Opportunities for Fine Art....

[paulr]

Perez's friend has a point, but it makes sense for photographic books, greeting cards, mass-produced posters, etc...

A photographic print fits more in the middleground occupied by lithographs and etchings. Even if there is no mechanical imperative for limiting editions, tradition and the market insist upon it, and the majority of art photographers choose it--not just for economic reasons, but because printing does require labor--sometimes challenging labor--and time. This is time and effort that could go into producing new work, which most would prefer to staying in the dark (or at the computer) and manufacturing endless multiples.

[Gordon Moat]

Chris and his friend attempt to position and compare music CDs and books to photographic prints. Indeed there is the existence of such a market already, and you can find it in almost every mall, sometimes in multiple stores. The advantage that those particular items have is a distribution network. So how is an individual artist going to break into that distribution network? How many musicians and authors have books and music that do not have any distribution arrangements, and how well are they doing?

You can suppose that you become your own distribution network, either by becoming a storefront operation (gallery, studio, or gift shop), or by using facilities that you can rent (art fair, swap meet, convention). These choices also already exist. In all these, the photographer becomes the salesman, proprietor, and often the sole employee.

I happened to be in a bookstore last night, and wandered past the photography books. This is another market, though it seemed to me that the choices of images mostly hit the happy landscape, travel, or things we might term kitsch (i.e. babies in funny outfits, cats, dogs, other cute wildlife, cars, planes, lighthouses, et al). Perhaps the photographers doing these make a good living at them.

As Chris Perez and his friend point out, there is a market for volume and low(er) prices. They might be making a killing in sales, and laughing at the (relative) folly of others. I don't feel comfortable in that realm, so I have no desire to compete in that market segment. If I did get offered a book deal, I would take it, though mostly because I think it would further my commercial imaging efforts.

I have also seen the low(er) prices and higher volume in action. Going by what I have seen as results, and numerous conversations, my opinion is that the same amount of time and effort in speculation (after all, there is no sales guarantee at any price) would be better spent in the stock photography market. The potential return from selling stock photography appears to be substantially better than low(er) priced art photography (again, my opinion).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Greg Miller]

So you are saying that if you are 'unsuccessful' (definition?) in what you do, then all your efforts are for nothing?

I don't know if you have kids, but is that something you would tell them? Because I certainly wouldn't. Not without some more qualification at least.

My statement that you quoted was "If you are the best artist ever in history, and your work is never seen and discovered, then your work is a waste."

If I discovered a cure for cancer, but my I never made my cure public, then I believe the cure was wasted. I think the same is true of art. If I create a brilliant piece of art, but my art is never seen, then it has been wasted. Its true that the artist gets some satsifaction from having created a masterpiece but the gener public has not gained any benefit and the art world has not gained any benefit.

[Hugo Zhang]

"If you are the best artist ever in history, and your work is never seen and discovered, then your work is a waste."

If I discovered a cure for cancer, but my I never made my cure public, then I believe the cure was wasted. I think the same is true of art. If I create a brilliant piece of art, but my art is never seen, then it has been wasted. Its true that the artist gets some satsifaction from having created a masterpiece but the gener public has not gained any benefit and the art world has not gained any benefit."



For some artists, many great ones among them, creative work is a must in their life. Their love for their work and the intense joys and pains that come with this insane obsession slowly become the very essense of their life. Creative activity, by its very nature, is solitary. Of course, artists want to be recognized and praised, let alone they need to feed themselves. They try hard to balance their life if they don't want to go insane like van Gogh. But at the end of the day, if they are really true and sincere, they don't have much choices. Many of them indeed died unkwown, but do we know that great joy they had when doing what they did? What is fame anyway? A shadow. Intersting and ironic enough, great ones have been and will be discovered.

Science and art both benefit human being. But they are two different things and can't be compared here.

[Kirk Gittings]

Gordon,

It strikes me that this move to higher volume, low price prints is paralleled somewhat in the stock photo business with royalty free low cost stock. Some people I know refer to this as "Penny" stock. With fees as low as a dollar, the photographers cut is virtually pennies and the notion is that you make your money in volume. I have had a few discussions with some people involved in this form of stock. I don't know if these people are typical, but I suspect that they are. The ones I know are all amatuers with other careers, digital shooters, who have high hopes for this market, though none of them at this point seem to have made more than a few dollars. Professional stock photographers that I know consider this trend very detrimental to the stock industry for obvious reasons. Is there a parallel here?

[Greg Miller]

"If you are the best artist ever in history, and your work is never seen and discovered, then your work is a waste."

If I discovered a cure for cancer, but my I never made my cure public, then I believe the cure was wasted. I think the same is true of art. If I create a brilliant piece of art, but my art is never seen, then it has been wasted. Its true that the artist gets some satsifaction from having created a masterpiece but the gener public has not gained any benefit and the art world has not gained any benefit."



For some artists, many great ones among them, creative work is a must in their life. Their love for their work and the intense joys and pains that come with this insane obsession slowly become the very essense of their life. Creative activity, by its very nature, is solitary. Of course, artists want to be recognized and praised, let alone they need to feed themselves. They try hard to balance their life if they don't want to go insane like van Gogh. But at the end of the day, if they are really true and sincere, they don't have much choices. Many of them indeed died unkwown, but do we know that great joy they had when doing what they did? What is fame anyway? A shadow. Intersting and ironic enough, great ones have been and will be discovered.

Science and art both benefit human being. But they are two different things and can't be compared here.

I originally commented because of Dirk Rosler's disdain for the coupling of art and marketing/being wll known. If nobody ever becomes aware of your masterpeice(s), then nobody has benefitted but you. That is hardly noble. The more people are aware of your art, the more people benefit and the more art in general changes because of it.

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon,

It strikes me that this move to higher volume, low price prints is paralleled somewhat in the stock photo business with royalty free low cost stock. Some people I know refer to this as "Penny" stock. With fees as low as a dollar, the photographers cut is virtually pennies and the notion is that you make your money in volume. I have had a few discussions with some people involved in this form of stock. I don't know if these people are typical, but I suspect that they are. The ones I know are all amatuers with other careers, digital shooters, who have high hopes for this market, though none of them at this point seem to have made more than a few dollars. Professional stock photographers that I know consider this trend very detrimental to the stock industry for obvious reasons. Is there a parallel here?

Hello Kirk,

I think there are enough similarities for the comparison: fine art and stock imagery both contain an element of speculation; higher level fine art and stock photography are gallery or editor driven in some aspects; lower price point fine art or stock photography impacts the market as a whole, potentially lowering prices at all levels. What happens in both markets at the lower pricing levels is volume increases; it must to generate income. With a higher volume, mean higher competition, so the quality of the images increases in an attempt to gather greater sales volume. As the quality improves, some buyers would question the higher prices of supposedly better quality works, either fine art or stock photography. Fine Art and StockPhotography are the only two money making realms of photography that are highly speculative, in that the works are created without a buyer, nor any sales guarantee. Other money generating realms of photography are assignment driven, with payment somewhat ensured upon delivery of results. While higher end stock shooters are somewhat driven by editors, like assignment work, the speculative aspect is still present.

Lots of discussions about Stock Photography over at PDN Forums. Getty and Corbis control 90% of the market, and both are making more moves towards micro-payment segments. As a commercial shooter, if you have to compete against stock photography prices for work, you might find yourself on the loosing end of things. Providing unique images is a way to do that. Just look (search) through Jupiter Images, Alamy (really low end), iStock Photos, Getty or Corbis doing a search of some well known locations . . . should be a real eye opener to some people.

Seriously, some fine art photographers should do a search through the Getty Images Royalty Free selection using the terms slot canyon, and see what comes up (61 images). Then check the price levels (Calculate Price link below each image) depending upon usage. Or try other searches like aspens or barns. My guess is that some people on LF Forum will laugh, others will be shocked, and a few will see an opportunity for potential income . . . all of them will be correct in their assessments, depending upon point of view.

I know a few people who shoot for Getty, or their affiliated companies, and all of them are worried about recent moves towards micro-payment sites. The bulk of income for Corbis and Getty continues to be the higher level Rights Managed images, but in order to please the stock (NYSE, NASDAQ) holders they need to move into the low price and high volume realms.

There is money in stock photography, but the few successful stock photographers I know state that things have changed dramatically recently. The days of left over assignment shoot images being sent off for stock sales are largely gone, replaced by a higher quality and more driven market. Out of thousands of photographers on some micro-payment stock sites, only a very small percentage make a living from it. You could probably bet those few are putting lots of time and effort into doing well.

The good thing is that stock photography has a limited ability to replace assignment work. Companies and some people want unique images that no others will have to use. That is where Exclusive Usage rights work nicely. Important advertising will continue to push a demand for unique images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[domenico Foschi]

I am seriously thinking to start doing editions of 1 and pricing them at $ 6.000.00 each.

[Hugo Zhang]

domenico,

You will starve to death. You are a perfectioinist. What if you can't make a perfect work every and each month?

hugo

[Hugo Zhang]

"If nobody ever becomes aware of your masterpeice(s), then nobody has benefitted but you. That is hardly noble. The more people are aware of your art, the more people benefit and the more art in general changes because of it."

Greg,

When your vision is so unique, you almost have to create a brand new language to express that vision. The public, in general, are used to old and conventional art form. They need to be educated too. Instant recognization of masterpieces by the society is rare in the history of art and literature. Cezanne spent the last thirty years of his life to paint a mountain outside his village everyday. He didn't do it to please his neighbors. van Gogh created 1,800 works of drawings and paintings and sold one in his life time. Flaubert had to be prosecuted for his Madam Boravy. James Joyce, Marcel Proust and Nabokov all had problems with publishers for their masterpieces. The list can go on and on.

A very simple example in our life: how many people who are not LF photographers really know and enjoy contact print? I started to enjoy contact prints and pt/pd prints only when I moved up to 8x10. Am I less noble because I have made something few people can enjoy and benefit from it? I don't know. Should I care?

Following your logic, Thomas Kincade is the greatest and noblest artist of our time. Millions of people are aware of his masterpieces and crazily buying them and benefiting from them.