the thrust behind the magazine and the editorial is money, not photography. sorry to be cynical here, but the incentive appears to be return-on-investment, and art appreciation secondary.
the thrust behind the magazine and the editorial is money, not photography. sorry to be cynical here, but the incentive appears to be return-on-investment, and art appreciation secondary.
Well I have to disagree with you Daniel. Black and White Magazine is the fastest growing photography magazine on the American market today. It doesn't cater to "just" collectors and galleries. But it is about black and white photography from the very beginning of the craft to todays up and coming artists. It is about all the different styles encompassed by traditional photography. It "is" about the image. That is where Henry wants to keep his magazine. If you email him he will discuss the magazine and why he takes the position he does. And he will tell you that he does not dismiss digital photography or image reproduction at all. He merely wants to focus on images made in the traditional way which is how most of the existing photography in galleries and collections was made. He is not debating the status of digital as a new art form. Were an image (it would have to be a portfolio because this is the only way he will accept images) to come to him for review that was digitally shot and reproduced, that was what he thought might be a good article, he probably would include it. But he focuses on traditional photography and photographers. That is his audience. He seems to be doing the right thing for his magazine because it is selling well. And as for galleries and what they will or won't handle, most black and white photography accepted by galleries is traditionally produced with traditional silver or pl/pd. There is a resurrgence of other iron based alt processes too showing up in galleries. Color is now mostly produced as digital prints mainly due to the discontinuance of the dye transfer materials. All this talk of digital vs traditional photography sounds just like the tech wars and canikonolta battles that are fought endlessly on forums like this. Pretty dull reading. But not much discussion is devoted to the why of photography here. How about a little more of that and less "what is better" arguments.
"fastest growing photography magazine on the American market today"
Total unaudited circulation in over 28 countries = "about" 24,000.
It doesn't appear to be the fastest on the American market for print media.
Bob, can you name some other photography magazines that were only founded in the past three years that are now at the 24,000 level? I can't think of any other photography mags that have grown this fast, but you're probably in a better position to know than I am! Some digital-video magazines, perhaps, but if there are other plain old still photography magazines doing this well, that would be worth noting.
.....
As I mentioned, I love the photography in B&W and have every issue. On the front cover of every issue are the words 'Black and White Magazine For Collectors of Fine Photography'. Open the magazine and read the advertisements .. the galleries. The publishers can do what they want of course, but it makes good business sense, to editorialize on your sponsors behalf. It appears not be a digital/traditional argument at all, but simply a wise financial decision when you understand the market you have identified, your niche position, and your identified (and headlined) purpose. If it was truly about the image only, why write this editorial?
Christopher Burkett is my neighbour. He is up at 3:00 every morning laboriously printing his art that commands upwards of $7000/print. Each print has his fingerprints on it, as he says, and I wonder the differences in the art/gallery world if he wrote a batch program to dump hundreds of inkjet prints out while he sleeps, to find them ready to ship when he awakes. I honestly do not know, nor do I care, about the ramifications of that scenario, but if I were a magazine publisher I would certainly understand who feeds me, who bends my ear, and what the motivations are.
It seems the gallery, edition, artist/middleman/client paradigm is a fragile one these days and one in need of adjustment. There are strong forces resisting it.
There are two kinds of answers to this question, the obvious economics of running a magazine, and the philosophical issues involved with the value of traditional vs. digital photography.
As noted by Daniel, the economic issues are fairly obvious to anyone who picks up B&W Magazine. The bulk of the advertising revenue in B&W Magazine comes from Galleries such as Scott Nichols Gallery (inside front cover and page 1) and J.J. Brookings Gallery (back cover). Most of the other multiage ads are from similar galleries that specialize in high value prints from the masters, in addition to up and coming artists.
You can?t expect a magazine to bite the hand that feeds them. The future revenues of these galleries, not to mention the multimillion- dollar investment in inventory that galleries and museums have made, is threatened by the idea of digital photography, namely that all prints are identical in quality and value. This of course leads to the philosophical discussion about the value of various prints made from the same negative, esthetically and commercially (supply vs. demand).
Soren Kierkegaard posed the following question in the title page of ?Philosophical Fragments?:
?Is an historical point of departure possible for an eternal consciousness; how can such a point of departure have any other than a merely historical interest; is it possible to base an eternal happiness upon historical knowledge.?
In the above quote, Kierkegaard was referring to the historical Jesus, and in this discussion we are referring to the historical knowledge of the print. That is, whether a print made by the photographer nearest to the time that the negative was made, is more valuable than a print made at a later date, or more valuable than a print made by someone else after the photographer has died.
We know that from a purely esthetic point of view, a print made at a later date may actually have more artistic value as the photographer?s experience printing the image and the materials improve over time. A supervised assistant (e.g., Cole Weston) should be able to produce a print just as well after Edward Weston is dead as Cole did when Edward was alive. But we all know how the market values these two prints (both made by Cole) are quite different.
The world of fine art photography (commercial galleries and museums) is completely dependent on making this distinction in historical knowledge in the way it values photographic prints. It depends on the presumption that no two photographic prints are exactly alike, and some vague logic about the intent of photographer being more pure in the expression of their artistic expression nearest to the time that the negative was made. In reality, the earlier prints are usually more scarce (supply vs. demand) which affects the value of the print far more than purely esthetic concerns.
Digital photography, by virtually guaranteeing that every print is identical (even after the death of the photographer), and by the knowledge that exact copies of the digital negative (digital file) may exist somewhere (unlike a conventional negative), throws the entire world of fine art photography asunder. So it is no wonder that the galleries and the museums will do everything they can to make a distinction between convention and digital images.
:can you name some other photography magazines that were only founded in the past three years that are now at the 24,000 level?:
Since he uses unaudited figures of "about 24000 in 28+ countries" you can not do a comparison as agencies look only at controlled audited ABC figurews. We want to know a reliable # of impressions per ad per market and he is not ststing these figures in a standard, acceptable form.
As for fast growth wiyh aududited figures check Outdoor Photography.
You may or may not like the magazine but they have legitably measured demographics.
Of course the other question with B&W's stated circulation is how many of the "about 24,000" are located in the US specifically (as well as in the other "28" countries and how many of these readers cross over and are readers of other accepted ABC audited publications.
Perhaps he has a total readership that only reaches his publication or perhas he has a readership that can be totally reached by advertising in other poto magazines. If the former, and he can proove it, then he should see a big increase in advertising revenue. If the latter he could experience a total lack of continuing industry advertising as his magazine is not a viable alternative for reaching a large enough base with a low enough cost per impression.
Reality check: In the current issue with the editorial posted above, there is one portfolio by a photographer who prints giclee on watercolor paper. Also a brief news item on someone who does digital composites. I doubt he will stick to such an absolute ban on digital techniques.
Bob, if you know of another "photography" magazine, one that deals in traditional photography, that is increasing sales faster than black and white I'd like to know about it. It is the fastest growing magazine in the nation. I didn't say the best selling I said the fastest growing. If you don't like the magazine then that's cool.
Bob, check outdoor photographies new subscribers trend. Point made. And outdoor has been around for what? 10 years or so. and I just love these idiotic assumptions that the artist should control the markets. The patron, buying public, determines what a product will sell for. Not the gallery. Many galleries are stuck with merchandise that was over priced and now they have to devalue it and it makes them look bad.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks