Why Moonrise over Hernandez?

[rdenney]

Not sure where you were, but Adams was a household name in the 60's. Remember the Hills Brothers' coffee can commercials, 1969?

That predates me. I was thinking of when his work became generally available to the public at large, in the form of New York Graphic Society books and posters. I think the first one of those (Yosemite and the Range of Light) came out in 1978 or so, and tentatively enough so that first editions of it are worth something. I was already well into photography and art by that time, so I can't recall how well he was known to the world at large.

But come to think of it, his work and name did appear in pop culture sources (e.g. Life Magazine) pretty frequently before that. I remember one occasion when he complained that their four-color work of on of his black and white prints looked unnatural. And that print may have been Moonrise--which blasts whatever point I was making right out of the water, heh. But that may have been later, too. In fact, it may have been an article about how much it got at auction.

Rick "whose cat also chases its tail and sometimes catches it with unfortunate results" Denney

[Brian Ellis]

I fully agree with this observation, and I also believe it is not buy chance either which tells me a lot about the demographics of who buys art.

Would any one care to speculate?

The presence of a human element that QT mentions may be part of the reason for its appeal today among a certain group of collectors (particularly those who can afford its prices in original form) but "Moonrise" has been popular since it was first sold (not of course at today's astronomical prices but popular nonetheless). While current taste in landscape photography may be part of the reason for its appeal to some people today, I think there's more to its general popularity over a long period of time than that.

[Henry Ambrose]

snipped......

When someone personalizes some of the postings on this thread and responds in hostile manner it shuts down the whole debate because people will feel intimidated about how they really feel. And right now I am feeling very frustrated about this hostile behavior because I really want to know the answer to why Hernandez and not El Capitain! This is not a game. I have bills to pay.

I don't know if you are referring to me or not when you remark about a "hostile manner". I am serious about answering, not hostile toward you. I gave a serious answer that you should go back and read and think about.

I'll also say that even if you can squeeze out the juice of why people buy or don't buy your photos, there is still the making of them.

I appreciate your concern with your career. Times are tough for me too. But you could study why people fall in love and learn reams about it. Do massive surveys, record brain scans, perform testing of all sorts and produce loads of data. But would that make any difference in you going out and falling in love? Or making someone else fall in love with you?

[Bill_1856]

Moonrise is beloved and sells well because it is beautiful, and "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

[goamules]

We've come close to an aspect that I think has to be considered; Tipping Point. The time when enough people (gallery owners, art buyers, general public/art viewers) have heard about Moon, Hernandez, that they want to show, buy, see it.

I think the print has a combination of intrinsic qualities that people like when they see it, PLUS a buzz and marketing that would increase sales even if it didn't have that artistic quality. Perhaps 50% bought the prints because they love it, and the other wanted to "show off", or have an investment.

Garrett

[Stephen Willard]

Kirk, I never know the correct question to ask when I start a thread of this nature and in most cases it is the wrong question. However, as the debate matures the correct question is asked and many valued answers are provided.

Brian, there is no correct answer to this thread. Just plausible ideas and considerations. It would be nice if one could support his thoughts with any sales he have personally made or observations of what sells based on other people’s sales.

Henry, I was just answering your question. I came clean. I am not looking for apologies nor am I willing to mention any names, but rather just entertain plausible answers. When that happens we can all benefit from it. It is not just for me. It is for everyone here.

Paul, you mentioned two avenues to produce sales. One is selling a name such as Gursky and the other is by selling an experience usually about beauty such as Kinkade. I will never be famous because I am treading on a well worn path as Krik has mentioned, so that leaves me with beauty.

Andrew, your article was very interesting, but I believe there is a reason why Mr Lunn was drawn to Hernandez based on its content. I will try to answer that question based on my own sales I have made this year.

Jim, I hope to do a portfolio review in a few years. I will definitely spread my work on the table and the at the end of the review, ask the question of which image stuck in their minds.

To everyone, it is hard for me to respond to every idea posted because of time constrains. However, no posting goes unnoticed, and all are really appreciated.

Now here is my theory and observations of why Hernandez sells:

1. I sold 13 large pieces from November to December at an average of $700 per image. All sales were to women. When I reviewed all of my sales this year made directly through me, they were to women. No men purchased any of my photographs this year. They were all urban, mostly professionals, educated, and I would guess had no strong connection to the land.
   
2. People will only purchase photographs who’s content has meaning to them. They see the image which reminds them of an experience they have had and then an emotional reaction is realized. If the reaction is sufficiently strong then a purchase is made.
   
3. Urban women do not climb towering peaks nor trek through remote wilderness, and thus, cannot relate to those kinds of images or experiences. However, they will go for a short hike through a grove of aspens bearing fall colors. El Capitain would not appeal to women, but Aspens and Hernandez would.
   
4. Safety is a big issue with women. They will not walk alone at night nor on trails in the backcountry. There is always the fear of rape and abuse. They feel safe within the intimate interiors of their homes where there are locks and light. Women need to be romanced and everything about them is beauty. They decorate themselves and the interior of their homes to be beautiful and as an expression of their love for beauty. Kinkade’s images project a feeling of being safe. His images are of domesticated landscapes that are ordered and safe. There are no carnivorous animals or deviant perverts lurking in his shadows, but there is a glowing light in his windows. They are romantic in nature and they are about beauty. Hernandez captures many of these qualities, but is executed at a real life level while Kinkade is almost at a cartoon story book level.
   
5. I have been talking with Mangelsen sales people over the years and color landscape photography is now out selling his wildlife photography.
   
6. I have produce no images with a human element to it. However, I do have a number of images that are more feminine and intimate in nature such as a suite of aspen photographs and they sell very well. Images that capture the raw jagged beauty of the land such as El Capitain where wolves, mountain lions, and bear may inhabit do not sell as well. There is an unknown element of adventure to images like El Capitain that can be unsettling to urban women. Women are not risk takers nor adventurous by nature. They are the ones who bear and raise children and they do not take chances with their babies. They do not conquer, by rather domesticate a safe place for themselves and their childern.

Please note that my answers and observations are not necessarily correct, but rather offer a possibility for others to consider. A number of them are broad generalizations with many exceptions.

My love of landscape photography is in remote wilderness far from civilization. Even though those kinds of images do not sell well, I will continue to produce them because that is where my passion lies. However, I am also gearing up to produce Hernandez types of images because I have to make sales to cover my bills.

This discussion is really helping me to understand my market, where my passion falls, and how I must allocate my very limited resources.

[rdenney]

Your observations ring true to me. We live on six acres of pine woods in northern Virginia, and the management of those woods is a minor contention between me and my wife. She describes herself as a nature girl and prefers the seclusion and quietude of rural life (as long as she is within driving distance of a decidedly non-rural job, and she and I are the same form of hypocrite in that regard).

Relevant to your point, she is always wanting to tend the pine woods to make them look, well, tended. I want to let them grow wild. She wants to remove what falls, and I want to let it lie. She wants the undergrowth cleared away (so she can plant different undergrowth), and I think that what grows there already has earned the right to do so without my interference. I don't think the sense of safety is all of the driving force in her tendencies, though it might be part of it. I also think that she derives a sense of peace from having exerted influence on her surrounding, while I derive a sense of vigor from engaging it on its own terms.

The artworks she collects are signed, limited edition prints by Bev Doolittle, which are not exactly cheap and which are handled similarly to fine prints by well-known photographers. I, on the other hand, buy photographs, usually by relative unknowns whose work appeals to me. There is a connection to your point in that fact. Doolittle is a master of the contrived landscape (including the positive/negative human presence), and the photographs I've collected show the landscape in all its wild disorder, usually without any human element.

She definitely spends more money than I do buying art. She'll spend more money framing one of her prints than I usually spend for already framed photographs.

Rick "generalizing just a little" Denney

[Paul Kierstead]

Aspens is the only Adams on my walls (alas, not an silver print let alone printed by him). It does not seem at all to me to be romantic or warm; in fact, I think if anything Adams stomped that out pretty thoroughly for the most part. El Capitan is very masculine; it is all about big and harsh. I love visiting those places, but am rarely overly fond of their photographs. Last year I did a chunk of hiking in Zion. Breathtaking. Would return at the drop of a hat. I've rarely seen a photograph of it that interested me.

I think that

People will only purchase photographs who’s content has meaning to them. They see the image which reminds them of an experience they have had and then an emotional reaction is realized. If the reaction is sufficiently strong then a purchase is made.

is your most dangerous proposition. It could amount to pandering (which is what I think Kinkade does, if brilliantly). Pandering can be a slap in the face to the customer. As an occasional art buyer, I'm interested in an emotional experience, but it doesn't not have to be one which reminds me of an experience; in fact, I'm more interested in one which presents new experiences, which 'interests' me, not one which makes me reminisce or make me feel fuzzy.

I think it is important to respect the customer.

[Deane Johnson]

I don't sell photographs (nobody wants mine), so I have no practical experience to base this on.

My theory is that people respond most to photographs that provoke an emotional reaction. Moonrise certainly does that. El Captain doesn't, though I like it.

I don't think their thinking goes any deeper than that and it's no more complicated than that.

[Stephen Willard]

It is also my belief that most galleries are owned and run by women, and that the art world is really driven more by women perceptions then men perceptions. Of course, this is a very board generalization and one can site many exceptions.

Perhaps one can assert the reason photography has been hard to sell as art is because it is a medium that is dominated by men, and we as men have been unable to understand women's needs and desire in art and life. Take the simple act of making love. My wife says it is 80% metal and 20% mechanical. The foreplay of conversation and good drink is vital to great sex. For myself it is just the opposite 20% metal and 80% mechanical. These differences between the sexes can lead to divorce and unsellable photographs. There is a subtle, and yet, powerful lesson to be learned here with Hernandez.