Opportunities for Fine Art....

[Kirk Gittings]

It is the nature of artists to want to share your work and for your work to be recognized. Recognition can come in many forms, accolades from friends, getting something published, and of course having something purchased. Few people really are just working for their own gratification and are happy working in obscurity.

The most meaningful recognition I ever had was at a show I did at the Silver City Museum in like 91 or something. It was a show of my images of historic New mexico Churches. During an otherwise very decent turn out at the openeing, I noticed a very old hispanic man, oblivious to everything around him, moving slowly from print to print. He would stare intently at each image then move in close to examine details. He would occasionally point to something and mouth some words silently. With each image after examining it, he would step back close his eyes, cross himself and kiss the rosary he clasped in his hand. There were over 100 prints in the show and he stayed along time. He never spoke to anyone and left without saying a word to me, but signed the guest book. Later I went to see what he wrote. He said simply "by the grace of god" and signed it simply Manuel. That my images, without all the artiface normally present at openings, could be spiritually moving to someone was enormously gratifying . He got it. The only sales from the show were a couple of images the museum bought, but in many ways it was the most satisfying opening I ever had because of that old man.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

[/QUOTE]Originally Posted by FocusMag
. . . . .

I cannot promise sales, but I can promise exposure for a value that cannot be found elsewhere.

. . . . . .

See, now that's where I respectfully disagree with you. Perhaps you feel that you have some unique combination, which I would grant you as possible. However, a trip to any Barnes & Noble or Border's Books will reveal many art publications, some quite noteworty to art buyers, though not always specifically photography. While you might only consider the photography publications, I would imagine an art collector would be looking at the art publications. Art on Paper is one such publication. As for me and what I do in photography, my fine art exhibiting has been to build an exhibit history to get into a Master's Degree program. I sell enough to pay for my efforts, have many juried exhibits in my current history, and managed to get three awards for my work. However, my emphasis is on commercial imaging. An marketing efforts I put towards commercial imaging will be a better investment than trying to push my fine art. Besides, if I really wanted to push my fine art, I would be working more at getting my paintings noticed. No offence intended. Ciao! [/quote]

Hi Gordon, I'm continuing this intelligent discussion in what I consider to be an extremely important thread.

I described niche marketing, targeting to a focused, targetable segment of a market. The market is art collectors, the segment is art collectors who also collect photography. A magazine, such as mine, can take your work and subject our readers, who are art collectors who also collect photography (photography collectors). Now, will they buy something from you? I don't know. The main rule of thumb in art collecting is buy what you love. If someone loves your work, there's a good chance they'll buy it. We try to put photography in the magazine that we feel has the best chance for our readers to love. Sometimes it works...sometimes it doesn't. No magazine or media outlet can ever have a 100% success rate. Not even the Super Bowl.

[Bruce Watson]

As I near becoming a geezer, I realize that the ability to socialize with potential customers, regardless of industry, is far more important than the quality of the product. If talking about retail sales, I would include customer service under the socialize category.

I, unfortunately, have a personality that stirs anger among those with sufficient disposable income to potentially enrich me.
juan

Yes. I have made the observation (and been roundly smacked for it, yet for me it still has that nasty ring of truth) that in order to make a living as a fine art photographer, one must love selling one's work more than one loves making one's work. Else it might be prudent to hold on to the day job ;-)

Unfortunately, a love of selling art and a love of making art seldom combine in a single individual. Certainly not me. Sigh...

[paulr]

[QUOTE=Bruce Watson;191573 in order to make a living as a fine art photographer, one must love selling one's work more than one loves making one's work. Else it might be prudent to hold on to the day job ;-)[/QUOTE]

I don't see evidence of that at all. But I'd agree that except for a very elite few, some ambition for selling is critical.

However much you love selling your work, it might be a good idea to hang on to the day job. at least don't burn every last bridge ... you never know when your patrons will get sick of you and you'll be back to being a poor loser again.

[Christopher Perez]

There is what I would consider "required reading" on the topic. It comes from Brooks Jensen's potentially heretical work entitled "Trolling for Fools".

There is no reason why a photographer can't make a living as an artist in that medium. However, I have noticed several things over the past 4 decades of working in and around the field. Much of it relates to how we as photographers think about our work and it's value.

First, many folks I've run into think that all it takes is picking up a camera and expressing one's vision. We all know and understand what this can lead to. When a print/image of their's happens to sell for "good money", I have seen people become arrogant and assume they can repeat this performance well into the future. Alas, much of the time this wonderful event of selling an image for "good money" is an anomoly.

Second, if you walk into any gallery in the nation that shows photographic "art", take a look at the prices. Then seriously consider how long it will take the average person to work (at potentially a hard job) to make enough money to afford those supposedly wonderous pieces of work.

Third, talk with folks like John Wimberly and Tillman Crane. How are they doing financially? How are they "making ends meet"? Do they find all this effort "worth it"? Why are they even pursuing what they do? Then consider how this might apply to you.

[Warning: I'm now onto the very tippy top of the soap box]

Consider this from a very purely economic perspective. What's a average salary for people in the US? $50,000/year (which is the wrong answer, BTW)? $35,000/year (which happens to be closer to the right answer)? How much disposable income does $35,000/year allow you to spend on "fine art"?

Let's consider a very fine $1200 Christopher Burkett hand crafted print. At $673/week before taxes, this takes a full two weeks of before tax work (assuming a $35k/year salary) to afford that fine image. After tax money brings you much closer to three weeks of full time work to afford Christopher's image. Thinking of this another way, three full time work weeks of wages will buy you 403 Macdonald's Happy Meals at $5/each before taxes. Which do you think takes priority? Food? Or "art"?

Absurd? I think not!

Now lets look at the demographics that might get us displayed before the people we really want to sell to. Do you think $100,000/year will get a person enough disposable income to throw at someone's "fine photographic art"? Perhaps. This salary is fairly significant because it represents what the top 5% of wage earners in the USA makes today!

Think about that a moment. That means you have the opportunity to put your work in front of around 15,000,000 people in the US. Not bad, you say? Well, maybe not, but still maybe it is bad. 40% of these folks live paycheck to paycheck. Seriously. They can't make ends meet, even on that salary. This brings the potential market size down to around 9,000,000 people in the USA.

Is this a large enough pool of potential buyers for We Art Photographers to play in and be able to price or wonderous works at whatever level we feel it's worth?

Think about all the other means of entertainment that people spend their disposable income on. Think about all the other attractions in people's lives. Then think about what you are trying to charge for your work.

Consider these things deeply. Consider these things completely independently of how you feel about your "art". Consider these things completely independently of what other people tell your "art" is worth as they fail to back their claims with good hard earned green backs.

This is why I'm tinkering with the idea of selling $40 to $50 print Palladium prints. Even at that price, it's very interesting to watch what effect this has on buyers in the below the $100,000/year salary club. So I'm tinkering further with the idea of selling silver gelatin prints for between $20 and $35 each. Yes, they are all archival. Yes, they may or may not "make it" in the marketplace. Yes, I may never hang in a "proper" gallery. But why not try anyways?

As Michael Franti said, Everyone Deserves Music. To which I modestly add Everyone Deserves a Fine Art Photograph.

[OK, I'm off the soapbox now...]

[Bruce Watson]

...except for a very elite few, some ambition for selling is critical.

It takes more than ambition. It takes education, skills, experience, and lots of time and effort. Just like anything else.

[Christopher Perez]

One observation of Brooks that I found MOST interesting comes from a fund raising photo auction that he's attended over the past 15 years.

Independent of name (yes, even "famous" photographers participated), style, materials, subject, size, the average sale price has been $40 per print. Period.

Photographers who attended a photo school see their work sell for an average price of $20. Period!

Artists (here I assume Brooks means painters, sculptures, sketch artists) who pick up a camera see their work sell for well north of $60 each.

So, yes, it takes education and training. But I'm left wondering to what degree these things are responsible for making a successful living as a photo-artist.

Just more food for thought. Thought from (worm) food.

It takes more than ambition. It takes education, skills, experience, and lots of time and effort. Just like anything else.

[Frank Petronio]

You know who has made the most money from photography? Artists who use photography to make big, bold, powerful things to hang up on a wall.

The Starn Twins
Gursky
Warhol
Cindy Sherman
Bruce Weber
etc.

They make millions.

And all of them probably have lesser technical skills than the average Zone System practitioner.

So go try to sell your photos of slot canyons. Just realize that there isn't that strong a market for even the best Elliot Porter masterpiece.

Now I would probably prefer the Porter to the Starn Twins, but look at reality.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

This is one of the best threads I have read in a LONG time, thanks to everyone who has participated.

If becoming a successful photographer is your goal, then the ability to self promote is key to success(this is true no matter what the career path you take). Artists are no different than business people, you have to promote yourself as much as your work to get ahead. I don't think our culture has ever been comfortable with the idea of self promotion, it seems wrong somehow. The idea has been if you work hard at what you do, produce great results and stick with it then eventually you will be noticed and rewarded.

But today, this is just not the norm any longer, the competition is too great. So, a person has to take charge of their careers or art or whatever and take a proactive stance towards self promotion. It is a part of business, you have to attract customers, and in the end art is a business. This assumes of course you want to make it as a photographer.

For others, such as myself, my goals are not to become a famous, well paid artist (although that would be nice) but insted to enjoy a form of expression that I love and to produce work that I find interesting and rewarding. I sell 6 or 7 prints a year which is great as it pays for my passion. While I don't get paid for the articles I write, I enjoy doing them as I get a chance to work with well known, and not so well known, photographers and learn from them. I also enjoy helping people promote their work so writing is rewarding to me in that way as well. So my marketing plan is set to support my goals, which is to sell enough work to break even at my art ( I actually do that once in a while!).

Thanks again to all, this is a great thread.

[Kirk Gittings]

Jensen's Myth

Christopher,

We have rehashed that Brooks Jensen approach to death. He can sell prints at volume pricing, because he does good work AND he has a magazine which regularly markets his work for virtually nothing. This is not a model for anyone else unless you can come up with credible, targeted, massive and free advertising (and no a website will not even begin to accomplish this). I call this Jensen's Myth.