in the light of discussions about Brook's Jensens's ideas on print sales, I'm interested in what people thing of gallerist jen bekman's plan for 20x200 - 200 artists prints @$20.00 each - to make art affordable.
I think about one of the aspects of commercial photography (or design) and people just starting out in a creative profession. Basically once you low-ball, or do work for someone at a lower than common practice amount, you will never do higher paying work for the same client, nor for anyone they know or might refer to you.
In a way, even though fine art is highly speculative, selling yourself short means a chance that you might never sell well. The speculation of selling low cost prints is that serious individuals with the disposable income to get nice prints might dismiss you entirely. Once you sell low, you might never sell at higher prices.
Of course, some people might be okay with that. They likely enjoy photography as a hobby, and a little cash every once in a while could be an unexpected bonus. I guess the surprising aspect to me is people pricing their work near IKEA price levels.
The real downside is when talented individuals price themselves too low. When quality work is available at low prices, then who will want to pay for higher priced works? This is a huge problem in stock photography, with previous premium stock now struggling in sales against micro-stock in some markets. So more fine art photographers pricing low could drive the overall market even lower.
If you aspire to mediocrity, you are likely to achieve it. Those who aspire towards higher levels might not achieve their goal, though at least they made the attempt. I wonder if Gursky ever sold anything for $20?
I've read more than a few times in articles by gallerists and in posts by gallery owners that if an artist has tried selling their work on ebay, then they will never ever be taken seriously again...
But there are also those arguing that the art market (and especially photography) is already way out of whack. And also that there are new models coming along which may change how things are done...
now, if you could predict those type of things reliably you be lauded wide and far.
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
I cannot hope to predict anything, otherwise I might be better off in the stock market (Wallstreet) than in a creative profession. Best I could do would be a calculated risk.
I have seen more of a move towards art fairs locally, but with a change in sales towards lower priced works. Rather than just discount their work, I know a few photographers who are working on print on demand books to take as lower priced sale items to these art shows. I think it would be better to sell a collection of images in a book form, than to sell individual prints at low prices. That way the volume sales could happen, but the risk of damaging future print sales (or gallery opportunities) would be lessened (I think).
I also notice that for their spring Hey, Hot Shot! competition, they're charging $60 per artist to submit 3 images. That's on the high end of expensive for such a thing. Those artists selling at $20 a pic would have to sell a fair bit of work to comp for the entry fee.
I'm a huge fan of print sales, and do them from time to time to finance new projects. I sell through my site, try to get listed on other sites, and will even put what I call arrows on Craig's List and Ebay that point back to my site; I also resort to traditional print media and direct mailings.
So I think she's on to something, but I agree with Gordon and others that 20 is impossibly cheap.
To second Brooks Jensen, I also think the idea of editioning is totally archaic, and is used only to pump up the market by artificially and uselessly restricting the supply; it benefits the gallerists and ultimately the collectors much more than the artists. So I don't see the point of her setting a limit.
If the galleries don't like people selling prints more cheaply, too bad for them. Selling fewer, higher priced images works for galleries, but if you find people to sell to on your own more cheaply, go for it. The web especially gives you the chance to reach many more people and communities than one could dream of (and than traditional media do). Don't get me wrong; I think galleries can be very useful, but I also think their sales model is very restrictive, and ignores many opportunities out there.
The important thing for me is to make work and sell some of it in order to make more work. If a gallery doesn't like how I do it, too bad for them.
Again, I think Jen is on to something, but she should adjust her expectations slightly upwards pricewise!
Few of us support ourselves exclusively through the sales of prints. This is due to many factors: the quality and appeal of our own images, the nature of the art market(s), and how effective your sales tools, such as your gallery, are. Ultimately a gallery exists to support itself, not you; interested as it may be in our ability to keep supplying them, it's not responsible for our survival; we are. So it should leave us to selling prints in other ways, if need be.
In this case, I think Jen's initiative is good, but I don't see how she is going to support herself on how she's doing it. Her figuring on grossing 4K predicates finding 200 buyers, which I have yet to do for some of my best images, and I have done my best to hand-cultivate a long mailing list. If it is one of her best images, surely it is worth more; if it's not, I think that lessens her ability to find buyers, even if at firesale prices. It seems as if she is undermining herself.
Last edited by claudiocambon; 13-Jun-2007 at 21:41.
Reason: phrasing
I am skeptical too, but I give her a lot of credit for testing new marketing strategies, especially so when you consider that it is only on of several such experiments she is doing. One misses the point when comparing this to poster sales, which really take the gallery out of the process. She is betting that there is a class of would-be collectors out there who what to own an original, signed photograph but who can't afford full gallery prices. She wants to snag that class before their tastes wander off, thus plugging them into the community. Nobody makes money at 20/200, but that isn't the goal here--the goal is to spawn collectors.
I think these new models are very interesting but possibly not that relevant to wet photography. One day I hope to be an emerging artist and will begin selling unmounted prints for about $150. The time spent making the prints and spotting them alone is worth more than that but its a labour of love. I would never consider selling prints for less than this but am conscious that I'd rather be selling prints than not and am a complete nobody until people start buying my prints.
This kind of low cost art discussed is exciting for mechanized printing processes. Here in Australia there is http://www.redbubble.com that provides a printing, mounting and shipping service for artworks. Its only with the mechanized processes that you can possibly afford to sell for $20. Anyway I think that's great as far as it goes, you get to choose some better than average decoration that doesn't feature puppies or penguins and stick it on your wall to be looked at.
The question for me becomes whether the mechanized processes and cheaper work devalue the handmade work out there. Should a wet photographer dabble in the darkside to build a following? Will people really become collectors after purchasing this art?
I don't have any clue what the answers might turn out to be and that's slightly unsettling at the moment.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks