Only 10,000 collectors of photography

[QT Luong]

Defining a collector as someone who spends at least $1000/year buying prints, collector DLK estimates the number of collectors in the world at less than 10,000:
http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-many-photography-collectors-are.html

Does that make the "collector" market tiny (prestige notwithstanding) compared to the total market for prints ?

[Bill_1856]

Interesting notion. Thanks for posting it.

[Daniel Grenier]

Well, once you know this fact, the hard part is to convince one of those 10,000 collectors to buy *your* photography!

Some years, I do fit in that 10,000, some years not but I am not surprised at all by this small number. It kind of backs up what I once said in that I wished I'd realzied much sooner in my LF "life" that 99.999% of the population really doesn't give a cr*p about FA Photography (let alone spend money on it).

Thanks for posting, QT

[Doug Dolde]

I don't see how that number has any credibility.

[paulr]

I think the challenge is figuring out which of those 10,000 is the right one.

There might be a hundred out there, who would drool over one of your prints if they knew about you. But sometimes they seem to be hiding ...

[Wallace_Billingham]

of course the other number is that there are millions of photographers trying to sell to these 10,000 people

[MIke Sherck]

Actually, I'm a little surprised that the number is that large. I would have throught it to be smaller.

Ah, well: there aren't that many now, I bet!

[paulr]

We have a lot of people buying art, and the least of your worries are selling to collectors when you should get down to earth and worry about being able to sell to the average Joe.

I think it depends. I'd love to be able to sell to the average Joe (whoever that is ...) but have had more success with collectors.

It's a mistake to think that you have to be the next Ansel to be of interest to a collector. There are many different kinds, with many different tastes and budgets. Some are just investors; some are only interested in long-dead big shots; some are pasionate about curious niches and very specific subject matter; some have low budgets and buy work only from up and coming artists ...

It's a big, diverse, individualistic, and sometimes weird group of people.

[Bruce Watson]

...I wished I'd realized much sooner in my LF "life" that 99.999% of the population really doesn't give a cr*p about FA Photography (let alone spend money on it).

+1. I hear ya bro. I hear ya.

[D. Bryant]

Well, Peter Lik prints sell well above $1000. He also has sales of $35 million (check his website....although some of it is bragging, he does have around 16-18 high end locations).
I do not place any value in there being about 10,000 collectors worldwide, because collectors are only a small portion of the market,

As far as I'm concerned Lik is a comercial photographer not a fine art photographer. His work is very polished but I don't find the subject matter to be such as to fall into the realm of fine art.

Generally speaking his work is no more outstanding than the same kind of work produced by thousands of advanced amatuers around the world - he just does more of it than the am. photog. He has managed to market his work very sucessfully and I have no problem with what he does or how he does it. But as I said simply see his efforts as purely commercial - sort of an Australian George Lepp for example.

And as far as I can tell from his website he doesn't shoot LF so I don't see the relevance in a LF photography context.

Don Bryant

[Sylvester Graham]

Well that's depressing. I guess it makes sense though. I can only think of one person I've ever met who had a serious photograph hanging on their wall. People have posters of course, like those ubiquitous Ansel Adams prints, but if I really think about it I can only think of ONE person who owns a Fine Art photograph and displays it. I don't even have any fine art photographs hanging on my wall. Although, I am averse to the giant print sizes so common today. A 20X30" print is not the same thing as a 20X30" painting. IMO, smaller prints look better when viewed in the context of a home.

Photography is more popular than it was 25 years ago, and keeps getting more popular all the time. If you want to make me even more depressed, you'll tell me that the pool of photographers has grown, but the pool of collectors has not.

-Alex

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I highly doubt this number is accurate. I had a conversation recently with someone who gave me the same figure.

There are millions, literally, millions of art collectors in the US alone. Worldwide? The number is unfathomable. Over 86% of millionaires collect art. The US has a population of around 2.5 millionaires. So we're at 2.15 millionaires in the US that buy art. Over 40% of art collectors buy photography. So now we're at 860,000 art collectors that buy photography. To dwindle down the percentage of art collectors that purchase photography exclusively is completely hogwash. Sure, maybe that's 10,000 -- but very few collectors stay in one medium. How many collectors buy only oil paintings? How many collectors buy only sculpture? I don't know the numbers, sure they're bigger, but I would only be concerned with an estimated 40% of millionaires who collect art also buy photography. This was research done years ago and was published in Art in America's media kit. Now, how many art collectors AREN'T millionaires, yet buy photography? And we're just talking about the US. There are tens of millions of art collectors all around the world -- just look at the numbers that European art fairs bring in.

And then -- who isn't an art collector? Who just buys art/photography on a whim? Maybe they'll just buy something new for the home once or twice a year. The number of people, in the US alone, that purchase photography for either art collecting or decorative or both purposes is an incalculable number. All I know is they don't congregate as much to Photo LA as they used to and a lot of the upper echelon of the art collectors attend AIPAD. I do not believe there is an art fair, specifically devoted to photography, in existence that caters to the majority of people who either already do collect, are thinking about starting a collection or buy photography casually. Not yet anyway. Perhaps that will change one day.

[jnantz]

i think that maybe there are way more collectors who spend less than 1K / year
maybe that is the difference ...

[paulr]

and ... some of the ones who spend more than 1K a year spend waaaaaaaaay more than 1k.

[paulr]

As I said, sell to everyone....

I would love to. In reality, though, we sell to whoever's interested in buying our work. Some of us will get more interest from one market, others from another.

One factor out of many is selling price. Collectors, a general rule, will have different ideas about what art should cost. Someone whose perspective on art prices comes from painting or from blue chip photo galleries will think work like mine is practically free. Meanwhile someone whose perspective comes from poster prints or local art fares will think the same work is wildly expensive.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Only 10,000 collectors spending $1k or more per year? I wonder how many photographers spend more than that per year producing their art. When you include travel costs, as well as film, processing, printing supplies, and equipment, pretty much every LF photog I know spends well above that. Anyone care to guess what the total amount of money all photographers spend to make their art is compared to the amount they all collectively get back in print sales?

[Doug Dolde]

Peter Lik is a funny name :)

[paulr]

Peter Lik is a funny name :)

I just assumed you guys were talking about a porn star who collected photos.

[Dave Jeffery]

So that's why all his customers are smoking a cigarette when they walk out with a bill of sale!

[D. Bryant]

Regarding your commercial comment.... he isn't photographing hamburgers or industrial buildings, and is not for hire. I agree his work is the same as many other "better" landscape photographers, the only difference is he has a business sense, which is often more important. Otherwise landscapes have always been considered art, unless your shooting the land for a real estate company to sell.

You can argue if 617 is large format, but it is to me, and is relevant to this LF forum. He is selling more fine art photos then anyone of us in here, you may not call it fine art, but his buyers do, and look at the names of famous people buying them. They certainly are not buying images of a burger.

It's wall decoration Van (or whatever your name is). The fact that some celeb purchases his work doesn't mean that his work is art. If Elton John buys some of his work then I'll give him a pass. but don't count on that happening. The fact that he has a chain of galleries pegs him as a commercial photographer. Sort of a Thomas Kinkade equivalent.

Don Bryant

[Robert Skeoch]

I kinda liked Lik's work.
Plus I give him full marks for getting it done.

-rob

[eric black]

That number I believe is low- I personally have 8 people who have purchased from me that would fall into that category- not all get the larger more expensive items, some cumulate several pieces that put them over that 1K level....and Im small potatoes! I would wager that someone like Thomas Mangelson who owns a few galleries has made many sales in excess of that amount and Im sure that he certainly would consume a good sized chunk of the number represented as the topic starter and he is just one example.

[Sylvester Graham]

You know I never actually bother to click the link because I'm an idiot. But not I have and I see this is a blog and the author admits it as being "back of an envelope" calculation, although certainly one more sophisticated than I am capable of producing.

But, I imagine that SOMEWHERE there is a credible source for this number. I imagine that considering how important photography has become and how expensive vintage prints that somebody somewhere hired a stat company to generate these numbers. Albeit you probably have to have connections or pay to see the results. I know that publishers keep meticulous track of book sales and demographics of sales and time graphs of volume of sales for individual books and genres and subgenres bla bla bla. Maybe photography is harder to quantify because you can't keep track of the number of prints produced VS. books printed.

[paulr]

But, I imagine that SOMEWHERE there is a credible source for this number.

I don't know how you'd even put together an educated guess!

I've been going along with 10,000 just for the sake of argument, but I have no idea how you could reliably know such a thing.

[Ellis Vener]

That number sounds about right but probably a few thousand of those are either curators for private or corporate collections, or are dealers.

And yes those with money to spend on art are very active right now looking for the bargains that are out there as it is somewhat of a buyers market. But they are looking for prints they know will increase in value (i.e., well known names and real up and coming art world stars). if you are unknown in curating /collecting circles, anless you have some truly unique, outstanding images sellign prints for decent prices has always a very tough market to crack

[Roger Vadim]

Well, there is a important difference between a collector and somebody who occasionally buys a piece for his living room.
As a colector you need to think about preservation, storage, handling et.al. and every serious collector I met (quite a few) had that compulsive compassion, a desire if you like, for his collecting. Speaking about serious collectors (who then spends way above these 1000$) the number might be right.
In terms of fine art collectors the official idea is that a number of roughly 500 people have build important collections (with the likes of Demand, Struth, Wall) and who are the opinon leaders.
That means if you can say: "my piece is part of the Rubell Family collection", then all these dentists and lawyers who want to think of themselves as "collectors" join in and you have a landslide of sales...

Easy, isn't it?

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Well, there is a important difference between a collector and somebody who occasionally buys a piece for his living room.
As a colector you need to think about preservation, storage, handling et.al. and every serious collector I met (quite a few) had that compulsive compassion, a desire if you like, for his collecting. Speaking about serious collectors (who then spends way above these 1000$) the number might be right.
In terms of fine art collectors the official idea is that a number of roughly 500 people have build important collections (with the likes of Demand, Struth, Wall) and who are the opinon leaders.
That means if you can say: "my piece is part of the Rubell Family collection", then all these dentists and lawyers who want to think of themselves as "collectors" join in and you have a landslide of sales...

Easy, isn't it?

What defines a collector? Is there more than one category of a collector? Can a collector be a decorator?

I define a photography collector as someone who purchases two or more photographs. Of course there are different categories of collectors, casual, serious, decorative, investment, etc. That's just my opinion... there are those who completely disagree with me.

[D. Bryant]

D. Bryant (or whatever your name is ;) )
maybe just a bit of jelousy...hmmm? :D He is doing landscapes like everyone else in here (often a bit better), except he knows how to make a buck, and not sit around making excuses. Oh, yeah....I forgot, you don't like $35 million. :rolleyes: Those aren't Campbell soup cans he is photographing, and he isn't selling them in Wallmart (rather private viewing rooms exist for his highest priced pieces).

What he puts on paper or canvas (his creative ideas) is what determines if it is fine art, not how he sells it.

Your comment "I don't find the subject matter to be such as to fall into the realm of fine art"..... are you telling us landscapes cannot be fine art?

Auto,

I don't find color sunsets, slot canyons, and other landscapes of that ilk subject matter that is going to get recognition as fine art. I did not exclude landscapes as fine art.

If he can sell it that's fine but his work is done for totally commercial reasons as far as I can tell not intended as artistic self expression. His work is derivative IMO, he isn't creating anything that hasn't been shown before.

As usual you can't discuss a subject on this forum without irrelevant sarcastic remarks. You love stirring the pot but you don't have balls so sign your own name to your posts; so why should we take you seriously?


Don Bryant

[paulr]

What defines a collector? Is there more than one category of a collector? Can a collector be a decorator?

I define a photography collector as someone who purchases two or more photographs. Of course there are different categories of collectors, casual, serious, decorative, investment, etc. That's just my opinion... there are those who completely disagree with me.

I'd agree with this in general. I might add intent to the definition. I own quite a few ballpoint pens, but I don't think andyone would consider me a collector unless i declared myself one ;)

But yeah, it's a broad term. Photography collecting is especially democratic, since the prices are so low compared with painting and other older media. There are people with enviable collections who aren't even rich.

My guess is that when the director of a blue chip gallery uses the term collector, they mean it in a more specific sense ... one that pertains more directly to the world the gallery's in.

[Mike Putnam]

I'm guessing that there are more than 10,000 "collectors" in the world based on the description in QT's original post. Knowing what my sales are this year and the number of other people involved in this post who also have sold to "collectors" this year I think there are more. On another note, does it matter what an individual person defines as a collector? I don't care who is a "collector" as long as they enjoy and are willing to buy photography. You can take photos of salt and pepper shakers and you can take photos of the Grand Canyon. Is one more worthy than the other? Not in my opinion. I'll probably never convince some people that there is a distinct art to capturing Landscapes and I don't care too much because the process is so rewarding to me that I don't need external validation. Art, and other esoteric concepts such as what defines a "collector" will always be subject to individual opinion. The important part for me and probably most of you is to find reward in the process. Just one guy's opinion.
Mike Putnam
Pacific Crest Photography (http://www.pacificcreststock.com/blog/)

[jchesky]

For me, it is not be too important to divide those that are "buying" fine art photography from those that are "collecting". Yes, I would like to see museums have a show of my work, but if I make a sale to either buyer, it makes me happy. I have sold prints to bankers, realty firm and shipping companies, for their boardrooms, doctors offices for waiting rooms, and to friends to hang on their walls. To have ANYONE pay me for photos I took regardless because it filled my heart with joy, is like having someone put frosting on my favorite cake.

[mdd99]

Whatever the number is--10,000 or 100,000--more important is how much are they spending per photo and are they buying your photos?

[Judith]

The figure obviously only represents collectors that spend on a continuous basis on photography. I can see from my experience that collectors one year will acquire photography, another year a painting or some other media. So the "collector" base is really much larger but not solely devoted to photography. Sort of - random acts of collecting, puts many buyers under the radar of these kind of figures.

[r.e.]

I buy artwork in partnership with a friend and the work is divided up between New York and a place that we own in Newfoundland.

This year, we have spent about US$20,000 on art and our average annual expenditure is in excess of $10,000.

The last time that we purchased a photograph was about five years ago and the pattern isn't likely to change.

The main reason is that we won't buy limited edition prints. The concept turns both of us off completely. As far as I am concerned, the only legitimate limited edition print is one that is limited because the negative has been destroyed, and destroying the negative of a good photograph strikes me as really quite stupid. In any event, it doesn't happen. Instead, photographers go down this road of artificial, not to mention dubious, scarcity, and in a fair number of cases go so far as to charge more if one doesn't buy in early. The whole business model just turns me off.

Earlier today, in another thread, someone provided a link to a video of a presentation by Gregory Heisler on Arnold Newman, and what Heisler said on this subject struck a chord.