Opportunities for Fine Art....

[Kirk Gittings]

To Jim Collum, Jack Flesher, or any of the other few successful fine art photographers reading here, how good do you think opportunites are for fine art photographers with very little exhibit history? Gordon Moat

Gordon's question was glossed over in the thread on Focus Magazine where this was posted. I will try and respond.

"successful fine art photographers" means different things to different people. Personally....To me a successful artist is one who makes an adequate living primarily from their personal art and who enjoy some respect from their peers. I don't count in this class people who derive most of their income from teaching art photography, these are photo educators. I know many painters who fit this definition but very few photographers. Personally, I only know only one, Witkin, but even he is doing commercial work now too. Caponigro told me a long time ago, at the height of his popularity (when "Running White Deer" was going for 12G), that he could not survive on print sales alone. If he were as well known a painter as he was a photographer he would have been well off. You would also be surprised how many so called successful FAP have other sources of income such as family money etc.

While I am a reasonably successful photographer (I have made my living at it since 1978) I do not include myself as a successful fine art photographer yet, as most of my income comes from commercial photography, teaching, stock sales etc. In my best year, I sold 20G worth of FA prints, but the norm is less and varies tremendously depending on shows, books etc. Last year was good because of exhibits and the new book, but this year is down. It varies way too much to depend on. My dream is to get out of commercial photography, but I am in my twelfth continuos year of putting kids through private colleges with a few to go, so that is a ways off yet. This year I am working on getting more consistent with marketing my art with a new agent and some regional advertising in art magazines while I struggle to get enough time away from commercial work to finish another book/exhibit project that is years overdue.

Gordon's question is kind of a Catch 22. You can't sell without showing (sorry web sales really only help support showing), but without a track record it is hard to get shows in quality galleries which actually know how to market photographs to real collectors who will pay real prices. There are opportunities always, but any art career is built piece by piece, first with small shows and (frankly) underpriced work, then better galleries and better prices, then small museums etc. etc. Frankly I think it is much more about hard work than raw talent (at least it has been for me). Tales of being "discovered" are rare and usually myths. Most people who are "discovered" have been quitely building a career and busting their a__ for along time. At some point all their hard work results in a qualitative leap.

I am rambling a bit here, trying to answer a question that has no easy answers. Perhaps Chris Jordon will chime in. Of all the regular participants here who uses their own name, he is clearly the most successful fine arts photographer. I have watched him from afar build his career and he seems to have done a remarkably good job of it.

[tim atherton]

"successful fine art photographers" means different things to different people. Personally....To me a successful artist is one who makes an adequate living primarily from their personal art and who enjoy some respect from their peers. I don't count in this class people who derive most of their income from teaching art photography, these are photo educators. I know many painters who fit this definition but very few photographers. Personally, I only know only one, Witkin, but even he is doing commercial work now too. Caponigro told me a long time ago, at the height of his popularity (when "Running White Deer" was going for 12G), that he could not survive on print sales alone. If he were as well known a painter as he was a photographer he would have been well off. You would also be surprised how many so called successful FAP have other sources of income such as family money etc.


two I know would be Geoffrey James and Lee Friedlander who I think also fit that (and probably Gabrielle Basilico too). Though in some cases income may not come directly from print sales, but the likes of commissions (which are generally different from commercial work) - they are being commissioned - as are many artists - to do their work.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Gordon Moat

Gordon's question was glossed over in the thread on Focus Magazine where this was posted. I will try and respond.

"successful fine art photographers" means different things to different people. Personally....To me a successful artist is one who makes an adequate living primarily from their personal art and who enjoy some respect from their peers.



Let me ask you a question. Do you differentiate between a successful fine art photographer and a successful fine artist? When I met with Tom Millea back in July 2005 for an interview for our third issue, he told me the story about an artist's name who I can't remember (and there's a reason why I can't remember) and Pablo Picasso. Pablo Picasso became successful because he had the personality that was able to deal with people, not because of his work. Yes, his work is very famous today, but how do you think he became discovered?

I know many people here who would consider Steve Anchell a successful fine art photographer, but I'm sure many of you would be surprised to learn that he does not make his living from being a fine art photographer. He doesn't have the tolerance for dealing with galleries...neither does Ralph Gibson and Gibson is extremely influential today.

Then again it also depends upon the definition of "success." Do you mean success as in financially or being able to have your work acknowledged and recognized but not bought? I think there are so many different levels in which one could achieve success, based upon what you view success as.

One thing that all of the greats had in common was the ability to deal with people...if you don't have a natural business sense then it doesn't matter how good your work is, you'll never get noticed. You have to know how to market yourself, whether through magazines or e-mail blasts or internet searches or direct mail, exhibiting at photography fairs, etc.

[Gordon Moat]

Thanks Kirk Gittings for starting this thread over here. I suppose I should add in a bit to this, or clear up a little on my views. I largely agree with Mr. Gittings about the success aspect, that is someone who is making a living from fine art photography. Oh, and the reason I have that in italics is that it is a term I rarely use.

That PDN article a few issues ago mentioned $20k as the average, with a high of $40k for fine art photographers. It should be considered that this was from an overall industry survey, and that those responding mentioned what classification they best fit into. There was no mention of whether that income was solely from print sales, books, workshops, teaching, or some combination of these. Interestingly photojournalists were the next lowest income level classification, though nearly double fine art photographers incomes.

Okay, so taking a little from the other thread, I know of a few artists who started their own galleries in wealthy areas. The success ratios seemed a bit mixed, though if someone has the capital to get that going, it can be one path. This is the exception. More common are those who struggle, get a little recognition, generate a few sales, then maybe roll that into better results down the line.

I know many painters, since that was my speciality in college, and I still do oil paintings. Arguably more labour and effort, but each work can potentially be sold for much more than photography as art. Unfortunately, the hand skills can be elusive for some people, while others just don't want to deal with the mess of oil paints and cleaning brushes and equipment. Different realm.

I can appreciate when Mr. Gittings relates his desire to move away from commercial work to just doing art photography. He would be substantially more in control of his efforts, schedule, and results. his commercial work is inspiring, and I think it would be a little sad to see that go away, but I wish him success in his art photography.

So by success, it can be great to get into that first juried exhibit, or get that first award, or get that first sale. However, at some point, repeats of those things can leave someone wanting more, or at least questioning if there is more to come. Euphoria will only last so long. I would not mind being influential, well known, and recognized, though I need to keep in mind that I need to generate an income. I only managed to get my degree in art in 1998, so hopefully I still have a long (commercial) career ahead of me. I will continue to exhibit art photography, because I enjoy the open creative challenges, though my commercial work comes first.

FocusMag has one thing very right, in that marketing yourself is very important. That was one thing I was trying to imply with my earlier post in the other thread; mainly the idea that I did not see marketing efforts as different between the realms of art photography and commercial photography. In fact I see the potential expenses as similar, yet the potential return of commercial work as a better investment in my (and perhaps others) futures.

Hopefully this thread will continue. I exhibit with some very talented individuals time to time, and I would imagine these are things several of them also consider quite often. Thanks in advance to all comments.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[j.e.simmons]

As I near becoming a geezer, I realize that the ability to socialize with potential customers, regardless of industry, is far more important than the quality of the product. If talking about retail sales, I would include customer service under the socialize category.

I, unfortunately, have a personality that stirs anger among those with sufficient disposable income to potentially enrich me.
juan

[chris_4622]

From my perspective success in any artistic endeavor has an element of money in it. Either you have the balance of the external world (business) and your inner creative world or you don't; if not then you have to have someone with whom you can develop this in a relationship, or be independantly wealthy. As a woodworker http://www.cfazio.com for 20 years making custom furniture I know the part of not making money real well.

I have two gifted friends who are all but unknown.
The comments above about promoting yourself cannot be over emphasized.

chris

[Frank Petronio]

I think a lot of fine art photographers who complain about not being able to make enough money from their art are also deluding themselves. Calendar photos, even if they are done with a large format camera and black & white film (!) do not automagically become profitable as fine art even if a gallery picks them up. Heck, the gallery probably isn't profitable either.

You do have to do something stunning. That's the first step.

[Ed Richards]

> You do have to do something stunning.

Very good point. There have been lots of threads about whether something is really "art", usually generated because of the success of the photographer in selling stuff that appears to be highly contrived and a one trick pony. While I would not want to hang this stuff on my wall, I can see why a rich art maven would want to own the flavor of the day rather than one more picture of an aspen.

Kirk, perhaps you should carry an old porcelain toilet on shoots and stick in the foreground of all of the landscapes. Then you could sell your art as commentary on the disrespect of the people toward the earth. Frank, you could get some of those old men and some of those young girls... well, never mind, but you get point about contriving high art.:-)

[jnantz]

is the measure of success relative ?
i worked for someone who fit the criteria stated above
she made a decent living from her work, she was respected by
her peers, and she was very well known, yet when i asked her if she
considered herself successful, she said NO.

i think there is more to success than the above stated things, i am not sure what it is though ...

[paulr]

Kirk's observations seem dead on to me. I know OF a few people who support themselves with print sales in the art market (Friedlander, etc.), and I have a handfull of friends who make a decent chunk of their income from print sales, grants, etc., while supporting themselves in related or unrelated ways.

But most of the artists I know (even in more lucrative media like painting) struggle to break even. Most people are artists for personal reasons, not because they saw an opportunity in the market. Contrast this with advertising account executives, or plumbers.

It's really the nature of fine art to be speculative. You do a project that's important to you, and then hope other people will like it enough to buy it. And why should they? When it works out, it must take a remarkable convergence of your vision and ability, opportunity to get your work in front of people, and whatever moods, whims, personal dispositions, cultural shifts, or fashion swings it takes to help people connect with your work.

[Kirk Gittings]

It is the nature of artists to want to share your work and for your work to be recognized. Recognition can come in many forms, accolades from friends, getting something published, and of course having something purchased. Few people really are just working for their own gratification and are happy working in obscurity.

The most meaningful recognition I ever had was at a show I did at the Silver City Museum in like 91 or something. It was a show of my images of historic New mexico Churches. During an otherwise very decent turn out at the openeing, I noticed a very old hispanic man, oblivious to everything around him, moving slowly from print to print. He would stare intently at each image then move in close to examine details. He would occasionally point to something and mouth some words silently. With each image after examining it, he would step back close his eyes, cross himself and kiss the rosary he clasped in his hand. There were over 100 prints in the show and he stayed along time. He never spoke to anyone and left without saying a word to me, but signed the guest book. Later I went to see what he wrote. He said simply "by the grace of god" and signed it simply Manuel. That my images, without all the artiface normally present at openings, could be spiritually moving to someone was enormously gratifying . He got it. The only sales from the show were a couple of images the museum bought, but in many ways it was the most satisfying opening I ever had because of that old man.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

[/QUOTE]Originally Posted by FocusMag
. . . . .

I cannot promise sales, but I can promise exposure for a value that cannot be found elsewhere.

. . . . . .

See, now that's where I respectfully disagree with you. Perhaps you feel that you have some unique combination, which I would grant you as possible. However, a trip to any Barnes & Noble or Border's Books will reveal many art publications, some quite noteworty to art buyers, though not always specifically photography. While you might only consider the photography publications, I would imagine an art collector would be looking at the art publications. Art on Paper is one such publication. As for me and what I do in photography, my fine art exhibiting has been to build an exhibit history to get into a Master's Degree program. I sell enough to pay for my efforts, have many juried exhibits in my current history, and managed to get three awards for my work. However, my emphasis is on commercial imaging. An marketing efforts I put towards commercial imaging will be a better investment than trying to push my fine art. Besides, if I really wanted to push my fine art, I would be working more at getting my paintings noticed. No offence intended. Ciao! [/quote]

Hi Gordon, I'm continuing this intelligent discussion in what I consider to be an extremely important thread.

I described niche marketing, targeting to a focused, targetable segment of a market. The market is art collectors, the segment is art collectors who also collect photography. A magazine, such as mine, can take your work and subject our readers, who are art collectors who also collect photography (photography collectors). Now, will they buy something from you? I don't know. The main rule of thumb in art collecting is buy what you love. If someone loves your work, there's a good chance they'll buy it. We try to put photography in the magazine that we feel has the best chance for our readers to love. Sometimes it works...sometimes it doesn't. No magazine or media outlet can ever have a 100% success rate. Not even the Super Bowl.

[Bruce Watson]

As I near becoming a geezer, I realize that the ability to socialize with potential customers, regardless of industry, is far more important than the quality of the product. If talking about retail sales, I would include customer service under the socialize category.

I, unfortunately, have a personality that stirs anger among those with sufficient disposable income to potentially enrich me.
juan

Yes. I have made the observation (and been roundly smacked for it, yet for me it still has that nasty ring of truth) that in order to make a living as a fine art photographer, one must love selling one's work more than one loves making one's work. Else it might be prudent to hold on to the day job ;-)

Unfortunately, a love of selling art and a love of making art seldom combine in a single individual. Certainly not me. Sigh...

[paulr]

[QUOTE=Bruce Watson;191573 in order to make a living as a fine art photographer, one must love selling one's work more than one loves making one's work. Else it might be prudent to hold on to the day job ;-)[/QUOTE]

I don't see evidence of that at all. But I'd agree that except for a very elite few, some ambition for selling is critical.

However much you love selling your work, it might be a good idea to hang on to the day job. at least don't burn every last bridge ... you never know when your patrons will get sick of you and you'll be back to being a poor loser again.

[Christopher Perez]

There is what I would consider "required reading" on the topic. It comes from Brooks Jensen's potentially heretical work entitled "Trolling for Fools".

There is no reason why a photographer can't make a living as an artist in that medium. However, I have noticed several things over the past 4 decades of working in and around the field. Much of it relates to how we as photographers think about our work and it's value.

First, many folks I've run into think that all it takes is picking up a camera and expressing one's vision. We all know and understand what this can lead to. When a print/image of their's happens to sell for "good money", I have seen people become arrogant and assume they can repeat this performance well into the future. Alas, much of the time this wonderful event of selling an image for "good money" is an anomoly.

Second, if you walk into any gallery in the nation that shows photographic "art", take a look at the prices. Then seriously consider how long it will take the average person to work (at potentially a hard job) to make enough money to afford those supposedly wonderous pieces of work.

Third, talk with folks like John Wimberly and Tillman Crane. How are they doing financially? How are they "making ends meet"? Do they find all this effort "worth it"? Why are they even pursuing what they do? Then consider how this might apply to you.

[Warning: I'm now onto the very tippy top of the soap box]

Consider this from a very purely economic perspective. What's a average salary for people in the US? $50,000/year (which is the wrong answer, BTW)? $35,000/year (which happens to be closer to the right answer)? How much disposable income does $35,000/year allow you to spend on "fine art"?

Let's consider a very fine $1200 Christopher Burkett hand crafted print. At $673/week before taxes, this takes a full two weeks of before tax work (assuming a $35k/year salary) to afford that fine image. After tax money brings you much closer to three weeks of full time work to afford Christopher's image. Thinking of this another way, three full time work weeks of wages will buy you 403 Macdonald's Happy Meals at $5/each before taxes. Which do you think takes priority? Food? Or "art"?

Absurd? I think not!

Now lets look at the demographics that might get us displayed before the people we really want to sell to. Do you think $100,000/year will get a person enough disposable income to throw at someone's "fine photographic art"? Perhaps. This salary is fairly significant because it represents what the top 5% of wage earners in the USA makes today!

Think about that a moment. That means you have the opportunity to put your work in front of around 15,000,000 people in the US. Not bad, you say? Well, maybe not, but still maybe it is bad. 40% of these folks live paycheck to paycheck. Seriously. They can't make ends meet, even on that salary. This brings the potential market size down to around 9,000,000 people in the USA.

Is this a large enough pool of potential buyers for We Art Photographers to play in and be able to price or wonderous works at whatever level we feel it's worth?

Think about all the other means of entertainment that people spend their disposable income on. Think about all the other attractions in people's lives. Then think about what you are trying to charge for your work.

Consider these things deeply. Consider these things completely independently of how you feel about your "art". Consider these things completely independently of what other people tell your "art" is worth as they fail to back their claims with good hard earned green backs.

This is why I'm tinkering with the idea of selling $40 to $50 print Palladium prints. Even at that price, it's very interesting to watch what effect this has on buyers in the below the $100,000/year salary club. So I'm tinkering further with the idea of selling silver gelatin prints for between $20 and $35 each. Yes, they are all archival. Yes, they may or may not "make it" in the marketplace. Yes, I may never hang in a "proper" gallery. But why not try anyways?

As Michael Franti said, Everyone Deserves Music. To which I modestly add Everyone Deserves a Fine Art Photograph.

[OK, I'm off the soapbox now...]

[Bruce Watson]

...except for a very elite few, some ambition for selling is critical.

It takes more than ambition. It takes education, skills, experience, and lots of time and effort. Just like anything else.

[Christopher Perez]

One observation of Brooks that I found MOST interesting comes from a fund raising photo auction that he's attended over the past 15 years.

Independent of name (yes, even "famous" photographers participated), style, materials, subject, size, the average sale price has been $40 per print. Period.

Photographers who attended a photo school see their work sell for an average price of $20. Period!

Artists (here I assume Brooks means painters, sculptures, sketch artists) who pick up a camera see their work sell for well north of $60 each.

So, yes, it takes education and training. But I'm left wondering to what degree these things are responsible for making a successful living as a photo-artist.

Just more food for thought. Thought from (worm) food.


It takes more than ambition. It takes education, skills, experience, and lots of time and effort. Just like anything else.

[Frank Petronio]

You know who has made the most money from photography? Artists who use photography to make big, bold, powerful things to hang up on a wall.

The Starn Twins
Gursky
Warhol
Cindy Sherman
Bruce Weber
etc.

They make millions.

And all of them probably have lesser technical skills than the average Zone System practitioner.

So go try to sell your photos of slot canyons. Just realize that there isn't that strong a market for even the best Elliot Porter masterpiece.

Now I would probably prefer the Porter to the Starn Twins, but look at reality.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

This is one of the best threads I have read in a LONG time, thanks to everyone who has participated.

If becoming a successful photographer is your goal, then the ability to self promote is key to success(this is true no matter what the career path you take). Artists are no different than business people, you have to promote yourself as much as your work to get ahead. I don't think our culture has ever been comfortable with the idea of self promotion, it seems wrong somehow. The idea has been if you work hard at what you do, produce great results and stick with it then eventually you will be noticed and rewarded.

But today, this is just not the norm any longer, the competition is too great. So, a person has to take charge of their careers or art or whatever and take a proactive stance towards self promotion. It is a part of business, you have to attract customers, and in the end art is a business. This assumes of course you want to make it as a photographer.

For others, such as myself, my goals are not to become a famous, well paid artist (although that would be nice) but insted to enjoy a form of expression that I love and to produce work that I find interesting and rewarding. I sell 6 or 7 prints a year which is great as it pays for my passion. While I don't get paid for the articles I write, I enjoy doing them as I get a chance to work with well known, and not so well known, photographers and learn from them. I also enjoy helping people promote their work so writing is rewarding to me in that way as well. So my marketing plan is set to support my goals, which is to sell enough work to break even at my art ( I actually do that once in a while!).

Thanks again to all, this is a great thread.

[Kirk Gittings]

Jensen's Myth

Christopher,

We have rehashed that Brooks Jensen approach to death. He can sell prints at volume pricing, because he does good work AND he has a magazine which regularly markets his work for virtually nothing. This is not a model for anyone else unless you can come up with credible, targeted, massive and free advertising (and no a website will not even begin to accomplish this). I call this Jensen's Myth.

[SAShruby]

Usually, I am staying out of philosophical discussions about art, photography, but I feel I need to say a few words.
For two years I am reading most of the threads about everything. I see lots of major contributors to these philosophical discussions and there are some groups of people joining in agreements with them and some are opposing them as well.

IMHO, I truly believe that fine art photographer or artist possess a combination of vision, personality, charisma, technique and the most important of all – experience and knowledge. The more experienced and knowledgeable is you, the more you will be able to express yourself better that others.

The world reality of being successful is measured by how many people know about you. Part of it is to promote yourself and sell your stuff. But it is not a measurement of fine art photographer. It is a tool to become known one.

I believe there are a lot of people in this world you can consider them as fine art photographers. But there are only few of them you know.

[PViapiano]

Great thread, everyone...

I am a professional musician here in Los Angeles, it's how I make a very good living. I am very fortunate to be in this position. My colleagues are incredibly talented players, at the top of their field. But oftentimes, some feel very empty that they're directing their talent at satisfying someone else's vision, playing on someone else's CD, concert, movie session, etc...you get the idea.

It's important that we all have a direct personal outlet for our own art, our own fulfillment. And if we're involved in the commercial arena of art, it's up to us as individuals to seek that out, to satisfy our inner selves, our hunger for self expression.

It costs a lot to be an artist. It costs us in loss of income, which equates in standards of living that may be below what you may want in your life. It's a hard life and there is no guarantee. That's why there are a lot of old, bitter artists with a jaundiced world view.

That's why I think that people like Kirk are in a great position. The commercial work supports the art making. Kirk is, above all, an artist. I mean, just look at his stuff! And, if you live anywhere near FreeStyle Photo in LA, you MUST go over there and look at his images, whereupon, you'll immediately want to put all your stuff on eBay and hang it up ;-)

So, whatever you do as a day job, just make sure you satisfy your "inner artist" regularly. You owe it to yourself and your sanity, and don't be lulled by "the grass is always greener" theory. The life of an artist is not for everybody...

[Christopher Perez]

Interesting. I beg to differ.

Jensen's analysis is just one place a person intersted in this topic could start. It's easy to use the salary and demographic information that's widely available to anyone using the 'net. While you might not agree with what Brook's says, it's easy to verify the veracity of his claims.

As a counterpoint... There is a photographer I know here in town. He does wonderful work. But he is not nationally known in the way Brooks is, nor does he have the kind of web-presence that Lenswork has. Yet, using the kind of analysis Brook's talks about, this photographer is able to realize thousands of dollars a month in revenue from his "art". He's not yet rich. He's not yet famous. But you never know, someday he might be.



Jensen's Myth

We have rehashed that Brooks Jensen approach to death. He can sell prints at volume pricing, because he does good work AND he has a magazine which regularly markets his work for virtually nothing. This is not a model for anyone else unless you can come up with credible, targeted, massive and free advertising (and no a website will not even begin to accomplish this). I call this Jensen's Myth.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thank you for those kind words PViapiano (great psuedonym for a professional musician).

Christopher, at the prices you are talking about, thousands of dollars a month, means like selling 50+ prints a month. Do you really believe that? Who is it? I would love to see his website.

[Hugo Zhang]

[/QUOTE]Peter,

The world reality of being succesfull is measured by how many people know about you. Part of it is to promote yourself and sell your stuff. But it is not a measurement of fine art photographer. It is a tool to become known one.[/QUOTE]


How true! Looking back at history, many great artists died little known or unknown, only to be discovered by later generations. To be an artist with any lasting power, you almost have to have an unique vision formed and sharpened by experiences and you also need to master the technique to express that unique vision. For us mortals, this requires decades if not life time of focus, dedication, hard work and sacrifice. That's why there are relative few survived in history of art.

If we define success in fine art photography with prints sales, I find that is very difficult. To be successful in sales of your fine art work, you almost have to consider certain factors unrelated to your artistic vision. There are gaps between your visions and what the market wants. Take contact prints for examples, I only discovered the beauty of them when myself started to use a 8x10 camera. It's an acquired taste. We all know how exquisitely beautiful those well made pt/pd prints are, but how many those fine art photographers of those prints are considered successful?

Of course, there are those artists who enjoyed their fame and success while they were alive. Ansel Adams, Shakesapeare and Piccasso, just to name a few. But they are exceptions rather than norm, history will forget most of those artists who are successful today.

Hugo

[paulr]

It's been said many times, but you have to consider which art market you're going to sell to. There are lots of differentt niche markets that all call themselves "art," and they often don't have much to do with each other. Even if the practitioners appear similar, the buyers probably don't even know one another. All these markets have different practices and different ideas about prices.

And you may not have much say in the matter of what market buys into your work. Joel Peter Witkin, I'll hazzard a guess, sells very little to hotel chains. Eliott Porter probably doesn't sell much through galleries that cater to contemporary painting and conceptual photograph collectors.

The best you can do is figure out what market likes what you do, and get your work in front of it. It then helps to understand that market's customs. A Chelsea gallery and its customers will not be happy if you print editions of 100, and price your work under $500. It's not what they're up to.

Likewise, the hotel chain shopping for decorative work will not be pleased if you print editions of five, price them at $10,000 each, and sell them unframed, to be pinned directly to a gallery wall. No matter how much they like the image.

[chris jordan]

Hi guys, interesting discussion. I cannot profess to have any real answers to the questions posed here, but maybe at least a few observations. First, there definitely are amazing opportunities available to fine-art photographers, including those who have limited or no exhibition history.

It used to be that you had to work your way up from the bottom-- coffee shop shows to local gallery shows to regional gallery shows to local museums to regional museums, etc. That is still true to some extent, but there are also these new portfolio review events that allow you to jump past a few squares on the board. If people don't know about them, or haven't attended them, I highly recommend learning about them. They are basically like photo-art speed dating-- in the space of a weekend you get to meet and show your work to 10 or 20 curators, gallerists, art directors, etc. People like Yossi Milo find their new artists there; in some instances, Yossi (and other gallerists too) will give a NY solo show to someone who has never exhibited in their life. I know several photographic artists who have gotten their start that way.

Photographs are also being collected privately and by museums for higher prices and in larger quantities than ever before. The people who collect photographs are not people of average income; it is people who have the income to buy expensive cars, watches, etc., and if they happen to have taste alone with their wealth, then one of the expensive things they buy is art.

Another wonderful thing about the photographic art world is that there is always room for one more artist. In some sense it is competitive, because you have to offer something special, but if you do have something special to offer, then there is no direct competition with other artists. What I mean is, if you want to be a commercial photographer, you are competing directly with other commercial photographers in your area. There are only a limited number of jobs, and depending on the type of work you do, the competition can be cutthroat and exhausting.

In the art world, as long as you have something special to offer, your work will be collected. There is no direct competition with other photographers, and there are new galleries opening up all the time. So your place in the art world is determined not by how much you compete or how hard you work, but just by how good your work is.

And the price of your work will be determined by the market. If you do the art fair thing, you have to sell lots of prints because the price people will pay is low. But in the fine-art world, you can potentially command far higher prices. Most photographic artists do limited editions, which raises the price and allows the photographer to sell the imgaes out and move on to new work (which is nice, and also scary because then you have to move on to new work...).

And another observation I have is that you get to define success for yourself. For some it is how much money you make; for others it is the feeling of wellbeing you get from reaching an audience with a message you care about. For others it might be the recognition, or the feeling of making a difference in the world. For others still, it might be the financial freedom to keep photographing full time.

I am pessimistic about many things in the world right now-- our leadership, the state of our culture, the state of our environment. But one thing I am excited and optimistic about is the fine-art photographic world. Photography is turning out to be the medium of our time. Things can be said with photographs that cannot be said in any other way, and with some intention and effort, a skilled photographer can use the communicative power of photography as an amazing tool, and make a decent living at the same time.

Okay, one final comment, and this goes back to the "Aspens" thread. Independently of whether the world needs more photos of aspens, one thing that I think it is fair to say is that few art collectors these days want more photos of aspens, and few museums or galleries are interesting in showing them. To make it in the fine-art photographic world, it is necessary to engage the contemporary world in one way or another. There are a million different ways to do that, but if there is any single essential ingredient in being successful as a fine-art photographer, I'd say that is it.

~cj

[Mark Sawyer]

Personally....To me a successful artist is one who makes an adequate living primarily from their personal art and who enjoy some respect from their peers. .

I wouldn't argue with these pretty basic standards, but offer that Ansel Adams and Edward Weston would qualify as having only periodic, mostly struggling periods of success.

[chris jordan]

Hugo, this is a myth that has been around for ages. The truth is (and there are whole books written on this subject) that the vast majority of all artists in all mediums (music, painting, photography, etc.) are recognized in their lifetimes. The number of artists who have died unnoticed and whose work was discovered later is very few and far between. For some reason we like to imagine that it is otherwise; maybe it is a form of defensiveness, I don't know.

[paulr]

For some reason we like to imagine that it is otherwise; maybe it is a form of defensiveness, I don't know.

Sure, I like to imagine I'll be a bigshot long after I'm dead. It beats never.

[Christopher Perez]

First, there definitely are amazing opportunities available to fine-art photographers, including those who have limited or no exhibition history.

Absolutely! This is indeed what's so exciting about art-photography these days. The groundwork that Ed Weston, St. Ansel, and many others have laid really benefits those of us still working in this area.


...The people who collect photographs are not people of average income; it is people who have the income to buy expensive cars, watches, etc...

Actually, I recently stumbled across several people who are "collecting" photographs because they are sometimes more reasonable than the other arts. This is particularly true when it's explained that the image they're looking at is long lasting, has certain qualities that other art doesn't, and that as the seller you're not out to recoup your entire investment through the sale of a single print. :)



Another wonderful thing about the photographic art world is that there is always room for one more artist... There are only a limited number of jobs, and depending on the type of work you do, the competition can be cutthroat and exhausting.

Scarcity is a powerful idea in capitalism. The idea of scarcity can drive prices up if there is perceived value and you don't want to "run out". But with art, it's so much more than just capitalism.

In fact, I think of the volume and quality of art in culture and society as a very useful measure of the health of the system. The more art, the healthier the system. The more artists, the greater the chances of uncovering/discovering great art. Abundance might be the actual delightful wonderful truth of the matter.


... the price of your work will be determined by the market. If you do the art fair thing, you have to sell lots of prints because the price people will pay is low. But in the fine-art world, you can potentially command far higher prices...

Which is why it's useful to ask the Tillman Cranes, the John Wimberleys, and the Linda Elvira Piedras of the world how it's working for them? Their print prices are quite high. Are they making a living? Are they selling anything? Something? Somewhere? Or do they have to teach workshops just to "make ends meet"?

I use these people as examples only because of the prices of their work. I'm not suggesting that those I just listed fall into the following catagory. I'm just using it as a tool for thought: I can't help but feel that if some supposed "artists" got beyond their self image associated with their "name" that they might realize the price the current market will bare is a little lower than their current perceptions allow.

Which presents a true opportunity for the rest of us. Those of us who don't have ourselves or egos or desires tied up on our "art" might be more open to following true market pricing pressures.


... I am pessimistic about many things in the world right now-- our leadership, the state of our culture, the state of our environment. But one thing I am excited and optimistic about is the fine-art p...

Hear! Hear!

It's up to each one of us as individuals to engage art and culture in a way that is meaningful for us. It's up to each one of us to say "no" to the "system" by voting with our dollars. The more awareness we can bring to our choices, the better the outlook for ourselves, our communities, and all of mankind.


Okay, one final comment, and this goes back to the "Aspens" thread. Independently of whether the world needs more photos of aspens, one thing that I think it is fair to say is that few art collectors these days want more photos of aspens, and few museums or galleries are interesting in showing them...

Similary, how many photos of the redwoods have we all seen? St. Ansel did a great image. So have many many others. I can't afford a St. Ansel. But I can afford a Ray Bidegain. Check it out: http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/thecontactprintersguild/Detail?no=627

It's just a GORGEOUS print. I'm happy I bought it. From some points of view, it's just another redwood photo. Yet, I had a choice and I "voted" with my dollars.

And to Kirk's question, yes, the photographer I mentioned does indeed clear over 50 prints a month. I'm not sure, but I don't think he uses a webstore to sell his work. Amazing, but true.

In one dimension, the artist gets to decide (and it is an active decision) between selling a few things attractively priced or putting something up for sale that might sit there for a very long time unsold. Personally, when it comes to money, I'd like to see some come my way rather than to see v.little to none at all.

[Hugo Zhang]

Chris,

My list of artists who couldn't make a living solely on their paintings/writings is actually quite long: van Gogh, Cezanne, Vermeer, Flaubert, James Joyce, Proust. The fame Lolita brought for Nabokov is almost accidental. Most people couldn't and didn't finish that book while it climbed to the top of the selling list.

Yes, there are thousands of artists seccessfully live on their artistic activities today as generations of same artists before them, but will people look at them, listen to them or read them after they are gone?

Hugo

[paulr]

... it's useful to ask the Tillman Cranes, the John Wimberleys, and the Linda Elvira Piedras of the world how it's working for them? Their print prices are quite high. Are they making a living? Are they selling anything? Something? Somewhere? Or do they have to teach workshops just to "make ends meet"?

I use these people as examples only because of the prices of their work. I'm not suggesting that those I just listed fall into the following catagory. I'm just using it as a tool for thought: I can't help but feel that if some supposed "artists" got beyond their self image associated with their "name" that they might realize the price the current market will bare is a little lower than their current perceptions allow.

I have a couple of observations on this. The first is that it's possible to UNDERprice yourself in a market as well as overprice yourself. Like it or not, art collectors are primates just like the rest of us, and they respond strongly to some cues, including irrational ones. If they see one artist's work priced at $1000 and another's at $100, part of them will naturally assume the pricier work is actually worth more.

Dealers have told me that in some cases they have sold more of someone's work by raising the price. A little sad, but true. And it might spell good news for you some day.

And an unrelated note: the market determines the final price of your work, but it's up to you to decide the starting price. Unless you simply consider yourself a manufacturer of goods, you probably have some attachment to your work--and so you probably have a price below which you won't sell.

My formula's pretty simple. I take the lowest price I can imagine letting something go for, and then multiply by two. That last step is important; if you sell through a dealer, they will typically take half. And if you have representation, you can't undersell your dealer when you make private sales (assuming your agreement even allows you to make private sales).

[Greg Miller]

Jensen's Myth

Christopher,

We have rehashed that Brooks Jensen approach to death. He can sell prints at volume pricing, because he does good work AND he has a magazine which regularly markets his work for virtually nothing. This is not a model for anyone else unless you can come up with credible, targeted, massive and free advertising (and no a website will not even begin to accomplish this). I call this Jensen's Myth.


The other problem with selling prints for $20 is one of perception. Many buyers who might be willing to purchase a $500 print will likely bypass the same print if sold for $20 (if it is a $20 print then it must be crap; ther is little prestige in owning a $20 print). So by offering prints for $20 you could be losing sales at higher price points. And it would take selling fifty $20 prints to make up for having lost one $500 print.

[Gordon Moat]

Mns. Perez, Jordan and Raphaelson bring up some good points about pricing. There are definitely different levels of pricing, and different audiences (or collectors) that those differing levels might attract. Someone with a few thousand dollars in their pocket might consider it like pocket change, while those lesser of us might be happy with anything near $100 in our pocket.

I have seen it happen with sculpture artists and painters that when they raise their prices, their works suddenly start selling. Probably obvious that those works are selling to a different income bracket than what the original target audience might have been. In regards to painting, I have heard a similar commentary many times, which is that one audience will see works from $100 to $500 as something they might want to own, while another group sees $2000 to $5000 in a similar manner. That also goes back to the pocket change idea, in that while the pricing levels are different, the audience targeted in each of those ranges is different. I don't really know the ranges for photography, though I would venture a guess in the $100 to $500 realm (framed art, not prints in a bin). So this often heard commentary I have heard addresses the $500 to $2000 realm by noting that there are few buyers in that range, though remember this is for paintings, and like the price of anything, inflation differences or time can affect the actual ranges of prices.

So there is a segment of the population willing to buy bin prints under $100, or buy greeting cards. Many art fairs, or art on the lawn, type of events cater to that segment. Someone trying to sell more expensive framed images in such a setting might find the going difficult, with some luck involved. Someone doing this should consider the amount of time put into creating bin prints or greeting cards, and perhaps figure out what they are making per hour on sales. That doesn't mean that one should only consider selling more expensive framed artwork, but do consider it.

I have yet to hear of much success from selling lower cost prints leading to sales of (relatively) expensive framed prints. Quite likely it has happened, though I would find it odd that this formula would lead in such a direction. Many art photographers I know are happy selling a higher volume of lower cost prints, binned prints, or even greeting cards.

I was recently a little amazed at the prices I saw on some framed David Fokos prints. The framing was quite nice, the prints were very large, and the price levels were what I would expect of oil paintings. Maybe this is the future of the art market, with more people buying large framed works at near oil painting prices; this would be a good direction.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Christopher Perez]

... Many art fairs, or art on the lawn, type of events cater to that segment...

Here in Portland, OR we have what's called Art in the Pearl. The Pearl is a very upscale area devoted to those who have $600,000US+ to spend on a two bedroom condo. People with money live in that section of town. Many retired with millions in the bank. Some with good paying day jobs live there too. Many of the local art museum, art history, art afficionado types spill out from this area (or so it seems). There are loads of great galleries in the area offering (what I feel to be) overpriced things of beauty and taste.

This past Fall I wandered around to talk with photographic artists to see how they were doing. I expected that a few with "vision" might be doing well. Those with little "vision" I thought might be doing some business, but perhaps not keeping up with the "good" guys. I was surprised.

The folks making money were the B&W silver gelatin print people who had their frame, window mat 5x7 or 5x5 inch on 8x10 images offered for $40/each. The folks doing the St. Ansel Grand Landscape for $300 and up were doing squat. Color or B&W. It didn't matter. Lots of lookers (probably 10,000 people+ going through over three days). Few takers.

There was even a WONDERFUL artist who studied with Uelsmann who did all in-enlarger montages. She hadn't sold anything when I talked with her. Sad, really. She had three days to sit there and talk with folks. Her opening prices were just a tick over $100. Yet she had more "vision" in her little finger than most anyone I saw there.

By contrast, there were a number of acrylic and oil painting people who were "cleaning up the place" at $250 to $600 apiece.

I haven't had time to think about it all that much, except to note the price at which good photography was selling. But I'm sure there's a larger message in there somewhere.



... I have seen it happen with sculpture artists and painters that when they raise their prices, their works suddenly start selling...

So here's a business opportunity for any one interested in testing this idea. If you go to my website (linked through my information found on this forum) you can see a number of Palladium images offered at attractive prices.

Buy them. Buy them all. Place an order for images I haven't even printed yet (I can assure you, I think they're great!) . Then turn around and sell these prints however you please at higher prices. I get to make and sell more prints unfettered by this deal. You make money. I make money (because you'll pay my asking price before you can take delivery of my fine images).

Deal? :) :) :)

[paulr]

I was recently a little amazed at the prices I saw on some framed David Fokos prints. The framing was quite nice, the prints were very large, and the price levels were what I would expect of oil paintings. Maybe this is the future of the art market, with more people buying large framed works at near oil painting prices; this would be a good direction.

I thought his pricing was a little odd. It's in the normal range of the commercial gallery / art collector market, but in this market it's unusual to see multiple editions in different sizes of the same images. That's more a decorative arts market convention. And I find it curious that framing the 36" prints adds a whopping $1200, and that going up another foot in size doubles the price again.

The small prints seem to be at a totally different price point than the large ones--a difference that you'd expect to account for more than just size. I'd be curious to know which sizes sell the most.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Christopher Perez,

I have seen the same thing happen in San Diego, at an event called Art Walk. When I was in college from 1994 through 1998, that event was downtown, and very little photography was evident. It was a big venue attracting buyers at the higher level, with restrictions on selling anything smaller. Plus they were stricter then about who they let exhibit. I last did the downtown segment with a couple paintings in 1999. It soon moved to the Little Italy area, and then there were greater charges to buy into exhibiting there. I kept going back each year for a look, and to visit some people I knew would be there. Some of the higher priced works (painting or photography) were mostly there to attract gallery owners, with the hopes of getting into a gallery somewhere, rather than an approach of actually selling something there.

Fast forward to 2005, and I did another shot at this in a different area, though this time just Polaroid works and photography. The main difference was the area, oddly enough quite similar to what you describe in Portland (expensive condos, some retired people, etc.). Our groups triple sized booth had some sales, though not much more than what it costs to buy into the booth. A walk around revealed that most people exhibiting had trouble selling enough to pay for the booth cost. This is also a two day weekend event, though I did not have the impression that a third day would have made much difference. It was interesting to do this, and see the contrast to when I did it downtown several years previously, and I decided it was a huge amount of effort with little chance to pay for itself; I was definitely not alone in that assessment.

The same group I was with did Art Walk in 2006, with mixed success. Oddly enough, mostly bin prints at reduced prices were selling. I was in a way glad I did not attend, mostly since I felt the event had slid into a fair or Craft Walk rather than a well done art event. Most of the booths I visited were having mixed success, barely selling enough to pay for the tent area, and many doing far worse. The gallery headhunters seemed to be absent.

I don't think the situations in San Diego and Portland are that different, nor are they truly isolated in the art world. I know enough other artists, and have seen enough similar events in other cities to know there are many other similar events, with similar levels of sales and prices. A few people do well with selling lots of bin prints, and sometimes other items like gift cards (unless the event organizers are tough about enforcing a no gift card policy). It is not, in my opinion, a bad choice to do these events, and for those generating sales from these, more power to you.

On the higher pricing levels, I mentioned sculpture and painting, because I have seen that tactic (raising prices) work with those realms of art. I have yet to hear about that workings for art photographers. However, when I raised my commercial work prices several years ago, it was interesting that suddenly I became busier, and from clients who paid on time and where generally great to work with on concepts and projects. Would it work for art photography . . . I have no idea, but since (as someone else put it) art photography is mostly about speculation, perhaps price speculated would be another test.

As for buying some nice images, honestly I can barely afford my own prices. :o

Perhaps the niche you found was lower level prices and higher volume. There have been a few things I have seen to make me never want to try that route. First is a trip to IKEA, and seeing how incredibly low priced they sell images . . . it can be quite depressing; I noticed Art Wolfe was the featured artist last time I was there. The second thing I have seen (several times) is artists successfully selling at higher prices (painting and photography). I approach my art photography as I do my Polaroid works, and my oil paintings, namely that each image (print) is a one of a kind; this is a personal choice not to do editions, and to generate volume it seems there is a need for editions.

So I guess this comes down to a decision on how to approach pricing. I have my commercial work, so I don't have a need to generate income from art photography, though so far I have sold enough for it to pay for my efforts and expenses. Maybe that gives me the luxury of not needing lower prices nor higher volume. Anyway, when someone finds a combination that works for them, I would imagine that other combinations or approaches might not look like good ideas.

Best of luck in you future endeavours.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Dirk Rösler]

I suppose many artists like Van Gogh were very unsuccessful, according to your definition, as many died poor and often without any esteem of their contemporaries. The focus of so-called "fine artists" on $$$, selling, marketing and being famous or well-known qualifying as 'making it' is very telling and deserves some reflection.

[Jim collum]

I suppose many artists like Van Gogh were very unsuccessful, according to your definition, as many died poor and often without any esteem of their contemporaries. The focus of so-called "fine artists" on $$$, selling, marketing and being famous or well-known qualifying as 'making it' is very telling and deserves some reflection.

i guess it's a matter of what the motivation is. I'm currently holding down a day job to do what i do with a camera. The motivation for selling and marketing is so that i can spend less time during the day writing software, and more time photographing. Granted, there is a desire for feedback and recognition.. i guess some sort of external vaidation.. but i've been doing this since 1978 with little to no feedback /recognition... and would still continue... only because i can't imagine not photographing.

[Brian K]

It all depends on what you consider an opportunity and success. If you think that selling a few thousand dollars of very reasonably priced prints at an art fair is good, and that you are satisfied with having some means to help support your photography then there many opportunities for you out there. If you expect to sell prints for thousands of dollars a piece and make a substantial income then there are very few opportunities out there.

Personally speaking, I need galleries to act as my sales and distribution department. I travel a great deal to shoot, 4-5 months a year. It takes at least another month to process all that film. That leaves me with 6 months to print, mat, mount, spot, run a business, take care of my home and my life. Not much available time for selling my work. I have gotten to a point where I am in the process of raising print prices (again), increasing print sizes and lowering edition sizes (again) to better maximize my profit/time ratio. I know that sounds commercial but even if you make your living as an artist, you still have expenses and still have to pay the bills and if you're a landscape shooter and you travel a lot, this can be a very expensive business.

I will now only sell 11x14" prints on a special order basis, so once existing inventories are gone, they will not be readily available and will be sold at the same price as a 16x20. I am doing this because it takes just as much time and effort for me to do 16x20 or 20x24" prints as it does to do 11x14". With an existing backlog of 1 1/2 years of printing ahead of me, I have to prioritize on where my time is best spent.

I have to advise anyone entering the world of selling art that it is extremely competitive, highly volatile and usually stacked against the artist. Whether you like someone's work or not, if they are making a good living as an artist, you gotta give them some respect for making it in such a diificult field.

[Sheldon N]

Thank you for those kind words PViapiano (great psuedonym for a professional musician).

It would be a great pseudonym, except he's a guitar player. :)

He has a pretty interesting website and blog -

http://www.paulviapiano.com/

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Christopher, I tried Jensen's way and it did not work, at least for me. If you are planning on selling palladium prints for $35 or $40 you will find your wallet getting thinner and thinner. I sold prints on E bay for $45-$50 bucks, and yes I sold a lot of them, but after careful analysis of the money comming vs the money going out I found I was loosing money.

Another thing you might want to consider, if you are lucky enough to sell a lot of prints at these prices, you will spend a lot of time printing, mounting, going to the post office, etc. Time you wont be spending doing new work. When I was selling on E bay for cheap I was averaging about 30 to 40 prints a month, with all the admin, printing, etc, I found I was not taking any new pictures, and those times I stole from printing to go out where unproductive since I was more worried about not being at home printing so I could ship the prints I was already paid for. It is not easy to make 30 to 40 pd prints a month. I am just giving you a heads up, of course if you do try, you can let us know how you did. As Kirk said, Jensens speaks from a position which none here have and IMO very unrealistic.


Interesting. I beg to differ.

Jensen's analysis is just one place a person intersted in this topic could start. It's easy to use the salary and demographic information that's widely available to anyone using the 'net. While you might not agree with what Brook's says, it's easy to verify the veracity of his claims.

As a counterpoint... There is a photographer I know here in town. He does wonderful work. But he is not nationally known in the way Brooks is, nor does he have the kind of web-presence that Lenswork has. Yet, using the kind of analysis Brook's talks about, this photographer is able to realize thousands of dollars a month in revenue from his "art". He's not yet rich. He's not yet famous. But you never know, someday he might be.

[PViapiano]

It would be a great pseudonym, except he's a guitar player. :)

He has a pretty interesting website and blog -

http://www.paulviapiano.com/

Sheldon...

Ha, ha...you nailed it!

If every fine art photographer had you as a publicist, they'd make millions! ;-)

By the way, I absolutely love those lenses I bought from you...I'll send you a link to some images when I get a chance.

Cheers...

Paul

[Saulius]

This has been a most informative thread. Thanks to all the contributors for sharing your experiences and ideas with us, much appreciated especially by the likes of myself who are looking to get into the game.:)

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

There is a expression in marketing, you may have the best product in the world, and at the right price and right place, but no one will beat a path to your doorstep unless they know about it. Advertise, advertise, advertise.

I like this guy! ;)

[Frank Petronio]

My thinking is the that the majority of the work I see from this forum, traditional "Zone System-like" nature and landscape, even when it is produced at the highest level of profiency, has a very limited and low-end market for any contemporary living artist. Maybe a couple thousand bucks for a large, outstanding image... or fifty bucks for an edition of forty... what's the difference?

And while you may think selling dozens of $2000 prints maybe the road to salvation, I'd remind you to halve or quarter that number by the time you add comissions and marketing costs.

I just don't think it is a viable business model.

I think that in order to make any real money you need to have something NEW. All the marketing and salesmanship is important after that point, but you need a good product to start with. Trying to sell another 16x20 fine print of the Grand Canyon is like selling a commodity item.

It starts with the work. Do something different, new, exciting, original. Then add the Zig Ziglar motivationals.

[Christopher Perez]

We've covered miles of ground in this discussion. I took a deliberately polarizing position as a means of adding/exposing another dimension to the discussion. Then I went back and reread Kirk's opening comments and would like to summarize my thoughts.

Please realize that attempting to rev up my disciplined right brain engineering mind as a means of rationally evaluating a left brain art topic is worse than trying to kick start an ill tuned 850cc Norton Commando motorcycle engine.


... To me a successful artist is one who makes an adequate living primarily from their personal art and who enjoy some respect from their peers. I don't count in this class people who derive most of their income from teaching art photography, these are photo educators...

Making a living purely as an "art" photographer is quite possible, and may be more wide spread than I originally thought. For anyone considering work in this area, there are obviously a few things to consider. These include (but certainly not limited to):


Is your work "good"? Do you like it? Do others respond to your work in a way that helps you feel you can "make a go of it"?

What approaches to image sales are you aware of? What potential "markets" do you feel might be open to you? Have you talked with practioners in these areas to get feedback on how to sell in those areas? Then choose one (or two) that appeal to you and put in place tools and process for how you address these areas.

Consider whether you are a "people" person or if you would prefer letting someone else represent you. If you want someone to represent you, make sure you do your homework to find the right person (and if you're not a people person, it's all to easy too latch onto the first person who "sounds" like they know what they're talking about). If you are a "people" person then you will be the one engaging potential clients directly.

Are you seriously willing to let the market tell you what your art is worth? Or are you very insistent on telling the market what you "know" you are worth? The market could tell you several things if you're willing to listen. This includes you're too high or low as well as that you've priced something just right and, in the worst case, you don't even belong here. The trick is to pay attention to what the market is honestly telling you.

Take a real hard look at how you personally respond to both success and failure. Does your ego get so bound up in success and expectation of success that failure is difficult to take? Are you capable of, in the clear light of day, stepping out and looking at what failed and why? Similary, are you capable of setting aside the emotional rush of success to look clearly at the true prospects for repeatability?


It is legitimate to work a day job while offering up attractively in the market priced images. A person could work the art fairs, fully realizing that what they can successfully charge for images may be vastly different than something that hangs in a gallery in Taos, New Mexico. This approach also seems to work well for folks who go the eBay route where they let a very large open market decide the relative value of one's work.

In a completely "other" dimension, it is a legitimate approach to accrue much larger overhead in terms of gallery space and/or location as a means of feeding off the monied top 1%. Those fortunate enough to have the mindset and resources to pull this off can realize a fine living (even by capitalist standards). It's a matter of taking into account one's abilities as well as accounting for the total overhead.

Here in Portland, art tends to spill out onto the sidewalks and into the streets. I have visited all the big cities around the US and have never seen such a vibrant art scene as what we have here. It's really quite remarkable. There are many fine artists turning out great work. I really enjoy the accessability to work that in other cities would be much higher priced and placed deep inside an overly snooty gallery. What you pay the artist is what they get to keep. No stuffy middle-person.

As many people have pointed out, there are as many legitimate ways of defining success as there are people pursuing it. My point here is that it's helpful to be brutally honest with one's self. And by "brutal" I don't mean beating or berating one's self. I mean looking as clearly at something/everything as one can from as many dimensions as you are aware of. It's all too easy to get "wooey wooey" about art and fail to address what reality is screaming about at the top of it's lungs at you.

[Greg Miller]

I suppose many artists like Van Gogh were very unsuccessful, according to your definition, as many died poor and often without any esteem of their contemporaries. The focus of so-called "fine artists" on $$$, selling, marketing and being famous or well-known qualifying as 'making it' is very telling and deserves some reflection.

It's a catch 22. If you are the best artist ever in history, and your work is never seen and discovered, then your work is a waste. So markettng must be part of the equation for you efforts to matter.

[Kirk Gittings]

Originally Posted by Dirk Rösler View Post
I suppose many artists like Van Gogh were very unsuccessful, according to your definition, as many died poor and often without any esteem of their contemporaries. The focus of so-called "fine artists" on $$$, selling, marketing and being famous or well-known qualifying as 'making it' is very telling and deserves some reflection.

Dirk,

Sorry that you think my definition is so crass. But since you failed to put forward any definition of your own, I am going to have to interpolate.

I am a realist and have no romantic notions about being a misunderstood genius. You seem to find it acceptable just to obtain success after your dead. I live in here and now with bills to pay, kids to put through college, the whole nine yards. Without some decent return it would hard to put together even the bare necessities to even keep working. As it is my commercial photography subsidises my art work many years.You appear to be a business man and I assume you expect some return on your investment of time. Should artists be any different? You labor under the myth of the heroic artist. You should reflect on your naivete.

Being posthumously famous and making wealthy collectors richer after I die has little appeal for me.

The myth of the heroic starving artist who dies in obsurity only to be discovered after he is dead. Now there is a goal to work for.

[alec4444]

This thread has been a phenomenal way to fritter away my Friday afternoon. So I'd like to contribute an alternate perspective:

As someone pointed out, success is a relative term. So, at this point in my photography, I'd like to define my criteria for success. It may change over time, and that's ok.

When I sold my first print, for less than the cost of making it, I had a moment of exhilaration that someone out there liked my photograph enough to both pay for it and hang it on their wall. Yes, I lost money on it but I found it an interesting and exciting form of flattery.

Since then, my new philosophy is to sell all current prints as close to actual cost as possible. If I can consistently do that, it means I've gained nothing, but I've also lost nothing and I still have the warm fuzzy feeling that my work is being enjoyed. The fact that I've lost nothing means I can perpetuate my enjoyement of photography with less out-of-pocket costs. I never expect to make a living out of this, but the more it can fund itself the better.

Again, to be fair, if the world "discovers" Alec Simonson I may alter that philosophy, but it works for me now.

A slightly different topic: If I were serious about selling prints to earn money I'd have to say I'd be forced to turn that work over to someone else. I've never felt comfortable analyzing my own artwork, and I'd have a hard time justifying why photo 1 should cost $1200 and photo 2 should cost $1500. I may have put more effort into photo 1 and I may be prouder of the technical achievements in photo 1 but only a third party would be able to tell, without bias, that photo 2 is more marketable and should demand a greater price. I have no idea how photographers wing that on their own....

--A

[tim atherton]

A slightly different topic: If I were serious about selling prints to earn money I'd have to say I'd be forced to turn that work over to someone else. I've never felt comfortable analyzing my own artwork, and I'd have a hard time justifying why photo 1 should cost $1200 and photo 2 should cost $1500. I may have put more effort into photo 1 and I may be prouder of the technical achievements in photo 1 but only a third party would be able to tell, without bias, that photo 2 is more marketable and should demand a greater price. I have no idea how photographers wing that on their own....

--A

A few years ago I once asked a well established (prints bought by museums, books published, prestigious grants etc) how he worked out the price for his prints.

His answer - $130.00 per linear inch..... :-)

[Greg Miller]

Since then, my new philosophy is to sell all current prints as close to actual cost as possible. --A

How do you define "actual cost"? Cost of paper? chemicals? enlarger? film? developing? camera? lenses? gas?...

I have no point to make; just curious.

[photographs42]

The owner of a gallery I dealt with several years ago claimed that I sold my photographs “by the pound” because they are priced by size. He claimed that the best ones should sell for a higher price because they were “better”. My response was always “Better for who?” My best work (in my opinion) is not the most popular and my most popular image is not my best (in anyone’s opinion). So, I price them by size and don’t worry about which images are the best.

This has been an interesting thread and I have refrained from entering into the fray until now, wanting to see where it was going. The original question is a little vague but I think Kirk’s use of the term “successful fine art photographers” and the statement following, is reasonable. The real crux of the issue is how to define both the term “Fine Art Photography” and “Success”.

There are hundreds (or more likely thousands) of photographers making very good livings from selling artistic photography. I personally know at least 30 or so who fall into this category. Are they successful? Well, they do it full time. They make enough to support their families, send their kids to college and live comfortably. They get up in the morning eager to go to work because they like what they do. None of them is, or probably ever will be, “Famous”. Most are not wealthy. Most are respected by their peers. In my book, these people are successful. Are they “Fine Art Photographers”? That depends on your definition of the term.

If your goal is to be sought after by the best galleries, command extremely high price for your work and be recognized by the general public, your chances are slim even if your work is outstanding and unique. If your goal is to make a decent living selling artistic photographs, the opportunity is definitely there.

Jerome

http://www.jeromehawkins.com/

[paulr]

The owner of a gallery I dealt with several years ago claimed that I sold my photographs “by the pound”

I don't like the price by the pound model either ... I'd consider it if my material costs were in fact a huge chunk of my print expenses, but it's just not so. And I hate the implications of selling by the pound (or linear inch, as Tim's friend put it).

I also don't like the totally arbitrary-seeming pricing by quality. It always struck me as sketchy. Granted, no group of pictures is made of work that's equally good, but you can at least let them start on equal footing. Let your viewer decide which one to like best.

I price everything the same in a body of work, even if the prints are in varying sizes. It must be an unpopular choice ... I don't see too many people doing it. Part of what I like is that it sends a message. I'm telling people that this 4x5 contact print is as important as that 11x14 enlargement. The size reflects visual differences, not value. So far it doesn't seem like too many people take my word for it. I have yet to sell a wee contact print. But I'm still commited to the idea.

[Christopher Perez]

Paul, I think you're on to something here.

There are several photographers I know who are successful at what you describe. My own personal experience is that sometimes the wee-4x5 is more "valuable" in the minds of customers than an 8x10.


... Part of what I like is that it sends a message. I'm telling people that this 4x5 contact print is as important as that 11x14 enlargement. The size reflects visual differences, not value. So far it doesn't seem like too many people take my word for it. I have yet to sell a wee contact print. But I'm still commited to the idea.

[photographs42]

How do you define "actual cost"? Cost of paper? chemicals? enlarger? film? developing? camera? lenses? gas?...

I have no point to make; just curious.

The “actual cost” of a print is impossible to determine and the “value” of a print has little or nothing to do with the price of materials or the difficulty in making the print.

As others have touched on here, pricing your work is as much an art as creating it. You have to know your market. For me, that means pricing it so it is affordable for the people that appreciate the quality but are not looking for an investment.

I sort of see art, all art, as falling into three classes. First, there is Decorator Art. This is the stuff that matches your sofa and is thrown out when the next sofa comes in. Second is Good Art that has depth and we buy it because it makes us feel good or moves us in other ways and it doesn’t matter if it matches our sofa or not because we like having it around. Last is Investment Art. Investment art can be good art but it is special because it has the potential to appreciate in value, either because of it’s content, it’s style or simply because Mr. or Mrs. Artist has made their mark and anything they produce now has value.

I would like to believe that my work falls into the Good Art category. It would be nice, I suppose, if people thought of my work as an investment but that’s not likely.

Jerome

[photographs42]

I don't like the price by the pound model either ... I'd consider it if my material costs were in fact a huge chunk of my print expenses, but it's just not so. And I hate the implications of selling by the pound (or linear inch, as Tim's friend put it).

I also don't like the totally arbitrary-seeming pricing by quality. It always struck me as sketchy. Granted, no group of pictures is made of work that's equally good, but you can at least let them start on equal footing. Let your viewer decide which one to like best.

I price everything the same in a body of work, even if the prints are in varying sizes. It must be an unpopular choice ... I don't see too many people doing it. Part of what I like is that it sends a message. I'm telling people that this 4x5 contact print is as important as that 11x14 enlargement. The size reflects visual differences, not value. So far it doesn't seem like too many people take my word for it. I have yet to sell a wee contact print. But I'm still commited to the idea.

Like Christopher, I like your idea on pricing. I don’t think it would work for me in my market, however. When I grow up and command huge prices for my work, I’ll try it.
Jerome

[John Ramsay]

Good afternoon folks. This has been great reading! Everyone of you has touched, in some way, on my last 15 years of involvement in the art world through my lovely wifes company. My wife has a BA in painting and an MFA in photography, I have a degree in economics. You can see from our backgrounds that the only way we can exsist is through self employment. If all the posts here were edited and condensed, a business plan would emerge. I spend atleast 40% of my time thinking about marketing our work. We have 2 companies that rep our products both with multiple reps on the road. I do cost analysis of all our production work, we have packing and shipping down to a less than 1% loss and there`s still time to sleep. We do several local shows a year and they are all benefits for good causes (PR). We have a web presence that provides visibility to our target retailers and we work on the cheap, all except our artwork and that must remain top quality! I was a "club" photographer years ago and now do all of our advertising work and have started making occasional cards to sell of B&W hand colored product photos. I find sanctuary in the dark room. For the cards use a 106 year old 5x7 with alot of crop and edit. For the rest digital or MF. If I can say just one more thing, be open to diversity and go in whatever direction your art takes you. Also, I loved the part about the market place and how many people have so little disposable income. It takes 100 buyers for us to make 1 order. Don`t forget about uncle sam either. We try to come out with atleast 1 new style of artwork a year. We do almost all wholesale to galleries and gift shops, believe me, competition for the dollar is tough. The old addage that you can`t eat art is only true if you let it. OK, I`m taking my podium and going back to reading. Thanks all for this great thread. WOW! You english majors should try to diagram that one. Did I mention collecting on the invoices? What a nightmare!!!!! I`m done.........promise

[Christopher Perez]

Want to know something really interesting? This very nearly the same metric we used when I was marketing Open Source software when I was with a startup back when Credit Suisse First Boston was pumping Wall Street on technology stocks. I would never have guessed that the approach would scale into and apply to other areas of business.

That just made my weekend. :)

Final thoughts before I go: If you look at this economically, consider that the average salary that malls cater to today is $70,000/year. Then realize that it is fully expected that the market will change over the next 5 years. The mall stores are rethinking their target markets. All of them. Seriously. And the new target is $35,000/year.

If you're really into economics and read lots of material, look for Harry Dent. Amazing stuff.

Have a great weekend everyone!



... Also, I loved the part about the market place and how many people have so little disposable income. It takes 100 buyers for us to make 1 order...

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Christpoher -

Good points on pricing and that is how I approach it as well. My print prices are not based on size, as I only print each image in one size - that being what I think the image looks best at.

[Mattg]

I'm very committed to becoming a successful fine art photographer. I never expect to be able to support my family by doing it and as soon as I can support my photography through print sales I will consider myself completely successful. I think to expect any more is very hopeful.

I expect even this modest goal will take between 5 and 10 years to reach. Living in Australia means there are fewer local opportunities but thankfully the internet allows you to enter group shows and festivals overseas and hopefully gain a little bit of exposure.

My other goal is to make enough money, through photography or other means, to buy prints from other photographers I admire and support them in what they are trying to achieve.

[roteague]

I expect even this modest goal will take between 5 and 10 years to reach. Living in Australia means there are fewer local opportunities

Ken Duncan, Peter Lik, Nick Rains - they did it. You can too.

BTW, I just got back from a month long trip to Australia to shoot a few images.

[Donald Miller]

Absolutely! This is indeed what's so exciting about art-photography these days. The groundwork that Ed Weston, St. Ansel, and many others have laid really benefits those of us still working in this area.



Actually, I recently stumbled across several people who are "collecting" photographs because they are sometimes more reasonable than the other arts. This is particularly true when it's explained that the image they're looking at is long lasting, has certain qualities that other art doesn't, and that as the seller you're not out to recoup your entire investment through the sale of a single print. :)




Scarcity is a powerful idea in capitalism. The idea of scarcity can drive prices up if there is perceived value and you don't want to "run out". But with art, it's so much more than just capitalism.

In fact, I think of the volume and quality of art in culture and society as a very useful measure of the health of the system. The more art, the healthier the system. The more artists, the greater the chances of uncovering/discovering great art. Abundance might be the actual delightful wonderful truth of the matter.



Which is why it's useful to ask the Tillman Cranes, the John Wimberleys, and the Linda Elvira Piedras of the world how it's working for them? Their print prices are quite high. Are they making a living? Are they selling anything? Something? Somewhere? Or do they have to teach workshops just to "make ends meet"?

I use these people as examples only because of the prices of their work. I'm not suggesting that those I just listed fall into the following catagory. I'm just using it as a tool for thought: I can't help but feel that if some supposed "artists" got beyond their self image associated with their "name" that they might realize the price the current market will bare is a little lower than their current perceptions allow.

Which presents a true opportunity for the rest of us. Those of us who don't have ourselves or egos or desires tied up on our "art" might be more open to following true market pricing pressures.



Hear! Hear!

It's up to each one of us as individuals to engage art and culture in a way that is meaningful for us. It's up to each one of us to say "no" to the "system" by voting with our dollars. The more awareness we can bring to our choices, the better the outlook for ourselves, our communities, and all of mankind.



Similary, how many photos of the redwoods have we all seen? St. Ansel did a great image. So have many many others. I can't afford a St. Ansel. But I can afford a Ray Bidegain. Check it out: http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/thecontactprintersguild/Detail?no=627

It's just a GORGEOUS print. I'm happy I bought it. From some points of view, it's just another redwood photo. Yet, I had a choice and I "voted" with my dollars.

And to Kirk's question, yes, the photographer I mentioned does indeed clear over 50 prints a month. I'm not sure, but I don't think he uses a webstore to sell his work. Amazing, but true.

In one dimension, the artist gets to decide (and it is an active decision) between selling a few things attractively priced or putting something up for sale that might sit there for a very long time unsold. Personally, when it comes to money, I'd like to see some come my way rather than to see v.little to none at all.

I attended an opening here in Phx this evening. This work was all quite good with some platinum and a great quantity of very nice silver work. Among those exhibiting was Kim Weston.

Kim told me that he has been photographing for thirty years and actively promoting himself for the past five years. He said something to the effect that "we all teach" which I interperted to mean "so that we can eat, buy gasoline and sleep in a bed".

The most expensive print tonight was $1,600 for a Randy Efros 11X14 print. Most of the work was in the $350 to $600 dollar range. The size of the prints ranged from 6X17 (cm) platinum to 11X14 silver with most of the balance of the images at either 8X10 or 24X30 cm. Kim Weston's prints were priced at $600.

Those prices are really on the inexpensive side when we consider that these prices were for framed prints and compare them to other objects of art. By comparison, I recently priced a black on black piece of pottery at $2450.00.

I personally feel that there has never been a better time to be involved with photography as art.

But then again, when things get too "frothy" it pays to remember the great tulip fiasco in Holland some years ago.

[Brian K]

The photography art market is a very complicated and almost arbitrary thing. There are many reasons why people buy art but the biggest two seem to be because either a photograph really strikes a chord with them and they want to live with the image, or they are serious collectors and collect either as an investment, for the love of art, or for the very act of collecting. I can understand collecting for the love of art and hanging the art all around your home, I can understand collecting as an investment although I think that takes the love out of the process, I can't understand collecting for the sake of collecting though. That's just me though.

Anyway when someone comes a cross a print they like, there's a process that people go through, I know because I have watched people buying work for a while now. I think the process includes thoughts ranging from," what wall would this look good on?" "Is this image a little too wild, will my friends think I have bad taste?" "This print is expensive, It must be good, but can I afford this luxury?" "This print is cheap, does that mean it's not really good?" There is an element of how your friends will perceive you for having made the purchase. Buying art has status associated with it, showing your peers your ability to buy something that is a luxury. It also says something about your taste and even your pyschology. If you choose to hang photos of dead animals around your home, or Newton Nudes, or Newman portraits, or landscapes, it says something about you, possibly good or bad.

A high price and large work carry more status. Not just to your peers, they reflect more perceived value to the buyer themselves. I have gotten more requests from galleries to produce giant prints, cut my edition size and significantly raise my prices than I can no longer ignore it and will now be doing all three. I have been told that my prices have been too reasonable and that actually hurts sales in some markets, in addition many of the top galleries simply don't see enough profit from a $1000 or even $2000 print that it isn't worth their while.

Pricing is also one way to stand out of the pack. If most prints are priced at $600, then coming a cross a print at $1200 or more makes you stop and look. It may make you ask yourself why is this one so much more? And whether you agree with the higher price or not, it's made you look at this print differently, it's made you stop and think, and it probably has given you the impression that even if you don't think it's worth twice as much, maybe others who know more about art than you do, think it's better and is worth twice as much. Psychology rules in the art world.

[Kirk Gittings]

There are hundreds (or more likely thousands) of photographers making very good livings from selling artistic photography. I personally know at least 30 or so who fall into this category. Are they successful? Well, they do it full time. from jerome in Kansas City.

The sad fact is that I live in New Mexico with Santa Fe nearby. SF is one of the few true destination art markets in the country and the home of a few leading photo galleries. I know most of the "successful" art photographers in the area and I only know one who exists off nothing but his art and that is Witkin (but even he I saw lately was doing some commercial shooting fro the New Yorker). There are many people who make a living as photographers, but like me that is a mixture of commercial, art, teaching, stock etc. On the other hand I know dozens of painters in the area who make very good livings doing nothing but their art.

From an economic point of view, photography is the poor relation of the visual arts.

[alec4444]

How do you define "actual cost"? Cost of paper? chemicals? enlarger? film? developing? camera? lenses? gas?...

I have no point to make; just curious.

Well, 11x14 will be easier than my 120 work. I use a rough estimate...Here's how I'd break it out as an example (using my 11x14 camera to make a silver gelatin contact print):

--A sheet of 11x14 film is about $5.50.
--Processing it is another $2.00 perhaps, given that I'd do it at home.
--11x14 Bergger Paper: $2.50/sheet, I'd guess it took at least 10 to get it right: $25.00
--2 hours rental darkroom to print it: $36.00
--Dry Mount Tissue: $1.00
--16x20 Double-weight Mount Board: $3.00
--16x20 Pre-Cut Mat: $5.00

Comes out to about $80.00, I'd probably round it to $100. Sure, perhaps it took a few sheets of film to achieve that shot. And it probably took more than 10 sheets of paper to get the final photo. But if I sold two or three at this cost I think I'd be doing ok, and that would be $100 (or $300) that I could reinvest back into my hobby.

Plus, hopefully someone is getting some joy out of my craft: Priceless! :D

[Kirk Gittings]

Alec, Is your time in making the image and printing worth nothing? Actual cost should include something for your time.

[photographs42]

from jerome in Kansas City.

The sad fact is that I live in New Mexico with Santa Fe nearby. SF is one of the few true destination art markets in the country and the home of a few leading photo galleries. I know most of the "successful" art photographers in the area and I only know one who exists off nothing but his art and that is Witkin (but even he I saw lately was doing some commercial shooting fro the New Yorker). There are many people who make a living as photographers, but like me that is a mixture of commercial, art, teaching, stock etc. On the other hand I know dozens of painters in the area who make very good livings doing nothing but their art.

From an economic point of view, photography is the poor relation of the visual arts.

Hi Kirk,
You probably don’t remember me but we met at a film lab in Albuquerque about 10 years ago.

Perhaps I should elaborate on my statement that you quoted above. The artists I refer to are making most of their sales at Juried Fine Art Fairs. Many have work in galleries but the bulk of their effort (and therefore their sales) comes from weekend shows. Many of them live in the Midwest but they also live in other parts of the country including the Southwest and the East coast. I know several West coast photographers who do a lot of Midwest shows because they have better sales than on the coast.

A lot of artists (including fine art photographers) consider “street” art as being in the same category as paintings on black velvet, but there is actually a lot of very high quality work being sold at these shows. I’m talking about Juried Fine Art Fairs as opposed to local Arts & Crafts Fairs. It’s a very different venue from the gallery scene and, if your goal in life is to become a famous artist, it’s probably not a good choice, but if your goal is to make a good living doing what you enjoy it’s a venue that should be considered.

Where do I fit in? I work full time as an Architect. From time to time I do Architectural Photography for the company I work for as an Architect. For the last 23 years or so I have sold my B&W landscape photographs at about 10 FAF a year. With better marketing, I could probably double my sales, but I’m selling about as much as I can produce as it is.

If you’re in Chicago during the 57th Street show or the Gold Coast show, stop by to see me. I’ll buy dinner.

Jerome

http:/www.Jerome Hawkins.com/

[Christopher Perez]

What an facinating way of looking at the challenge of art in general and photography specifically. Time and what it's worth. Hmmm...

This is particularly facinating since some people have argued that buyers will pay based on their emtional response to an image. If this is indeed the case, how does time get factored in?

I'll bet this is at the very core of why some people feel they can demand certain prices in the marketplace and in some?/many?/most? cases fail to get buyers. Further, if time has anything to do with the true value of art, it might be worth investigating how time applies to related fields of art, such as painting. To get a benchmark, that is.

Maybe I'm just in a cranky mood, but time is a human creation and has no value anywhere in the universe except to we highly evolved monkeys. And frankly, what other time is there but the constant and ever present NOW?

OK. I just proved it. I must be in a cranky mood... :(


Alec, Is your time in making the image and printing worth nothing? Actual cost should include something for your time.

[Kirk Gittings]

Jerome,

Sure I remember you, long time no see. I am only in Chicago during the summer, but don't have the times for my class yet. When are those events?

Cranky Christopher,

He was asking about actual costs. To determine that you have to factor in a wage for your time. That does not have anything to do with the ultimate price of the art, but it does factor into deteremining whether you are making any money or not.

[alec4444]

Alec, Is your time in making the image and printing worth nothing? Actual cost should include something for your time.

Well, my time is worth something, sure. But I currently only bill my time for things I don't like...such as those times when I'm not doing photography....

The person who is buying my photography is paying for the materials...how can I charge them for my enjoyment of it? If someone offered to pay for all your printmaking materials would you push it by asking them to compensate you for your time? Or would you nod your head vigorously, say "thank you!" and get shooting?

Once again, though, I have the right to retract all of this when I make the big time... :)

--A

...Kirk, per your note, I guess that is really the key....whether or not you're trying to make money or to perpetuate the hobby. To me, the latter is more important at this time in my life.

[photographs42]

Jerome,

Sure I remember you, long time no see. I am only in Chicago during the summer, but don't have the times for my class yet. When are those events?

Cranky Christopher,

He was asking about actual costs. To determine that you have to factor in a wage for your time. That does not have anything to do with the ultimate price of the art, but it does factor into deteremining whether you are making any money or not.

Kirk

57th Street is the first weekend in June. It is near the University of Chicago campus. Gold coast is around the first weekend in August. It is at Huron Street & La Salle Blvd. If you’re around at either of those times I’d love to get together. I’ll let you know the exact dates when I know for sure.
Jerome

[Kirk Gittings]

The person who is buying my photography is paying for the materials...how can I charge them for my enjoyment of it?

Our work ethic in this country is so screwed up that if we enjoy something we can't charge for it? You are charging them for providing enjoyment in their life. The fact that you enjoy it does not demenish its commercial value.

[Saulius]

Alec's post got me thinking. Earlier this year as I started thinking about different avenues of trying to sell my photographic images I began thinking about what should I charge and how to come to that figure. So I looked into some of my costs of making an image. Here's a few notes that I quickly came up with.

Cost of making a photograph, one example.
A black and white image shot at the Painted Hills.

Time - 7 hours. Mileage roundtrip – 165 miles / 13mpg= 12.69 gallons x $2.33 per gal= $29 on gas. This doesn’t take into account of wear and tear on the auto.

4 4x5 sheets of HP5 = .80 cents each = $3.20

Time about 2 hrs. Develop film. Cost of chemicals involved, not sure, say $1.00 each.

Time about 2 - ? hrs. Evaluate film, scan, work in photoshop. This time will vary from image to image.
Package and send file on CD to be printed $7. If I upload file via internet no shipping
charge.

8x10 print will cost about $12 plus shipping.

Time 1 hours - ? Mount print and sleeve. Supplies- Matt board, tape, plastic sleeve- $10 each?

Say about 12 hours of time to out to location, make image to final product to sell.

$45 in costs to make on 8x10 print for sale. If you include my time at $10 per hour = $120 + $45= $165.

Now I need to figure out how to sell- website. There’s cost in building and maintaining a site, plus time.
Art shows, what’s that cost it time, travel expenses, fees etc. Local art show in town during the summer costs $170 to register plus 10% of sales to them.
Another possibility the gallary circuit.

Other cost factors that weren't reflected above: education. 3+ years studying photography at college, countless hours spent on my own reading to improve and learn new photographic techniques, improve my artistic vision, workshops etc. Costs of equipment, books, periodicals I subscribe to, computer, software programs etc.

When I took the time to put down onto paper what's actually involved I was a surprised by how much actual time and money is involved. Yes, I do enjoy photographing and currently do it simply for my own fullfillment but as I intend to try and start selling these images I know that I will have to charge more than just for the cost of materials involved. And of course the market will in large part determine at what price I will sell. This run down was done quickly and is not all inclusive but it does show there's a lot involved. Makes me think if I can start running it as a business I could surely use various expenses as tax write offs. I also see no problem with charging more than just the actual costs for an image because I am taking a risk.
Afterall, there is no guarantee I'll ever find a buyer let alone multiple buyers for any and all images I work on creating.

[Donald Miller]

Our work ethic in this country is so screwed up that if we enjoy something we can't charge for it? You are charging them for providing enjoyment in their life. The fact that you enjoy it does not demenish its commercial value.

I would go on to add that those who do not value their time and their work because they enjoy it are taking away from those of us who do value our time and our work. They take from us by keeping prices lower than is proper or prudent.

The counterpoint to that position is the oft quoted statement "I have no disagreement with those who value the worth of their goods or services lower than mine...they know what it is worth".

I spent years running my own business. I began giving my time and my worth away. When I ended that career, I was charging more than my competitors because I was worth more and my customers were well aware of my worth and for that r reason I had no shortage of business.

I sometimes think that for those of us, who have at some time discounted ourselves, this provides a ready excuse for producing sub par work. It follows the reasoning that my work may not be up to par but my fees are not either.

[alec4444]

Our work ethic in this country is so screwed up that if we enjoy something we can't charge for it? You are charging them for providing enjoyment in their life. The fact that you enjoy it does not demenish its commercial value.

LOL, yes, Kirk, our work ethic is screwed up in this country...for a lot of other reasons. But my point wasn't that one can't charge for their time if they are doing something they enjoy. My point is that in my particular case, I see little opportunity for me to profit from my photography, so I'm opting to sell my work to perpetuate my hobby only. It is a personal preference rather than a hardened philosophy. I hold nothing against those trying to earn a living from their photography...in fact, I have a lot of respect for people that take on that amount of risk to try.

Now here's the real interesting question:

You have Photographer A who is making a living from his photography. They're selling their prints for $1500 - $2000 at an average rate of two per month. They're in exhibits in a number of major galleries, and their name is becoming known.

Then you have Photographer B, who is most certainly not making a living at photography. This person makes a bundle of prints and sells them at craft fairs in their spare time. They do ok with it: they sell about 30 prints per fair at $100/print and they average 3-4 craft shows per year. They make no money, really, but the money from their prints goes back into the hobby.

Fast forward 10 years. Photographer A has done ok: they've made $480,000 on 240 prints, and they've lived their life well. Photographer B has only made $120,000 in the same period. Now, who is the more successful photographer? Photographer A may have a name for themself and cleared nearly half a million in revenue, but Photographer B has his work hanging up in 1200 homes as opposed to 240.

I'd consider both successful. Photographer A achieved their goal of making a living off of fine art photography. Photographer B was able to perpetuate his hobby and still get his work "out there". Neither strategy is better or worse than the other. It's just two different ways of managing your enjoyment of the art. After ten years, perhaps Photographer B decides to "go for it" and pursue the path of Photographer A...who knows?

--A

[alec4444]

I would go on to add that those who do not value their time and their work because they enjoy it are taking away from those of us who do value our time and our work. They take from us by keeping prices lower than is proper or prudent.

Don, I'd only consider that valid if my prints were sitting next to yours. To do that, they'd have to be in a gallery, and no gallery is going to let me sell my prints for $100. If you're work is in a gallery at $1500, and mine are in a street fair for $100, how are my prints competing with yours? How am I lowering the market value? I think we're dealing with two different customer segments....

--A

[Brian K]

Alec both can be considered successful because success is subjective. The photographer producing 120 prints a year for sale @ $100 each has vastly more time and materials invest each. Personally while I love doing my work and spend probably 75 percent of my wake hours doing it, I would prefer to have more time to spend with my wife, family and friends. So from my perspective the guy making 4 times the money and working a quarter as much with lower materials expense is someone who I would think is more successful or at least has taken a more preferable path to me.

[photographs42]

Alec's post got me thinking. Earlier this year as I started thinking about different avenues of trying to sell my photographic images I began thinking about what should I charge and how to come to that figure. So I looked into some of my costs of making an image. Here's a few notes that I quickly came up with.

[I]Cost of making a photograph, one example.
A black and white image shot at the Painted Hills.

Time - 7 hours. Mileage roundtrip – 165 miles / 13mpg= 12.69 gallons x $2.33 per gal= $29 on gas. This doesn’t take into account of wear and tear on the auto...........

It just doesn’t work that way for many reasons, but here are a couple:

Suppose you commit to showing your work at an Art Fair. You have booth fees, travel expenses - mileage and hotel (I don’t count meals because I eat most days anyway), costs of goods sold and maybe taxes and insurance. Whatever that adds up to it is pretty much fixed before the show even starts. How much will you sell? Maybe nothing. Maybe a lot. I’ve done $0.00 shows and $10,000.00 shows. Either way, my cost of doing the show is fixed and has nothing to do with how much I sell.

Another reason is that you can’t possibly factor in how well a print is going to sell. The last time I checked, my best selling print had grossed over $70,000.00. It was taken on a trip to visit my son and as a by-product of that trip, cost me practically nothing. It took about an hour of my time, two sheets of film and maybe a half-mile of travel. I have another negative that is equally as good, required several hours of hiking after traveling several thousand miles and has netted me nothing.

Putting a price on Art is difficult and it is more difficult if you are selling it yourself, like at Art Fairs, than through Galleries where the gallery owner can advise you. But as I have said before, the value of your work has nothing to do with how hard you worked to create it or how much you spent.

Jerome

[Dirk Rösler]

But since you failed to put forward any definition of your own...

A successful artist, at the least, would be someone who, without any other substantial motivation than to share with their audience something relevant about their world that they did not know otherwise and is of meaning to them, ideally in the long-term.

What you are talking about is a person who is selling photographs, potentially making a living out of it. A business operation essentially.

There is some overlap between the two, but they are quite different in nature but by no means mutually exclusive. But it is hard, not impossible though, meeting both criteria while maintaining integrity.

So if people ask themselves how to become more 'successful', they should first state what their measure of success is. More sales, or 'better' artwork.


I assume you expect some return on your investment of time. Should artists be any different?

"Return on investment" is management/business speak. I do not expect any return on my investment of time and resources. I am a volunteer expecting nothing in return. That may be naive as you suggest, but I have found out that there are easier ways to earn a living than being a photographer. I enjoy being able to separate the two tremendously. It means increased freedom to me.


Being posthumously famous and making wealthy collectors richer after I die has little appeal for me.

It appears that you resent the thought of potentially making someone richer through your work. Apart from being very optimistic, this is also odd since that someone may have recognised the value of your work by investing their money into it and you don't seem to like that. Perhaps the financial aspects of it all are clouding your judgment slightly?

[Saulius]

Putting a price on Art is difficult and it is more difficult if you are selling it yourself, like at Art Fairs, than through Galleries where the gallery owner can advise you. But as I have said before, the value of your work has nothing to do with how hard you worked to create it or how much you spent.

Jerome


Well I did mention that how much I'd sell would be determined by the market it was sold in. So I agree that you can't just sell images based on expense one puts into creating. I guess the point I was trying to make is if one wishes to make a living at it as opposed to just a hobby then one needs to have some idea on how much they are spending in creating, marketing and finally selling the image. And this needs to amount to more than just expense of materials. However I do think time is still a factor in the equation, for any business pursuit be it fine art photography or anything else. Afterall if one feels they simply aren't getting enough reutrn to justify all the time they put into it then why keep at it? And by that I mean as a full time business, not a hobby. Just my opinion.

[Kirk Gittings]

Dirk,
We were attempting here to answer an honest question by a member, who from his posts was obviously pleased with the direction the discussion went. You have, in a round about manner, simply defined the differences between true amatuers and profesionals. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that being an amatuer has more integrity and that it gives you some kind of moral high ground from which to make pompous statements such as this:


The focus of so-called "fine artists" on $$$, selling, marketing and being famous or well-known qualifying as 'making it' is very telling and deserves some reflection. Dirk Rosler

[Dirk Rösler]

Not sure why you suddenly have to resort to being defensive and attacking me personally, after calling me naive, now titling me pompous - without even addressing any of my arguments (which you have very obviously misunderstood). The 'honest question by a member' was about success as a photographer. I don't think challenging the definition of success is out of line here, although this is obviously the Business forum and possibly the wrong place for me to bring this up.

[adrian tyler]

the institution and not the work makes and promotes the "artists"

having gallery represesentation and selling to museums etc. does not nescesarly mean that your work is good. the art world survives in its own "bubble" collectors buy what the galleries and museums promote, furthermore once you have sold you work through galleries and to museums and institutions, then they have to justify those sales and purchases (expenses) by defending rigorously that work independently of the quality of that work.

museums and dealers promote work which to them fits into preconcieved notions of how they think history of art should be developing to justify there own institutional claptrap as it were. who chooses the artists? you could say that eminem or madonna is a famous artists because the public buy their records, but in the fine art photography world the artists are chosen and promoted by a handful of people, the public's opinion or objective quality is by and large unimportant.

while i do believe that really good artists, sooner or later, will get to be seen, i think that the majority of so called "art" photography exists not because it is exectional or as chris says or "have something special to offer" rather because they are alowed into the establishment because they apease aforementioned preconceaved ideas or are skillful users of "art language" or know how to sell and promote. where does this leave the ernest hardworking photo/artist of great integrity? you tell me... good question gordon...

[Dirk Rösler]

If you are the best artist ever in history, and your work is never seen and discovered, then your work is a waste.

So you are saying that if you are 'unsuccessful' (definition?) in what you do, then all your efforts are for nothing?

I don't know if you have kids, but is that something you would tell them? Because I certainly wouldn't. Not without some more qualification at least.

[Brian K]

Dirk I can't speak for other photographers who sell their work only for myself but my choice to make my living selling photographs was not one based on commercial reasons or as part of some business plan. I already had a business that served me well for 25 years, I took a serious gamble and cut in income in closing my business in order to pursue my personal work. However as the type of work I do is very expensive to produce I have to make money pursuing it.

I have come across your POV before, that is the POV that only work done by amateurs without any intent on selling is true art. To be very straight I think that that is total BS. Most of the people I know who pursue their livlihood through the sale of prints are intensely commited to their work, to a level that people not pursuing it full time can not imagine.

I shoot photos that I want to see. The only acknowledgement to the sales aspect of my work comes in the form of whether or not I include the image in the catalog of my work. Personally I don't need to make 50 copies of a print for myself, however if there is a demand for an image that I have produced I will print it in edition size quantities. I do what I do because I love doing photography. If I were wealthy I'd still do what I do, but to be fair I might not pursue selling my work. However as I too need to pay bills, and the bills for doing my work are substantial, I will need to sell prints. How does that lessen the integrity of my work?

[John Ramsay]

If I had kids, I`d certainly tell them to get a good background in marketing, advertising and basic math along with their art classes. Better yet learn good computer skills and science with lots of math.
The problem with most artists through history is the inability to self manage along with a lack of self discipline. Hell, many have been so arrogant they alienate their own patrons and constantly shoot themselves in the foot, or probably the hand that feeds them. Artistic temperment = hungry artist in many cases.
You as the artist may set the value of a work, but the public determines the price. Art of any nature either enrichs a patrons life and walls or yours. Maybe your art can be put on perminent public display. I know artists that do only municipal art projects. They make great money until the tax dollars dry up. Lots of competition no matter which road you travel.
First the artist has to make a unique work that is technically sound, evokes some emotion or mood and then the art has to be viewed and voted on by the buying public.
Success? Pick one and get on with it.
By the way, if your unsuccessful at what you do, find something else to do or get use to being poor. It`s really simple.
Off to another day of dealing with the reps, the artists and the retailers.
Happy Monday to all.

[Dirk Rösler]

If you read closely you will find that I have never said that the non-commercial photographer will produce higher quality artistic work. What I have said is that the better selling photographer is not necessarily a "more successful artist", and that it depends on the definition of the term 'success' and that I disagree with the definition used in this discussion. Obviously I'm on my own so never mind :)

[Jack Flesher]

I've been out of town, am coming in late on this thread and this post is kind of OT, but felt I needed to clear up a point since my name was mentioned early on...

The original post contained this quote (I assume from another thread?): >>To Jim Collum, Jack Flesher, or any of the other few successful fine art photographers reading here, how good do you think opportunites are for fine art photographers with very little exhibit history? <<

To be clear, I very definitely do *not* consider myself a "successful fine art photographer"! While I have indeed sold several of my "fine art" images, I clearly have not made a living doing it.

To the point and FWIW, I have made significantly more *money* in photography -- and revenue is how I choose to measure sucess in a business endeavor -- by teaching (workshops) and doing commercial/product photography gigs.

Just wanted to make that clear so there was no confusion ;),

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Jack Flesher,

Thanks for posting a reply. The topic has wandered a bit, though I did put forward the question of what some consider success . . . something that obviously would differ from one photographer to another.

How you carry yourself, or present yourself, can also be a measure of success. In that, I felt that you, Jim Collum, and a few others seemed (in my eyes) to be successful, based upon that observation.

The other part of that question has not entirely been answered. One aspect is indeed marketing. Unfortunately that can lead to other questions. I know some successful artists who have rarely shown in juried exhibitions, yet through their efforts (marketing?) have landed in many galleries, had one person shows, and sold quite a bit of their works. Others found success in teaching, or in doing commercial work. To lack an exhibit history is not a detriment to progress, but it seems to be necessary to push forward other means to improve one's chances.

It seems to me, and I would happily be proven wrong in this, that the same efforts and expense of marketing oneself in fine art photography might be better spent towards pushing commercial photography. My guess is that the return on time and money would be greater. I certainly put substantially more efforts into my commercial photography, though I find it odd at times that my fine art photography seems to generate a greater level of respect, even from commercial clients.

So I guess (yup, do lot's of that) that in a way (for some) exhibiting art photography is a form of marketing in itself. That can drive the success of commercial work, or teaching, or even writing.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Kirk Gittings]

I always found it much easier to generate income with commercial photography, but that my best marketing was the shows, books etc. from my personal fine art photography. For instance right now, almost a year after my 30 year retrospective book and exhibit, I am buried with commercial work like never before and this is with no efforts at all to market my commercial work for many years.

This synergy is something I discovered many years ago. The kind of clientel that I have respect the fact that I am an artist. So all the publicity associated with my personal photography raises my stature with commercial clients and serves to remind them that I am out there. I of course market my exhbits and books etc. heavily with my client and potential clients as I would to collectors but I never mention my commercial work. Also many of my commercial clients, such as magazines, end up writting revues or editorial about my art projects partly because it raises their profile to have a name artist contributing to their magazine. See this example, one of my favourites, from a bread and butter client:

http://www.gittingsphoto.com/content.html?page=6 Then go to the Su Casa Magazine 2005 link.

This synergy allows me to pour allot of energy and resources into my art with some direct but significant indirect payoff. It also keeps me sane, because without being able to do my art to balance the commercial work emotionally I would not enjoy the the proffesion nearly as much.

[photographs42]

First of all “success” can only be measured against goals. If your goal is to make a decent living selling fine art photography and you are doing that, you are successful. If your goal is to make beautiful images that impress your friends and family and you have no intention of selling anything, and you are doing that, you are successful. If your goal is to dazzle the art world and become famous to the extent that everyone knows your name and you become filthy rich and everyone wants to own your work and all the best galleries and museums are fighting over your art and that has happened, wake up, you are dreaming cause that probably ain’t gonna happen.

Seriously, you can’t evaluate success at anything without defining the measuring stick.

Marketing is an art unto itself, but mainly it is about getting your name and your work in front of people. As Kirk pointed out, one of the best ways to do that is by having exhibits or publishing books because those things generate free advertising in the form of news stories or reviews that are much more easily absorbed than running an ad for your commercial work. Advertising commercial work is like saying, “Look at me!” Having an exhibit is like someone else saying, “Look at him/her!”

Jerome

[Michael Alpert]

Dirk Rösler,

Your posts envision an artist as someone who values imagination, integrity, formal inventiveness, and meaningful content. In other words, a successful artist is someone like Cezanne or Beethoven. Kirk has posted a definition for success that values social acceptance and the marketplace. None of the values that you mentioned are explicitly part of Kirk’s definition, and his weirdly hostile response to you speaks volumes about himself and nothing about you.

There are people who see much large-format photography as nothing more than expensive decoration, following models that were worked to death decades ago by Ansel Adams and others. I actually think that large-format equipment is appropriate for meaningful personal work. The American artists Paul Caponigro, Linda Conner, Lois Connor, and George Tice come to mind; and I know there are many artists of equal worth in Europe, Asia, Africa, and other locations. Such work can be successful in terms that embody values that you applaud and values that Kirk professes.

[roteague]

http://www.gittingsphoto.com/content.html?page=6 Then go to the Su Casa Magazine 2005 link.

Great article Kirk, thanks for passing it along.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Robert. It is one of the best things ever written about me, by a client who knows me well.

Michael,
Yes, I overreacted probably, but this romantic view of an artist drives me nuts. The issue is, how I see it, when answering someones heartfelt inquiry such as Gordon's, do you give them reality or romantic pablum. Having been through 7 years of university level art school, and taught at university level for 19 years (at two of the leading schools in the country), I know people get plenty of the romantic artist nonsense. part of the reason my classes and talks are so popular is because I talk about the reality of making it in the real art world. I am often a voice in the wilderness amongst my colleages but respected by the students.

[Michael Alpert]

Kirk,

I agree. You overreacted. The view that you are calling "pablum" and "romantic artist nonsense" is completely legitimate and has nothing to do with the coded language that one often finds in academies. I think Dirk Rösler's point was perfectly clear and as "heartfelt" as yours or Gordon's, as if "heartfelt" were not itself a romantic measure. Frankly, I have noticed that you use emotionally charged language when challenged, which doesn't help to move anyone toward a better understanding of artistic work. The point of view expressed by Dirk is what artists have been expressing since the Renaissance. In my opinion, the mercantile view of artistic work that is implied by your definition of "success" leads to poor wages (with a handful of exceptions) as well as mediocre photographs.

[paulr]

The view that you are calling "pablum" and "romantic artist nonsense" is completely legitimate ...

It's legitemate if you take it as a personal choice; it's nonsense if you take it as an imperative.

If YOU choose to forgo financial success while embarking on your personal artistic pursuits, no one can argue.

If you tell someonee else they're bound to fail as an artist if they pursue financial success, then you're a being a jackass.

Spreading limiting beliefs that have no basis in fact, even if they're part of our cultural mythology, does no one any good. I understand how it could push some people's buttons.

[Kirk Gittings]

"successful fine art photographers" means different things to different people. Personally....To me a successful artist is one who makes an adequate living primarily from their personal art and who enjoy some respect from their peers. >me at the start of this thread.

Michael,


There are people who see much large-format photography as nothing more than expensive decoration, following models that were worked to death decades ago by Ansel Adams and others. I actually think that large-format equipment is appropriate for meaningful personal work.

Your baiting is noted throughout your posts. I focus on the above points in my definition, because these are the only aspects of an artists career which are quantifiable. Nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) is more satisfying to me than an explosive landscape that gets to the essense of what I feel about the SW, but that is not success. That is personal gratification. Success is something more quantifiable.

My work and personal history are readily available for discussion and criticism and I have no desire to pursue a direction just for the sake of doing something unique and different, I.E. "personal expression" (another art school mythology, because nothing is really new, we all work out of some tradition including all of the photographers you mentioned). I love what I do and readily acknowledge the people who inspired me. see:http://www.gittingsphoto.com/content.html?page=8

It would be easier to visualize your point of view if we had some examples. Can we some examples of your meaningful personal work that is outside of worked to death traditions?

[roteague]

Thanks Robert. It is one of the best things ever written about me, by a client who knows me well.

That is the best kind of marketing - a satisfied customer!!

[Jack Flesher]

Hello Jack Flesher,

How you carry yourself, or present yourself, can also be a measure of success. In that, I felt that you, Jim Collum, and a few others seemed (in my eyes) to be successful, based upon that observation.

Thank you Gordon. I appreciate the comment and having my name included with a class act like Jim Collum!



It seems to me, and I would happily be proven wrong in this, that the same efforts and expense of marketing oneself in fine art photography might be better spent towards pushing commercial photography. My guess is that the return on time and money would be greater. I certainly put substantially more efforts into my commercial photography, though I find it odd at times that my fine art photography seems to generate a greater level of respect, even from commercial clients.

So I guess (yup, do lot's of that) that in a way (for some) exhibiting art photography is a form of marketing in itself. That can drive the success of commercial work, or teaching, or even writing.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Yes I would agree with this on all counts, at least speaking from my own personal experience.

I would add this observation for others wanting to break into the art field and again, my own personal experience only, so YMMV: I have found that looking to other artists for support is far less productive than looking to a businessperson for support. For whatever reason, it seems other artists are happy to help until your work gets good, then they view you as direct competition and do whatever is necessary to foil your progress. By contrast, I've found most good business people are quite willing to help a less experienced colleague advance, understanding the benefit of collaboration. Obviously, using my logic, the best mentor to find would be a good artist who is also a good businessperson, but this seems to be a rather rare combination of talents ;)

Cheers,

[Kirk Gittings]

WADR, My experience contrasts yours Jack,


I find it odd at times that my fine art photography seems to generate a greater level of respect, even from commercial clients. Gordon

This is a common phenomena to photographers who straddle both arenas.


I always found it much easier to generate income with commercial photography, but that my best marketing was the shows, books etc. from my personal fine art photography. For instance right now, almost a year after my 30 year retrospective book and exhibit, I am buried with commercial work like never before and this is with no efforts at all to market my commercial work for many years.

This synergy is something I discovered many years ago. The kind of clientel that I have respect the fact that I am an artist. So all the publicity associated with my personal photography raises my stature with commercial clients and serves to remind them that I am out there. [understanding this phenomena] I of course market my exhibits and books etc. heavily with my clients and potential clients as I would to collectors but I never mention my commercial work. Also many of my commercial clients, such as magazines, end up writting revues or editorial about my art projects partly because it raises their profile to have a name artist contributing to their magazine. from my post a few posts back.

I have not promoted my commercial work in 15 years and business is booming. Another synergistic effect of this is that many of my commercial clients are some of the biggest private collectors of my personal work.

[Michael Alpert]

Kirk,

I did not think that this discussion was about your work or my work, but about how one defines "success" as an artist. There are obviously differing ideas on this subject. I offered the names of four artists whose work I consider successful. I felt that Dirk R.'s view was not treated with respect. Only a fool would argue that a person's livelihood is unimportant. So I am not exaxtly disagreeing with you. I am just suggesting that you might think about letting a different kind of definition exist without insulting it.

Talking about insults, Paulr, don't call me silly names. You know as well as I do that very few photographers managed to make a good living from print sales. Thousands of other committed photographers do the best they can. By saying that a mercantile definition is not large enough to encompass the full measure of success that artist-photographers can acheive, I am not telling anyone that they are "bound to fail." Perhaps my previous response was not clear. If you can reply in a civil manner, I am interested in what you have to say; but please don't respond if you are going to lower the conversation to name-calling.

[Jack Flesher]

WADR, My experience contrasts yours Jack,


I am glad to hear that and hope my experience is singular; it gives hope for the future of our chosen artistic discpline ;)

[roteague]

For whatever reason, it seems other artists are happy to help until your work gets good, then they view you as direct competition and do whatever is necessary to foil your progress.

Sad, but it does seem to be that way.

[domenico Foschi]

I disagree with Jack Flasher,

what kind of an image would an established photographer gain by supporting mediocre work?

Moreover you are generalizing a bit.
I believe established artists who believe strongly in their work have no reason to behave in such manner, and many of them don't.
Many artists who don't forget why they started the profession, do it primarely for the sake of being instruments of bringing to light what is good and not known yet, and this can be done under guise of being a teacher or just referring artists to people in the business.
We have one of these people right here in this forum.
all the best.

[Kirk Gittings]

For whatever reason, it seems other artists are happy to help until your work gets good, then they view you as direct competition and do whatever is necessary to foil your progress.

While this is generally true. One obvious exception is this very forum! There are a number of experts and established artists here who regularly and freely share their knowledge.

Sorry I didn't see Domenico's post. Ditto

[George Kara]

Since when is money the determining factor for being considered successful?

Its the unrealistic expectation of what a successful artist is. Respectfully, using the premise of this thread, many artists would fail to meet such expectations. From Frans Hals, to Rembrandt, F. Goya, VGogh, A. Schoenberg, Mozart, G. Mahler (as a composer) and the list continues.

Schoenberg had to teach society women and any other suckers who had spare change. Charles Ives was an insurance salesman. Those two alone were major forces in 20c music.

The point being who gives a shit if you are making money as a creative person? It would be my mistake to think I could pay the rent being "creative". For me, Art is crack --- and I cant ever get enough - and Im always chasing that high. Llike an addict, I always end up spending more on it than I ever receive.

George

[domenico Foschi]

I agree with George's colourful statement, although I think that achieving freedom from the day job through your craft is not impossible.
I quit my job about 1 year ago(it seems to me a month)and although it has been VERY hard and many times discouraging, I am still at it.
To say that it is impossible to make a living with your craft, is like purposefully breaking your leg before the race.
I have learned more things about myself, bettered my skills and polished my marketing tools more in this year then in any other time of my life.
Moreover in this day and age things are much easier then at the times of Goya, Mozart(who for a while did have a fortune)and Van Gogh. The internet is a great tool for marketin, use it..
I still have a lot of focus as a fine art photographer, but since this is still the beginning I am willing to apply my photogrphic skills in absolutely anything but porno and sunsets :-)
You'll be amazed, like I am many times still, what can happen if you stick to your guns, if you commit yourself to those dark times, when the future looks bleak.
Someone said the life of an artist is not for everyone, and I disagree if it is intended at the emotional level.
I have found strenghts inside of myself I thought i didn't have, I went through an internal warfare before making such a leap of faith.
Never put limits to yourself and never allow yourself to be convinced by negativity: with that you get nowhere.

[paulr]

... I have no desire to pursue a direction just for the sake of doing something unique and different, I.E. "personal expression" (another art school mythology, because nothing is really new, we all work out of some tradition including all of the photographers you mentioned).

I'm going to take issue with this one point (not your others). I think there's always the possibility for something new, and working within a tradition does not preclude this.

Shakespeare wrote poetry about the most familiar topic in the world (love) and in one of the the most familiar forms (the sonnet). But his point of view, his language, his sensibilities, were all uniquely his, and would not be mistaken for anyone else's who came before him.

Once in a while someone's vision will be so unique that they'll have to invent new forms to express it. I think of Shoenberg's 12 tone music, or Wallace Stevens' reinvention of the language, or the cubists' demolition of naturalistic perspective. But personal expression doesn't automatically require such grand inventions.

It does require an honest, first-hand response to the world. As opposed to simply recycling ideas that you've assimilated. This is a lot easier said than done, as the mountains of derivative work in the world can attest. And it can sometimes be hard to make the distinction at first ... to know if you're standing on the shoulders of giants, or simply standing in their tripod holes.

The goal, if it needs saying, isn't actually to make something new. It's to make the work that's truly yours. If you manage this--and not very many do--then your work will be new. It's simply not conceivable that someone in 2006 will have a first-hand response to their world that looks like Edward Weston's first-hand response seventy years ago. The world is different. Our cultural understanding of it is overwhelmingly different. The accumulated history of art from the years that have passed is staggering. The only way someone today can end up in the same place as an artist from the 1920s is by copying. It's really that simple.

Maybe for some people doing their own authentic work isn't important. But I wonder why that would be. Everyone here who photographs with big cameras is certainly putting in enough time.

[Kirk Gittings]

Paul,
I am reacting to and refering to the art school shtick of "finding your own voice". As it is framed today, I feel it leads to aesthetic gimmicks and poor craft. look at 98% of the graduating MFA exhibits!

Domenico and George,
It is clear what aspect of "success" Gordon was asking about in his original post as his subsequent posts support. Beyond that I think you guys are confusing the difference between personal gratification and "success".

[Kirk Gittings]

Today, I spent the morning talking to high school photo students at La Cueva High School in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I was there on the invitation of a very talented and dedicated instructor, David Ondrik. I gave my usual very informal talk and PowerPoint presentation about my work and history (the same basic talk I give to college students and at the last VC Conference). My talks are always about the realities of a working photographer who operates in both the commercial and fine art arena with ideas not so different from what I presented here except I added a discussion on different kinds of college programs and my recomendations. This evening I received a number of emails from students thanking me. One in particular summed up all the emails:


Mr. Gittings-
I wanted to thank you for coming to La Cueva and talking to our class. You were very informative, and motivatied and inspired me to work harder on my photography.
thanks again-

I am reminded by this experience about the discussions here. In my experience what students (at all levels) need and want are frank discussions about the realities of trying to make it as an artist.

[Dirk Rösler]

Have you considered lecturing on photography to MBA students? That may be more successful than teaching business to artists.

[Brian K]

Paul,
I am reacting to and refering to the art school shtick of "finding your own voice". As it is framed today, I feel it leads to aesthetic gimmicks and poor craft. look at 98% of the graduating MFA exhibits!


I have to agree with you. I am amazed at what i see at galleries and museums today. Boring images, bad composition, it's like the reality TV version of photography but even without editing out the boring stuff. Watching laundry spin slowly in a dryer has more visual interest than half the stuff I see nowadays.

[Kirk Gittings]

Dirk,


Have you considered lecturing on photography to MBA students? That may be more successful than teaching business to artists. Dirk

That is not a bad idea, but this what I am asked to teach.

I have taught at two of the leading fine art photography schools for a combined total of 19 years plus workshops at the View Camera and Santa fe workshops. In addition I have been honored as a Visiting Artists 6 times as at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. I have taught landscape, the Zone System and architectural photography.

[Christopher Perez]

Folks,

I have been trading private emails with another photographer local to me. He's offered to let me post his thoughts after some light editting to remove the names of the not so innocent. :)

I feel that this photographer's view is quite valid and may apply to the topic under discussion in ways that perhaps we have not yet covered. See what you think.


Chris,

The concept toward which I gropped in my long e-mail last evening finally coalesced after I sent it off. The price of art is directly related to the marginal cost of reproduction and is totally independent of the creator's fame and wealth.

Paintings, sculptures, furniture, buildings are all one of a kind. Reproduction is not only excessively expensive, but probably not possible for the first two. High prices are justified when the product is admired because of both the rarity and the artist's creativity and skill (an important point to which I will return). An artist's fame and wealth are tied to the unique nature of each creation, his/her ability to generate new products of equal desirability, vision, and skill, and consistency in output.

At the other side of the topic are singers, writers, ... and photographers. The marginal cost of reproduction of their works are negligible. As a matter of fact, singers are rewarded for the number of recordings they sell and authors for the number of books they sell. Fame and wealth are directly proportional to sales. The most successful sell each copy for a low price (say, less than $30-35 each). And no one cares about the number off the press or the mastered cd-rom. They read and sound identical to all other copies.

So, why do some (most?) fine art photographers try to follow the first track and not the second? I'd probably buy a set of /a certain famous photographer's/ 13 prints that he had at /a/ fair if they were $20 each rather than $200+ each. Are /another less famous but still excellent photographer's/ prints less attractive because he sells them for $45 each? Obviously not. He was given two tickets to /a local sporting event/ because someone learned of his work on the Web and liked what he saw.

/A bunch of local photographers/ and I could probably become rich and famous if we sold enough of our prints at the price of a hard-cover book. I suspect that the material cost of paper, chemicals, mounting mats, plastic envelope, packaging, and mailing would be less than $10.00 per print. Labor is variable, but even so the profit from each print could be substantial and be real money if a sufficient volume is sold.

On the issue of "editioning" (ugly word that it is), consider MC Escher. Most of his work consists of woodcuts. Yes, there are a limited number of impressions that can be made from each block of wood, but look at how many reproductions of his works have been made. Books, posters, and every other material can be found with his tessellations and other works. It's the images that attract people, not whether they have a numbered original.

Sure, some folks want the originals, and that's OK. Again, there are no physical differences in photographic prints so there's no inherent value to a numbered edition.

Since it's the image that people buy, you could argue that it doesn't matter if the image is produced in a photographic darkroom or on the computer. To a certain extent, I'll agree. However, there is the degree of craftsmanship that augments the image itself, that that craftsmanship is not found in a computer-generated print. And, if it comes down to the bottom line, sending multiple copies of a digital image to an inkjet printer (regardless of the supposed quality of the paper and inks) has a much lower marginal cost of reproduction than does a print from the darkroom.

Well, that's enough on all this. Let the inflated egos starve and /the rest of us can/ make a ton of money.

[tim atherton]

Folks,

I have been trading private emails with another photographer local to me. He's offered to let me post his thoughts after some light editting to remove the names of the not so innocent. :)

I feel that this photographer's view is quite valid and may apply to the topic under discussion in ways that perhaps we have not yet covered. See what you think.

I think he's been reading The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (or The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility)
by Benjamin circa 1935

[Hugo Zhang]

I don't know how many of you subscribe and read Lensworks. Its editor (Brooks Jensen?) basically holds the view that a 8x10 photography print is worth same as a musical CD, twenty mighty dollars. In his latest article, he thinks that due to technology change, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of fine art photographers because they don't have to spend years to master the technique part to reach their visions. He has a friend who exposed and printed and matted some 600 works that are perfectly salable in a few weeks's time. I almost dropped my jaws while reading him last night. I find the major flaw in his argument is that he thinks artistic vision and the technique to achieve that vision are two things in photography. From my own experience, they are so closely interwinded in the creative process.

I have sold two prints in my life: one wet print still in the fixer for $20 to a fellow photography student and one for $200 for a charity event. I am an amateur and the excitement from these two sales are purely from the vanity that someboby liked my pictures and actually paid money for them.

[Mark Sampson]

Chris Perez' friends' outlook is based on a fallacy- that there is an enormous market for 'fine-art' photographs, like there is for novels or pop music (of whatever variety).
The market for art photography, such as it is, is really derived from the market for paintings. That this is so is at least partly due to the efforts of the 20th century masters; Stieglitz, Adams, Strand, to name a few. OTOH, Edward Weston was well known for selling prints at a low price, thinking of photography as a 'democratic' art form that many people could afford. Of course there was no photographic art market to speak of in his day, and he sold relatively few prints at any price. Yet he is universally remembered as a successful artist...

[Christopher Perez]

Let's consider this a little more.

How is photographic reproduction any different than music?

From a certain point of view (so please read with caution), I can see my friends point. Music was widely distributed on vinyl, then on CD, and is now electronically distributed.

Photographs, first in B&W, later in color, have been distributed in print form, then in magazine publications, and more recently electronically.

Given this, I fail to see how photographic "art" in my computer as wallpaper is any different than iTunes. Both are attractively priced, and I posit that both retain their "art" value.

Maybe the point (and a valid one at that) is that wall space is limited. Yet space for music does face similar constraints.

How is photographic reproduction similar to painting/drawing/sculpting?

From one perspective I can see where our photographic elders have done us a huge disservice. They have made photographic "art" the poor stepchild of the full blown one-off creative arts.

I'm not sure how "enormous" the photographic "art" market might be, given the "right" price. But has anyone tested this idea? Other than Brooks, that is.



Chris Perez' friends' outlook is based on a fallacy- that there is an enormous market for 'fine-art' photographs, like there is for novels or pop music (of whatever variety)...

[paulr]

Perez's friend has a point, but it makes sense for photographic books, greeting cards, mass-produced posters, etc...

A photographic print fits more in the middleground occupied by lithographs and etchings. Even if there is no mechanical imperative for limiting editions, tradition and the market insist upon it, and the majority of art photographers choose it--not just for economic reasons, but because printing does require labor--sometimes challenging labor--and time. This is time and effort that could go into producing new work, which most would prefer to staying in the dark (or at the computer) and manufacturing endless multiples.

[Gordon Moat]

Chris and his friend attempt to position and compare music CDs and books to photographic prints. Indeed there is the existence of such a market already, and you can find it in almost every mall, sometimes in multiple stores. The advantage that those particular items have is a distribution network. So how is an individual artist going to break into that distribution network? How many musicians and authors have books and music that do not have any distribution arrangements, and how well are they doing?

You can suppose that you become your own distribution network, either by becoming a storefront operation (gallery, studio, or gift shop), or by using facilities that you can rent (art fair, swap meet, convention). These choices also already exist. In all these, the photographer becomes the salesman, proprietor, and often the sole employee.

I happened to be in a bookstore last night, and wandered past the photography books. This is another market, though it seemed to me that the choices of images mostly hit the happy landscape, travel, or things we might term kitsch (i.e. babies in funny outfits, cats, dogs, other cute wildlife, cars, planes, lighthouses, et al). Perhaps the photographers doing these make a good living at them.

As Chris Perez and his friend point out, there is a market for volume and low(er) prices. They might be making a killing in sales, and laughing at the (relative) folly of others. I don't feel comfortable in that realm, so I have no desire to compete in that market segment. If I did get offered a book deal, I would take it, though mostly because I think it would further my commercial imaging efforts.

I have also seen the low(er) prices and higher volume in action. Going by what I have seen as results, and numerous conversations, my opinion is that the same amount of time and effort in speculation (after all, there is no sales guarantee at any price) would be better spent in the stock photography market. The potential return from selling stock photography appears to be substantially better than low(er) priced art photography (again, my opinion).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Greg Miller]

So you are saying that if you are 'unsuccessful' (definition?) in what you do, then all your efforts are for nothing?

I don't know if you have kids, but is that something you would tell them? Because I certainly wouldn't. Not without some more qualification at least.

My statement that you quoted was "If you are the best artist ever in history, and your work is never seen and discovered, then your work is a waste."

If I discovered a cure for cancer, but my I never made my cure public, then I believe the cure was wasted. I think the same is true of art. If I create a brilliant piece of art, but my art is never seen, then it has been wasted. Its true that the artist gets some satsifaction from having created a masterpiece but the gener public has not gained any benefit and the art world has not gained any benefit.

[Hugo Zhang]

"If you are the best artist ever in history, and your work is never seen and discovered, then your work is a waste."

If I discovered a cure for cancer, but my I never made my cure public, then I believe the cure was wasted. I think the same is true of art. If I create a brilliant piece of art, but my art is never seen, then it has been wasted. Its true that the artist gets some satsifaction from having created a masterpiece but the gener public has not gained any benefit and the art world has not gained any benefit.
"



For some artists, many great ones among them, creative work is a must in their life. Their love for their work and the intense joys and pains that come with this insane obsession slowly become the very essense of their life. Creative activity, by its very nature, is solitary. Of course, artists want to be recognized and praised, let alone they need to feed themselves. They try hard to balance their life if they don't want to go insane like van Gogh. But at the end of the day, if they are really true and sincere, they don't have much choices. Many of them indeed died unkwown, but do we know that great joy they had when doing what they did? What is fame anyway? A shadow. Intersting and ironic enough, great ones have been and will be discovered.

Science and art both benefit human being. But they are two different things and can't be compared here.

[Kirk Gittings]

Gordon,

It strikes me that this move to higher volume, low price prints is paralleled somewhat in the stock photo business with royalty free low cost stock. Some people I know refer to this as "Penny" stock. With fees as low as a dollar, the photographers cut is virtually pennies and the notion is that you make your money in volume. I have had a few discussions with some people involved in this form of stock. I don't know if these people are typical, but I suspect that they are. The ones I know are all amatuers with other careers, digital shooters, who have high hopes for this market, though none of them at this point seem to have made more than a few dollars. Professional stock photographers that I know consider this trend very detrimental to the stock industry for obvious reasons. Is there a parallel here?

[Greg Miller]

"If you are the best artist ever in history, and your work is never seen and discovered, then your work is a waste."

If I discovered a cure for cancer, but my I never made my cure public, then I believe the cure was wasted. I think the same is true of art. If I create a brilliant piece of art, but my art is never seen, then it has been wasted. Its true that the artist gets some satsifaction from having created a masterpiece but the gener public has not gained any benefit and the art world has not gained any benefit."



For some artists, many great ones among them, creative work is a must in their life. Their love for their work and the intense joys and pains that come with this insane obsession slowly become the very essense of their life. Creative activity, by its very nature, is solitary. Of course, artists want to be recognized and praised, let alone they need to feed themselves. They try hard to balance their life if they don't want to go insane like van Gogh. But at the end of the day, if they are really true and sincere, they don't have much choices. Many of them indeed died unkwown, but do we know that great joy they had when doing what they did? What is fame anyway? A shadow. Intersting and ironic enough, great ones have been and will be discovered.

Science and art both benefit human being. But they are two different things and can't be compared here.



I originally commented because of Dirk Rosler's disdain for the coupling of art and marketing/being wll known. If nobody ever becomes aware of your masterpeice(s), then nobody has benefitted but you. That is hardly noble. The more people are aware of your art, the more people benefit and the more art in general changes because of it.

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon,

It strikes me that this move to higher volume, low price prints is paralleled somewhat in the stock photo business with royalty free low cost stock. Some people I know refer to this as "Penny" stock. With fees as low as a dollar, the photographers cut is virtually pennies and the notion is that you make your money in volume. I have had a few discussions with some people involved in this form of stock. I don't know if these people are typical, but I suspect that they are. The ones I know are all amatuers with other careers, digital shooters, who have high hopes for this market, though none of them at this point seem to have made more than a few dollars. Professional stock photographers that I know consider this trend very detrimental to the stock industry for obvious reasons. Is there a parallel here?

Hello Kirk,

I think there are enough similarities for the comparison: fine art and stock imagery both contain an element of speculation; higher level fine art and stock photography are gallery or editor driven in some aspects; lower price point fine art or stock photography impacts the market as a whole, potentially lowering prices at all levels. What happens in both markets at the lower pricing levels is volume increases; it must to generate income. With a higher volume, mean higher competition, so the quality of the images increases in an attempt to gather greater sales volume. As the quality improves, some buyers would question the higher prices of supposedly better quality works, either fine art or stock photography. Fine Art and StockPhotography are the only two money making realms of photography that are highly speculative, in that the works are created without a buyer, nor any sales guarantee. Other money generating realms of photography are assignment driven, with payment somewhat ensured upon delivery of results. While higher end stock shooters are somewhat driven by editors, like assignment work, the speculative aspect is still present.

Lots of discussions about Stock Photography over at PDN Forums. Getty and Corbis control 90% of the market, and both are making more moves towards micro-payment segments. As a commercial shooter, if you have to compete against stock photography prices for work, you might find yourself on the loosing end of things. Providing unique images is a way to do that. Just look (search) through Jupiter Images, Alamy (really low end), iStock Photos, Getty or Corbis doing a search of some well known locations . . . should be a real eye opener to some people.

Seriously, some fine art photographers should do a search through the Getty Images Royalty Free selection using the terms slot canyon, and see what comes up (61 images). Then check the price levels (Calculate Price link below each image) depending upon usage. Or try other searches like aspens or barns. My guess is that some people on LF Forum will laugh, others will be shocked, and a few will see an opportunity for potential income . . . all of them will be correct in their assessments, depending upon point of view.

I know a few people who shoot for Getty, or their affiliated companies, and all of them are worried about recent moves towards micro-payment sites. The bulk of income for Corbis and Getty continues to be the higher level Rights Managed images, but in order to please the stock (NYSE, NASDAQ) holders they need to move into the low price and high volume realms.

There is money in stock photography, but the few successful stock photographers I know state that things have changed dramatically recently. The days of left over assignment shoot images being sent off for stock sales are largely gone, replaced by a higher quality and more driven market. Out of thousands of photographers on some micro-payment stock sites, only a very small percentage make a living from it. You could probably bet those few are putting lots of time and effort into doing well.

The good thing is that stock photography has a limited ability to replace assignment work. Companies and some people want unique images that no others will have to use. That is where Exclusive Usage rights work nicely. Important advertising will continue to push a demand for unique images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[domenico Foschi]

I am seriously thinking to start doing editions of 1 and pricing them at $ 6.000.00 each.

[Hugo Zhang]

domenico,

You will starve to death. You are a perfectioinist. What if you can't make a perfect work every and each month?

hugo

[Hugo Zhang]

"If nobody ever becomes aware of your masterpeice(s), then nobody has benefitted but you. That is hardly noble. The more people are aware of your art, the more people benefit and the more art in general changes because of it."

Greg,

When your vision is so unique, you almost have to create a brand new language to express that vision. The public, in general, are used to old and conventional art form. They need to be educated too. Instant recognization of masterpieces by the society is rare in the history of art and literature. Cezanne spent the last thirty years of his life to paint a mountain outside his village everyday. He didn't do it to please his neighbors. van Gogh created 1,800 works of drawings and paintings and sold one in his life time. Flaubert had to be prosecuted for his Madam Boravy. James Joyce, Marcel Proust and Nabokov all had problems with publishers for their masterpieces. The list can go on and on.

A very simple example in our life: how many people who are not LF photographers really know and enjoy contact print? I started to enjoy contact prints and pt/pd prints only when I moved up to 8x10. Am I less noble because I have made something few people can enjoy and benefit from it? I don't know. Should I care?

Following your logic, Thomas Kincade is the greatest and noblest artist of our time. Millions of people are aware of his masterpieces and crazily buying them and benefiting from them.

[domenico Foschi]

Ok Hugo, you are right, $12.000.00 each then...:-)

[domenico Foschi]

...and I thank you, but I never made a perfect print, I can assure you of this.

Yesterday I was at the opening of Joni Mitchell latest work of images taken from television screens at the Lev Moross gallery in Los Angeles.
Socio-political work mostly about war, work that a purist would probably disdain. It left me honestly uneffected(could it have been the cheap wine?), even though I enjoyed the message and the person.
The pieces where triptichs 4 x 9 ft in size.
Price $ 27.000.00 each.
It reminded me painfully of the expressions of some people when they see the $ 400.00 sticker price in one of my 16 x 20 images framed in 22 x 28.:(

[Greg Miller]

"If nobody ever becomes aware of your masterpeice(s), then nobody has benefitted but you. That is hardly noble. The more people are aware of your art, the more people benefit and the more art in general changes because of it."

Greg,

When your vision is so unique, you almost have to create a brand new language to express that vision. The public, in general, are used to old and conventional art form. They need to be educated too. Instant recognization of masterpieces by the society is rare in the history of art and literature. Cezanne spent the last thirty years of his life to paint a mountain outside his village everyday. He didn't do it to please his neighbors. van Gogh created 1,800 works of drawings and paintings and sold one in his life time. Flaubert had to be prosecuted for his Madam Boravy. James Joyce, Marcel Proust and Nabokov all had problems with publishers for their masterpieces. The list can go on and on.

A very simple example in our life: how many people who are not LF photographers really know and enjoy contact print? I started to enjoy contact prints and pt/pd prints only when I moved up to 8x10. Am I less noble because I have made something few people can enjoy and benefit from it? I don't know. Should I care?

Following your logic, Kincade is the greatest and noblest artist of our time. Millions of people are aware of his masterpieces and crazily buying them and benefiting from them.


Hugo - re-read my point and then argue that. Your examples have nothing to do with the point I made. I said nothing about bad artists who market themselves well.

There are 4 basic categories here.

1) strong artists who market themselves well
2) weak artists who market themselves well
3) strong artists who do not market themselves well
4) weak artists who do not market themselves well

I am tallking about groups 1 and 3. I think you are putting kincaid in group 2. Your contact print point says nothing about how well you market yourself. If nobody ever sees your contact prints but yourself then you have only benefitted yourself. If others actually see your prints, then the chance exists that they will eventually be appreciated. People in group 3 may have strong work but nobody benefits from it except for the artist having some satisfaction.

[Hugo Zhang]

Greg,

Sorry I didn't read all your postings. It's long thread, you know.:)

I guess I belong to group 4 at this point and after decades of hard work I might be upgraded to group 3.

I want to share a true story here. There was this Chinese painter who spent years in Tibet and painted day and night with his blood. You could just tell that from his work. The work of his Tibet period includes many portraits of local Tibetans, dark, gloomy and heroic, fantastically realistic, not unlike those miners by van Gogh. Then he came to USA 15 years ago. No gallary wanted his work. They told him that his technique was masterly and his style was out of style. He painted billboards for a few months and made a decision about his future. He transformed himself and went Kincade way. He painted pictures with cheezy names like "Moonlight in Venice" and suddenly all the galleries want his work. His orginals are now selling in $60,000-80,000 range and edisions are selling for $3,000 for people's new living rooms. Honestly, I can't tell the difference from his work from Kincade's. Both are "masters of light". Now he is a successful fine artist living in million dollar mension on a hill in Los Angeles. I told my colleague who happened to be his then GF that I was disgusted by the way he betrayed himself and how he sold his soul. What choice did he have? He didn't speak English and that was the only way to make it in the country, she argued. Maybe she was right.

[tim atherton]

I am seriously thinking to start doing editions of 1 and pricing them at $ 6.000.00 each.

well some do follow a similar approach.

Very small editions of 2-5 photographs priced at $20,000, $40,000 or $50,000.

This is the opposite end of the market to the penny stock approach

[Greg Lockrey]

well some do follow a similar approach.

Very small editions of 2-5 photographs priced at $20,000, $40,000 or $50,000.

This is the opposite end of the market to the penny stock approach

Would these be printed on billboards? ;)

[tim atherton]

Would these be printed on billboards? ;)

nope... just successful art photographers :-)

[paulr]

well some do follow a similar approach.

Very small editions of 2-5 photographs priced at $20,000, $40,000 or $50,000.

This is the opposite end of the market to the penny stock approach

It's a whole segment of the market. Seems most common at galleries that deal with artists-who-happen-to-be-using-photography, rather than by diehard photographers who come more directly out of photographic traditions.

Many of the Chelsea galleries in NYC fit this mold. Their style is often very large color prints, printed in very small editions, with very big price tags. Presentation is often non-traditional. You'll see work mounted on aluminum panels or face-mounted on acrylic, or sometimes just pinned directly to the wall. Editions of three or five. I don't know for sure, but I suspect the customers are often painting collectors who are crossing over to photography.

[QT Luong]

You can't sell without showing (sorry web sales really only help support showing)

I haven't read this whole thread so far (just got back from a 2 week-long trip covering 9 US states), but I would say that my experience disproves this statement. So far I don't even promote my work as fine art, yet my print sales figures are quite better than the number you mentioned. It's only five years since I started my business, and I never had any show.

[Dirk Rösler]

If nobody ever becomes aware of your masterpeice(s), then nobody has benefitted but you. That is hardly noble. The more people are aware of your art, the more people benefit and the more art in general changes because of it.

You obviously still don't understand. The real deal artist, not me or you and probably nobody here, just doesn't care. They do what they have to do, no matter what the circumstances. They may destroy their work in the end or even themselves. That is the amount of meaning they assume in their work. They don't care about 'benefit'. Only the rest of us do.

[Kirk Gittings]

That's good QT, but you may be an exception. Why do you think that is?

[Dick Hilker]

As a new member of this forum and a newcomer to the joys of LF, I'd like to suggest that we define success in terms that are truly meaningful to each of us on a personal level. It's all too easy to adopt others' standards of success and then wrestle with the disparities between theirs and what really means the most to us.

Though I've been making photographs for about sixty years, I've only recently had the luxury of being able to spend as much time as I'd like developing my skills as an artist with a camera. This year saw my first one-man show and gratifying results in juried shows, as well as the opportunity to have my work hung in several galleries.

The biggest thrill, however, has come from those who've validated my efforts by writing checks for the prints. Fortunately, I don't depend on the sale of prints for a livelihood, because I have no reasonable expectation of ever making enough for that. I'm too old to be starting another career and fear that, if I depended on the sale of my art for a living, I'd begin to only make pictures that would most likely sell.

Rather than fixate on how much money others may be making, I take my modest successes as validation of what I'm doing and take comfort in being a successful fine art photographer -- on my own terms.

[paulr]

That's good QT, but you may be an exception. Why do you think that is?

I suspect it has to do with the market that's buying the work, and the channels that they buy through.

[chris jordan]

Does anyone know what the original question was for this thread? I never quite understood it, and it seems to have rambled through many permutations here. Obviously it's a subject that interests many of us. Kirk, how about taking a shot at starting a new thread with a more directed question?

~cj

[Kirk Gittings]

Chris,

Originally I was strying to answer a question that had gotten lost in another thread by Gordon Moat:

Quote:
"To Jim Collum, Jack Flesher, or any of the other few successful fine art photographers reading here, how good do you think opportunites are for fine art photographers with very little exhibit history?"


His real question is the area I highlighted, though most contributers focused on the definition of "successful", but confused personal gratification with success.

Let me think about that and maybe I will post more focused question later today.

[paulr]

the question confuses me a little, since at every artist at some point has had zero exhibition history. and an exhibit is itself an opportunity.

do you mean are there many sales opportunities for artists who forgo showing?

[Christopher Perez]

[gently stirring the pot again]
Did anyone read Bill Jay's comments in the latest LensWork?

He seems to feel that the issue of "pricing" comes up quite often amoungst photographers. While he goes on to talk about a benchmark that none of his colleagues supports, I find it an interesting "data point". It goes something like this...

During the 1950's there was a cafe'/photogallery in NY that sold all the big names. Bill laid out the average prices for these various photographers, including St. Ansel and Minor White. If I remember correctly, Bill said that the average 1950's sale price was $20 for well known photographers. Bill goes on to say that the adjusted inflation price on today's market would be $200.

Again, none of Bills colleagues support that pricing structure or analysis. But I found it very interesting in light of the John Wimberley conversation elsewhere on this forum.

The final "zinger" is when Bill asks how much our egos will let us price our works (as "unknown" photographers) under the $200 target.

OTOH, I received the latest Freestyle catalogue. I have to say, Kirk Gittings looks positively heroic on the cover! Maybe his good looks and aggressive posture will help raise the photographic marketplace as a whole? Just kidding. Still, he does look good and it's very nice advertising for him. :)

Lastly, we all know there are many approaches to art in any of it's forms. Some of us will "make it big". Others of us will work in obscurity. Some of us will destroy our lives in pursuit of perfection. Others of us will work hard in corporate 'merika and do "art" on the side.

I can't help but feel that there's room for ALL of us in this photographic art boat. What's nice about living in these times is that we get to choose how to engage the world of viewers, collectors and sales outlets.

Knowledge is power.

[photographs42]

Since the original question was Gordon’s, he is perhaps the only one who can clarify what he is looking for. The highlighted text begs the question, opportunities for what? By addressing his question to photographers that he (but as we saw, not necessarily they) considers “successful,” he is hinting at what his use of the term “opportunities” is aimed at.

As interesting as this thread is, unless we head in a different direction, we probably aren’t going to get any different opinions than the two dozen or so that have already been expressed. But I’m sure we are all willing to give it another shot.
Jerome

[Kirk Gittings]

Paul, I guess in the end maybe I tried to answer a queation that I didn't quite understand.

Christopher, Thanks for mentioning that. It has been great pr for sure and all the ribbing from colleages has been fun.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

OTOH, I received the latest Freestyle catalogue. I have to say, Kirk Gittings looks positively heroic on the cover! Maybe his good looks and aggressive posture will help raise the photographic marketplace as a whole? Just kidding. Still, he does look good and it's very nice advertising for him.


I think Kirk should be shooting at least 11x14, that 4x5 camera looks puny next to him..... :)

[Alan Rabe]

At least he wasn't nude.:D

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

At least he wasn't nude.:D

Or they decided to PS'd the clothes in after careful consideration... :)

[Gordon Moat]

the question confuses me a little, since at every artist at some point has had zero exhibition history. and an exhibit is itself an opportunity.

do you mean are there many sales opportunities for artists who forgo showing?

Hello Paul R, and LF Forum,

Opporunties was meant to imply getting a permanent or longer term gallery arrangement, landing larger one person exhibits, or anything that possibly could improve sales potential. Obviously someone starting out might be using very few personal resources, other than finding a few venues, maybe having an opening reception in which to meet prospective buyers (or gallery owners), and hopefully enough volume of people to possibly generate a sale or three.

Many on this thread addressed the concept of success. This is another aspect that is obviously going to be different for everyone attempting fine art photography. Despite numerous juried exhibits, some awards, and meeting lots of nice people at receptions, that warm fuzzy feeling just is not enough for me. I have nothing against anyone wanting to do art photography for their own satisfaction, but that is completely outside the realm of what I wanted to ask. My art photography has sold enough to pay for my expenses related to exhibiting, which I suppose could be considered successful, though I can easily imagine being more successful. Anyway, the concept of success, or defining that, might be another side discussion.

Anyone starting out will often be trying small venues, perhaps not directly art venues. My first showings of my oil paintings was in high end bars and restaurants, but generated no sales. Beyond producing the paintings, there was little effort or cost to getting those early showing opportunites. While the low cost approach seems like little risk, I don't think it is the path to success nor further opportunites, unless you are lucky.

Someone having little exhibit history should not be taken to mean artists who forgo showing. The right venue, or showing in the right place, even if it was only once, could launch someone into a successful run. Maybe little or more exhibit history is not as important as where one's exhibit history happens . . . those who get first or second place in some contest seem to have it easier with getting more opportunities . . . and potentially more success. However, that might be commercial success, rather than fine art success. To me . . . this aspect is not really answered . . . yet.

This discussion was born out of the discussion about artists buying space in magazines in an attempt to generate opportunities, or potentially sales. Obviously that goes beyond low expense small venue exhibiting, but if someone wanted to forgo exhibiting then this is an option. This is where marketing comes into play, though it is still speculative in art photography. What I hoped to prompt with my question was whether such an approach was really any better, with the qualifying aspect of another premise that I hold: my feeling is that money spent on marketing towards promoting commercial work is a better direction of spending than putting that same money into (speculative) art photography.

Instead of simply putting forward a question, I wanted to generate a discussion, which I think has been accomplished. I have learned a great deal from this discussion, and I thank all who have posted responses. I don't think it is completed, though maybe now that it is getting harder to follow, a new thread might be another direction.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[paulr]

the best opportunity that i've seen these days (and it's completely unatached to your history of shows) is the portfolio review events. you basically buy time with a whole gaggle of dealers, publishers, curators, and collectors, and show your wares. kind of like speed dating.

a lot of people have been "discovered" through these. i don't know of anyone who's a superstar, but people have gone from being unknown to having serious representation and getting a lot of press and exhibition time.

[Gordon Moat]

Thanks Paul R,

That was another thing I am glad to read. Obviously putting together a good portfolio is not cheap, nor is attending these reviews. About as close as I have come is portfolio reviews with several colleges at National Portfolio Days. My first goal of exhibiting fine art photography is for the purpose of generating an exhibit history, which would help me to get into an MFA program. After some sales and commercial work coming from people seeing my exhibited works, the process of exhibiting has become a form of indirect advertising.

Perhaps we are coming close to an article level with this discussion. There might be something of paths to success in fine art photography, or approaches one might attempt. This might be a good thing too, since I saw throwing money at advertising in certain magazines as a random approach somewhat lacking in direction.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[tim atherton]

Perhaps we are coming close to an article level with this discussion. There might be something of paths to success in fine art photography, or approaches one might attempt. This might be a good thing too, since I saw throwing money at advertising in certain magazines as a random approach somewhat lacking in direction.

A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Swanson book and/or consulting

[Greg Miller]

You obviously still don't understand. The real deal artist, not me or you and probably nobody here, just doesn't care. They do what they have to do, no matter what the circumstances. They may destroy their work in the end or even themselves. That is the amount of meaning they assume in their work. They don't care about 'benefit'. Only the rest of us do.

I understand quite well. I still think its a waste. If the artist creates a masterpiece and then immediately destoys it then its just a case of the artist engaing in self pleasure. The exception would be if the exercise leads to another piece that eventually is shared with others.

Any maybe I actually am a real deal artist and you just don't know it because I have not shared my true masterpieces with anyione but myself. I apologize that you'll nver have the benefit to have seen them ;)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Any maybe I actually am a real deal artist and you just don't know it because I have not shared my true masterpieces with anyione but myself. I apologize that you'll nver have the benefit to have seen them ;)

Well, that is not entirely true, you do have your web site as a signature. We do get to see your master pieces... :)

OTOH I agree with you, IMO creating art is an act of sharing, not necessarily in the pursuit of admiration or adulation but in a desire to let te viewer participate in an important poart of our life.

I also find this passing of judgement on what is supposed to be "tasteful" art somewhat arrogant. I would not take a Gursky or Eggelston even if it was free, yet some here decry them as great artists. ALthough I would not hang a Kincade print or oil on my wall, I would rather see one of his works than one more container/pseudo environmental/ordinary pic passed as great art photograph... ;)

[Hugo Zhang]

"If the artist creates a masterpiece and then immediately destoys it then its just a case of the artist engaing in self pleasure."

Greg,

Is engaging self pleasure wrong? Do we always make love with the sole purpose of making babies?

Going back to my previous post, my taste in contact and pt/pd prints has been slowingly developed after many years working in the darkroom. I am just a beginner and learning everyday. It's unrealistic for the general public to accept what we think is good art. Especially this mass tends to spend big money on Thomas Kincade stuff. I have seen people who spent thousands of dollars for some horrible soulless "art" and hang them shamelessly and proudly on the walls of their living rooms. They bought them because they were from famous "artists." Do I try to educate them? How can I be sure that I know better? Why should I insult them by implying that they have poor artistic tastes?

Take domenico for example. I have seen his exquiste prints and have no clue why he could not sell his prints in thousands. He prices his work slightly above his material cost not including labor. I have seen people actually moved by his prints, but they did not buy them. This discovery of mine may point to another interesting fact: herd mentality of the mass. Many people just buy stuff their friends buy to cover up their ignorance. They think they will less likely to make mistakes from purchasing well known artists like Kincade. domenico Foschi is little known at this moment.

So back to my beginning, what's wrong with self pleasure? As an artist, you have every right to destroy your work. Actually, Tibetan monks have done just that for hundreds of years. A group of 6-8 monk artists would spend weeks to build the most fantastic sand castle and as soon as it is finished, they dismentle it. From sand to sand. The inpermenence of this world. I happened to witness such an incredibly beautiful creation and destruction of art and I was deeply moved.

BTW, Greg, I do enjoy your pictures! :)

[Michael Alpert]

Gordon wrote: "My first goal of exhibiting fine art photography is for the purpose of generating an exhibit history, which would help me to get into an MFA program. After some sales and commercial work coming from people seeing my exhibited works, the process of exhibiting has become a form of indirect advertising.

Perhaps we are coming close to an article level with this discussion. There might be something of paths to success in fine art photography . . . "

Gordon,

Thank you for your post. Now I and others can better understand your motivation for exhibiting work: Exhibits (and, by logical inference, your photographs) serve your career by becoming a form of "indirect advertising." You are doing what many hundreds of other talented young artists are doing: envisioning a career. (You must have had personal reasons for making photographs in the first place; some people here have suggested that those reasons were probably not without substance.) I wish you well, and in a way (but only in a way) I admire your innocence. I think you should print this thread and save it to see how well your career-orientation serves you in the future.

[Dick Hilker]

If the "opportunities" means financial success, then that begs the question "how much is enough?" For some, it's enough to provide a good living, for others to make a hobby self-sustaining and for some simply to provide a satisfying level of validation for their work.

If the opportunity we're seeking is simply to share our art with others, that's a different matter.

In either case, I feel the differentiator is more likely to be the photographer's aggresiveness in promoting his work and his willingness to put in the hours chasing gallery space and collecting ribbons at shows to substantiate a pricing level that he finds satisfying. A gifted artist who never gets his work in front of the public in an attractive venue will remain in obscurity, yet one of more modest talents may well amass a pile of money with sufficient promotion. There are far too many of the latter to believe otherwise.

[Dirk Rösler]

Should an article be produced out of this discussion, be sure to consider the difference between the titles "How to increase the sales of your photographs" and "How to be a more successful artist". And perhaps stop fooling yourself what you really are.

[paulr]

Another kind of success .... my friend Anne is a wonderful artist, and over the years realized that her main motivation for showing and publishing is to build a community. Most of her best friends throughout the world have found her through her art.

I always thought that was pretty cool.

[domenico Foschi]

Hugo, keep going man, I'll give you 20%
from the sales.;)

[QT Luong]

Now that I got a chance to read the thread, I'll add a few comments from my personal experience that address some of the points raised.

I found it perfectly fine to use the earnings from my day job as a research scientist to fund my photographic activities. I was quite active... I completed most of the National Parks project under that mode. In fact, this is an arrangement that I recommend if one can find a high paying and flexible enough job. However, for me this changed when I got married. I realized that family commitments meant that I would not be able to spend as much time on photography as before unless either I got a higher paying job with the same flexibility (not easy to find as those are often incompatible requirements) or I transitioned to full-time photography, which I proceeded to do as the path of least resistance.

If I was to reduce my print prices by a factor of 5 (which wouldn't even match Jensen's suggested prices), obviously I'd have to sell at least 5 times as many prints. Would that happen ? I am not so sure. There is no way of knowing without experimenting, but out of respect for your past clients, you just don't play games like that with your pricing. Even if it did happen, the additional fullfilment overhead would leave me with little time for more productive aspects of the work.

How come I sell fairly well on the internet ? From the start, I set out to do business exclusively this way, and planned accordingly to take advantage of this new medium, rather than trying to reproduce older and more proven methods.

[Hugo Zhang]

domenico,

You are doomed. Maybe we will talk and develop a market plan for your work.:)

Seriously, first we have to ask ourselves why do we choose creative activities in fine art as part of our life? Our sincere answer to this first question will determine if and how much we are interested in "opportunities" for fine art. One of little books that has changed my life was written some 100 years ago by Rilke: "Letters to a Young Poet". It contains 10 beautiful letters. It will probably change the way you look at things too.

"Go into yourself and test the deeps in which your life takes rise; at its source you will find the answer to the question whether you must create. Accept it, just as it sounds, without inquiring into it. Perhaps it will turn out that you are called to be an artist. Then take that destiny upon yourself and bear it, its burden and its greatness, without ever asking what recompense might come from outside."

Here is an amazon link to this little gem...

http://www.amazon.com/Letters-Young-Rainer-Maria-Rilke/dp/0394741048/sr=8-1/qid=1163475433/ref=sr_1_1/104-7526534-4241546?ie=UTF8&s=books

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . . . You must have had personal reasons for making photographs in the first place; some people here have suggested that those reasons were probably not without substance.) I wish you well, and in a way (but only in a way) I admire your innocence. I think you should print this thread and save it to see how well your career-orientation serves you in the future.

Hello Michael Alpert,

My personal photography background in photography is slightly indirect. When I was little, my family gave me various cameras as something to do while outside. Mostly in that time period I drew quite a bit, sometimes realistic, though often more comic style. Later on in college, I took photos largely for source materials for my paintings, or to complete assignments in other classes. I also took some photography courses, though my thoughts were often more towards how the images might be used, rather than just the images being a beginning and end unto themselves. After graduating with an art degree in 1998, I went into the world of commercial printing, illustration, and graphic design. I was showing my paintings in a few places, though getting frustrated at a lack of sales.

Part way into doing graphic design and printing, I was often complaining about the quality of images I was getting from clients. After opening my mouth numerous times, several clients prompted me to do the images. I had been intermittently doing photography at times, or assisting other commercial shooters sometimes, though for that to become my emphasis was a big step change in direction. Now I find that is most of my work, and I am moving to make that the primary emphasis.

The desire to get a Master's Degree is more recent. I thought I might want to teach, though after speaking with some former professors of mine, I was urged to look into bigger name schools, or simply schools in a few large key cities. During this investigation, a fellow painter friend, and former SDSU co-ed, urged me to start exhibiting again, though this time she saw my photos and suggested I place more emphasis upon those. So my second attempt at exhibiting started in 2003, but with better results than when I was exhibiting from 1996 through 1999. Anyway, now you have some background on me.

As for innocence, I see it more as idealism. It has been an observation of mine that as people age, they lose their idealisms, and can become more cynical. Hopefully that is something I can avoid, because I have seen people hold onto some idealism late into their lives . . . it is a great attitude.

I have saved portions of comments from this thread. The knowledge others have shared is greatly appreciated.

Danke sehr für alles!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Michael Alpert]

Gordon,

Thank you for your response to my remarks. I am sure that your background in painting and graphic design informs your photographic work. I think that keeping the innermost motivation for that earlier art-work alive will enhance everything that you do with a camera. Again, I wish you well.

[photographs42]

Hello Michael Alpert,

.....As for innocence, I see it more as idealism. It has been an observation of mine that as people age, they lose their idealisms, and can become more cynical. Hopefully that is something I can avoid, because I have seen people hold onto some idealism late into their lives . . . it is a great attitude....
Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

I think this is one of the most important ingredients for that elusive “success” that we’ve been trying to define here. Almost without exception, our goals are reached because we believe they can be. When you stop believing, it’s all over.

Sometimes I joke that I’m going to buy one of those T-shirts that says “I’m a lot calmer now that I’ve given up all hope” but my grandmother taught me that you should never give up. Of course she is also the one who said “Give me the luxuries and I’ll learn to live without the necessities.”

Jerome

[Greg Lockrey]

I joined a business refferal group called Business Network International (BNI) and through my contacts there was able to sell quit a bit of art for decorating to an interior desgner in our group not to mention those others who needed to spruce up their offices. From that I do get more refferals from people who seen the work around town. Albeit my primary business is art reproduction, but fine art photographers could make some contacts there also.

[tim atherton]

As for innocence, I see it more as idealism. It has been an observation of mine that as people age, they lose their idealisms, and can become more cynical. Hopefully that is something I can avoid, because I have seen people hold onto some idealism late into their lives . . . it is a great attitude.


Christenberry advised the students to find an art form suiting their passion. "Make every attempt to find something you love — that you're truly in love with — and push it, push it as hard as you can."

Artist and photographer Bill Christenberry at 70

[tim atherton]

more at http://www.calendarlive.com/galleriesandmuseums/cl-me-photo13nov13,0,3218448.story?coll=cl-art-features if you are interested

(BTW, having worked for the last year around a university Art Dept and based on what I have seen, I completely disagree with the view that good and sustainable work isn't being done in such places)

[Brooks Jensen]

A friend told me about this thread and I hope you don't mind my popping into the discussion rather late.

Just a couple of quick thoughts . . .

There is a world of difference between "pricing" and "marketing". I can't remember who talked about the "Jensen Myth" (I kinda like that!) but it pertains exactly to this separation of fundamental ideas in selling. Marketing is getting the word out there. Pricing has more to do with motivating the buyer to say yes. Rolls Royce can market all they want to me, but I would never say yes because I can't afford what they sell. (Or BMW, for that matter!) Harry's Rotten Sushi Company could market to me all they want, but I wouldn't buy their product either, even though I could probably afford it.

I suggest that photographers need two strategies -- one for marketing and one for pricing. Far too often I hear photographers complain about slow sales and attribute it to their pricing when a little bit of conversation points out it is really a marketing problem, not a pricing one. High prices are not good nor bad. Low prices are not good nor bad. What is troublesome is when the pricing strategy and the marketing strategy aren't working together.

Yes, I do have LensWork as a marketing tool that others (except those we publish) do not have. But, I wonder how many prints I would sell -- even with all the exposure I could get through LensWork -- if I priced them, say, $2,000? Conversely, I wonder how many museums would take me seriously if I offered them work for $20? The real question is who do you want to want your work?

Second thought. You would be shocked how many photographers have written me to report their success stories selling prints once they starting using prices that their target market could afford.

Lots of interesing discussion about all of this and lots to think about. Thanks for letting me lurk!
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing

[Greg Miller]

As for innocence, I see it more as idealism. It has been an observation of mine that as people age, they lose their idealisms, and can become more cynical. Hopefully that is something I can avoid, because I have seen people hold onto some idealism late into their lives . . . it is a great attitude.

There is a happy middle ground there somewhere. That cynicism that you have seen usually comes from real world experience. You should not ignore that completely. At 46, I am old enough to have seen enough to have gained some of my own cynicism. But I have also had enough serendipitous moments to keep the enthusiasm alive. Many marketing efforts I have tried have not produced the results that I intended. But many times something totally unexpected has resulted - things that would not have ocurred otherwise (and sometimes these were even better than whay I had intended).

[claudiocambon]

Another kind of success .... my friend Anne is a wonderful artist, and over the years realized that her main motivation for showing and publishing is to build a community. Most of her best friends throughout the world have found her through her art.

I always thought that was pretty cool.

This hits it on the head for me. I don't think exhibit opportunities per se are what make for success, although they are certainly a part of it; it all helps, and I recommend trying all avenues, especially the portfolio reviews like Photolucida and Fotofest, which helped me a few years back, and to which i plan to return when appropriate.

For me the most important thing has been to find and cultivate my own audience, my community. This started as a list of everyone I know and am in some reasonable contact with, from someone who bought a photograph from a collector print program to my pre-school teacher, and now includes their friends and anyone else who has come my way either through our common connection, or in response to an editorial publication, or through my website, to name a few obvious sources. Periodically I go to my community and hold print sales for the express purpose of funding new work. I let people know how the project is going or has turned out, and then wher eit is getting shown. I make the work I want to make, but I also want them to feel vested in the process. Their support, both financial and moral, makes the work happen. My career inches along, certainly not full time, and therefore not at the pace I would like, but it happens in good chunks.

I took inspiration from a lot of people when I first did this, including William Clift, who still makes his living selling prints directly to people, and periodically takes road trips to make new work, and to visit these people, which I think is admirable.

I have benefitted from all forms of publicity, from gallery to magazine, but in the end the one I value the most is my own personal network that I have built up in these last years. I can't encourage people to do this enough, because it allows you to create your own opportunities, ones that are personally gratifying, and financially productive.

[Tim Hyde]

Is it too late to add my thoughts to this incredible exchange? I finally had a chance to read the whole thread and would like to weigh in from the collector's point of view. First, a couple of general observations.

-It is worth noting that we are talking here about one segment of one category of fine art: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOGRAPHY, which is a segment of fine art photography which is one category in the larger fine art world. Current work from current artists of any sort is more or less speculative both as a profession and as a collector. There is nothing new in this: if anything, there are more outlets and more opportunities for contemporary fine art photographer than ever before. And the good news for photographers is that our art seems to be following the course of other fine arts: as the supply of vintage and classic works dissappears, the value of more contemporary work increases.
-Most of the mega-buck photographers are represented by ART galleries not photo galleries. Notice, to use just one example, that Sally Mann just left Edwynn Houk Gallery, about as high end as you can get for contemporary photography, for the Gagosian, which is an art gallery. This is good, too, because it establishes the link and flow of our photographic art world--at least in terms of following the money.

I am a fairly serious collector (which can be defined in varous ways, but for me is somebody who spends money that sane people would put into retirement or kids' college funds). Thus, for me, collecting has an investment quality as well as aesthetic one. And, for what it's worth, I've discovered that I am far from unique. There are lots of us out here.
Except when buying vintage or at auction, I have a few rules. For the more seroius purchases, I would rarely consider spending more than $1500 on a photographer who is not represented by a gallery I know and trust. There have been a couple of exceptions, but in both cases the photographer was in between North American galleries. This is serious money and I would never buy at this level on impulse or merely because I like the piece. I want the photographer in this category to have a track record, to have gotten critical notice in reviews, gallery shows or museum exhibits or acquisitions, want to know something about this artist's prospects going forward, and almost alway insist on work in reasonably-small numbered editions. (Friedlander and a few others can get away with uneditioned work, but notice how their prices are drastrically held back.) Oh, and by the way, I must really like the piece.
I also buy a lot of photography from what I call "emerging" photogaphers, which by the way has nothing to do with the photographer's age or length of time in the biz. These are photographers I come across in B&W or Focus other specialized publications, who are mentioned in the new and exciting world of art blogs (Alec Soth's is my current favorite, and he is also one of my favorite collecatble photographers; check the "links" section of his site for a good list of all the hot fine-art photo blogs), advertisements I see, photographer's websites I come across, word of mouth from galleries or other photographers, people whose work i come across or like in photography workshops or trade shows I attend (e.g., NANPA) or, frequently, photographers who win awards or juried contests or publish books. Sometimes these artist's work are investments (because I have a hunch they have a promising future) and sometimes I don't think they have a "future" but I like the work enough to buy it anyway. Generally, prices in this category of "emerging" can run from $200-300 to $800-900, with the vast majority somewhere in the middle of that range. Sometimes these artists are represented by galleries, but more often I buy directly. Having a robust website is always a plus.

Bottom line: we are really at the beginning of an explosion in the market value of our art, which is not small matter to those trying to make a living at it.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks for sharing your point of view as a collector. Your views round out this valuable discussion.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Hi, Tim, it's good to know that you are among many other serious collectors reading Focus magazine. Your input here confirms what we already knew but still like hearing that our Focus Gallery is not only being read by serious collectors, but also browsed with interest.