Honest photographs?

[Scott Schroeder]

After reading the Legacy thread by John K in the Lounge, it rekindled some thoughts I posed to some other photographers weeks ago. I would be interested in hearing what everyone here might have to say. The main question is: why don’t photographers just sell their images as one off? Like an original painting, drawing, flute, guitar, motorcycle, etc.
Obviously, many photographers make a living or supplement their income through their photographs. For the purposes of this question, let’s leave money out of the equation.
I realize it costs time, money, materials, etc. to make photographs, but IF the intention of the photographer is to make art and enjoy the process, the main goal usually isn’t to derive income.
I think far too often, if someone becomes ‘serious’ about a particular hobby or activity, they believe they must make funds for their efforts. So if you are really in it to enjoy the ride and the results, why not just make a print at the size you think fits it best and with the best presentation for that particular image then move on to the next one? Give it away, sell it or hang it on your wall.
The best answer I’ve heard is to share your work with others and I completely agree with that. I think making a handful to share with other people sounds reasonable, but introducing the whole marketing dynamic of limited editions and pricing structures seems to dilute the initial intention.
Dare I say, it might actually make for more honest interpretations of your given subject in photography. Without the external pressures to create popular, sellable pieces, the results might be more personal. This leads into the whole legacy thing and after a photographer passes. If they are more personal, they might be more treasured by those who knew the photographer.
Comments?

[chris jordan]

Given the reproducability of photographs, it would be a shame to make only one. I've often thought about how hard it must be for a painter to part with a painting they really love. If I were a painter, I don't think I could do it-- I'd have a whole studio full of my favorite paintings, all not for sale! I print my photos in editions of nine, but #1 of each edition is mine, not for sale.

~cj

[Kerik Kouklis]

Now that I'm doing wet plate collodion work - primarily ambrotypes and alumitypes - I've begun to deal with this issue. These pieces are one-of-a-kind and selling the first two was kind of tough. They were both 11x14's and a couple of the first really nice ones I made that size. It's gotten easier to let them go now. I also scan them so I can always make digital prints or digital negs and platinum prints later on. At least the image isn't gone forever, but there's nothing quite like an original ambrotype... try running a piece of glass through your Epson printer!

[paulr]

One of the innate qualities of photography is reproduceability. At least for most photographic processes. It's just like other printmaking media in that regard. Why not take advantage of its nature? No one says you have to make more than one, but it doesn't make sense to suggest there's anything disingenuous about multiples.

[Dan Fullerton]

I've been taking photographs for about 45 years, and during that time have probably sold fewer than twenty total. I have been involved with technical/scientific photography in my day jobs and really enjoy subjects outdoors for which I use only black and white film. I do my own developing, printing, mounting, framing and then either give as a gift or donate the photograph, usually to some benefit auction. I have my photographs in my home which my wife places for our enjoyment. I have friends over the years that slowly went from a hobby to trying to make a living from photography as well as other persuits. In most cases, the love of being out there and taking a few photos all the while enjoying the process was lost. Suddenly; time, cost of everything, schedules, and possible benefit became the driving force for tripping the shutter. They often felt limited or restrained unless they were using the latest camera gear and associated equipment. I think for many the lure of being paid to do what one initially simply enjoys brings disappointment. I have given away a great many photographs for enjoyment for both me and the reciepient. For those that have purchased them at auction, the benefit was then to both the buyer and seller. I don't suppose I will ever truly know if my work is more appreciated when received as a gift or as the result of the highest bid. I do know for sure, the pleasure has been mine and I can't wait to get the camera out for the next photo.

[John Kasaian]

I'd guess it has to do with what it is you want to accomplish.

Nearly all successful fine art photographers these days print limited editions. Gallery owners I talked to aren't interested in anything but limited editions. and niether apparently are buyers/investors.

My objective is to print images that make me feel good and it stands to reason that I'd like to share those images if they give to others like enjoyment, so the more the merrier for me. Ironically I'm not a good enough printer to make identical hand made prints---each print is, in some small way unique--- not that I'm a sloppy printer but each print just begs to be 'tweaked' to give it individuality(not too much individuality being possible with contact prints, which is all I seem to do these days.) I look at it as a good thing since it identifies my prints as uniquely hand made products subject to my own caprices at the time.

Its an interesting issue to think about. Thanks!

[Bruce Watson]

The main question is: why don’t photographers just sell their images as one off? Like an original painting, drawing, flute, guitar, motorcycle, etc.
Well, flutes, guitars, and motorcycles are typically made on assembly lines, and even when made by hand (a dubious undertaking) they are typically copies off a template - Strads were made off a handful of templates for example.

But the reason to make more than one print is simply to be true to the medium. Part of what makes photography unique is the very fact that you can make multiple prints. To deny that is to deny an essential part of what makes photography photography.


...IF the intention of the photographer is to make art and enjoy the process, the main goal usually isn’t to derive income.
What makes you say that? I don't see why making art and enjoying the processes is mutually exclusive with deriving an income. Making art for money has a history thousands of years old.


Dare I say, it might actually make for more honest interpretations of your given subject in photography. Without the external pressures to create popular, sellable pieces, the results might be more personal.
Making just a single print couldn't possibly make my prints any more personal. My prints are me.

I think that possibly you are on an interesting track, but it's not about the number of prints. It's about what it takes to make a living at photography.

I've determined that what it takes to make a living at photography is simple. I can't do it, but that doesn't make it complicated. It comes down to this. To make a living at fine-art photography, you have to love selling your work more than you love creating it. If you don't love selling it, you aren't going to sell much of it, that's for sure.

[Scott Schroeder]

Well, flutes, guitars, and motorcycles are typically made on assembly lines, and even when made by hand (a dubious undertaking) they are typically copies off a template - Strads were made off a handful of templates for example..

Yea, I guess I was referring only to hand made 'singles'



But the reason to make more than one print is simply to be true to the medium. Part of what makes photography unique is the very fact that you can make multiple prints. To deny that is to deny an essential part of what makes photography photography.


Paul mentioned that above and really wasn't something I'd thought about. Thanks for bringing it up.




What makes you say that? I don't see why making art and enjoying the processes is mutually exclusive with deriving an income. Making art for money has a history thousands of years old.


Making just a single print couldn't possibly make my prints any more personal. My prints are me.

I think I switched gears midway in my original posting :) I guess I see the 'possible' trap of needing to sell you work as making things less personal or honest. Of course your prints are you, but I guess I was deriving from blindly making prints to meet marketing measures.



I think that possibly you are on an interesting track, but it's not about the number of prints. It's about what it takes to make a living at photography.

I've determined that what it takes to make a living at photography is simple. I can't do it, but that doesn't make it complicated. It comes down to this. To make a living at fine-art photography, you have to love selling your work more than you love creating it. If you don't love selling it, you aren't going to sell much of it, that's for sure.

Excellent point.
I guess I was meandering into an area of wondering how selling one's work affects how personal their images are. Again, this is for people who don't make a living from their photography but do so to create art. I suppose 'one off' was a way to just make it less of a possibility for those influences to affect honest work.
By the way, I'm not chucking stuff out there, I see how all this has affected me over the years. So I guess a better question is how selling one's work affects creating what one truly feels connected with and producing how 'they' like it, not others.?
now my head is spinning :)
Hopefully something was clear in there.

[robc]

This may open your eyes to the concept of editions or not and how similar prints in an edition need to be.

Extract form Michael Kenna Interview (http://www.michaelkenna.net/html/iviews/ivlens.html) follows:

"BJ: You print in editions of 45 plus 4 artist proofs. Making 45 duplicates that are the same is often a serious challenge in the darkroom.

MK: (Laughing). Well, first of all, I don’t make all 45 at once. I usually start with 10 or 15. An edition of 45 is my limit. There are many images that are sold out, but the greater percentage never get that far.

BJ: Do you find that near the end of the edition it’s a challenge to make them exactly the same as the beginning, or do you allow yourself to change how you interrupt a negative as the edition progresses?

MK: I allow myself complete artistic license. (Laughing). There is no reason I would get the print from, say 1981 and produce it exactly the same. I use it as a reference point, but if I feel there’s a different interpretation that will improve the print I will certainly do that. So, if someone has print #45 there is no guarantee that it’s going to be the same as #1."

[Michael Graves]

"try running a piece of glass through your Epson printer!"

My son did that once. It wasn't pretty.

[chris jordan]

Quoting from Bruce Watson: "To make a living at fine-art photography, you have to love selling your work more than you love creating it."

WRONG! That sounds like sour grapes maybe. I know many full-time photographic artists, and we all dislike selling our work. It's a "chore" part of our job that we do because it goes with the territory, not because we love selling more than photographing.

Far as I can tell, to make a living as a photographic artist you have to take the risk of committing yourself to making photographs that are engaged, unique, and creative. And you have to send out portfolios, work with galleries and do the "business" side as well. The trick is that it has to be both things; doing one but not the other won't get you there either way.

[robc]

Quoting from Bruce Watson: "To make a living at fine-art photography, you have to love selling your work more than you love creating it."

WRONG! That sounds like sour grapes maybe. I know many full-time photographic artists, and we all dislike selling our work. It's a "chore" part of our job that we do because it goes with the territory, not because we love selling more than photographing.

Far as I can tell, to make a living as a photographic artist you have to take the risk of committing yourself to making photographs that are engaged, unique, and creative. And you have to send out portfolios, work with galleries and do the "business" side as well. The trick is that it has to be both things; doing one but not the other won't get you there either way.

If you are any good you will have agents queing up to take on that chore for you...

[chris jordan]

Scott, many people have the impression that to make a living as an artist, you have to "sell out" and start creating work for an audience, so that your work is no longer authentic and personally rewarding. Plenty of professional artists do this, of course, but then there are those who stick by their integrity and continue to produce authentic work without regard to its commercial value, even though they are making their living selling that work. And strangely enough, the people who do that frequently end up being more successful in the long run than the ones who sell out in an attempt to be commercially successful.

The reason is that what the world craves, and will pay for, is artists who express themselves deeply and genuinely, unfiltered. Just look at any artform and there are lots of examples on both sides. In music there are the Britney Spears and the Kenny G's out there, but there are also the Herbie Hancock's and the Pat Metheny's who have a worldwide following.

Where to fall on that continuum is a choice that each artist gets to make for themself. The deciding factor is how much risk they are willing to take. If you are willing to risk making genuine work, you stand a higher chance of being rejected, but your work will be unfiltered and authentic. If you take the safer route of making formulaic work for a known audience, then the work will be less authentic, but will have a higher chance of being commercially successful on a certain level.

To make it at the top level of the fine-art world, the work MUST be authentic and unfiltered; taking that risk is the price of admission. But, even if your work is authentic, it can still be rejected, and that's the risk.

So here's a thought to consider. It's obvious what the cost is of taking the risk: You can be rejected, and fail. The more interesting question is, what is the cost of NOT taking the risk?

Take a long breath before answering that one, and then another long breath. It's actually a pretty important question, I think.

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[bruce terry]

"Why don’t photographers just sell their images as one off? Like an original painting, drawing, flute, guitar, motorcycle, etc."

Scott! Truly a pregnant question!

Great subject matter aside, I've always felt the only Honest Photograph is the one, single, best-you-can-do print of a given negative. That negative is then defaced and included with the print as blood proof the print is as unique and rare as any original watercolor.

Of course no one has the balls to actually do this.

Do they?

[Bruce Watson]

WRONG!
We disagree. But there's no reason to shout about it.

What I've found over my life so far is that one can be good at doing something one doesn't particularly like. But it's very difficult to excell at something one doesn't like to do. Even if you can force it temporarily, that path leads to madness.

If you don't like selling, you aren't going to excell at selling. And to sell something that's hard to sell -- like art in general and photography in particular -- you need to excell at selling.

Sour grapes? Hardly. I'm very happy when anyone sells a photograph because I know the hard work that went into making that sale. And every sale that is made is an opportunity for someone else -- once someone has bought a photograph, they are more likely to buy another one.

[chris jordan]

The point is, Bruce, to make a living at fine-art photography, you don't have to love selling your work more than you love creating it. I don't know a single photographer making a living at fine-art photography who would agree with your statement. And anyway, all of the selling is done by the gallerists, who love that part of the business. One of the keys to success in photographic art, I think, is to find a good gallery who can handle the selling side and take it off of the photographer's hands. Because I also don't know a single photographic artist who is good at (or likes) selling their, me included.

[Bruce Watson]

We disagree Chris. And that's OK. It would be a boring place if we all agreed. In my defense I will say that it's hard to imagine very many artists actually admitting that they enjoyed the selling. It goes against every stereotype we have for artists. And what would be gained?

And I'm glad you live in an area of the country that has a thriving gallery scene and a citizenry that actually buys art. Even photography. Good on ya. Maybe one day I'll move to a more art friendly part of the world and change my views.

[chris jordan]

I haven't sold a print in Seattle in five years. All of my sales happen though galleries in Los Angeles and New York; my work isn't even represented by a Seattle gallery. It's kind of strange being unknown in my own city, but I guess that's the way it goes...

[jnantz]

hi scott

since the late 1980s some of the things i have made and sold have been single-prints, and single edition hand stitched books.

they have been made through experimentation with glass, film and other materials and once i get one image i don't make anymore ... i still do this sometimes, just for fun, but not as often as i used to because life sometimes gets in the way ...

personally, i think photography's biggest gift ( being able to make many photographic prints from a single negative ) is its biggest downfall. there is no original ( except for the negative ) and everything is a faxsimile. sure, i know, every print is different and not exactly like every other print/ output &C, but it all seems the same to me ...

[photographs42]

After reading the Legacy thread by John K in the Lounge, it rekindled some thoughts I posed to some other photographers weeks ago. I would be interested in hearing what everyone here might have to say. The main question is: why don’t photographers just sell their images as one off? Like an original painting, drawing, flute, guitar, motorcycle, etc.Obviously, many photographers make a living or supplement their income through their photographs.........?

The very nature of a photograph is similar to other art forms such as Etchings, Serigraphs, Lithographs, etc. in that the original creation (the negative in the case of photography) is not the final art, but rather is the source of the final art.

Unlike a painting, the finished product of such art forms is, to a greater or lesser degree, produced by a person (who may or may not be the artist) operating a machine. The operator makes several test prints (proofs) to arrive at the final form. At that point, it doesn’t make much sense to make just one. So an edition is produced by printing until the plate is warn to a degree that the resulting prints are no longer of acceptable quality and the process is halted, the plate defaced, and the edition becomes the number of good prints produced plus however many proofs are kept. That’s why editions of these art forms are usually odd numbers like 237 or something. The exception would be if the artist can’t afford a full run or other wise chooses to make a smaller number.

Photography is a similar process but is different in one important way. There is no deterioration of the negative when a print is made. That means that there is no imposed limit on the number of prints that can be made, therefore, there is no reason to apply a limit other than as a marketing ploy, which the galleries are quick to employ.

If you, the artist, choose to limit your work in this way, by making 1 or 10 or whatever you decide, that is your business. But to make this an honest effort, as opposed to a ruse, you must make the edition and deface the negative before offering the edition for sale. It is a joke to make 4 prints, label them 1 of 50 etc. (indicating your intent to make an edition of 50) when, in fact, you have only made 4 (and if those don’t sell, believe me, you won’t make more) and you haven’t defaced the negative as proof of performing your part of the bargain. If I‘m a serious collector and I pay a premium for a “Limited Edition” piece of art, I want some reasonable proof that it is just that.

In my opinion, the concept of the limited edition does not apply to photography. On the back of the print mount, I indicate the date the negative was made, the date the print was made and the print number. This is the way Ansel did it and I feel it is the best way for me. You have to decide for yourself. I have had this discussion with many collectors and, in the end, they have usually purchased prints from me.

As to the selling aspect of your question, there has been considerable discussion of that issue already. As for me, I am not a salesman. I enjoy talking to customers about photography and about my work and sometimes they buy, but it isn’t because I sell it. I don’t make my living selling my work but I know many who do and do quite well. None of them make only one print from each negative.

Jerome

http://www.jeromehawkins.com/

[paulr]

I know many full-time photographic artists ...

Chris, kind of off topic, but could you name a few? I could use some better role models ;)

[paulr]

We disagree Chris. And that's OK. It would be a boring place if we all agreed.

you know, you're talking to someone with plenty of first hand and second hand experience with the topic. what's your opinion based on? people you know, or is it just a prejudice?

[Joseph Kayne]

"Given the reproducability of photographs, it would be a shame to make only one. I've often thought about how hard it must be for a painter to part with a painting they really love. If I were a painter, I don't think I could do it-- I'd have a whole studio full of my favorite paintings, all not for sale! I print my photos in editions of nine, but #1 of each edition is mine, not for sale."

I couldn't agree more!

Joe.

[steve_782]

To make it at the top level of the fine-art world, the work MUST be authentic and unfiltered; taking that risk is the price of admission. But, even if your work is authentic, it can still be rejected, and that's the risk.

So here's a thought to consider. It's obvious what the cost is of taking the risk: You can be rejected, and fail. The more interesting question is, what is the cost of NOT taking the risk?

Take a long breath before answering that one, and then another long breath. It's actually a pretty important question, I think.

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

It's apparently important to you, but that doesn't make it important to everyone. I used to pursue galleries, shows, collectors, collections, etc. - and found out I resented the process and diversion of energy that came with that part of the business.

I made the decision that I didn't want to deal with it, as it only aggravated me. I know four people who make a living selling fine art photographs. Three of the four have said to me, "You have the ultimate freedom." "You do exactly what you want to do with no thought as to what will sell or what the gallery wants."

I don't want to have a gallery expecting images that have a certain look so they have a photograph that fulfills the gallery's expectations as a product targeted to a specific audience.

I'm interested in making images for myself, as my own challenge, and I frankly don't care if anyone ever sees them. All I care about is seeing if I can create the image of an idea that I have.

Once I do that and it's what I wanted to see, and I feel I've made the final image I want to see - I'm on to the next challenge. I have one finished print hanging in my house. Three in progress, and when I'm done with those they'll either be given away or thrown away - I don't care which - I'm finished with the image.

[Jonathan Brewer]

'I haven't sold a print in Seattle in five years. All of my sales happen though galleries in Los Angeles and New York; my work isn't even represented by a Seattle gallery. It's kind of strange being unknown in my own city, but I guess that's the way it goes'...


...............C'mon Chris, you've died and gone to heaven, they just didn't yank you over to Seattle to pat you on the back on your way up :^) !!!!!

What is strange is the fight to become known enough to open doors, 'Catch 22', you've got to become known, before they want to know you. I may never have the recognition of some folks on this forum, that's alright, much of it is my fault, for years I never bothered to promote my work. Now that I'm promoting myself, now that I've got a website, a favorable write up about the site, and a few other things coming up, I can refer people to what I've got going and show up places to shoot that were formerly unavailable to me.

You go from a 'pest' to a 'Prestidigitator'.

That anybody would want to pay $5.00 for your work, work that you would do anyway for free, that feeling STILL impresses me, but that's a different aspect of this than the having to 'jump through hoops', that I can see comes with the territory of self promotion.

[stephenhunter57]

limited editions do better on the sales front but one off's could be finacially unacceptable especially if it is a sort after pic, its going to be reproduced when it goes to publication anyway.
If I thought it would work I would go for it.

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry you are going to have to translate "unacceptable especially if it is a sort after pic" for us in Spamland.
(my mother-in-law is English and since WWII and K rations she says people in her village refer to America as Spamland)

[Daniel_Buck]

I guess this is where tin-types, daguerreotypes and the like come in to play. There's really no way to make a good copy of them, is there?

[Jack Dahlgren]

Sorry you are going to have to translate "unacceptable especially if it is a sort after pic" for us in Spamland.
(my mother-in-law is English and since WWII and K rations she says people in her village refer to America as Spamland)

As a native of spamland, the first thing that comes to mind is "sought after"