"Investors zoom in on photography"

[tim atherton]

Tying in slightly to Opportunities" thread:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...ion=2006111010

[paulr]

That's all pretty good news for photographers, but also a little sad. Might as well be about mutual funds. Nowhere is any mention of actually likeing the work that you buy.

[photographs42]

Not to start an argument Paul, but I didn’t read it that way at all. More than once it mentions buying for “love or money”. There have always been art investors who are just that. Often a gallery makes the purchase for them, stores the piece and resells it later without the investor ever actually seeing it. I’ve always advocated buying for love and if your taste runs to work that also appreciates in value, that’s even better.

If you are a collector, the dilemma is that if you love the work, it is hard to part with it when it is time to “cash in”. I don’t really consider myself an art investor but I own several pieces of art that have appreciated considerably. I have no intension of selling them so their appreciated value is rather meaningless. On the other hand, I did sell a few things (at a nice profit) quite a few years ago that I wish I had kept.

Jerome

[paulr]

you're right, Jerome. I just get put off by the cold tone of art articles written with such a strong investment slant. They suck a lot of the life out of the subject for me.

[Remigius]

let them buy those photos, that keeps the wine prices from rising to even more incredible figures...

[robc]

And how many of the quoted photographers are dead?

Newton died between the two sales so what does that prove? Well it proves you are better off dead!

But on the other hand, if you are going to invest in a photographers work, then wait until they are old and crotchety before you buy. Time it right and you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

[paulr]

But on the other hand, if you are going to invest in a photographers work, then wait until they are old and crotchety before you buy. Time it right and you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

i get the impression that some dealers think like this. there's a whole generation of photographers who are mighty famous, very old, and whose best work is decades behind them. their work is considered "vintage" but sells for significantly less than the work of their truly dead compatriots. The dealers seem to be biding their time. At least they can sometimes get appearances and book signings out of the walking dead.

[robc]

The time to get worried about your print sales is when you are getting on in years and notice a sudden upturn in sales. It's a sure sign the vultures are circling!

[paulr]

Politely decline to drink the odd-smelling wine at the opening of your big retrospective.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

That's all pretty good news for photographers, but also a little sad. Might as well be about mutual funds. Nowhere is any mention of actually likeing the work that you buy.

There are two crowds of photography collectors. The most large crowd is the crowd that buys what they love...they have some extra money, they probably drive Infiniti's or Lincolns, own their own home, have a high level career, etc. They buy what they love, whatever looks good and pay just a tad bit attention to edition size, printing process, year photograph was taken vs. the year photograph was created, etc. They tend to buy photographs under $10,000 and won't attend auctions or buy high-end vintage photography. These people regularly attend gallery and museum exhibitions. In my research, this is about 75% of the market.

Now the rest of the market, really heavy-hitter collectors don't care as much about the aesthetic value than they do the money and financial value of the photograph. Is it a vintage print, who was the photographer, how famous was the photographer, etc. These are the ultra-wealthy, make more money than God crowd. They don't attend exhibitions and only come to the gallery when it is closed, but most of the time dealers and galleries come to them. These are the people who regularly attend auctions or have a dealer attend auctions for them to bid on a piece. They probably have a high end BMW or Lexus something even better. They could walk into a show like Photo NY and buy everything there and it wouldn't amount to how much money they paid in taxes last year. These are the upper echelon collectors. They will, from time to time, purchase something from an unknown or living photographer, but it is rare.

This article in Fortune magazine is the best thing for photography since the MoMA started exhibiting it. Fortune's circulation is mostly made up of the 75% demographic, but could garner some interest from other collectors. The thing is people don't know about photography as a collectible item...they see paintings and sculptures, but only very very recently in the history of art has photography been something that collectors could purchase or that had any kind of value to it. This truly, TRULY is a MAJOR article and is just more proof that magazines such as B&W and Focus haven't even begun to scratch the surface of reaching a large segment of photography collectors. For it to be something so popular that it would be published in Fortune is quite an accomplishment. Where was photography 30 years ago vs. today and where will it be in 30 years from today? Can anyone imagine how many people will be collecting photography in 30 years from now? The popularity is exploding with growth... which is good for anyone who sells their work because that means there are more buyers out there.

This article has made my day.