Only 10,000 collectors of photography

[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? 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. 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