The parallel universe of "Fine Art Photography", .....and the rest of us.

**Jim Galli** · 22-Jun-2008, 13:05

I've been reading with interest Mr. Willards complaint and thinking about where most of us fit in the grand scheme of "fine art", or not.

It is no surprise at all that Merg Ross summed up my thoughts so succinctly and in such wonderful economy as he simply and honestly responded to someone's querry. I hope he'll forgive me for quoting him here.

Originally Posted by Merg Ross

(Where were you when I still had money and was actively collecting?)

Bill, I have been quietly working in the medium I love for over fifty years. Along the way there have been a few fans, and collectors that have appreciated my work. For the most part however, my work has received little attention, partly by choice and partly by chance.

At a very young age I played the museum game and showed my work to people in high places. It worked, and I ended up in collections,exhibitions and publications. But I soon realized that I was very poor at self-promotion and decided instead to put my energy into creating images. Also, the trend for what was acceptable as "fine art" photography was very different from what I was producing. I was out of step with the latest fad, and am even more so today.

My website represents a small sample of what I have produced over a long career in photography. The passion has never waned and new work continues to grace my walls. The website was the inspiration of my daughter, who thought that more people should be aware of my work. Perhaps so. Anyway, thanks to all who have taken a look and for your comments.

For most of us, this is what it's all about. We're out of step. Even my slightly different path with the antique lenses is equally or more out of step. So for the grand majority here I will join Mr. Ross in quietly working in the medium I love. I'd like to think I have 50 years, but I'm 55 and that's pretty tough math.

Thanks Merg for quietly giving me my marching orders.

**Bruce Watson** · 22-Jun-2008, 13:34

Indeed Jim. Well said.

I struggled for years to get my work seen and sold and come to a similar conclusion. The sales effort takes way too much time and effort for way too little results. I felt like a salmon continuously swimming upstream. So I've stepped back and done just what Merg said -- I'm putting my energy into creating the images that I personally like and find fulfilling. I'll quietly go down my own path and let the art establishment noisily continue down theirs.

Thanks Merg, for articulating what I was unable to, and like Jim, for giving me my marching orders.

**jb7** · 22-Jun-2008, 13:49

Yes, well said, and beautifully written-
Thank you gentlemen-

j

**Walter Calahan** · 22-Jun-2008, 14:13

To play the museum / high end collector's game is similar to trying to be a rock star. Very difficult to remain in the stratosphere forever.

Think of it, Walker Evans made his real money as the photo editor of Fortune Magazine.

It will all be sorted out long after we're gone. Meanwhile, keep following your dream.

**Daniel_Buck** · 22-Jun-2008, 14:24

I shoot for myself, nobody else :-) I don't know many people who like looking at pictures of a dead tree, or a cloud, or something else. I enjoy it though :-)

**Marko** · 22-Jun-2008, 15:10

Originally Posted by Daniel_Buck

I shoot for myself, nobody else :-) I don't know many people who like looking at pictures of a dead tree, or a cloud, or something else. I enjoy it though :-)

Me too. And it doesn't even have to be dead. The tree, that is.

I also thoroughly enjoy what I do for hire, but that's a whole different story.

**Preston** · 22-Jun-2008, 19:10

I was talking with Dan Baumbach today about the 'selling thing'. Basically, we both truly enjoy photography and doing our best, and the 'hard sell' just isn't our forte' or desire. We want poeple to buy our prints becasue they like them, not becasue of some hard-sell tactics on our part.

It really is a fine line between playing the marketing game to the hilt and being humble, but proud of our work.

Great thread!

-PB

**John Kasaian** · 22-Jun-2008, 20:34

Perhaps the photographic work that is quietly birthed by the radically out of step speaks more clearly and with greater beauty than anything made to be shoved down the throats of the public

**Daniel_Buck** · 22-Jun-2008, 21:22

I think in general, (at least from what I've seen talking with other people who are into photography) is that the public doesn't really want to buy photographs anymore. I think the internet, (and digital photography) has kind of taken away the desire for most folks to purchase a photograph. Heck, most peoples cell-phones have a built-in camera nowdays! And I think people don't realize the difference between a poor quality photograph, and a high quality photograph. Most people are content to have a free crummy quality web-sized JPG rather than pay for a good print.

I know alot of motor-sports photographers, and there are people there who spend thousands and thousands of dollars on their cars, but won't pay $10 for an 8x10 print of their car pulling the front wheels off the ground or sliding through a turn. $10!! That's hardly 1/4 tank of gas, and it's a photograph than means something to them, a photograph of their hard work on their car! If they are reluctant to purchase a print, how much less is the general public reluctant to purchase a print. Once I started realizing that, I stopped trying to sell my photographs and just focused on enjoying myself while making the photographs for myself! Every now and then I get someone who wants to buy a print, or someone who want's me to shoot their car, but I don't actively market the photographs or my services. If something comes up, it comes up. But not very often.

I don't think that's only limited to photography either, same with music and other things, people just don't like to pay for things. I think it's hit photography pretty hard though, since with digital and everyone and their brother has at least a small P&S digital, nobody wants prints. I've had a few people at work purchase some of my prints (which was a shock, because I never once tried to sell them!), but I'm assuming that's probably because they know me personally, and that probably makes the photograph worth more to them than if it were just some random photographer they don't know personally. And I guess I work with more 'artist' type people than most people probably do, (being in visual effects), so they can probably still appreciate the work better than the average public can.

I guess it's just part of how things are working out now :-)

**John Kasaian** · 22-Jun-2008, 22:29

Originally Posted by Daniel_Buck

I think in general, (at least from what I've seen talking with other people who are into photography) is that the public doesn't really want to buy photographs anymore. I think the internet, (and digital photography) has kind of taken away the desire for most folks to purchase a photograph. Heck, most peoples cell-phones have a built-in camera nowdays! And I think people don't realize the difference between a poor quality photograph, and a high quality photograph. Most people are content to have a free crummy quality web-sized JPG rather than pay for a good print.

I know alot of motor-sports photographers, and there are people there who spend thousands and thousands of dollars on their cars, but won't pay $10 for an 8x10 print of their car pulling the front wheels off the ground or sliding through a turn. $10!! That's hardly 1/4 tank of gas, and it's a photograph than means something to them, a photograph of their hard work on their car! If they are reluctant to purchase a print, how much less is the general public reluctant to purchase a print. Once I started realizing that, I stopped trying to sell my photographs and just focused on enjoying myself while making the photographs for myself! Every now and then I get someone who wants to buy a print, or someone who want's me to shoot their car, but I don't actively market the photographs or my services. If something comes up, it comes up. But not very often.

I don't think that's only limited to photography either, same with music and other things, people just don't like to pay for things. I think it's hit photography pretty hard though, since with digital and everyone and their brother has at least a small P&S digital, nobody wants prints. I've had a few people at work purchase some of my prints (which was a shock, because I never once tried to sell them!), but I'm assuming that's probably because they know me personally, and that probably makes the photograph worth more to them than if it were just some random photographer they don't know personally. And I guess I work with more 'artist' type people than most people probably do, (being in visual effects), so they can probably still appreciate the work better than the average public can.

I guess it's just part of how things are working out now :-)

I think it is the hallmark of a sick culture, and yet there are people who will still hang something up that speaks to them. I used to do photo line ups for the DA and got to go inside the homes of people from all walks of life. The art work (and there often was art work) was unlike anything you'd likely find at the MOMA---the common factor was that they all held some meaning which the owner would often be happy to discuss. Homes with art work that looked POMO were usually decorated either by someone else or because it made the joint "look" stylish----and the resident didn't know anything about the piece other than it (seems to be) in style.