Selling at craft markets - hard lessons learned.

[kjsphotography]

So you are saying these photographer make $150K a photograph per sale? Is that what you are saying Tim? Please show me the sales records and the fact according to you they selling on a monthly basis?

Wyland sell out all his paintings on Cruise ships for $20-50K every single time they leave port! How do I know> I know collectors that
takes these trips just to buy his work exclusively! And these cruises are not once a year either.

SO Which one of your selected picks does the same as this single painter for example? Give me facts Tim and not more of your opinions.

[photographs42]

Jerome,

.....I come at this as a buyer. I wouldn't spend ten seconds looking at his stand. It isn't because I'm stupid, it's because for me, and for a lot of other people, the work is being presented in a way that is a complete turnoff....

I’m not sure where the idea that art fair attendees are stupid originated but I don’t think I have said that and I know I haven’t said that you were stupid.

You, I and everyone else have certain things that we have an appreciation for and take pride in owning. Those things are different for each of us. Art, as a class of objects, is probably among the most complex possessions we own because it is almost universally non-utilitarian; it has no practical function. What I like, what you like, what anybody likes is an outgrowth of who we are and how we got to where we are. When I look at a piece of art, I see with my eyes the same thing that you and everyone else sees. But the way I perceive it is influenced and ultimately judged by my background, my education, my experiences, and even my current state of mind, so that on another level we all see the same piece of art differently.

When I first told my wife that I was going to show my work at art fairs her reaction was “How can you do that? What if people don’t like it?” I said most of them won’t and if they don’t, they will just walk on by like I do when I don’t care for something.

I see a lot of art; at art shows, at galleries, at museums and numerous public places. Some I like, some I don’t care for, some I think is poor and some knocks my socks off. I have way more art than I can display in my house so I am usually just looking. In fact, I don’t think I have ever gone to a show or a gallery with the intent of buying something. When I do see something that strikes a chord with me, I buy it and decide where to put it later. So it doesn’t surprise me that most art fair attendees are just looking. In fact, I am surprised at the number of people who ARE looking for something to buy.

The same applies to Bruce's approach to marketing. Why would I spend time looking at a photographer's work if the photographer is so desperate to appeal to anyone and everyone that he has thrown in everything including the kitchen sink?....

I agree with you about Bruce’s marketing approach and I believe I expressed that in an earlier post.

I'm just suggesting that the problem may sometimes lie elsewhere than in the stupidity of the public.

As to the “Problem” (for me anyway), it’s multi-faceted. First, there are far more photography artists in any given show now, which spreads the photography sales over a larger base. Second, black & white landscape photography has always had a much smaller audience than anything in color. Finally, the economy right now is in a strange condition and sales for everyone are generally down from a few years ago. None of this has anything to do with whether the public is smart or stupid.

Jerome

[tim atherton]

So you are saying these photographer make $150K a photograph per sale? Is that what you are saying Tim? Please show me the sales records and the fact according to you they sell on a monthly basis?

well, I don't exactly see you've posted the accounts for any of the painters you mentioned, but as far as I know all those photographers generally sell work in the range you list of "$50K - $150K" - those are their gallery prices. (for one or two of them it can be at least $750,00 a time - like Wall)

I'd add that as far as I can tell, most of those painters you list are much more high intensity marketing machines geared towards producing exactly the art that a vast number of people want essentially as decor. Most of it isn't the sort of art that will end up in Museums and Major Collections, which is fine. But it is what sells - and in volume.

It's an entirely different market, with different rules and a very different game plan.

And they may well make more than those who are considered the most important painters of today - like Hockney or Freud or Richter - probably not per painting, because they don't have a production line going and their individual paintings sell for much more each, but overall, yes, the Kincaids of this world probably make more by pure volume.

But if you want to make millions as a photographer, be Anne Geddes - she's done incredibly very successfully

[kjsphotography]

You know, Jorge is right, you will argue people to death jut so you can be right and validate your opinion.

I am done...

[tim atherton]

You know, Jorge is right, you will argue people to death jut so you can be right and validate your opinion.

I am done...

I doubt either of you have it in you to actually shut up

[QT Luong]

> Show me living photographers (10+) that are making the same per piece of living painters such as Wyland, Pino, Vallejo, Hurst, etc… The list goes on and on.
Show me? Show me a living photographers ton one but many that can command $50K - $150K per piece on a daily basis as these living painters/ artist bring in per canvas? Look at Loranc, Sexton, Kenna, Smith, etc.. They all bring in about $600 to 5K a photo where as a painters with the exact same name recognition can command 10 to 100 times more on every single sale.

From a business point of view, the revenue per piece is irrelevant. What matters is the revenue per image. If you sell out an edition of 30 at $5K, here is your $150K. The names that you mentioned, by the way, are probably the photographers you admire, but they not the stars of the art photography world, who bring certainly more than 5K a piece

> The reason is that there is only 1 painting and a photograph is just another reproduction

None of your arguments so far support this conclusion.

> Why would anyone in their right mind pay $50K for a duplicate that anyone else can own.

Well, if it is $50K, I don't think anyone can own it. That's a year of income for most.

> Lets take it a step further. Why would someone pay $20K on an original Adams photograph when they can get a silver printed one by Alan Ross from Adams negative for $125 ?

Why did the Barry Bonds record breaking ball sold for $750K, while you can buy the same one at a store for a few dollars ?

> most people that collect ART would never consider purchasing a photograph.

Maybe, but there are quite a few galleries that cater to those people. Have you any non-anecdotical evidence, such as the ratio of photo galleries to painting galleries ?


> Most people not matter how much you disagree do not consider photography as art , but instead that of something that is technical in nature that anyone can do no matter what you thought you believed.

This may well be the root of the problem, but it doesn't anything to do with the edition being of 1 or 200.

> I had another conversation with another gallery owner about a week ago and brought up to his attention the idea of 1/1 and he liked the idea, I then asked the owner if they thought people would consider it more of a work of art rather than a photograph by only allowing one and destroying the negative? He said if you want to be known as an artist this is the wrong medium and you should consider going back to painting. My jaw dropped but the person spoke the truth. It is all perception and people do not perceive photography as an art form but rather a technical process period.

So he is telling you that the perception is due to the nature of the medium, and not whether the print is 1/1, isn't he ?

> You ever wonder why people that own a piano do not call themselves a pianist, but someone who owns a camera automatically calls themselves a photographer / fine artist?

I don't think most of the soccer moms fall into this category.

> how about those picture of bears and flowers, but hey this is #1/100! But it now! Do you have any wonder why people are only willing to pay very little for a photograph?

Actually, that fellow Tom mentioned previously makes a very good living selling pictures of bears. Maybe only a meager $500 per print, but he does sell out editions of nearly 1000.


> Also this will insure buyer that you are willing to sacrifice the negative to prove that photography is just as beautiful and important an art form as panting,

I don't see the connection between destroying the negative and the beauty or importance of an art form.


> Oh wait I just sold out the 8x10 edition of 10, I better make the 11x14 edition of 50 now from the same negative!

As I have already mentioned, this is an unethical practice, possibly illegal in some places.

[kjsphotography]

So he is telling you that the perception is due to the nature of the medium, and not whether the print is 1/1, isn't he ?

No I didn't say that, he said he liked the idea and thought it would bring more value to the photograph but didn't think it would make people consider it art and that if you wanted be be considered an artist go back to painting. That is what I said.

[paulr]

So you are saying these photographer make $150K a photograph per sale?

How's $2.48 million?
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswir..._id=1003466018

But that's beside the point. I was curious about your statement that "no one considers photography art." How on earth did being able to sell pieces for $150K get equated with art?

Etching, lithography, and woodcut are traditions that have been considered "art" for hundreds of years. They are all means for making multiples, and are in fact where the practice of editioning began.

Do the top photographs command the prices of the top paintings? No. Do they command a whole friggin' lot of money? I think so. Does any of this suggest that "no one considerers photography art?"

You tell me.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

No I didn't say that, he said he liked the idea and thought it would bring more value to the photograph but didn't think it would make people consider it art and that if you wanted be be considered an artist go back to painting. That is what I said.

LOL...well Kevin, you must be doing something right when you have the two "art" experts of this forum so dead set against you. When you talk about this I cant't help but wonder how much would have Weston's Pepper ·30 brought in if there was only one?

On the other hand there is some hypocresy on this thread. In the past I posed the question if photography was an art or a craft in this very same forum and the overwhelming mayority said it was craft. So, if your concern is photography as art, you are talking to the wrong people.

[Greg Lockrey]

LOL...well Kevin, you must be doing something right when you have the two "art" experts of this forum so dead set against you. When you talk about this I cant't help but wonder how much would have Weston's Pepper ·30 brought in if there was only one?

On the other hand there is some hypocresy on this thread. In the past I posed the question if photography was an art or a craft in this very same forum and the overwhelming mayority said it was craft. So, if your concern is photography as art, you are talking to the wrong people.

Art in all of it's forms is a craft, that's why there is good art and bad art, mostly due to the execution of the craft.