Would you sell your work to decorators?

[Richard M. Coda]

Why not? In fact I have a meeting next week with a person who deals with decorators for corporate and hi-end homes.

Art is meant to be enjoyed... not sit in a box.

[kev curry]

A ''photo dealer who refuses to sell any of the work he sells to people who want to use the art to decorate their home''.

Among many many other things, I'm convinced your a fantasist.
You should hire an animator and start writing and producing your own weekly comic.

Is this ''photo dealer'' another one of your numerous alter ego's or does he/she have a real name, business address and web site?

[Sevo]

He states that people who would purchase art for the purpose of decorating are "NOT collectors" and that he doesn't want those kinds of buyers, because they cost you to much, versus a life-time client. I do indeed pre-qualify them."

Well, defining investor-collectors as the only true type is native or boneheaded. But it may be perfectly valid for him to restrict his sales that way - if his personal skills are strongly biased towards art investment, he can expect to be reasonably successful selling to investor-collectors, while getting into business with people that collect for reasons he can't understand is likely to end in disappointments on either side...

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

A ''photo dealer who refuses to sell any of the work he sells to people who want to use the art to decorate their home''.

Among many many other things, I'm convinced your a fantasist.

Come join the conversation then.

http://www.facebook.com/s.php?q=phot...250&ref=search

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm having an interesting conversation with a photo dealer who refuses to sell any of the work he sells to people who want to use the art to decorate their home. He only wants to sell to SERIOUS photography collectors.

Maybe the question should be, "As you try to support yourself through selling your own work, would you want to be represented by a dealer who repeatedly turns away willing buyers of your work because they don't meet his qualifications as "SERIOUS" collectors?"

[Robert A. Zeichner]

Where does the disconnect occur between people who want to buy a beautiful photograph to hang over their fireplace and someone who is a "serious collector?" Can anyone in today's economy truly turn business away from a casual buyer who wants to purchase something for their home or office vs. a "serious collector" even though the casual decorators number in the millions and the serious collectors number only in the high thousands?

I now see where you are going with this. At first, I thought you were asking about marketing ones work through a professional interior decorator, someone who gets paid to pick drapery patterns, lamps, wall color etc. And that's not a slam directed at that profession. It's just not the ideal way I would like to see my work marketed. Others may have no problem with that. In such a situation, the disconnect is between the artist (or gallery reping the artist) and the ultimate owner of the image. The professional interior decorator may know nothing about the artist or photography and won't be able, in most cases to answer questions or say anything to help promote the work or encourage buying more of it.

It appears that by decorator, what you really mean is a person who is not necessarily seeking to collect photographs per se, but has in mind, buying a photograph to occupy a specific spot on his or her wall(s). I rather enjoy selling photographs to such individuals and equally like it when my gallery owner does so as well. This is how you cultivate interest in photography as art and one way to get people started in collecting. I can't remember who first said it, but if you own more photographs than you have room to display, you are a collector. If that's true, than the difference between owning photography and being a collector is at some point just one photograph!

[QT Luong]

A ''photo dealer who refuses to sell any of the work he sells to people who want to use the art to decorate their home''.

Among many many other things, I'm convinced your a fantasist.

Actually, it is not uncommon for high end art galleries to sell only to the "qualified" buyers. The thinking goes like that: as a gallerist with long-term thought, you want to help your artists increase their reputations. One's reputation is enhanced by placing art in museums and prominent collections. Since gallery prices are fixed (unlike auction prices), there is no point of selling to a "decorator" if you can sell the same piece to a collector. Some pieces are in such high demand that you will sell them anyways. There are even waiting lists.

Note, however, that in general those pieces are one-of a kind (paintings, sculpture) rather than photographs. Also, the original question is provocative, because nobody on this forum (and maybe no living photographer) has a status in the art world that would justify such strategies.

[Duane Polcou]

Read photographer's resumes. For many their degree of cred, it would seem, is dictated by how many museums and collections hold their work. It's like saying in order to be respected in the art world, your prints must sit largely unseen in archival boxes somewhere just so you can lay claim to have achieved the status of someone saying your prints are worthy of being there.

[Jim Galli]

My dream has always been to flick on Archie Bunker and have my B&W's gracing the walls in those movie sets. Call me a whore but if someone pays for a print from me I don't care if they put it out in the garage floor for the British car to drip oil on.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Also, the original question is provocative, because nobody on this forum (and maybe no living photographer) has a status in the art world that would justify such strategies.

Then are galleries doing a disservice to a photographer by over-qualifying potential customers? If I want my photography in as many homes as possible, but my dealer refuses to sell my work to just anyone, how do I make money? Would there be more "rich" photographers if galleries sold a photographer's work to anyone who wanted to buy it? If so, would the "status" of a photographer be diminished by the overwhelming availability of the work? And does status matter when you have enough money to pay off your mortgage in 10 years because of all of the photography you've sold?

Why can't people who love a photograph simply just buy it?

I've read about some people's quibbles about Michael Kenna lately - how he is producing more and more work that is the same thing as it's always been. And yet his work is selling -- very well I might add. But the quality of the work may not be as good to the eye of the serious collector - but might be just fine for the average person who wants a Kenna hanging above his fireplace.

The art world is certainly full of contradictions. No wonder there are so few photographers who make their living strictly off of sales of fine art photography.