'll be doing a lot less work than if you had to make several individual transactions.
For most of us, it's unusual to have someone come along and buy a pile of prints. I'm happy to have a simple way to express gratitude. And I've learned that collectors tend to expect it.
toyotadesigner
6-Oct-2009, 23:32
t takes considerable resources to sell work;
This is a fact for every business, shop, wholesale. I wonder how other businesses can survive with a straight forward approach. Someone must be telling the photographers that they live on another planet... which is not true.
Good gallery contracts include specifics about how often they'll show your work, etc.
Just imagine a supermarket would have contracts where they tell the supplier how often they'll show his products - a hilarious scenario.
More than fair, but less than plausible.
Why? Just because this business kept drumming weird ideas into the heads of photographers and artists?
It's hard enough for galleries to stay in business selling on consignment. They just don't have the capital to buy work outright. Especially when you see how artwork sells; typically a whole body of work is shown, and a handful of individual pieces end up selling.
It's hard for any shop owner to stay in business if he doesn't know how to run it and how to calculate the markup, how to estimate his market.
No argument for me.
Quantity discounts on art are commonplace. If someone's offering to buy several pieces at once, it's generally worth your while to give them a deal. For one thing, you'll be doing a lot less work than if you had to make several individual transactions.
OK, if someone will buy 10 prints of image A, 20 of image B and 50 of image C I might consider a discount: 10 prints 2%, 20 prints 3%, 50 prints 4%. Same discounts as in trade. Why more? No reason for huge discounts here.
For most of us, it's unusual to have someone come along and buy a pile of prints.
Correct, unless you sell to a department store or 'posters-r-us' or similar markets.
I'm happy to have a simple way to express gratitude. And I've learned that collectors tend to expect it.
You have learned from whom? Who says that these are 'the rules'? It's time to break these kinky 'rules'.
Don't get me wrong - I see what you mean, but I'm asking if the 'learned and perceived behavior' is correct. I just want to point to the discrepancies between the 'normal' business world and the photographer's world.
As long as there will be the point and click digital talibans who throw away their images via microstock the good and well trained photographers will have a problem. That's the way how society turns and develops.
However it is up to us to stand up with an upright back, with dignity and pride and speak out loud 'no' to a rotten system.
Though it is sometimes hard - very hard - to say 'no'.
I have established a very nice trick. If someone asks for a considerably large discount I grab into my shirt pocket and place a list with phone numbers (grocery stores, gas station, car dealer, clothing store, etc) onto the table and say: ok, agreed, if you would be please so kind and call these establishments to give me the same discount - unfortunately I have to make a living in the real world and not a world you are trying to project into my brain.
This separates the good from the bad guys.
toyotadesigner
7-Oct-2009, 00:02
N.B.:
Just did a quick search in google:
http://www.sacalobra.com/samples/artgalleries.png
1.060.000 art galleries along the US east coast... way too much if they all want to survive. No wonder it's hard to sell 'art' these days. Most of these have been opened by people who dreamed of an easy life by letting others learn a craft and selling it with a huge markup to a 'wealthy' clientele.
See the sponsored ads on the right hand side:
Abstract Canvas Art...50% off.
The most rotten marketing method to sell - the same strategy that made America lose their jobs to China!
The second ad:
Safrai Gallery... Special prices
Huh? Who is going to byte the dust here? The artist of course! Don't even think the gallery will loose any money on deals!
Third ad:
Art Pictures
Search over a billion pictures and images using Google.
Forth ad:
Is your art worthy? ... Get the attention you deserve!
Hello? Are you sure you don't suffer a serious brain damage?
Nothing but empty promises of fame. :p
Appears to me there is no place for 'art galleries' anymore, be it painting or fine art photography.
(Art) galleries try to get across a certain flair and reputation. In contrast the decorator knows the offices, homes and tastes of his clients. He is doing a much better work and job than the fluff, glitter and glamour puff business of 'galleries'.
Now do the math: how many prints to you need to feed 10% of the galleries and agents, how much time and money will you have to invest just to be one of ten or even hundreds in their showrooms?
As I said: it's a rat race with the worst conditions for the 'supplier'. It always translates into: you do the work and the others make the money...
QT Luong
7-Oct-2009, 00:26
Unlike groceries or gas, art is considerably considerably more expensive and not necessary for most people. One can have any principled stand, but will he be able to make a living out of his art ? And of course the number of results for disjointed search is totally disconnected to the "number of galleries on the US east coast". Just check the links for yourself.
You have learned from whom? Who says that these are 'the rules'? It's time to break these kinky 'rules'.
I've learned from people on all sides of it ... artists, dealers, and collectors. I've talked to people whose combined experience is probably longer than your lifetime and mine.
If you actually want to learn, rather than rant, I suggest you talk to some people who know the business as well.
The gallery model isn't any more a contrivance than any other business model. It's something that has evolved based on the mutual needs of all the parties involved. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find some alternative models, but the fact that one dominates (at the high end of the market) shows that it's proven the most competitive.
Analogies with supermarkets hold up only as far as artists are like farms and photographs are like eggs and breakfast cereal.
I know three people (all artists) who have tried to open galleries, generally approaching it from the perspective that a gallery is basically a retail store. All were shuttered in less than a year.
Anyone looking for an insider's perspective on the gallery world should check out Edward Winkleman's blog. (http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/) He's not primarily a photo dealer, but he's had had a gallery in Chelsea for a while now, is candid, a good writer, and a good guy. A lot of his writing is on ideas and esthetics but if you dig deep enough, you'll find his musings on the business side of things.
toyotadesigner
7-Oct-2009, 23:42
I know three people (all artists) who have tried to open galleries, generally approaching it from the perspective that a gallery is basically a retail store. All were shuttered in less than a year.
And I know several photographers who are extremely successful with their own showrooms: Peter Lik (Austria, see the other thread in this forum), one photographer in England and one in Germany.
What do I need to 'learn' and why? I don't see the slightest sense in a gallery as long as they run the business model as it currently is. As soon as they will start to pay 100% upfront for my prints I'd change my mind. Simple as that.
Until then I will continue with my business model. Though I don't make 35 million US$ per year (which would be next impossible in Spain unfortunately) I am quite happy with it.
Scott Davis
8-Oct-2009, 09:19
And I know several photographers who are extremely successful with their own showrooms: Peter Lik (Austria, see the other thread in this forum), one photographer in England and one in Germany.
What do I need to 'learn' and why? I don't see the slightest sense in a gallery as long as they run the business model as it currently is. As soon as they will start to pay 100% upfront for my prints I'd change my mind. Simple as that.
Until then I will continue with my business model. Though I don't make 35 million US$ per year (which would be next impossible in Spain unfortunately) I am quite happy with it.
Then you'll never sell through a gallery. A gallery is first and foremost a business. As a relative unknown, your product is highly unlikely (from a gallery owners' perspective) to sell, or sell in volume. They are taking a significant financial risk by putting your work on their walls and in their print drawers. They have to make money on (most) every transaction, and because inventory, even high end inventory, can often sit for months or years at a stretch before finding a buyer, the gallery owner has tremendous overhead. So that's why the gallery is going to pay you 50% of the selling price, and they'll pay 30 days from the sale. They're taking all the risk for you of advertising your work, selling your work, and handling the financial transaction (they take the risk of being defrauded by the customer, not you).
Until then I will continue with my business model. Though I don't make 35 million US$ per year (which would be next impossible in Spain unfortunately) I am quite happy with it.
If what you are doing makes you happy, then there's no need to change a thing.
But that doesn't mean that it would work for others, or in other places.
And it absolutely does not mean that you can control what people choose to buy. The market dictates the price, especially for discretionary purchases such as art. Bringing seller and buyer together has been the profession of whole categories of people for millennia. That is so because those who create often do not possess the skills necessary to bring their work to buyers, or even the desire to do so.
We can control the choices we make, but we have no control over the consequences of those choice.
Rick "who can think of one or two successful photographer-owned galleries, but then those photographers are spending more time providing their own retailing than making photos" Denney
toyotadesigner
8-Oct-2009, 13:00
They are taking a significant financial risk by putting your work on their walls and in their print drawers. They have to make money on (most) every transaction, and because inventory, even high end inventory, can often sit for months or years at a stretch before finding a buyer, the gallery owner has tremendous overhead. So that's why the gallery is going to pay you 50% of the selling price, and they'll pay 30 days from the sale.
This is contradictory and doesn't match.
Financial risk: hoops? They didn't pay for my prints. The just have a showroom, an office and maybe a secretary.
Inventory? If you use this word it translates into 'paid products on stock and shelves'. But they did not pay for the products... so it is NOT inventory.
30 days from sale? Any reason for this?
They're taking all the risk for you of advertising your work, selling your work, and handling the financial transaction (they take the risk of being defrauded by the customer, not you).
In Europe many galleries charge you for advertising upfront. No argument for me.
Financial transaction? Hey, have you ever heard of electronic banking? And speaking of 'defrauded by the customer' - you won't get a cent if the print is gone. Not here. Bare fact.
As a relative unknown, your product is highly unlikely (from a gallery owners' perspective) to sell, or sell in volume.
You are right, some days I sell 20 small prints for 59 to 99 Euros each on open markets. I guess that's more than many others will get from galleries in a month. Unfortunately I don't have the time to spend too much time on these markets.
BTW, do you know how many 'fine art prints' (b&w offset print posters actually, which they call fine art. Example here: http://www.hackelbury.co.uk/images/artists/icons/6.orkin_bg.jpg) IKEA sells per day per location? I've counted the numbers from 2 different locations. Impressive, really. This 'art' is far away from being unique. But it sells by the thousands and takes away a huge market share of galleries - at least here in Spain.
Dude, you're comparing business models that have nothing in common with each other. If one of them serves you, then great, use it. But the one your slamming is one you just don't understand.
Photographers who sell their own work directly are generally selling to a completely different market than ones who use consignment galleries. They're generally selling at a completely different price point to completely different customers, using different methods and different economies of scale. What works in one setting doesn't work in the other.
What's the investment of a high end gallery? For starters, let's look at overhead. Rent in a typical gallery space in Chelsea is from $5,000 to over $30,000 a month. Add to that a living wage for the owner and one or two assistants. Insurance. Utilities. Advertising.
Pretty soon the calculated value of each square foot of wall space becomes daunting.
Here's another thing to consider: galleries aren't stores. They don't operate like stores. They don't pay their bills by people wandering in off the street and buying prints and paintings. That happens, but it's a tiny portion of the revenue. A gallery is a private dealership that happens to have a storefront. The storefront bolsters the dealership by allowing for shows that generate buzz and publicity, but the real work happens on the phones. The core of any gallery business is the owners list of clients, typically accumulated over years and years of working in the business. These are typically collectors that the dealer has gotten to know and understand and earn their trust. The dealer works hard finding work that particular collectors will like. On the other end, the dealer works for the artists, trying to find interest and trying to drum up publicity opportunities. It's a ton of work. Every show, every, new artist taken on, represents a gamble in time and real estate.
If it weren't a gamble, why do you think dealers would be so selective about who they'll take on? Most dealers will represent or show the tiniest fraction of the work that's shown to them. They're interested only in what they think they can sell. And when they see that work, they want to forge a working partnership with the artist.
Of course there are bad dealers. There are galleries going out of business all the time. But the system you're critiquing is one used by all the good dealers, so I don't see how it's fair to say the system's broken.
Gary L. Quay
18-Oct-2009, 02:10
Very simple question -- would you sell your art to someone so they could decorate their home or office with your work?
Should art be used as decoration?
A print of mine titled "Misty Gorge," taken one fall morning in the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon, hangs in three dentist's offices. I know this because I sold it to three dentists just for that reason. I don't know if this has been said yet in this thread, but my wife has a saying when it comes to the way the general public buys art: she says that the first question they ask is, "Will this go with my couch?"
--Gary
Renato Tonelli
18-Oct-2009, 10:04
Same here. If anyone has a mailing list of decorators who sell photography, feel free to send me a copy!
Why do you guys always beat me to the punch:mad: :( ?
Seriously though, I'm serious about the list.
Mike1234
18-Oct-2009, 10:23
Okay, this thread finally pulled me in. In order to support my photo addictons then yes, I'll sell my work to decorators. I am (or could be) a complete photography whore. I try to resist but... ahh... that new lens is making me randy... very randy indeed. Anyone want a nice wet waterfall photo to display?
toyotadesigner
18-Oct-2009, 10:55
Wow - do I notice a changing paradigm, attitude or mind here?
Interesting!
:D
Mark Sawyer
18-Oct-2009, 12:31
I don't know if this has been said yet in this thread, but my wife has a saying when it comes to the way the general public buys art: she says that the first question they ask is, "Will this go with my couch?"
Here is the defining difference between the genuine art lover and the unwashed masses. While the ignorant brute buys art to go with the couch, the art lover buys a couch to go with the art...
Mike1234
18-Oct-2009, 15:03
I removed my couch. Now I don't have to match art to it.
gevalia
27-Oct-2009, 12:46
Every married man needs a 30x40 of Meagan's boobs in his office. It sets the right tone.
Frank, it's like I think a thought and you write it. Amazing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.