Do you buy photographic prints / art?

[Corran]

Out of curiosity, I ask this simple question. Do you buy photographic prints? Specifically, photographs printed / framed, from any photographic or print process? If so, what and how much? Follow-up questions: Do you specifically look for certain types of images or mediums (film images, darkroom processes, etc.)? Do you buy other art as well?

PS: Tell us what and why .

[Corran]

My answer was the 1st option - yes, I often buy photographic prints and also lots of other types of art. Lately I have been buying a lot of ceramics and glass. I have several photographic prints from friends and colleagues, as well as some folks I've "met" online or seen their work online.

[Leszek Vogt]

Found, after many many years, a real nice scene (total backwoods of Yosemite - puddle in a rock reflecting real nice scene), contacted the vendor where I saw the print and no one could help - soon there after the place closed for season. Sooo, to add to disappointment, I was unable to get the print or get hold of the proper artist. Still think about it occasionally, tho not buying anything (too stinkin' particular :>)

I guess the moral of the story is....make sure the folks that are in position to sell the print, that they are knowledgeable or at least be able to take the time and render proper info about the artist.

Les

[Tin Can]

At my age and late to the game, I print and hang my own Art.

I cannot afford to buy OP Art. I also don't want it even it if i could. A distraction.

My Print Exchanges are books on a shelf.

I study Art in general, not just photographic Art.

I buy books or exhibition catalogs of Art I like. I look online. Constantly.

I like a wide range of music, from Classical, Gospel, old Country, all eras of Pop, Rock, Punk, partial to female singers as I can hear and understand their lyrics. Pipe Organs are very important.

I chase them, slowly.

I like live performers in any genre. When I finally discovered Punk Rock in 1983, I went to many Hard Core shows where few attend. Usually friends of mine. Stopped a few years ago as I can no longer maintain in a mosh pit. I saw the first Smashing Pumpkins show in a filthy bar. Nobody liked them, but I saw a glimmer. Not a fan now.

I admire people who break down barriers. Artists like Marina Abramović, but many more. I have seen Mort Sahl live.

I don't have tattoos, but know many Tattoo artists and watched a young photo model of mine transform into a Body Art magazine cover, now 40 years old and married to a Police officer.

I have a print of her with me on my wall, which I took with a long cable release 20 years ago.

I wish I was a better photographer and know I will never satisfy myself.

Game on.

[Audii-Dudii]

I have amassed a small collection of photographic prints by trading with other photographers and by cherry-picking eBay auctions for Pt/Pd prints with throwaway bids of pocket change amounts (i.e., less than $50).

I have amassed a somewhat larger collection of photography books (around 400 volumes) and prefer them to prints because, among other reasons, they're vastly more affordable and I am fairly frugal in these matters.

Besides, I much prefer quantity over quality; i.e., I would rather possess a large number of photos from a photographer as reproduced in a well-done book than a single photo that sells for many multiples of what books do but offers higher visual quality.

That said, on two occasions I have thrown my rules out the window and bought original pieces of art: The first is a Louise Nevelson piece I bought from a local gallery in the early 80s for the princely sum of $2,500 (net of a student discount, because I was taking a couple of graduate-level economics courses at ASU so had a student I.D. ... lol) and the second is a 20x24 B&W, silver-gelatine print of the east wall of Shiprock made by Jody Forster. His car had broken down as he was passing through town and a friend was helping him sell the prints he had with him (from an exhibition that had just closed, IIRC) to raise the funds necessary to fix it, so he could return home to Albuquerque, NM. I did feel a bit awkward about paying him only a fraction of his usual asking price, but his friend assured he was happy to sell it at that price under the circumstances and didn't feel I was taking unfair advantage of his predicament.)

(I suspect the Nevelson piece will turn out to be a very good investment, as well as a piece I still enjoy viewing to this day. But if so, that's merely a pleasant and unexpected bonus.)

Honestly, though, when it comes to art and photography, my primary focus is creating my own rather than consuming that created by others. I find this to be infinitely more satisfying even if I am, in effect, pissing away the money I spend on it with no hope of ever recovering even a fraction of it.

I also believe that too many photographers charge far too much for their prints -- well, at least more than I am willing to pay for them, anyway! -- including myself, as I cringed a little bit every time I sold a print for $250 back when I was actively trying to monetize my photography. But the galleries wouldn't let me put a lower price on them, so that was that.... <shrug>

[Peter Lewin]

I have some prints from famous photographers as well as prints picked up at craft fairs that appealed to me. They hang on my walls both because I enjoy the images, and also to give me standards against which to judge my own work.

[Jim Jones]

The poll has no option that fits me. I occasionally buy affordable photographs and other art I like, and occasionally download and print photographs and other art in the public domain from sources like the Library of Congress. Well printed books are far more cost effective. A few years ago, at an Ansel Adams exhibit curated by his daughter in Peoria, IL, I compared 27 exhibit prints with the same images in a monograph published by Little Brown company. The reproductions were quite close to the originals, with a few even better because the originals were printed too large for best effect. Most of us have a better opportunity to study fine photographs from books than from the rare opportunities to see them in exhibits. For years I have intended to devote one room to my own photographs. Maybe someday. . . .

[Daniel Stone]

I only invest in what I enjoy looking at. This means I sell, but it's rare.
I do not speculate on any sort of art. Well, unless I could get an original Moonrise for pocket change, haha.
In my unabashed opinion, art should be shared. I don't care for the "edition" mindset. I would never do limited editions if I chose to sell my own work. I would keep my prices affordable, to the point someone on a minimum wage job could actually afford one of my prints. I wouldn't want to limit who could own something I have created, if it brings visual joy to their life, not just rich people with cash to wipe their a** with.
But I would not sell at a loss, a profit must be considered, in order to self-fund future artistic expression and the materials involved with such. Quality does not need to be expensive.

-Dan

[Corran]

Some of you are expanding this discussion into interesting and new areas (regarding pricing, editions, etc). Keep going!

Regarding editions - I had a long discussion with a lady this past weekend about that very subject. My opinion on it currently is that all of my silver-gelatin prints are one-off originals. Even if I make multiple prints, they are not identical, they vary in size, and sometimes I might tone one in the darkroom, etc. Realistically, there is no such thing as an "original" outside of wet-plates, chemigraphs, or other processes like those, while making photographs on a negative to then print to taste by definition is not an "original." Editions are merely a self-imposed limit on the number of reproductions.

She ended up buying one of my larger prints so I was very happy. She didn't even bat an eye at the price. Which gets into pricing.... "Affordable" is not definable and depends on the person. I had one person balk at my prices. Just really incredulous despite loving one of my prints. My prints are cheap IMO but also 2 to 3 times more expensive than any other photographer's work I've seen at art shows (digital prints though).

Anyway - the point of my poll is curiosity, as I have found that photographers are the worst about buying work from other photographers. I think there is an element of competitiveness for some. Also, as many have said, they only hang their own work. I know a lot of artists in other mediums and curiously none of them do that much. Personally - our bedroom is filled with art I've bought, while the living room area has my work rotated in and out as I display it at the gallery or festivals. Friends and such that come over have bought things from me after seeing it there so it's partly marketing and also a way for me to look/judge prints.

I am really curious about people who answered "Yes, but only work from established/significant photographers." How should one go about becoming established if they can't sell work as a newbie? Being an artist is expensive, I think as many here know.

[jp]

I wouldn't say I buy often... My tastes in historical photographers is relatively obscure, so I've been able to get a few inspiring prints. Living artists (not just photographers) I can trade with or buy work from are equally appreciated.

(I suspect the Nevelson piece will turn out to be a very good investment, as well as a piece I still enjoy viewing to this day. But if so, that's merely a pleasant and unexpected bonus.)

Nevelson grew up in my area of Maine, so if you ever want to unload it, I'm sure there are plenty of collectors in this state. Her work is displayed pretty permanently at the Farnsworth in Rockland, and the Portland (Maine) Museum of Art.