Honest photographs?

[chris jordan]

Quoting from Bruce Watson: "To make a living at fine-art photography, you have to love selling your work more than you love creating it."

WRONG! That sounds like sour grapes maybe. I know many full-time photographic artists, and we all dislike selling our work. It's a "chore" part of our job that we do because it goes with the territory, not because we love selling more than photographing.

Far as I can tell, to make a living as a photographic artist you have to take the risk of committing yourself to making photographs that are engaged, unique, and creative. And you have to send out portfolios, work with galleries and do the "business" side as well. The trick is that it has to be both things; doing one but not the other won't get you there either way.

[robc]

Quoting from Bruce Watson: "To make a living at fine-art photography, you have to love selling your work more than you love creating it."

WRONG! That sounds like sour grapes maybe. I know many full-time photographic artists, and we all dislike selling our work. It's a "chore" part of our job that we do because it goes with the territory, not because we love selling more than photographing.

Far as I can tell, to make a living as a photographic artist you have to take the risk of committing yourself to making photographs that are engaged, unique, and creative. And you have to send out portfolios, work with galleries and do the "business" side as well. The trick is that it has to be both things; doing one but not the other won't get you there either way.

If you are any good you will have agents queing up to take on that chore for you...

[chris jordan]

Scott, many people have the impression that to make a living as an artist, you have to "sell out" and start creating work for an audience, so that your work is no longer authentic and personally rewarding. Plenty of professional artists do this, of course, but then there are those who stick by their integrity and continue to produce authentic work without regard to its commercial value, even though they are making their living selling that work. And strangely enough, the people who do that frequently end up being more successful in the long run than the ones who sell out in an attempt to be commercially successful.

The reason is that what the world craves, and will pay for, is artists who express themselves deeply and genuinely, unfiltered. Just look at any artform and there are lots of examples on both sides. In music there are the Britney Spears and the Kenny G's out there, but there are also the Herbie Hancock's and the Pat Metheny's who have a worldwide following.

Where to fall on that continuum is a choice that each artist gets to make for themself. The deciding factor is how much risk they are willing to take. If you are willing to risk making genuine work, you stand a higher chance of being rejected, but your work will be unfiltered and authentic. If you take the safer route of making formulaic work for a known audience, then the work will be less authentic, but will have a higher chance of being commercially successful on a certain level.

To make it at the top level of the fine-art world, the work MUST be authentic and unfiltered; taking that risk is the price of admission. But, even if your work is authentic, it can still be rejected, and that's the risk.

So here's a thought to consider. It's obvious what the cost is of taking the risk: You can be rejected, and fail. The more interesting question is, what is the cost of NOT taking the risk?

Take a long breath before answering that one, and then another long breath. It's actually a pretty important question, I think.

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[bruce terry]

"Why don’t photographers just sell their images as one off? Like an original painting, drawing, flute, guitar, motorcycle, etc."

Scott! Truly a pregnant question!

Great subject matter aside, I've always felt the only Honest Photograph is the one, single, best-you-can-do print of a given negative. That negative is then defaced and included with the print as blood proof the print is as unique and rare as any original watercolor.

Of course no one has the balls to actually do this.

Do they?

[Bruce Watson]

WRONG!

We disagree. But there's no reason to shout about it.

What I've found over my life so far is that one can be good at doing something one doesn't particularly like. But it's very difficult to excell at something one doesn't like to do. Even if you can force it temporarily, that path leads to madness.

If you don't like selling, you aren't going to excell at selling. And to sell something that's hard to sell -- like art in general and photography in particular -- you need to excell at selling.

Sour grapes? Hardly. I'm very happy when anyone sells a photograph because I know the hard work that went into making that sale. And every sale that is made is an opportunity for someone else -- once someone has bought a photograph, they are more likely to buy another one.

[chris jordan]

The point is, Bruce, to make a living at fine-art photography, you don't have to love selling your work more than you love creating it. I don't know a single photographer making a living at fine-art photography who would agree with your statement. And anyway, all of the selling is done by the gallerists, who love that part of the business. One of the keys to success in photographic art, I think, is to find a good gallery who can handle the selling side and take it off of the photographer's hands. Because I also don't know a single photographic artist who is good at (or likes) selling their, me included.

[Bruce Watson]

We disagree Chris. And that's OK. It would be a boring place if we all agreed. In my defense I will say that it's hard to imagine very many artists actually admitting that they enjoyed the selling. It goes against every stereotype we have for artists. And what would be gained?

And I'm glad you live in an area of the country that has a thriving gallery scene and a citizenry that actually buys art. Even photography. Good on ya. Maybe one day I'll move to a more art friendly part of the world and change my views.

[chris jordan]

I haven't sold a print in Seattle in five years. All of my sales happen though galleries in Los Angeles and New York; my work isn't even represented by a Seattle gallery. It's kind of strange being unknown in my own city, but I guess that's the way it goes...

[jnantz]

hi scott

since the late 1980s some of the things i have made and sold have been single-prints, and single edition hand stitched books.

they have been made through experimentation with glass, film and other materials and once i get one image i don't make anymore ... i still do this sometimes, just for fun, but not as often as i used to because life sometimes gets in the way ...

personally, i think photography's biggest gift ( being able to make many photographic prints from a single negative ) is its biggest downfall. there is no original ( except for the negative ) and everything is a faxsimile. sure, i know, every print is different and not exactly like every other print/ output &C, but it all seems the same to me ...

[photographs42]

After reading the Legacy thread by John K in the Lounge, it rekindled some thoughts I posed to some other photographers weeks ago. I would be interested in hearing what everyone here might have to say. The main question is: why don’t photographers just sell their images as one off? Like an original painting, drawing, flute, guitar, motorcycle, etc.Obviously, many photographers make a living or supplement their income through their photographs.........?

The very nature of a photograph is similar to other art forms such as Etchings, Serigraphs, Lithographs, etc. in that the original creation (the negative in the case of photography) is not the final art, but rather is the source of the final art.

Unlike a painting, the finished product of such art forms is, to a greater or lesser degree, produced by a person (who may or may not be the artist) operating a machine. The operator makes several test prints (proofs) to arrive at the final form. At that point, it doesn’t make much sense to make just one. So an edition is produced by printing until the plate is warn to a degree that the resulting prints are no longer of acceptable quality and the process is halted, the plate defaced, and the edition becomes the number of good prints produced plus however many proofs are kept. That’s why editions of these art forms are usually odd numbers like 237 or something. The exception would be if the artist can’t afford a full run or other wise chooses to make a smaller number.

Photography is a similar process but is different in one important way. There is no deterioration of the negative when a print is made. That means that there is no imposed limit on the number of prints that can be made, therefore, there is no reason to apply a limit other than as a marketing ploy, which the galleries are quick to employ.

If you, the artist, choose to limit your work in this way, by making 1 or 10 or whatever you decide, that is your business. But to make this an honest effort, as opposed to a ruse, you must make the edition and deface the negative before offering the edition for sale. It is a joke to make 4 prints, label them 1 of 50 etc. (indicating your intent to make an edition of 50) when, in fact, you have only made 4 (and if those don’t sell, believe me, you won’t make more) and you haven’t defaced the negative as proof of performing your part of the bargain. If I‘m a serious collector and I pay a premium for a “Limited Edition” piece of art, I want some reasonable proof that it is just that.

In my opinion, the concept of the limited edition does not apply to photography. On the back of the print mount, I indicate the date the negative was made, the date the print was made and the print number. This is the way Ansel did it and I feel it is the best way for me. You have to decide for yourself. I have had this discussion with many collectors and, in the end, they have usually purchased prints from me.

As to the selling aspect of your question, there has been considerable discussion of that issue already. As for me, I am not a salesman. I enjoy talking to customers about photography and about my work and sometimes they buy, but it isn’t because I sell it. I don’t make my living selling my work but I know many who do and do quite well. None of them make only one print from each negative.

Jerome

http://www.jeromehawkins.com/