Opportunities for Fine Art....

[Dirk Rösler]

But since you failed to put forward any definition of your own...

A successful artist, at the least, would be someone who, without any other substantial motivation than to share with their audience something relevant about their world that they did not know otherwise and is of meaning to them, ideally in the long-term.

What you are talking about is a person who is selling photographs, potentially making a living out of it. A business operation essentially.

There is some overlap between the two, but they are quite different in nature but by no means mutually exclusive. But it is hard, not impossible though, meeting both criteria while maintaining integrity.

So if people ask themselves how to become more 'successful', they should first state what their measure of success is. More sales, or 'better' artwork.

I assume you expect some return on your investment of time. Should artists be any different?

"Return on investment" is management/business speak. I do not expect any return on my investment of time and resources. I am a volunteer expecting nothing in return. That may be naive as you suggest, but I have found out that there are easier ways to earn a living than being a photographer. I enjoy being able to separate the two tremendously. It means increased freedom to me.

Being posthumously famous and making wealthy collectors richer after I die has little appeal for me.

It appears that you resent the thought of potentially making someone richer through your work. Apart from being very optimistic, this is also odd since that someone may have recognised the value of your work by investing their money into it and you don't seem to like that. Perhaps the financial aspects of it all are clouding your judgment slightly?

[Saulius]

Putting a price on Art is difficult and it is more difficult if you are selling it yourself, like at Art Fairs, than through Galleries where the gallery owner can advise you. But as I have said before, the value of your work has nothing to do with how hard you worked to create it or how much you spent.

Jerome

Well I did mention that how much I'd sell would be determined by the market it was sold in. So I agree that you can't just sell images based on expense one puts into creating. I guess the point I was trying to make is if one wishes to make a living at it as opposed to just a hobby then one needs to have some idea on how much they are spending in creating, marketing and finally selling the image. And this needs to amount to more than just expense of materials. However I do think time is still a factor in the equation, for any business pursuit be it fine art photography or anything else. Afterall if one feels they simply aren't getting enough reutrn to justify all the time they put into it then why keep at it? And by that I mean as a full time business, not a hobby. Just my opinion.

[Kirk Gittings]

Dirk,
We were attempting here to answer an honest question by a member, who from his posts was obviously pleased with the direction the discussion went. You have, in a round about manner, simply defined the differences between true amatuers and profesionals. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that being an amatuer has more integrity and that it gives you some kind of moral high ground from which to make pompous statements such as this:

The focus of so-called "fine artists" on $$$, selling, marketing and being famous or well-known qualifying as 'making it' is very telling and deserves some reflection.

Dirk Rosler

[Dirk Rösler]

Not sure why you suddenly have to resort to being defensive and attacking me personally, after calling me naive, now titling me pompous - without even addressing any of my arguments (which you have very obviously misunderstood). The 'honest question by a member' was about success as a photographer. I don't think challenging the definition of success is out of line here, although this is obviously the Business forum and possibly the wrong place for me to bring this up.

[adrian tyler]

the institution and not the work makes and promotes the "artists"

having gallery represesentation and selling to museums etc. does not nescesarly mean that your work is good. the art world survives in its own "bubble" collectors buy what the galleries and museums promote, furthermore once you have sold you work through galleries and to museums and institutions, then they have to justify those sales and purchases (expenses) by defending rigorously that work independently of the quality of that work.

museums and dealers promote work which to them fits into preconcieved notions of how they think history of art should be developing to justify there own institutional claptrap as it were. who chooses the artists? you could say that eminem or madonna is a famous artists because the public buy their records, but in the fine art photography world the artists are chosen and promoted by a handful of people, the public's opinion or objective quality is by and large unimportant.

while i do believe that really good artists, sooner or later, will get to be seen, i think that the majority of so called "art" photography exists not because it is exectional or as chris says or "have something special to offer" rather because they are alowed into the establishment because they apease aforementioned preconceaved ideas or are skillful users of "art language" or know how to sell and promote. where does this leave the ernest hardworking photo/artist of great integrity? you tell me... good question gordon...

[Dirk Rösler]

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

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.

[Brian K]

Dirk I can't speak for other photographers who sell their work only for myself but my choice to make my living selling photographs was not one based on commercial reasons or as part of some business plan. I already had a business that served me well for 25 years, I took a serious gamble and cut in income in closing my business in order to pursue my personal work. However as the type of work I do is very expensive to produce I have to make money pursuing it.

I have come across your POV before, that is the POV that only work done by amateurs without any intent on selling is true art. To be very straight I think that that is total BS. Most of the people I know who pursue their livlihood through the sale of prints are intensely commited to their work, to a level that people not pursuing it full time can not imagine.

I shoot photos that I want to see. The only acknowledgement to the sales aspect of my work comes in the form of whether or not I include the image in the catalog of my work. Personally I don't need to make 50 copies of a print for myself, however if there is a demand for an image that I have produced I will print it in edition size quantities. I do what I do because I love doing photography. If I were wealthy I'd still do what I do, but to be fair I might not pursue selling my work. However as I too need to pay bills, and the bills for doing my work are substantial, I will need to sell prints. How does that lessen the integrity of my work?

[John Ramsay]

If I had kids, I`d certainly tell them to get a good background in marketing, advertising and basic math along with their art classes. Better yet learn good computer skills and science with lots of math.
The problem with most artists through history is the inability to self manage along with a lack of self discipline. Hell, many have been so arrogant they alienate their own patrons and constantly shoot themselves in the foot, or probably the hand that feeds them. Artistic temperment = hungry artist in many cases.
You as the artist may set the value of a work, but the public determines the price. Art of any nature either enrichs a patrons life and walls or yours. Maybe your art can be put on perminent public display. I know artists that do only municipal art projects. They make great money until the tax dollars dry up. Lots of competition no matter which road you travel.
First the artist has to make a unique work that is technically sound, evokes some emotion or mood and then the art has to be viewed and voted on by the buying public.
Success? Pick one and get on with it.
By the way, if your unsuccessful at what you do, find something else to do or get use to being poor. It`s really simple.
Off to another day of dealing with the reps, the artists and the retailers.
Happy Monday to all.

[Dirk Rösler]

If you read closely you will find that I have never said that the non-commercial photographer will produce higher quality artistic work. What I have said is that the better selling photographer is not necessarily a "more successful artist", and that it depends on the definition of the term 'success' and that I disagree with the definition used in this discussion. Obviously I'm on my own so never mind

[Jack Flesher]

I've been out of town, am coming in late on this thread and this post is kind of OT, but felt I needed to clear up a point since my name was mentioned early on...

The original post contained this quote (I assume from another thread?): >>To Jim Collum, Jack Flesher, or any of the other few successful fine art photographers reading here, how good do you think opportunites are for fine art photographers with very little exhibit history? <<

To be clear, I very definitely do *not* consider myself a "successful fine art photographer"! While I have indeed sold several of my "fine art" images, I clearly have not made a living doing it.

To the point and FWIW, I have made significantly more *money* in photography -- and revenue is how I choose to measure sucess in a business endeavor -- by teaching (workshops) and doing commercial/product photography gigs.

Just wanted to make that clear so there was no confusion ,