So, if limited editions are used to....

[Vaughn]

First of all, you seem to have taken my response personally, and that was not my intention. I meant "everybody" in a generic way. I am sure you are doing what is best for you and your work.

That's the problem of using generalities loosely like that, "everybody" means everybody, and that includes me. It is not quite the same as using a generic "you". You (non-generic) should use words a bit more carefully if you wish to be understood correctly. Besides that, I found your comment to be very judgmental -- assigning the qualities of greed and over-blown sense of self-worth by the price break of prints...there are too many other factors involved for that to be an accurate or useful generalization.

Paul, I can't support my family with my print sales, but I do try to support my art with sales -- so I cannot afford to sell my work and my time at a loss. So there is a little "profit imperative" involved. It is all a matter of balance.

Vaughn

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

That's the problem of using generalities loosely like that, "everybody" means everybody, and that includes me. It is not quite the same as using a generic "you". You (non-generic) should use words a bit more carefully if you wish to be understood correctly. Besides that, I found your comment to be very judgmental -- assigning the qualities of greed and over-blown sense of self-worth by the price break of prints...there are too many other factors involved for that to be an accurate or useful generalization.

Paul, I can't support my family with my print sales, but I do try to support my art with sales -- so I cannot afford to sell my work and my time at a loss. So there is a little "profit imperative" involved. It is all a matter of balance.

Vaughn

While I tried to mend fences and let you know it was not a remark directed at you specifically, I am certainly not going to be lectured by you. If you took the comment personally and the shoe fit, then it is your problem, not mine.

[Brian Ellis]

when I was working with a grant funding body a couple of years ago, as I recall, the figures out of the US we had to work with were that average income for painters was $38,000. (Fashion designers and architects fare better... at about $60,000)

(I'm not 100% sure off-hand, but I think that also included "income from other sources" i.e. a second job)

That was based on Government sources - census data, tax data etc and the various surveys of professions.

I doubt the figures have changed that much in a couple of years

When you're talking about "income" you need to distinguish between gross and net. There's a big difference. A painter who's grossing $38,000 may be netting half or less than that. A painter who's netting $38,000 would likely be grossing a whole lot more than that after factoring in costs such as studio, travel, canvas, paints, models, etc.

These kinds of statistics can also be very misleading by not explaining how the term "painter" was defined. Did it include anyone who filed a Schedule C with a business code of "painter" or "artist" or was it limited to people who made a substantial part of their income from painting? I've always thought that "average" net incomes of photographers that I've seen from time to time are very misleading in that way. They never make it clear just who is being considered to be a "photographer." If you include everyone who files a Schedule C with a photographer business code you get a much lower, and I think misleading, number than if you limit the average to full-time professionals.

[paulr]

I know a lot of painters, and most would be ecstatic if they were even grossing $38,000! Which would put them on wellfare here in NYC if they didn't have other jobs.

[Vaughn]

While I tried to mend fences and let you know it was not a remark directed at you specifically, I am certainly not going to be lectured by you. If you took the comment personally and the shoe fit, then it is your problem, not mine.

Interesting...you make an unsupportable generalization and use poor writing skills, then you lay the blame on someone else. Communication is a two way activity. The writer has as much responcibility to make his/her point in a clear understandable way as the reader has in interpretating the writing. (sorry for the bad spelling)

But I it is my fault, too, After all, I choose to read and respond to your post.

Vaughn

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

as the reader has in interpretating the writing

Regardless of "clarity" I am not responsible for how the reader interprets. You chose you take it personally, that is on you. As you say, it too was my fault for trying to make it clearer for you. I should have left it as it was since any further efforts seem to be a waste of time.

[QT Luong]

I have an in-law who paints and draws. He sells almost nothing, so he is working at nearly minimum wage as a security guard. He looks with envy at the "easy money" made by wedding photographers. He would like to have repros made of his paintings so he wouldn't have to try to sell the originals because he is attached to them, yet doesn't have equipment or enough money to invest in quality repro work. The grass is greener on the other side.

[Greg Lockrey]

I have an in-law who paints and draws. He sells almost nothing, so he is working at nearly minimum wage as a security guard. He looks with envy at the "easy money" made by wedding photographers. He would like to have repros made of his paintings so he wouldn't have to try to sell the originals because he is attached to them, yet doesn't have equipment or enough money to invest in quality repro work. The grass is greener on the other side.

The grass is usually greener in the other guys yard because he has a couple of Dobbermans crapping in it. I make repros for guys just like him. I don't gouge either. (Shamless plug, I know.)

[kjsphotography]

I have an in-law who paints and draws. He sells almost nothing, so he is working at nearly minimum wage as a security guard. He looks with envy at the "easy money" made by wedding photographers. He would like to have repros made of his paintings so he wouldn't have to try to sell the originals because he is attached to them, yet doesn't have equipment or enough money to invest in quality repro work. The grass is greener on the other side.

If he is good have him try selling on ebay. A lot of painters are making between $1500-$5K a month on average. And these are not known artist. The only thing is that they do sell the originals. Look up Justin Clayton for example, he does a painting a day 5"x5" and it goes anywhere from $99 to to $450, he averages $1200+ a month. If your in-law want to do it he can but he will have to put forth the effort. You can do it if you want it bad enough.

Alot of painters make small painting that they sell and they keep their big works for themselves or galleries.

[tim atherton]

As for sales, it varies. Last month I sold four b&w ink prints of my Immersive Landscape series for $895.00 each and about half a dozen smaller sales