I'd be interested in why Jensen doesn't follow his own advice as far as his magazine is concerned?
It's one of the higher priced magazines on the newstand. He prices it to fit in with the high end art, design and literature journals.
Surely he would sell many more if he priced it much more at the level of US Magazine, People or Pop Photo?
Paddy: I've never been involved in magazine/publication production, and I have no clue what it costs for a single copy of LW to be printed, bound, and shipped, but it's clear to me that the quality is quite high. There's no way this quality can be expected for the same price as the rags you mention.
I'll gladly pay LW subscription rates to see that high quality duotone reproduction on first-rate paper, and I'll gladly pay for LW's cerebal discussions over utterly boring gear discussions/reviews any day.
Michael E. Gordon
http://www.michael-gordon.com
Ah - I see. So it's suggested photographers would do best to sell their photographs at bargain basement prices, but heaven forbid we should do so with the magazine. People might mistake it for a "rag"?
What Michael said! I consider LensWork to be an exceptional value and would pay more for it. I won't say how much more because I don't want Brooks Jensen to get any ideas!
Michael,
I appreciate your position and respect your decision. Let me ask your indulgence for this lengthy comment.
I turn 52 next month. I've been seriously involved in fine art photography for 35 years now, and have always had a darkroom and a passion for images since the 7th grade. Over the years I've made countless prints, most of which remained my closet, gathering dust. I used to think these would someday be valuable, or that maybe I would be represented by a gallery, or maybe I might even become an "important photographer." I dutifully cataloged all my negatives and archived my printing notes so I could go back in the darkroom and make more prints of an image if they sold.
I now realize this was entirely a waste of my time. You see, there is no such thing as "the future" for an artist. There is only today, only the work you do today, only what you make today -- and (this is the important point underlying my article) only what you send out into the world today. Artmaking is a process that is always in the present. And we will all run out of the present soon enough.
A good friend of mine just turned 50. Last fall he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He is dying, soon. He had hoped to have enough time left to finally get in the darkroom and print the master prints he'd always intended to, but put off to the future as daily concerns and his business pulled him in more pressing directions. He told me the other day he simply does not have the time or physical energy to make those prints. He will die and his artwork will be, mostly, unrealized.
Another friend of mine -- a mentor really, older than me -- died a few years ago in his mid 60s. He left hundreds and hundreds prints behind in his studio, unsold, unseen, boxed away for distribution, someday. He had book manuscripts and several unseen, unexhibited projects. He was always hoping to find a good gallery to represent him, but he was too busy photographing and making prints to spend any time being a marketer. He was a good photographer, a published photographer, but not a world-famous photographer. So, his estate now has all his images and what to do? No museum will fund the challenge of archiving his work for the ages because he is too little-known to be historically important. What happens to all his prints? This is not a rhetorical question.
Thankfully, I am healthy. My eyesight is good. My energy level is high. But, life is short. Before I know it, my life will be over, my artmaking days will be history. I am not morbid about this, just practical. I do not want to, as Ansel Adams said, "go into the final wash" with a closet full of prints that no one has ever seen, a filing cabinet full of negatives I've never printed, a visual legacy that is lost in obscurity. I am just vain enough to think that I might have something important to offer folks in the form of my artwork. If I were to die with my work boxed up for safe keeping in the recesses of the closet like a hoard of some rare and secret treasure I could not help but see this as an act of greed and selfishness that I would be ashamed of.
So what to do? To me, it's simple. I don't care about money, at least as far as my art is concerned. Honestly. I learned long ago that the art world is a poor place to pursue wealth. To paraphrase the old joke about baseball, you know how to get a half a million cash by owning a baseball team? Start with a million! Same with art, at least for most of us. I know it is for me. I will never make as much money selling art as I can in other, more traditional forms of business and investment. I'm in business of life to make money for my art, not the other way around. For me, artmaking is a matter of the soul, not the bank account. In fact, if I could afford it, I'd give away all my art and fund it entirely from my personal wealth. I'm not wealthy, so I sell it. I sell it for as little as I can. I do so on purpose. I do so because I don't want a barrier to come between my artwork and someone who finds it meaningful and wants to own it. I do so because in my system of values, the best place for my work is OUT THERE, in the hands of someone who wants it and treasures it, not in my closet, in storage, waiting for some rich person to cough up big bucks for it. My responsibility to my artwork is to send it out into the world, to let it live, to let it be artwork instead of investment. My job as an artmaker is to make my work go away so I am free of it, unburdened, so in its wake I can make more in the vacuum it leaves behind.
I price my work so I can cover my costs, including my equipment, my travel, my failures, and a few of my project fantasies. I sell enough that I actually do make a profit, at least I have for the last dozen years or so since I started selling work for "real people prices." I don't live on it; I won't retire on it, but that's not my intention. If I am successful, when I am gone, there will be no trace of my work left in my possession. If I am successful, when I am gone, there will be lots and lots of people who will be glad that I was here and did my work, glad because my work will give them something that enhances their life and brings them joy.
You see, to me artmaking is a privilege -- a privilege I pay for by thinking of my work as a gift back to the world, at least as much as I can. Frankly, I would find it distasteful to think of my artwork as means to pry as much money from the well-healed as I could. I don't want people to "sacrifice greatly" to own my artwork -- that seems backwards to me. In my way of thinking, I should sacrifice greatly so others can benefit from my work. Again, my work is a gift I am willing to offer for as little as I can and a privilege and responsibility I am blessed to be able to manifest as my life.
I know my answers are not applicable to everyone, and that is as it should be. We each have the opportunity to think about and decide how we choose to approach our artmaking and our art life. This is my answer. It took me over 20 years to find it and having done so and lived this principle now for almost 15 years, I can say it is the best thing I every did for my art.
Just my 2-cents worth.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
Written Saturday January 21, 2006 at 3:47PM
"People might mistake it for a "rag"?"
Yup, he wants us to sell prints so they may be confused with the posters of the Dukes of Hazard that you can buy at Wal Mart. After all, they are about the same amount of coin. But not his magazine, that's a step above the standard checkout aisle Inquirer. Interesting internal contradiction.
---Michael
Brooks,
I didn't see your post before my last one. My remark was directed toward Paddy, and was following a particular line of thought to the absurd to make a point which I think must be at least considered in the contex of your advocation for a low price print model.
I'll read over your comments and give them the consideration they deserve when I have a block of time to consider them properly.
---Michael
I'd be interested in why Jensen doesn't follow his own advice as far as his magazine is concerned?
--paddy quinn
Paddy,
Actually, we do. It's a matter of perspective.
We print on a sheet-fed book press in state-of-the-art stochastic duotone -- like expensive art books. The other magazines are printed on web presses with a 150 or 200 line screen half-tone. We print on book quality paper; most magazines are printed on non-archival "web press stock." LensWork is perfect bound like a book; most magazines are either folded and stapled in the middle or glue-back bound with a thin paper cover.
Since LensWork is printed and bound like a book, I suppose we should price it like a book -- say, $14.95 or even $19.95. We don't. It is $9.95 on the newsstand and as low as $6.12 per copy by subscription. For something that is printed to art-book quality standards, we think this is a pretty good deal.
LensWork is not an "expensive magazine"; it is an affordable book. We try to bring a book-quality publication to the market at prices that everyone can afford. At least, that's the way we think about it -- as do a number of our readers who tell us so.
Does this answer your question? If not, please let me know and I can try to offer more specifics it you'd like.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
Written Saturday January 21, 2006 at 4:22PM
Michael M.
Well thought out post, I think your position shares the sentiment of many photogs. In the end, humans are like wild animals. A pack of wolves will ban together to take down a Bison, as if they don't, they might starve to death. Yet, a pack of Bisons will just watch one of their own be slowly ripped apart with no assistance.... why? Because, they are doing what is best for them, why risk their lives after they escaped the "singling" out.
Many humans work under the same premise, but in our civilized world it's called capitalism. I actually have no problem with it, because, well, there is no way around it. But as you point out, Brooks is making these statements from a unique position and in someways, he is undermining the potential for his readers to sell prints at more fair pricing. But just like this forum, his readers will decide how to react.
As with all markets where suppliers set prices to potential buyers, the old business adage still rings true, "you should never be smarter then your dumbest competitor". Meaning all the intelligence that goes into "fair and profitable" pricing can be wiped out by a few dumb competitors who price too low. Of course the term dumb, does not always equate to low intelligence, although it probably did when the adage became popular as it was coined for complex building construction bids. Walmart sunk many businesses on this same strategy, but obviously no stupidity existed there.
I agree with Kennedy, "Anyone who sells their product at below their cost is simply benefiting the consumers of their product in the short term, until they get tired of losing money."
However, as long as competition remains very stiff, there will always be new batches of photogs to replace the ones worn out by loosing money......as they attempt to sell low priced prints to gain a following. There is no solution for the art world, its a classic indicator of supply overwhelming the demand. Only monopolies set market pricing, such as utilities, mass transit, etc. For the rest of us, keep looking over your shoulder, next $5 prints.
Brooks, when I made my post above, your post had not recorded yet......
Although my post is a general description of the situation (other then your unique position) I would still like to thank you for posting your well articulated reasonings. It's always great to hear from the person everyone is talking about. Although your position is very well understood, I am sure you can understand why it bothers many on this list.... But, different strokes for different folks. I know the great feeling of spreading your art to others and the pleasure that comes from seeing others appreciate it. You can never be all things to all people so it makes sense to please yourself first.
BTW, in the music field, some musicians desire an audience so bad, they volunteer to play gigs in restaurants for "tips only" . This of course angers those musicians that need to make a living performing their music. If I was a poor musician trying to make a living, this would anger me, but not being a musician, I would applaud his/her passion for music, and tip heavily :-)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks