The Photography Market is Down

[johnmsanderson]

177360


https://news.artnet.com/market/photography-market-data-1269191#.Wtn5LRkz7EU.facebook

Interesting look at the last years of sales of photography. Adams is really up there.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Adams' prints maintain value in part because his prints are not digital. Even though some are darkroom made from master copy negatives by his assistants - though the assistant printers (largely of the late Sixties) bring less - if the buyer is informed.

[Drew Wiley]

Ho hum. The usual commodities. That's how I view it. Smart investors should be looking for today's work with potential, instead of simply having the bragging rights to who paid the most for what. Lots of Adam's prints still sell for very little. It's only the iconic images that drive the auctions. Same with EW.
There might be a few exceptions to that, but I can't think of any. AA prints made by highly skilled assistants under his supervision sold for $40 per ten 8x10 prints in his own Yosemite studio in the late 50's - that's 4 bucks a print!

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] AA prints made by highly skilled assistants under his supervision sold for $40 per ten 8x10 prints in his own Yosemite studio in the late 50's - that's 4 bucks a print!

What a difference 60 years makes. Rethink, Drew, in terms of generations, market cycles, perceptions. Are all your old works worth only a few dollars - moot point - we can never know.
.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, back in the day I sold to collectors who knew what they wanted. Some of them could have had any print they wished by ANYONE and didn't need to keep up appearances. It's the wannabee rich that bug me. Every now and then someone stumbles on one of my old prints and lets me know they're still prized on a wall, and that's good enough for me. I care zero about the "market". Yeah, I know someone who does the prep work in the photo section of a big auction house and its interesting from a conservation perspective. But if people have to be told what to buy and can't see it with their own eyes??? It is interesting how one of the wealthy movers and shakers north of here in the wine country collected only photographs left behind by unknown amateurs - but very interesting photographs - and he finally donated them to the SFMMA, which was grateful for the collection. Sometimes the little guy wins.

[John Kasaian]

177360


https://news.artnet.com/market/photography-market-data-1269191#.Wtn5LRkz7EU.facebook

Interesting look at the last years of sales of photography. Adams is really up there.

Funny, Senior portraits sure aren't any cheaper.

[ic-racer]

177360


https://news.artnet.com/market/photography-market-data-1269191#.Wtn5LRkz7EU.facebook

Interesting look at the last years of sales of photography. Adams is really up there.
This affects me less than the monthly status of sun-spots.

[Willie]

With the re-sale of prints does the artist get any of the price increase anywhere but places such as France? I may be wrong but was told France had laws that re-sale of art required a payment of part of the price to the original artist. Is this correct?

If so does it make any difference in the sale if the artist is still alive or will the percentage go to their estate?

[Drew Wiley]

If it's resale of a print legally purchased by someone else, that person gets the profit. The original photographer get zero. Now if someone gets their hands on some old negatives and starts making serious profit by printing from them, and the actual ownership of the negatives is in question, that can impose a legal problem.

[tonyowen]

Unfortunately the value of anything is based on perceived value and is time related.

With the exception of the negative(s), there is no such thing as an Ansel Adams’ original, since even a limited edition is one of a number of copies.
Also, the value of an item is based upon what a buyer will pay and no investor wishes to be the last buyer. Cases in point are many, for instance: - tulip mania, south sea bubble, dot.com revolution.

In addition, there is no guarantee that an item’s value will increase over time. For instance, I bought a walrus tusk in the late 1970s that was ‘scrimshawed’ and made into a cribbage board. At that time the century old ivory tusk cost C$1,000. Ten years later it was valued at C$4,000 [in the North American market]. A few months ago it was valued at C$250 – if I was lucky – due to current fashions regarding ivory.

I’ve several genuine antiques (i.e. over 100 years old) from the 16th and 17th centuries; plus a number of genuine original paintings - by living and dead family members. Their market value has not been tested since they are family heirlooms and there is no reason to dispose of them.

Whilst I enjoy seeing 1920/1930s cars, E-type Jaguars, antique microscopes, Ansel Adams photographs, etc. I cannot justify the investment in such things even if I could afford them.

This is not meant to be a rant, merely trying to be realistic in a world that values huge monies on such things as Tracey Emin’s “My Bed”.

Regards
Tony