Anyone can have a show (?) [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Jac@stafford.net

9-Sep-2018, 15:43

LabRat

9-Sep-2018, 16:05

Everyone's a star on the net!!!

Put up enough money, and anyone can have a show at MOMA... (Look what happened with that Bjork show...) ;-)

Steve K

faberryman

9-Sep-2018, 16:10

Trying to be relevant, I look to the Internet and the same seems true. The very difference seems to be the profitability of the show in terms of popularity if it becomes a financial advantage, for better or worse. Is the 'net a leveling influence? I think not.
Can you rephrase this statement. I don't think I understand the point you are making. Galleries have shows to make money. You can walk in with a portfolio of exquisite images, and if the gallery owner doesn't think he can sell them, you are out of luck. Of course, you could agree to rent the gallery for the duration of the show, which I assume is what the billionaire is talking about. The web is essentially free. If you are good at promoting yourself, you can build a following even if your images are not anything special. Whether you can monetize that following is another story. I guess if you are willing to spend the money, you could SEO the hell out of your website and hire social media consultants to ramp up your presence on the web to gain an edge. Hard to compete against that.

Jac@stafford.net

9-Sep-2018, 18:01

Can you rephrase this statement.

Considering your response you don't mean that. You have written your obvious little bit.

9-Sep-2018, 18:23

Gallery owners need to make money. If it's all legit business and paid for up front rather than by sales, that's fair. I don't think the Internet has much to do with it, except it can promoted without buying ads in local papers or sending written invitations.

I have great respect for Bjork but she's not a mega star in the US. So crazy and creative is she, it's not surprise the people putting on the show couldn't figure out a way to show what she's done, much less please critics in the process. I would say her fans would be good MOMA prospects but perhaps MOMA crowd might not be good prospects of being Bjork fans. Something critics won't understand if they are not fans.

What the Net can level out is people can show great stuff or bad stuff on flickr, forums, etc.. You don't need connections or money to show your work digitally. That is good. You can write/publish/print on demand books in the same way using the Internet without money or risk. It is also good, even though some people will make crappy material. Just like a loom can make ugly sweaters faster than a knitter. But we would be foolish to be luddites. It's an expansion of creative freedom and reach.

Pieter

9-Sep-2018, 18:37

Everyone's a star on the net!!!

Put up enough money, and anyone can have a show at MOMA... (Look what happened with that Bjork show...) ;-)

Steve K

The Bjork show was about money, but not how you imply. MOMA wanted attendance numbers, wanted to attract a younger, different audience. Their support base is slowly dying off. Showing improved attendance makes it easier to raise money. Private funds are needed, the U.S. gov't does a pitiful job of supporting the arts (vis a vis GNP) compared with many other countries.

Mark Sawyer

10-Sep-2018, 00:09

Gallery owners need to make money. If it's all legit business and paid for up front rather than by sales, that's fair...

If a private gallery's operating expenses are not paid for by sales, it's not a "legit business". Private business is about profit, not art. Art just provides a "legit" façade. The gallery owner's trick is walking the tightrope between the two.

Tin Can

10-Sep-2018, 04:57

Biz is Biz

Art is Art

Mix if you like

We have been making art for a long time. 64,000 years at least. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-neanderthals-were-artists-20180222-htmlstory.html

I prefer non professional artists, they are a little less vain, but not much.

My biggest Art mistake was selling a few of my sculptures.

That was 20 years ago and I learned a lesson.

The real question is why make any Art?

DrTang

10-Sep-2018, 07:18

The real question is why make any Art?

the chicks!

jnantz

10-Sep-2018, 07:27

there are lots of galleries and lots of places to have shows
and the person who makes the "art" can be extremely good or not
( and who knows what that even means because things a lot of people
things is just fantastic, other people think is garbage and visa versa )
someone can have a gallery opening at their local public library, at art walks
in banks or office buildings at street fairs, in restaurants or coffee shops or ice cream shops
or bakeries, or bars or co-operative galleries where he or she helps pay rent and depending
on the level of help and particpation gets a solo show, or pay to play ... in boston/cambridge
there was the "zeitgeist gallery" years ago and they would happily take your $$ and let you have a show
in their space. they were kind of known for doing shows for artist musicans like peter wolf ( from what i remember )
as well as anyone else who wanted to show their artwork there ... and i used to always get emails from
the agora gallery in nyc .. an established gallery attended by collectors and other buyers, large mailing list
so all the artist has to do is pay the $ display the work and they do their thing, fill the gallery with perspective buyers
and do the opening and advertise / market ...
no clue if the internet has changed the playing field there sure are a lot of people online from the age of 1 to 100 who are all artists
and didn't the smiling primate just get rights to his image in a large court case ?
im looking forward to space junk and sun spots bringing us back to 1880 so we can see who is
riding a penny farthing and who is wearing formal wear, who is using j.lane dry plates, and
who the new local art galleries lit by gas lamps and heated with coal, will be displaying ...
cause they say >> everything is local.

Ben Horne

10-Sep-2018, 09:32

I have a message from a late middle-age amateur photographer who is a billionaire living in Monaco. The photographer had previously informed me of local shows, some of which were of remarkable 'name' photographers from all over the world and also shows of nonsense amateurs with just plain nothing worth viewing; their social position, wealth, made their shows happen, which turned at best to wine tasting events which are stupid but a suitable analogy. The message included, "Anyone can have a show here." Yah, I suppose,

Trying to be relevant, I look to the Internet and the same seems true. The very difference seems to be the profitability of the show in terms of popularity if it becomes a financial advantage, for better or worse. Is the 'net a leveling influence?

I think not.

Yes, anyone can have a show. That is the beauty of art. People create it for a variety of reasons, and it is often quite personal to the person who created it. Referring to some of the people as "nonsense amateurs with just plain nothing worth viewing" is counter productive. You might not understand it, or it might be a departure from established norms, but that doesn't make it any less valid. One could even argue that an established full time artist might be less willing to take risks, or experiment beyond what they know sells well.

bob carnie

10-Sep-2018, 09:50

If a private gallery's operating expenses are not paid for by sales, it's not a "legit business". Private business is about profit, not art. Art just provides a "legit" façade. The gallery owner's trick is walking the tightrope between the two.

Most galleries do not rely on re couping their money from shows, in most cases these shows do not make immediate $$.

bob carnie

10-Sep-2018, 09:51

Yes, anyone can have a show. That is the beauty of art. People create it for a variety of reasons, and it is often quite personal to the person who created it. Referring to some of the people as "nonsense amateurs with just plain nothing worth viewing" is counter productive. You might not understand it, or it might be a departure from established norms, but that doesn't make it any less valid. One could even argue that an established full time artist might less willing to take risks, or experiment beyond what they know sells well.

I agree with Ben... there is a place for everyone in this business.

Rick A

10-Sep-2018, 11:24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qpVyMxA0jo

Drew Wiley

10-Sep-2018, 15:01

That's an odd comment, Bob. A gallery either makes a profit or it doesn't. I've known of a few ritzy photo galleries which were basically either some rich guy's tax writeoff or an expensive hobby to get his wife out of the house with a business of her own. You've got a lab spinoff. But most galleries actually have to make a profit on shows or they won't be around for long (which tends to be the proverbial case). Eighty percent of restaurants don't last more than two years, and probably only half that number of galleries. So they're either going to charge artists up front for display space (a trendy business model), or else bleed them to death for anything that does sell if they can rope the gullible into a lopsided contract. In my experience, work turns mainly at an opening or soon thereafter. Been awhile since I went public; but the break even point tended to be in the first twenty minutes. Gravy was everything after. So it better make a genuine profit or they won't be interested next time. ...
But nah, the net is a minor factor. Web surfers are one kind of animal, serious print buyers another. Maybe if someoneone
has been dead long enough to become a mere commodity, then on-line auctions could come into play. But only a fool buys
something sight unseen. If somebody just wants a quickie wall print of a web image, well, that's more like an online pizza
delivery service, not a real restaurant.

jnantz

10-Sep-2018, 17:19

But only a fool buys
something sight unseen. If somebody just wants a quickie wall print of a web image, well, that's more like an online pizza
delivery service, not a real restaurant.

not really drew
lots and lots and lots of people buy images off the web sight unseen
maybe you woudln't but there websites galleries that have agents and staff
that market the work LA NYC LONDON and other major cities
they are put on walls and people are paying a premium for them.

Vaughn

10-Sep-2018, 18:15

jim10219

10-Sep-2018, 18:43

Art is a business. It’s just as important to know how to market yourself and build a following as it is to be good. If you have a following and sell lots of works for good money, most galleries will be glad to have you. If you’re rich and all of your rich friends buy your work, you’ll go far in the art world. If you’re an amazing artist who does stuff that’s so avant-garde that it doesn’t fit into a scene, have only poor friends and don’t market yourself well, you’ll be lucky if your works will sell at a thrift store.

Just look at Van Gogh. He didn’t sell crap during his lifetime because he was terrible at marketing himself. The only reason he’s famous now is because his brother’s wife had connections with influential people and was very good at marketing. And thank goodness for that, because it would have been a shame if he was never “discovered”.

Drew Wiley

10-Sep-2018, 19:19

I don't know what you mean by "paying a premium" means, Jnanian, but it probably wouldn't be enough to keep the doors open very long at any real gallery. The old adage "location, location, location" is hard to get around; but it is synonymous with "high rent, high rent, high rent". There are some very well known photographers around here, but I can't think of a single one that could actually make a living just selling prints. And online sales have not only tanked the
value of certain genre, but collapsed the stock image market too.

jnantz

11-Sep-2018, 05:04

I don't know what you mean by "paying a premium"

paying a premium means not selling a print for what "smug mug" might charge
there is a corporate art place in boston who leases large panels to corporate spaces .. they get paid thousands
and the people who make the art get paid like $1 royalty payments.. that's not a premium. LOL

im pretty much out of the loop drew
i don't pay attention to "big name photographers" because most of what is popular now ( even going back 30 years ) i
find to be kind of boring,
a lot of the names dropped at places like this im clueless, am not excessively impressed,
IDK maybe its because i don't see the stuff in person because im uneducated or clueless.
even when i was at the boston MFA and saw an exhibit with all the heavies i wasn' t really impressed ...
and the person i was with was like, really this work is "famous"
OTOH i saw the penn exhibit a couple of falls ago and it blew mysocks off..
.. so forgive me for asking but
what exactly is the "certain genre" that has tanked because of the internet .. ?
i know stock tanked IDK 20 years ago but what else cause stock really isn't a genre, and again, im clueless.

and what exactly is a "real gallery" ? i thought a gallery was just a place that had art on the wall and sold it
there was no criteria between a gallery where everyone wore black and drank espresso with a lemon twist and one with a someone wearing cutoffs and a tie dye shirt
and i seem to remember for a while there were pop up galleries in hotel rooms ...

sorry again for my confusion i haven't had any coffee yet today and im sort of not getting it ..

I agree with Ben... there is a place for everyone in this business.

ditto

bob carnie

11-Sep-2018, 06:09

bob carnie

11-Sep-2018, 06:13

One point that I think Bob is making, is that a gallery does not live show to show. It might be those that do that fail early. Continuous sales from a stable of artists, workshops, framing...however the business is set-up to keep operating. The risk of showing a talented unknown artist is lessened if the show brings people and positive attention to the gallery.

my point exactly Vaughn, very few galleries can say they sell well from the show hanging on their walls, if of course if your name is Ed Burtynsky and like Ed you spent 25 years pounding on doors to show your work its different kettle of fish, He now sells out each time he shows , but he is an extreme rare case and someone to take note of...

Corran

11-Sep-2018, 07:38

Galleries have shows to make money. You can walk in with a portfolio of exquisite images, and if the gallery owner doesn't think he can sell them, you are out of luck.

This is not universally true, at least down here in the deep south. Most art galleries I know of do not sell much work. At the bigger galleries (including one I had a show at) the money comes from rich donors and such, and the shows are a social event. This is the problem - artists, no matter who, do not sell their work because the rich folks simply weren't buying. I was told this explicitly by a gallery director. There's also lots of smaller galleries I can think of that are what I call "vanity galleries" - a place for well-heeled spouses to show their "art" from paint parties and such and pretend they are important or cultured.

And this is why any artist trying to make it selling work moved out of that particular area ASAP.

Perhaps things are different elsewhere. I'm still trying to figure things out myself.

Drew Wiley

11-Sep-2018, 10:46

Well, Bob, except for certain dealers who acquired "A-list" inventory way back when it was cheap, or else had a direct family connection to famous vintage works, I'm extremely skeptical of your statement. Perhaps you know of cases - I certainly don't. Again, folks, 'scuse my geography or demographics or whatever. Sure, there are all kinds of temporary warehouse setups, art colonies, firetraps, and so forth, showing starving"art", if you want to call it that. But any kind of serious effort is an extremely expensive undertaking if you don't outright own a prime location. Selling even an expensive print here n there out of inventory won't begin to do it. Labs (don't get upset, Bob) have a different angle entirely, so do framing operations; the "gallery" is just another form of business card. I had some nice gigs, but in the long haul did better selling right out of my house. That's not really convenient to do anymore. And every time I find a cute space that would make a nice gallery, the hazmat cleanup alone would bankrupt me - or else poison me! Cute old industrial spaces around here are full of flaking lead and cadmium paints, sometime even worse things, esp given the frequency of our earthquakes! Yeah, there are slippery venues over at Fisherman's Wharf, etc; but that kind of game has no interest for me, nor would I ever pay the necessary protection money to the gate-keepers. So for the time being, I just ignore the whole problem and do what I want to do - make more prints just for the joy of it, without worrying about compromising anything for the sake of marketing purposes. I paid my dues already.

Jim Jones

11-Sep-2018, 12:15

There are the big galleries for those with big budgets, there are venues for those who love photographs for their beauty or impact, not for their price tag, and there are people with money who genuinely love beauty. This is the first year in decades that I haven't exhibited photographs in the local arts & crafts fair. A few are still available in a local gallery for $90 in 16x20 frames, which more than covers the gallery's 30%. This is the way many people work with friends and neighbors here on the boondocks. Cooperating with neighbors is necessary among those with small farms. That attitude spills over into churches, schools, and what art exists around here. Therefore we have a well-supported county library and museum, and a building devoted to art exhibits and classes. It's not all about money.

Tin Can

11-Sep-2018, 12:27

+1.

Corran

11-Sep-2018, 12:28

Jim, I have to push back a little bit here. $90 for a framed 16x20 print ($63 after commission) is very low. So low it would barely cover the materials, if even. This is an unsustainable model, IMO, and devalues the very art you are making. It says, to me, that your photography is worth $0 after the material costs.

So what is a photograph, or "art," worth? Well, that is for sure the tough question. But it shouldn't be zero, should it?

"It's not all about money."

The question is, should an artist be able to make a living from their art, given that they sell it? Leaving aside the obvious conundrum of finding someone who wants to buy your work, the purchaser should also believe their purchase helps the artist continue to make art, no? As we all know, there are many costs involved with making a photographic print, other than just the materials - be it cameras/lenses, film and paper that was used but not necessarily printed / work prints, your very time and effort, etc. When I sell a 16x20 print, I want to be able to use that money to buy a box of 16x20 paper at the very least, to make more prints.

A lot of people these days say, "get a job, and keep your hobby." Is this truly "supporting" the arts??

Tin Can

11-Sep-2018, 13:51

No.

But Jim has a point. How much do small farmers make?

How many things do many of us do that has no monetary worth?

Jac@stafford.net

11-Sep-2018, 13:53

No.
But Jim has a point. How much do small farmers make?
How many things do many of us do that has no monetary worth?

The underground economy is priceless. Food for art is part of it. Don't let the secret out.

Corran

11-Sep-2018, 13:59

How much do small farmers make?

I have no idea, but I assume/hope the farmer is charging more than the base material costs for what they farm.

From a "basic needs" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs) viewpoint, art is definitely low (or non-existent) on the scale. That doesn't mean it should have no value attached to it though. Most things that people buy have little to no implicit value from this viewpoint.

Tin Can

11-Sep-2018, 14:00

Bryan, I refer you the Lounge and in particular the last 2 of 4 pics i posted.

This was my outsider art before I even knew what that was.

I went to Art school at age 49 and learned that Art School and Art was all about $$$.

I did my Thesis project on the high cost of art school. Not well received by the Masters. I video interviewed as many as I could trap. Then 9/11 and all changed.

Corran

11-Sep-2018, 14:09

I went to Art school at age 49 and learned that Art School and Art was all about $$$.

From here we could pivot to an interesting discussion about academia and art, versus those who do not participate or have access to that world.

I know a lot of liberal arts professors, some of whom make little (if any) art/music/etc.

This is the type of subject that I would prefer discussing over coffee in person :).

Tin Can

11-Sep-2018, 14:16

From here we could pivot to an interesting discussion about academia and art, versus those who do not participate or have access to that world.

I know a lot of liberal arts professors, some of whom make little (if any) art/music/etc.

This is the type of subject that I would prefer discussing over coffee in person :).

I do hope we meet one day, maybe next Spring.

I like very strong coffee.

Drew Wiley

11-Sep-2018, 14:23

Small, niche, and organic farmers in this state, arguably the largest and most diverse agricultural economy in the world, have to make a darn good profit, and therefore cater mostly to high-end restaurants with a justification to pay a premium. Let's face it, not only are giant agribusiness corporations dominant and competing against them, but so is the fact that farming is hard hot work, and it's always a temptation for the next generation to sell out to some developer and instantly make more than they ever could in a lifetime of farming. Sure, in rural areas there are still a few roadside stands, as well as farmers' markets in urban locations. But that hardly pays the bills by itself. A new water well can cost far more than a new house. Equipment is expensive and has to frequently be replaced. Help has to be hired. Been there; done all that in days of yore. Then there are things like drought and flood. So the bear sure better have some extra fat put on before any season of hibernation. ... But I've never personally heard of any gallery since the 1920's which took 30%. Usually these days its around 80% - utterly unacceptable to me. So let's imagine the average selling price is $1000 per print. An urban frame shop would probably want at least $300 to frame it. Then there is overhead to print it in the first place, let's say another $100. So, not even accounting for travel, supplies, equip depreciation etc, each thousand dollar sale minus the $800 gallery take would still leave you a minimum of $200 in the hole, and no doubt, way more than that if you factor in all your expenses. Actually, I'm understating it. I do my own printing and framing; but a well-presented big print can cost hundreds in materials alone, even buying the components wholesale in volume. And it takes some artistic clout or connections to be able to negotiate your own terms. So be happy if you make enough to break even. I've had some distinctly profitable shows in private galleries, but others that were public interest venues without even the intent to sell. Makes no difference. If I didn't love photography for its own sake, I wouldn't be doing it.

Corran

11-Sep-2018, 14:28

I like very strong coffee.

Me too!! :D
I'll bring the espresso machine. Or maybe the ibrik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_coffee).

Tin Can

11-Sep-2018, 14:33

Me too!! :D
I'll bring the espresso machine. Or maybe the ibrik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_coffee).

Turkish coffee is very strong, as is Cuban.

I use https://www.aeropress.com/, fast and cheap. I always buy them from the small local coffee shop. But then they never see me again...

Tin Can

11-Sep-2018, 15:02

You see Walmart and Google read our conversations.

Just got this in an email.

Artistic Black and White Elephant Print Framed.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Artistic-Black-And-White-Elephant-Framed-Poster-Wall-Art-By-Donvanstaden/917352663?adid=1500000000000042343146&sent_time=1536693915020&veh=eml&campaign_id=091118-BAT-HOM-SRY-WarmScandinavianLivingRoom_5--1-optcl&e_id=a1a1d7ce42fa3dd0bfa53f786c246235&e_pgcid=Qm2-tQCJsKq7Jw7xz_iLWOze5UbQ5TRn4RPZLergkzxdJZTcu0SP0D6gc1NtE9F-

Drew Wiley

11-Sep-2018, 15:17

Corran

11-Sep-2018, 15:32

Here's a better elephant photograph (http://www.nickbrandt.com/portfolio.cfm?nK=7648). Brandt is a favorite (and he shoots a Pentax 67). But I probably couldn't afford a real print from him. Edit: NOPE (http://www.artnet.com/artists/nick-brandt/elephant-on-bare-earth-amboseli-a-VO_HcIrKeTgBjc_sT45btA2).

Drew Wiley

11-Sep-2018, 16:56

You can't post that one, Corran - it was taken with a Pentax 6x7. You can tell it wasn't a view camera being focussed because the photographer is still alive and not squished somewhere amidst his bellows.

Jim Jones

11-Sep-2018, 19:02

Corran -- I'd rather support the arts by making it available locally to friends and neighbors than perhaps making more money catering to the gallery trade. Buying custom cut acid free mats and one size of basic aluminum frames in quantity, and printing on my own Epson 3800 and now P800, keeps costs down. This lets me offer a money-back guarantee. I also make matted prints available for those who want frames that match their décor or budget. The most profitable item is 8x5x11 is unmatted prints for $5. Long ago I salvaged window glass and cut my own mats, and could sell framed prints for $25. Since I studied art instead of business in collage, this working model leaves me as happy as a raccoon in a corn crib.

11-Sep-2018, 19:04

Check out Ikea. Large format shots laminated and edge framed to 40x60 for $200 retail. Mass produced in the EU. Some photographer will get rich as long as he collects enough $5 royalties, if he didn't sell his rights outright to them. That's why career photographers can't afford the coffee where they work during the morning hours - Starbucks. But it pays better than their afternoon job at Ikea itself.

First we're complaining about zillionaires having a show. Now we're complaining about photographers who live modestly and aren't well paid for good photos? That just about covers it.

There's a big perfect storm of factors making the existing of a career photographer rarer, not just these anecdotes. Those remaining are actually businessmen with a camera.

Corran

11-Sep-2018, 19:15

Since I studied art instead of business in collage, this working model leaves me as happy as a raccoon in a corn crib.

But, could you support yourself/your family with your sales? That is what I was getting at. To your point, there certainly are no shortage of retirees basically giving away inkjet prints at cost at some of the art festivals I have done. I don't believe this kind of pricing "helps the arts." Also this devalues photography in general.

jp, what is "living modestly?" At the aforementioned $63 per print after commission, one would have to sell about 200 prints in a year before hitting the poverty line in GA, if it was 100% profit, which obviously it isn't. You're right though, perhaps I inserted a tangential issue into the mix. My bad.

tgtaylor

11-Sep-2018, 20:29

Phew...the internet really brings them out.

Corran

11-Sep-2018, 20:43

This has been a respectful and interesting dialog. If you have something to add, perhaps you can join in, rather than posting vague, disparaging remarks?

jnantz

12-Sep-2018, 03:45

Turkish coffee is very strong, as is Cuban.

I use https://www.aeropress.com/, fast and cheap. I always buy them from the small local coffee shop. But then they never see me again...

mmm coffee ...

LOL yes but can you have your fortune read after you drink a cuban coffee :)
who knows it might say soon you will find extreme success selling your art in a gallery

Jim Jones

12-Sep-2018, 06:32

But, could you support yourself/your family with your sales? That is what I was getting at. To your point, there certainly are no shortage of retirees basically giving away inkjet prints at cost at some of the art festivals I have done. I don't believe this kind of pricing "helps the arts." Also this devalues photography in general.

jp, what is "living modestly?" At the aforementioned $63 per print after commission, one would have to sell about 200 prints in a year before hitting the poverty line in GA, if it was 100% profit, which obviously it isn't. You're right though, perhaps I inserted a tangential issue into the mix. My bad.

You are right, I couldn't support myself in the way I sell photographs, despite 70 years of dabbling in it. Certainly it doesn't help others competing as business people. Business is competitive by its nature. I don't like competition. Nations too often compete to the extent of making war. Schools divert money from education to compete in sports. Competitive businesses cut service and quality to be competitive. Families compete with neighbors to appear successful.
My pricing doesn't help the business of art. It does enable the enjoyment of art for buyers. This may well be the basic reason for all of the arts. It is certainly a less risky source of enjoyment than alcohol and other mind warping drugs, less dangerous than some sports, and it can (and perhaps should) be less expensive than other pleasures. My little living room displays artwork by others, but none of my own. There is the Timothy O'Sullivan White House, Canyon de Chelly image printed from a file downloaded from the Library of Congress which I consider better than the similar capture by Ansel Adams about 70 years later. There is the portrait of Hemingway by Yousuf Karsh copied from Portraits of Greatness. An original edition copy of that book in good condition recently sold on ebay for perhaps less than a single page from a dealer. That edition could show many of us what photography at its best can be. There is a copy of the Judy Dater photo of Imogene Cunningham and the model Twinky at an Ansel Adams workshop, always good for a chuckle. There are two of the Little, Brown and company posters of Ansel Adams images. These each cost less than the photographs I sell in 16x20 mats. If I must compete, it should be against such affordable art, not against businessmen.

Tin Can

12-Sep-2018, 06:51

+1 again!

Jim, perhaps you mean Twiggy.

I was criticized here for making 4 film copies from Portraits of Greatness a couple years ago. I found my VGC copy in a Chicago hipster bookstore. I think I paid $20. A treasure. I enjoy my 11X14 prints at various locations in my home. The book is still packed, I need to find it.

Corran

12-Sep-2018, 08:09

A few years ago I had the opportunity to buy an original Adams print (8x10, done by him). It was a lot of money, but I could've swung it and it was actually underpriced. I just missed it due to hesitating, and checking authenticity and such (talked to an expert who worked with him). Oh well. Some time later, I got to see some larger prints made by him privately in a small gallery in Atlanta. Unframed prints, 16x20 size IIRC. They were priced more than my car.

Of course as we all know, these prices happened after his death. Adams was lucky in that he had patrons that supported his endeavors. Today, the idea of a patron seems to have largely gone away - but instead, we have crowd-funding, a way for many people to be very small patrons, which is interesting. To me, buying a piece of art from an artist I like, especially a young/new artist, is a form of patronage. I have three works by a young artist I met while working at the university. They were displayed in the senior/graduating show. His prices were ridiculously cheap. I bought three, and I told him he was vastly underselling himself as an artist and to put more stock in his work. As another example, I had a friend who was working hard to be an artist (digital painter) and I could have bought some of his work for not much money back then. Now he is working with several big galleries and sells his work for 10x what I could've bought it for. He works solely as an artist.

What it boils down to, is that selling work at a profit is not just for Peter Lik ($440 million in sales as reported in a NYT story). Often, an artist can afford to make art, and dedicate their life to that pursuit, only by selling their work, for a profit. If they are lucky enough to have a wealthy patron (or lots of small patrons (www.patreon.com)), perhaps they don't have to bother, or market themselves for that kind of situation. And some people work jobs that afford them the money, if not time, to make art on the side. Even others are just rich to begin with and so don't have to worry about it.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with you, personally, selling framed prints for $90. But, the idea that this is to "support the arts," or for others to have access to "cheap" art, I think really just cheapens the very art/photography you claim to support. I would rather give prints away than sell them for so little. The act of giving away, in my eyes, says something different than selling it for only what I spent to make it.

And while usually you can't compare two artist's work, people who price work like this destroy the entire market, possibly ending the career and pursuit of art for others because they couldn't afford to make anything, after doing an art festival where art/photography was devalued so much by another festival participant. The first few festivals I did, my prices were lower than the other photographers at the show. In the last show, my same prices were higher than the other photographers. These photographers were like you, selling prints for almost nothing, and for the first time ever, I had a couple of folks ask why my prices were so high (they aren't). They said, photographs aren't worth that much, that other guy has prints for $X, yours are way more. This is a perceptual thing, not based on the actual art/photograph but based on the sticker price. And of course not everyone says such stupid stuff. I sold some things and had many other people tell me that my work was clearly different - even had some folks say my prices were too low.

Anyway, there's my stream of thought on this. I won't get into the conversation about copying photographs and printing them yourself. I am a big proponent of copyrights but I do think they are too stringent. Now, if any of you have printed one of my images and framed up an 8x10, I would be mad at you. You could support me instead. I always say, support living artists if you can.

Tin Can

12-Sep-2018, 09:53

Everybody copies art these days. The Art Insitute of Chicago allows almost everything to be copied by a handheld camera.

If I take a pic of a book page in my own house and it never leaves my home in any manner that is not an ethics issue.

It's 'Fair Use' not theft. Read this. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

Corran

12-Sep-2018, 10:00

Randy, I don't want to go too far afield, but claiming that as Fair Use would be an uphill battle in the instance of an actual copyright suit. See specifically point #4 on your link, Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The copy is negating the potential sale of the work (regardless of your ability to buy it financially).

You are correct in that everyone does it to some degree and also yes, it hardly matters and likely no one would sue you for it. But it still likely would not fall under Fair Use. This is a sticky wicket and at the end of the day, the only real determinant of "Fair Use" is in the court of law, so my opinion has little relevance anyway (nor does yours or anyone else here). Ethics are a different matter altogether.

Tin Can

12-Sep-2018, 10:16

I am a lifelong student.

I was educating myself.

I will argue that in any court.

Drew Wiley

12-Sep-2018, 10:16

So what if someone casually copies a print? Unless they have the nerve to take it out of the frame, set up polarized copy lights and an expensive big rig, it certainly won't qualitatively resemble the original, even remotely. No need for a copyright dispute. Just show up at a small claims court with the original negative and side-by side examples of prints if they try to sell their copies. The other party will have to pay by default. They'll never show. No lawyer needed - save that kind of fuss for disputed art estates. But if the print being surreptitiously copied looks like a fuzzy pixelation to begin with, well complain on some other forum; it probably doesn't apply to anything any of us would want to present to the public. Millions of digi snapshots are taken of the Mona Lisa every year. Do you think the Louvre is going to sue anyone over alleged fraud? It takes a lot more skill than that to even get that kind of negative attention.

Corran

12-Sep-2018, 10:32

I am a lifelong student.

I was educating myself.

I will argue that in any court.

That would be an interesting case, and if you won, a landmark one I guess, but I am not a legal scholar.

Mona Lisa

Public Domain

Drew Wiley

12-Sep-2018, 11:01

Yeah, "public domain". You might try wearing a neck brace in court too, claiming your neck got jerked out of alignment at the sight of a copyright infringement.

Corran

12-Sep-2018, 11:17

Not that it's any different than usual, but I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

BTW, here's a freely available public domain / creative commons image of the Mona Lisa sized to 12 megapixels. Retouched version also. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mona_Lisa.jpg)

A few years ago, I used public-domain images of historical works of art in a major stage production as projected backdrops, with creative commons attributions in the end credits. This is the point of public domain.

cowanw

12-Sep-2018, 13:19

Hmmm. Anybody can make a picture of the Mona Lisa, but using someone else's picture might be infringing their copyright to their interpretation.

Corran

12-Sep-2018, 13:32

This might be a good read with regard to that:
https://creativecommons.org/about/

Per Wikipedia:
The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain".

Furthermore, creators can make their work/media free for non-commercial use under CC. Many images taken of Public Domain works of art are put under CC, so there is no copyright claims either way (unless taken for commercial usage).

EDIT:
Who knows where copyright is going in the EU. (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/eu-article-13-passed-meme-war)

Drew Wiley

12-Sep-2018, 13:33

What I was hinting at, is that if some ole claims court judge can't tell the difference between your own print and a fake generated from a picture taken with an ordinary digital device, maybe your photography isn't worth the fuss anyway. You should be flattered that anyone is able to sell that image, even if you get nothing in return. I'm not referring to anyone here personally, but speaking in principle, cause that is exactly how a lot or work strikes me at this point in time. Yeah, I hear it over and over again, ad nauseum, "It's the image that counts", which is equivalent to saying, "I don't need to know how to cook because I'm starting a restaurant based on concept cuisine instead", replete with rats, roaches, pixies, and pixels.

Corran

12-Sep-2018, 13:36

Drew, I think you've completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I never posted about selling copies. I only mentioned that if someone prints out an image from a struggling artist they found online, to just keep for their own enjoyment, while it wouldn't really hurt them directly, it certainly doesn't support the person who made it with regard to making more art.

Drew Wiley

12-Sep-2018, 13:49

Well, certainly a lack of courtesy in that case. Here, where a lot of that consumer digi tech gets developed in the first place, it's amazing how considerate people are. Due to certain once-a-year lighting conditions and special hues, last weekend I had to take a certain relatively popular trail over on the Marin Headlands. But every single person of group of people, some locals and some international tourists, asked permission before walking in front of my Sinar camera. A number of them, including young people, waited till the shot was over and then asked thoughtful questions. Of course, that's a particularly good-looking camera; but still, the level of respect for what I was doing was appreciated. One would hope the same courtesy would be
shown for use of posted images; but given the fact it rarely is, back when I still maintained a website, I made certain the
images were just at the threshold of necessary detail.

Jac@stafford.net

12-Sep-2018, 14:35

What I was hinting at, is that if some ole claims court judge can't tell the difference between your own print and a fake generated from a picture taken with an ordinary digital device, maybe your photography isn't worth the fuss anyway. [... snip here to avoid devastating good old Drew ...]

Do not hint. Write concisely, right up-front. Judges do not 'tell the difference' visually, but take in considerations you apparently, and understandably, do not understand.

[My evil twin, Jean, wishes to interject] Hey, Jacques, why don't you take a bunch of crappy pictures sell them under the name Drew Wiley? Ya know if they are big and bad enough, they will sell! (I'm thinking photo sensitized black velvet.)

Drew Wiley

12-Sep-2018, 17:28

I've been an "expert witness" in several court venues, Jac. I have a family member soon arguing his second case before the US Supreme Court this year; he won the last one (against your State!), and a number of appellate cases in between. And when it comes to my own tiny slice of the pie, Small Claims Courts do favor readily apparent evidence; they simply don't have time for fancy arguments, and generally resent them. Sorry you can't understand a hint.

jnantz

12-Sep-2018, 17:50

Mona Lisa
is that with the mustache or with the pipe ?

Drew Wiley

12-Sep-2018, 19:21

Beard, mustache, and horns. I never leave behind my black Sharpie pen.

Leszek Vogt

12-Sep-2018, 21:16

The velvet version might sell better, ya think ?

Les

LabRat

12-Sep-2018, 21:29

Beard, mustache, and horns. I never leave behind my black Sharpie pen.

A gotee is a nice retro touch... ;÷)

Steve K

jnantz

13-Sep-2018, 06:05

Beard, mustache, and horns. I never leave behind my black Sharpie pen.

i forgot to ask ... vaping?

Tin Can

13-Sep-2018, 06:26

i forgot to ask ... vaping?

Yesterday while waiting for a local college bus, there was an unhealthy looking guy vaping like a lunatic, perhaps 50 years old. He looked a like a severe addict. I asked him how much of that do you smoke. He showed me a 4 oz bottle that lasts a week, he claimed $1 a day, bought online. He was really going at it for about 10 minutes. Huffing, pacing, twitching, watching his stuff and moving it always closer to him.

Then the bus arrived and he switched with the driver and became my bus driver.

Insanity.

jnantz

13-Sep-2018, 11:00

Yesterday while waiting for a local college bus, there was an unhealthy looking guy vaping like a lunatic, perhaps 50 years old. He looked a like a severe addict. I asked him how much of that do you smoke. He showed me a 4 oz bottle that lasts a week, he claimed $1 a day, bought online. He was really going at it for about 10 minutes. Huffing, pacing, twitching, watching his stuff and moving it always closer to him.

Then the bus arrived and he switched with the driver and became my bus driver.

Insanity.

they say besides the frightening description you gave
it causes "popcorn lung" ... which doens't sound very good...

bloodhoundbob

13-Sep-2018, 14:22

Yesterday while waiting for a local college bus, there was an unhealthy looking guy vaping like a lunatic, perhaps 50 years old. He looked a like a severe addict. I asked him how much of that do you smoke. He showed me a 4 oz bottle that lasts a week, he claimed $1 a day, bought online. He was really going at it for about 10 minutes. Huffing, pacing, twitching, watching his stuff and moving it always closer to him.

Then the bus arrived and he switched with the driver and became my bus driver.

Insanity.

Barbara was wondering what the drivers are on. Yikes.

Tin Can

14-Sep-2018, 08:20

Wealth and collecting Art as investment.

https://wealth.northerntrust.com/articles/navigating-the-worlds-uncertainties/

Grandpa Ron

9-Dec-2018, 15:08

Photography is art, and what is important in art varies greatly over time.

A person does not say, this is an awful photographs but I bought it because it had good texture, contrast, or image quality; they bought it because they liked it. Typically it touched their emotions.

I biggest advantage of the internet sales is it filter out all the "expert" opinions. People buy what they like, not what other tell them they should like.

Those folks who sell art, cater to their specific costumer base. I would not expect a Texas western art dealer to sell much in the way of impressionist still life art.

Unless your sales are because of your name recognition or have some other intrinsic value, they are just another photograph.

Ansel Adams photographs did not sell because he liked them, they sold because others liked them. He new what folks liked and how to make it.