hawkeye
steve
I write for a magazine about business for visual arts here in the States. They want to devote an issue or a large part of an issue to "fine art" photography. So I'm looking for some ideas for everyone so that I'm not just "opinionating."
If you sell prints through galleries and such can you give me an idea of what your experience is like. What the market for print sales like? Can you live off of sales? What sort of problems have you encountered?
I'd appreciate any views and if I want to quote you will get back to you for permission and will credit the writer.
Thanks,
Steve Meltzer
If you sell prints through galleries and such can you give me an idea of what your experience is like. What the market for print sales like? Can you live off of sales? What sort of problems have you encountered?
I'd appreciate any views and if I want to quote you will get back to you for permission and will credit the writer.
Thanks,
Steve Meltzer
feenej
Well-known
Lousy sales for my group in Milwaukee, The Cream City Photogs. We have no problem getting gallery gigs (four in the last year), but sales are terrible. I'm not sure we can keep it going. We even threw parties at two of our gigs with beer food and wine, and we were top pick in the Journal Sentinel Newspaper, Milwaukee Magazine, and the local radio station for our first, but still had abysmal sales. People like to come out and see our shows. They really seem to enjoy it, but we loose money each time.
http://www.creamcityphotogs.com/
http://www.creamcityphotogs.com/
Last edited:
retnull
Well-known
I am not a pro fine art photographer, but I know some people who are. My impression is that income for fine artists is distibuted as unevenly as elsewhere in the economy. It could be diagrammed as a pyramid: a small number of very successful artists at the top, extending to a large number of artists making tiny sums from their art.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Does 'Fine Art Photography' actually exist?
If so, how does it differ from 'good pictures'?
Sorry to be so populist. It's a question I've addressed a couple of times in my columns in AP magazine in the UK, and also on the site in
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps art.html
If there are any ideas there that are useful, and you want to steal them, the fee is a cross-link to the site...
Cheers,
R.
If so, how does it differ from 'good pictures'?
Sorry to be so populist. It's a question I've addressed a couple of times in my columns in AP magazine in the UK, and also on the site in
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps art.html
If there are any ideas there that are useful, and you want to steal them, the fee is a cross-link to the site...
Cheers,
R.
JFH
Established
I'm just a lowly amateur so please don't be too hard on me, but as I see it:
If I "take a picture" and I like it, then that's OK.
If I like it and you like it (for whatever reason) then it's probably a reasonably good picture.
If perhaps 6 of the "right" people like it, and maybe it "conforms" to some previously set rules or expectations, then it's "art."
The decision rests with the beholder. Whether something is actually "art" or not is a very subjective thing. I guess I tend to be a "mechanic" more than an artist... so for me I often cringe when a mechanically terrible.. out of focus, not properly exposed, odd composition, etc... photo is explained as "art." But then I don't have a fine arts degree or training, so I expect that explanations are often lost on me..
Then of course there are the commercial aspects, as stated above... rather "iffy."
If I "take a picture" and I like it, then that's OK.
If I like it and you like it (for whatever reason) then it's probably a reasonably good picture.
If perhaps 6 of the "right" people like it, and maybe it "conforms" to some previously set rules or expectations, then it's "art."
The decision rests with the beholder. Whether something is actually "art" or not is a very subjective thing. I guess I tend to be a "mechanic" more than an artist... so for me I often cringe when a mechanically terrible.. out of focus, not properly exposed, odd composition, etc... photo is explained as "art." But then I don't have a fine arts degree or training, so I expect that explanations are often lost on me..
Then of course there are the commercial aspects, as stated above... rather "iffy."
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
if your looking for so-called fine art photog you might be better served by talking with landscape photographers.
I observed some photogs calling themselves "fine art photogs" and I wonder if they even know what this means? To me, everyone is basically a photographer -- it is the viewing or buying public that filters out the fine photographers from the "amatuers."
We all might be better served by first defining what fine art means..
I observed some photogs calling themselves "fine art photogs" and I wonder if they even know what this means? To me, everyone is basically a photographer -- it is the viewing or buying public that filters out the fine photographers from the "amatuers."
We all might be better served by first defining what fine art means..
J. Borger
Well-known
Well stated. "Fine art photograhy" to me is just a hollow concept .... just like the concept of pro vs amateur photographer..... it says nothing about the quality or content of the photographs.....
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I'm always amazed at these discussions and how dense some people appear to be. Is it REALLY that hard to understand what art is?
Here, some examples:
Not fine art photography. This is commercial photography.
More commercial photography
This is fine art.
This is also art.
Like others here have said, the definition of art has been in place academically and in the marketplace for a very long time now. It isn't rocket science. :bang:
Here, some examples:
Not fine art photography. This is commercial photography.
More commercial photography
This is fine art.
This is also art.
Like others here have said, the definition of art has been in place academically and in the marketplace for a very long time now. It isn't rocket science. :bang:
Thardy
Veteran
I'm always amazed at these discussions and how dense some people appear to be. Is it REALLY that hard to understand what art is?
Here, some examples:
Not fine art photography. This is commercial photography.
More commercial photography
This is fine art.
This is also art.
Like others here have said, the definition of art has been in place academically and in the marketplace for a very long time now. It isn't rocket science. :bang:
yep, this is discussed weekly on photo.net .
amateriat
We're all light!
"Fine Art" photography is often used commercially, as Fred illustrates. I refer to most of what I do as "Fine Art" because that's how it starts out. How it ends up, usage-wise, I can't predict.
- Barrett
- Barrett
rolly
Member
some thoughts about "art"
some thoughts about "art"
For forty years I have been a writer. For thirty of those years I wrote poems; lately fiction. I never made money from poetry; I did make money, because I was seen as a "serious" writer from readings, teaching, workshops, residencies, book contracts, ghost writing, magazine articles, tutoring, editing. Through it all, I wrote the poems and fiction that not only mattered to me, in a practical yet mysterious way I had to write them, all the failures and the few really good poems, it was as if the work itself was as important as the product, the art or the artifacts. This kind of work has nothing directly to do with making money or having a career as an "artist." If I were a religious sort I would say it has to do with stepping away from myself, and taking a step towards something more genuine. And I certainly don't think the IRS is qualified to tell me what art is. They aren't collecting art. They are collecting taxes. Yeats admonished Irish poets to learn their trade-- be part of a tradition and master a craft. But artistry is more than tradition and craft.
I don't have the history with photography that I have with writing. So I don't call myself a photographer and mean that I am an artist with a camera. But the same impulse I have when I write a story or try to find the way to get a character to talk like himself and not like I personally talk-- to get beyond me-- I am working in the same spirit with film. I shoot photos because it seems to take me somewhere that is at once closer to the real world "out there" and at the same time is like a blueprint of what is not exactly visible, but can be felt.
In that sense I completely agree with the examples given above of the four pictures. The latter two, as opposed to the commercial shots, whether they are great art or failed art, they aspire towards seeing the world as it is and in seeing truly, showing the spirit and feel of that moment and place.
There are many people in this forum who, even though they never call themselves artists, nevertheless, when I see their work, I would say they are doing art. Some of our work falls below a kind of threshold and it's not so good; some work rises above and it is good. There is a quality of having captured more than the sum of the parts of the subject matter in the photo. And there is persistence. Doing something because one has to.
The photographer Philip Perkis (book: The Sadness of Men) once said he had been trying for twenty years to take a good photo of some crates by a field of potatoes. That is art-- to come back year after year to try to see and make a picture of those crates, and to not be satisfied until one gets it right. So a lot of failure is built into making a thing like Perkis was trying to make but there is no way to measure it by some set of external guidelines or standards or tax codes. Doubtless even an exuberant shooter like Winogrand knew that most of what he was shooting wasn't what he was looking for.
some thoughts about "art"
For forty years I have been a writer. For thirty of those years I wrote poems; lately fiction. I never made money from poetry; I did make money, because I was seen as a "serious" writer from readings, teaching, workshops, residencies, book contracts, ghost writing, magazine articles, tutoring, editing. Through it all, I wrote the poems and fiction that not only mattered to me, in a practical yet mysterious way I had to write them, all the failures and the few really good poems, it was as if the work itself was as important as the product, the art or the artifacts. This kind of work has nothing directly to do with making money or having a career as an "artist." If I were a religious sort I would say it has to do with stepping away from myself, and taking a step towards something more genuine. And I certainly don't think the IRS is qualified to tell me what art is. They aren't collecting art. They are collecting taxes. Yeats admonished Irish poets to learn their trade-- be part of a tradition and master a craft. But artistry is more than tradition and craft.
I don't have the history with photography that I have with writing. So I don't call myself a photographer and mean that I am an artist with a camera. But the same impulse I have when I write a story or try to find the way to get a character to talk like himself and not like I personally talk-- to get beyond me-- I am working in the same spirit with film. I shoot photos because it seems to take me somewhere that is at once closer to the real world "out there" and at the same time is like a blueprint of what is not exactly visible, but can be felt.
In that sense I completely agree with the examples given above of the four pictures. The latter two, as opposed to the commercial shots, whether they are great art or failed art, they aspire towards seeing the world as it is and in seeing truly, showing the spirit and feel of that moment and place.
There are many people in this forum who, even though they never call themselves artists, nevertheless, when I see their work, I would say they are doing art. Some of our work falls below a kind of threshold and it's not so good; some work rises above and it is good. There is a quality of having captured more than the sum of the parts of the subject matter in the photo. And there is persistence. Doing something because one has to.
The photographer Philip Perkis (book: The Sadness of Men) once said he had been trying for twenty years to take a good photo of some crates by a field of potatoes. That is art-- to come back year after year to try to see and make a picture of those crates, and to not be satisfied until one gets it right. So a lot of failure is built into making a thing like Perkis was trying to make but there is no way to measure it by some set of external guidelines or standards or tax codes. Doubtless even an exuberant shooter like Winogrand knew that most of what he was shooting wasn't what he was looking for.
newspaperguy
Well-known
Thank you, rolly.
Well 'said.'
As someone who has been paid for words and pictures for more than 50-years,
I seldom think of myself as a fine artist, or even an artist... a cartoonist - maybe?
Well 'said.'
As someone who has been paid for words and pictures for more than 50-years,
I seldom think of myself as a fine artist, or even an artist... a cartoonist - maybe?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Rolly,
Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must.
(Edit: Oh: and the IRS does not distinguish between art and journalism. Been there, taken the deduction on that.)
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Migracer
"MigRacer&amp ;qu ot; AKA Miguel
Fine Art is what the FINE people who have unlimited amounts of money and want some exclusivity by discovering a "new artist". This action elevating their stature among their peers. Andy W painting a can of soup is an example of being in the right place with the right people and was declared a fine artist. That was dumb luck! Ansel Adams spending hundreds of hours on an image from acquisition to final print was a fine artist. Repeatability and the consistency to make images that are considered desirable and sold only in limited signed numbers has to be recognized as a fine art. Luck, hard work with talent and consistency. Take your pick. Non of my pictures I consider art have ever sold the ones that have been paid for are just illustration in my eye.
gns
Well-known
The op was pretty clear in his request. Looking for first hand info regarding selling your work through art galleries/dealers. Ever since post #5, it has morphed into a dialogue of just what is "Fine art photography". Anybody here have gallery representation? I'd be interested to hear about it myself.
Cheers,
Gary
Cheers,
Gary
back alley
IMAGES
seems like lots of replies but not really any answers.
i was talking to a photographer the other day, he was selling his images at the annual local fringe theatre event- a combination of plays, street performers and arts & craft sales tents. after my asking he said that he usually sold a few thousand dollars in print sales over the 10 days event. his average price was $45. per small print.
joe
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Ha Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha
Help me! I can't catch my breath! Ha Ha Ha!
Ha Ha Ha
Help me! I can't catch my breath! Ha Ha Ha!
back alley
IMAGES
what are you laughing at dan?
MickH
Well-known
Can someone explain to me the difference between Art & Fine Art? Is it just the price-tag?
retnull
Well-known
The fine art marketplace (paintings, sculpture, photography and other forms) was estimated at upwards of $25 billion per year, internationally (in an article in Art News magazine, a few months ago).
Here in New York City, there is less confusion about what fine art is: you're a fine art photographer if you're represented by a gallery. If you're not part of the system of galleries, curators, museums, fine art press, then you're an amateur who may or may not make some money from their art. The "Art World" is a definable, finite thing, and it exists because of its exclusivity. Think about it: the things in museums are special, extraordinary, and expensive because of all the stuff that wasn't allowed into the museum.
Andreas Gursky, Edward Burtynsky, Jeff Wall, Wolfgang Tillmans, Thomas Ruff, Cindy Sherman, Thomas Struth, Nan Goldin -- these people don't have day jobs because they are part of the Art World.
I guess my real point is: you can debate about how much art is in a particular photograph, but that's completely subjective. The economic activity occurring in the art world is an objective thing. For example, look here:
http://www.artfacts.net/index.php/pageType/ranking/paragraph/4/lang/1
http://www.findartinfo.com/search/listprices.asp?keyword=85808
Here in New York City, there is less confusion about what fine art is: you're a fine art photographer if you're represented by a gallery. If you're not part of the system of galleries, curators, museums, fine art press, then you're an amateur who may or may not make some money from their art. The "Art World" is a definable, finite thing, and it exists because of its exclusivity. Think about it: the things in museums are special, extraordinary, and expensive because of all the stuff that wasn't allowed into the museum.
Andreas Gursky, Edward Burtynsky, Jeff Wall, Wolfgang Tillmans, Thomas Ruff, Cindy Sherman, Thomas Struth, Nan Goldin -- these people don't have day jobs because they are part of the Art World.
I guess my real point is: you can debate about how much art is in a particular photograph, but that's completely subjective. The economic activity occurring in the art world is an objective thing. For example, look here:
http://www.artfacts.net/index.php/pageType/ranking/paragraph/4/lang/1
http://www.findartinfo.com/search/listprices.asp?keyword=85808