Review/Exhibit Fees and the New Depression

[G Benaim]

I'm the original poster, and thought I'd summarize what I've learned since I started talking to people about this subject. I've been getting lots of different responses to my posts/email, ranging from total dismissal of reviews/juried shows to total support of what they do. I guess my conclusion from what I've learned so far is that these places (for the most part) aren't making a buck off photographers, and that they couldn't do what they do if they didn't charge enough for it (I read for instance Laura Moya's detailed description of how critical mass works over at "a photo editor"). Moreover, if one were actually to try and get meetings w all the people who see one's work in these venues, one would probably end up paying quite a bit more, if it were even possible.

On the other hand, there are certainly many photographers (some of whom wrote to tell me)who have either severely curtailed their participation in such events, or ended it completely primarily for financial reasons, so there are definitely people not being seen solely on the basis of money. Moreover, there's an overarching sense of the unfairness of the system (justified or not) on the part of most people I was in touch with, a perception that should at least be addressed openly by the people running these events.

What I'd conclude from all this is that there's definitely a need for a low-cost alternative to the current options, ideally funded by government or non-profit supporters of the arts, to cover the needs of those left out for financial reasons. Whether photographers alone, working in cooperatives or as a non-profit port. review can achieve this is something I'm unsure about. I can only say that general reaction to even the idea of a petition such as I described was lukewarm, at best.

To Merg's point re museum curators, I can only speak from my immediate surroundings, and say museum curators nowadays are usually not available to look at work cold off the street.

GB

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I'm the original poster, and thought I'd summarize what I've learned since I started talking to people about this subject. I've been getting lots of different responses to my posts/email, ranging from total dismissal of reviews/juried shows to total support of what they do. I guess my conclusion from what I've learned so far is that these places (for the most part) aren't making a buck off photographers, and that they couldn't do what they do if they didn't charge enough for it (I read for instance Laura Moya's detailed description of how critical mass works over at "a photo editor"). Moreover, if one were actually to try and get meetings w all the people who see one's work in these venues, one would probably end up paying quite a bit more, if it were even possible.

On the other hand, there are certainly many photographers (some of whom wrote to tell me)who have either severely curtailed their participation in such events, or ended it completely primarily for financial reasons, so there are definitely people not being seen solely on the basis of money. Moreover, there's an overarching sense of the unfairness of the system (justified or not) on the part of most people I was in touch with, a perception that should at least be addressed openly by the people running these events.

What I'd conclude from all this is that there's definitely a need for a low-cost alternative to the current options, ideally funded by government or non-profit supporters of the arts, to cover the needs of those left out for financial reasons. Whether photographers alone, working in cooperatives or as a non-profit port. review can achieve this is something I'm unsure about. I can only say that general reaction to even the idea of a petition such as I described was lukewarm, at best.

To Merg's point re museum curators, I can only speak from my immediate surroundings, and say museum curators nowadays are usually not available to look at work cold off the street.

GB

Let me ask you a question GB:

If a university in a different state, called you up and said they need you to teach a photography class, would you do it for free? Would you give your expertise to other people for free? Where can you go to, in this country, or any other country for that matter and receive expert advice for free? I know I'd like to improve my cooking, can I go to Wolfgang Puck and get cooking lessons from him for free?

[G Benaim]

HI David,

From what I understand, reviewers don't actually get paid to go to these reviews, they just get their expenses paid for. So they are actually working for free. This is only one of the important facts I recently discovered that made me change my mind about reviews. My larger point isn't that people should be doing this work for free (though they apparently are), but rather that photographers shouldn't be expected to shoulder the majority of the burden for a process that ultimately everyone benefits from. As it turns out, others are certainly pitching in, as I mentioned, reviewers are basically doing pro bono work. I guess more important than the specific issue of money is that of perception, as many people have come to believe that the current system is unfair. I think it would be in everyone's interest if these questions were brought out in the open and addressed directly. In my brief exposure to this topic, I've certainly learned a lot of new, relevant facts, and have changed what I think about it. Others might too, and even if not, at least people will have a better idea of where they stand.

[Greg Miller]

It's a bargain if you win, and it's expensive if you don't. The hard part of not getting selected is receiving no feedback. It would nice if there was an easy way for the jury/juror to provide everyone who entered with at least a raw score. That would at least tell you if your entry was competetive or not.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

HI David,

From what I understand, reviewers don't actually get paid to go to these reviews, they just get their expenses paid for. So they are actually working for free. This is only one of the important facts I recently discovered that made me change my mind about reviews. My larger point isn't that people should be doing this work for free (though they apparently are), but rather that photographers shouldn't be expected to shoulder the majority of the burden for a process that ultimately everyone benefits from. As it turns out, others are certainly pitching in, as I mentioned, reviewers are basically doing pro bono work. I guess more important than the specific issue of money is that of perception, as many people have come to believe that the current system is unfair. I think it would be in everyone's interest if these questions were brought out in the open and addressed directly. In my brief exposure to this topic, I've certainly learned a lot of new, relevant facts, and have changed what I think about it. Others might too, and even if not, at least people will have a better idea of where they stand.

Out of respect for you as a photographer, I'm not going to say anything else other than this is a free market society. Profit is NOT a bad thing. Every time you walk into a camera store or order supplies, those companies are making profit off of you. Every you buy clothes, furniture or food, those companies are making a profit off of you. I realize how this hits to the emotional center of a photographer - being successful and selling your work to collectors and one day having the honor of seeing it exhibited at the AIPAD Photography Show. But you can't get there, at least no photographer has ever gotten there, without investing in him or herself. If you believe in your work and you believe galleries will want to sell and collectors will want to buy, then a small investment now for the return you'll make later shouldn't be a problem. I know it's not that easy and not as black and white as I make it sound, but in reality if your work is marketable, people will want to buy it. People are still buying art, despite the bad economy. I've heard wonderful things from Scope and Armory this past weekend.

[Ron Marshall]

Where can you go to, in this country, or any other country for that matter and receive expert advice for free?

This website, for one.

[Jim Galli]

I once paid Al Weber $20 for a portfolio review. One of the better bargains of my lifetime. Doesn't seem that long ago either.

[nathanm]

Where can you go to in this world and receive an expert's opinion for FREE?

I could tell you, but it would cost you.

[claudiocambon]

Out of respect for you as a photographer, I'm not going to say anything else other than this is a free market society. Profit is NOT a bad thing. Every time you walk into a camera store or order supplies, those companies are making profit off of you. Every you buy clothes, furniture or food, those companies are making a profit off of you. I realize how this hits to the emotional center of a photographer - being successful and selling your work to collectors and one day having the honor of seeing it exhibited at the AIPAD Photography Show. But you can't get there, at least no photographer has ever gotten there, without investing in him or herself. If you believe in your work and you believe galleries will want to sell and collectors will want to buy, then a small investment now for the return you'll make later shouldn't be a problem. I know it's not that easy and not as black and white as I make it sound, but in reality if your work is marketable, people will want to buy it. People are still buying art, despite the bad economy. I've heard wonderful things from Scope and Armory this past weekend.

The issue isn't the profit principle per se, but whether or not the service or opportunity offered is a good and fair value. That of course depends on the situation, and each photographer has to evaluate for themselves what is worth pursuing and not, and what seems reasonable as opposed to what is exploitative.

[darr]

The issue isn't the profit principle per se, but whether or not the service or opportunity offered is a good and fair value. That of course depends on the situation, and each photographer has to evaluate for themselves what is worth pursuing and not, and what seems reasonable as opposed to what is exploitative.

The problem I have with paid submissions is if they regard themselves as "a professional service," why then does the photographer not receive a copy of the review from the judges?

Years ago when I submitted to the PPA for their Salons, we always received a personalized cassette recording with the judges making their comments about the work. This was a high volume judging event, and they were able to achieve this for the photographers because they understood the importance of it. After all, what good is a review if you do not get the incidentals about it. Granted we paid our yearly dues which were not much and an additional $15 per submission, but it was worth its weight in gold because it was a service that helped you achieve closer to your goals and not just a silent amount of money spent with nothing to show for it.

I will not pay for a professional service that does not give me back something in return.