Can we start a new digital/traditional troll subforum?

[Ken Lee]

"I had to read this twice and I still don't know if you are pulling our legs..."

It was an attempt at humor.

Of course, the posh high-end snooty exclusive collectors to whom I sell hundreds - thousands really - of prints, often demand to know even more surprising details: On what day of the week was my Kodak 2D camera made ? Was it actually made in Rochester proper, or in a nearby suburb, like Brighton, Brockport, Canandaigua, Spencerport, Webster, etc. ? What did the workmen eat for lunch ? Did they bring their lunches in paper bags, or lunch boxes ? How long were their work shifts ? How often did they take a coffee break ? How long were their breaks ?

All of these factors strongly influence the value of photographs and can make or break an important sale. The actual photograph is irrelevant. One is as good as the next. Just lift someone else's photos off a social media site at random. My recommendation to anyone starting out these days is to forget about aesthetics entirely: just build your story !

[paulr]

"The actual photograph is irrelevant...

This is why I've been leveraging one of the great untapped possibilities of digital imaging ... I no longer even show people the pictures. Just the histograms.

I'm in negotiations now with a Saudi Princeling, who wants a particularly striking histogram for the 4-story-high wall in the video gaming salon of his guest palace.

[Ken Lee]

This is why I've been leveraging one of the great untapped possibilities of digital imaging ... I no longer even show people the pictures. Just the histograms.

I'm in negotiations now with a Saudi Princeling, who wants a particularly striking histogram for the 4-story-high wall in the video gaming salon of his guest palace.

Brilliant !

[Kodachrome25]

"I had to read this twice and I still don't know if you are pulling our legs..."

It was an attempt at humor.

Of course, the posh high-end snooty exclusive collectors to whom I sell hundreds - thousands really - of prints, often demand to know even more surprising details: On what day of the week was my Kodak 2D camera made ? Was it actually made in Rochester proper, or in a nearby suburb, like Brighton, Brockport, Canandaigua, Spencerport, Webster, etc. ? What did the workmen eat for lunch ? Did they bring their lunches in paper bags, or lunch boxes ? How long were their work shifts ? How often did they take a coffee break ? How long were their breaks ?

All of these factors strongly influence the value of photographs and can make or break an important sale. The actual photograph is irrelevant. One is as good as the next. Just lift someone else's photos off a social media site at random. My recommendation to anyone starting out these days is to forget about aesthetics entirely: just build your story !

I knew it had to be humor, but I was just not sure what set the parody was pointed at....and you let some people think it was not for quite some time...Trolling?

And in every case I have experienced a sale, they *always* ask as a means to gauge their personal value proposition over say, a gorgeous poster from Nat Geo Online and to especially get a feel for the artist's life.

You probably should have prefaced with a "Warning: Parody" eh?

[Tin Can]

Buyers do want to know artist and technique. Then they have a story to tell their friends about their acquisition.

Personally I think many artists are taken advantage of, since there are no 'residuals' or future profits for static work. Movies, books and many forms of art carry value back to the artist after the first sale, but not most static art. Yes some smart Pro's retain photographic rights, but the beginner never does and watches 'his' art occasionally soar to astronomic value.

I think that system is inherently unfair.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I was having lunch yesterday with a friend of mine who runs a local gallery where I live in Aspen...Basically her opinion echoed mine: in every single case of making an actual sale, if the potential customer is starting to really consider the piece, they ask how it came to be, what is it printed on, etc....I understand you are, as they would say over the pond, "Taking the Piss", but it is aimed at a target in a manner of speaking, my question is whom?

Ken can and probably will speak for himself. My guess is that he's "targeting" people who leap directly from your observation about potential customers wanting to know how a piece was created straight to the conclusion that method used has any bearing on whether they purchase it or use that information in determining its value.

[paulr]

I've had some beginning collectors ask about process. Experienced collectors and curators have never asked me about that stuff.

[Maris Rusis]

I've had some beginning collectors ask about process. Experienced collectors and curators have never asked me about that stuff.

I don't know if I'm a serious collector, my holding only goes back a few decades, but I believe a collection gains integrity and value if it all of a type. An eclectic hodge-podge of one thing and another betrays the collector as an aesthetic gadfly attracted by the shiniest baubles. Further, the bits and pieces approach denies individual works a power of association. For example a lesser piece connected to a greater one may gain worth because it reveals an artist's development over time.

If I was spending corporate or government money I'd never ask about process. I'd just buy the latest and most hyped art fad. But because it's my own gold I have to aim lower. I choose to collect gelatin-silver photographs made by the person who signs them. This because it is what I do myself and I think I can pick the good ones from the bad ones. And also because my collection fits within the deep historic tradition of pictures made from light-sensitive materials. Hopefully the "value by association" fantasy comes true.

Sometimes process is irrelevant, sometimes it is critical. This forum could be pleasant place to ventilate the question.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I believe a collection gains integrity and value if it all of a type...

Collections of photographic prints don't have "integrity." They're just groups of objects. They exist, period.

Each individual photograph in a collection, regardless of the tools used to make it, will become more expensive over time if and only if its value as perceived by future potential purchasers is greater than what was originally paid for it. That's the way markets work. The value determination is made based on a number of factors. Whether all photographs in a collection were made using the same or various tools is irrelevant to monetary appreciation. The market uses other criteria (recently described in a number of threads here by other posters who sell photographic prints) to establish value.

[paulr]

I don't know if I'm a serious collector, my holding only goes back a few decades, but I believe a collection gains integrity and value if it all of a type.

The collectors I know would agree with you, but for them the "types" of interest include genre, subject matter, period, particular artists, or esthetics. Not process.

I know there are exceptions. You'll find collectors with all kinds of ideas, and probably quite a few who only collect platinum prints, or tintypes, or whatever. They're just not the ones I encounter. Part of it is that those collectors are most likely interested in vintage work, and I'm not old enough to qualify (yet).

The most prominent private collector who's bought from me has a particularly quirky set of guidelines for his collection (he's a real estate guy ... every picture must include somewhere in the frame a piece of property that you could buy or lease). I've never seen him fuss over the type of print. He just cares if he likes it.