Brooks Jensen on print pricing in Lenswork

[Michael Gordon]

Most Americans who fall in love with an oil painting will buy it - assuming they can afford it. They don't run to the art store and buy paints / brushes / canvases, etc.

Ah, the mechanical trappings of the medium. Most realize that they shouldn't buy the brushes, oils, and canvas because they require talent and training to use. Photography, on the other hand, appears to require no talent or training. After all, we are just pressing a button, right? Anyone with an index finger can do it

If you buy a camera, you are a photographer. If you buy a flute, you own a flute.

Bob Kolbrener

[darr]

"Although this can-do attitude may prevail, it does not seem to follow suit with oil paintings."

WG: I agree! This may have something to do with an innate ability to draw and visualize and then add the craftsmanship of being able to apply the paint well. IMO, there is a difference in the creativity displayed between a photographer that works in a studio setting creating his work from scratch and one that captures the beauty found in the landscape. They are both equally good, but the creativity of coming up with a new concept or walking up to one is different. I think painters display more than one type of creativity, techniques, etc., and the "instant gratification" that a lot of Americans are accustomed to does not necessarily exist in oil painting.

[bglick]

> If you buy a camera, you are a photographer. If you buy a flute, you own a flute.

Michael.... sheeeesh, very painful statement, but very true...Argggggg.....

Darr, photography is not exactly instant gratification, but it's a lot more "instant" then learning to paint! :-)

IMO, I think these two positions are the biggest reasons fine art photography does so poorly in the USA, at least at the price points many try to sell at. For some reason, a reproduction Kincaid on canvas that cost $100 to make can command $2500 in hundreds of a"Kincaid only" galleries, as people beleive in the "investment component" of the art, i.e. it will go up in value, as well as, they enjoy the art itself. However, fine art photography, which uses the same premise, i.e. make one original, then duplicate it many times..... well, the public does not really buy into the print as an investment. Some of this is because fine art photographers do not have the marketing machine behind them like many paniters acquire after becoming popular. But even if they did, I still think it wouldn't do nearly as good as the painter.

While on this subject, I also feel there is one more component that makes fine art Photography less desireable then paintings. (mostly landscape photography) A painting can portray a fictional landscape scene, which makes the vewer think, imagine, wonder, etc. A landscape photograph is a copy of a real-world scene, almost like a historical recording of the area, a documentary piece. Of course, the photog creates slight changes in color, B&W, perspective, etc.

I came to this conclusion years ago, when I notice people at art shows that look at photographic work, and they flip through prints in a bin and you hear comments such as, oh, where is this shot taken? Is this the Grand Canyon? When was this picture taken? What kind of camera did you use? Now, when people flip through bins of paintings, their mind set is not driven towards uncovering or comprehending the documentary facts of the image, instead, they just take in the art, similar to listening to a new music act. They surely would not ask, what kind of guitar does he use, who trained the drummer, who wrote the music? IMO, these differences are huge when it comes to marketability of each.

I am simplifying a bit, but the point is, landscape photography is not fictional, while oil paintins can be. Fiction books dominate book sales, Americans love fiction. Even being an avid photographer, I often get hooked by the uniqueness of fictional paintings. I am sure there is no term as fictional paintings, but I am classifying all non Photo-realistic paintings in this category. Of course, my comments do not relate to other forms of photography such as street scenes, action, etc.

One of the reason I beleive wildlife photography does so well is.... people enjoy a perfect duplication of the animals look, moreso then a fictional representation. But, IMO, this does not hold true in landscapes. Sorry for the rant..... I feel better.... any comments are appreciated....sorry for going slightly off topic....