Painting is doing fine... But what relationship that has to silver halide film production is highly questionable.
Painting is doing fine... But what relationship that has to silver halide film production is highly questionable.
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
I think the idea for the thread was that painting was supposed to be crippled or killed by competition from photography, so the OP was looking to painting to understand how photography will be fare in the face of digital pho....imaging. But digital imaging art hasn't had to kill off photography by competition (I dont think it can, or will) , it has just usurped the terminology.
I do think that Ben has a valid point. Painting is doing fine and will continue to do fine as there are plenty of reasons to make pigments and dyes besides the fine art painters market. Lots of manufacturing industries have needs for pigments. The paint producers can afford a small market because they can buy the pigments in small batches and mix the paints from readily available industrial chemicals.
Silver halide film production really only has one market-photography/motion picture and a pretty steep barrier to market entry. If the consumer volume can't support the producers, then the whole thing will end up feet up on the bottom of the cage. And we will have the choice of making our own emulsions or having at least some part of the photographic process forced into digital.
But I think the OP was really referring to sales of fine art photography. In this, I don't really think there is nearly as big an issue as the OP believes.
So far, I haven't sold any work specifically for digital display, though I have discussed this with one client. I have seen some digital art displays starting to show up in a few commercial settings. For instance about a year ago, I noticed a hotel lobby using flat panel displays for a rotating selection of regional landscape/wildlife photography. In the past I'd typically seen these types of display with corporate info/branding, but this was photography ONLY. I haven't seen any galleries showing work on large digital displays despite the claim the Luminous Landscape has made about this being the wave of the future. The places where I have seen galleries selling work for digital display have all been in the form of computer screen savers, really not a high end market competitor I'd worry about.
While there may be some practical reasons for commercial settings to move from physical artwork to licensed images on digital displays in public spaces, it seems to be very limited in scope right now. I suspect electrical consumption will always prevent it from becoming the standard method of display. The lobby in that Hotel I mentioned had digital display, but EVERY room had several printed images. And I don't see digital displays chipping away at Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Monet or Pollock in the auctions houses either.
As for digital captured prints versus film capture, I don't think the market even thinks about this anymore to be honest. A print made by Ansel Adams is going to sell for more than a inkjet reproduction of an Ansel Adams print, but for contemporary artists, I don't think the capture medium is anywhere near as important as the content.
Other than the convenience of easily switching the actual image, digital display offers no more than backlit display transparencies have done for a long time already. Effective for advertising in malls and billboards, but never did take off as decor. No one wants this in their home, except maybe Bill Gates and a few teenagers. Or who wants to open a portfolio box on Antiques Roadshow and pull out a disc? People are so impatient nowadays that they'll just keep viewing digital images on the computer and move on. Putting that kind of flashy stuff on the wall is a bit too neurotic for most folks, just like black velvet paintings. I predict it will be a
commercial flop, along with 3D television.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks