why don't you buy other peoples photographs?

[Turtle]

I agree that kickstarter and indiegogo are great ways to pick up work at good prices. its something I will do but unfortunately its a bit harder from the UK.

 

[Jamie123]

I find this interesting and it shines a light onto the world of buying and selling 'art'. I can't imagine that I'd shell out £250+ on a photo that I'd not chosen myself. It says more about the commercial imperative behind buying and selling art works than of taste or personal preference. Still, looking at the top of the page, I suppose this is the appropriate thread.

I don't think this really shines a light on the commercial imperative behind buying and selling art. Firstly, prints bought through kickstarter probably aren't much of an investment. If they even are editioned it must be quite a high number. I reckon you'd be hard pressed to resell such a print at the price you bought it for but that's not really what it's about anyways. You pledge the money because you want to support a project and as a reward you get a print. If the print was worth (on the market) as much as you pledge then the photographer would be better off financing his project through gallery sales.

Paying money for an image that does not exist yet is a common practice. Any magazine or newspaper editor who gives an assignment to a photographer does exactly that. Most times it turns out well, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Sparrow]

I agree that kickstarter and indiegogo are great ways to pick up work at good prices. its something I will do but unfortunately its a bit harder from the UK.

There is always this to fall back on ... http://www.ssplprints.com/index.php

... mostly older stuff but it cuts out the gallery, good prices and helps to support the museum ... obviously the only value they have is the image itself so they're not art ...

 

[MickH]

Hello Jamie123.

I agree with you that editors and such commission work. I'm unfamiliar with Kickstarter, but did look it up. It seems to be a place for 'Angels' to support up & comers, all very admirable, and if you get to choose the photograph you're buying, even better. My main thrustc was intended to relate to folk paying £250+ for a Bruce Gilden photo - a chap who doesn't really need our support - sight unseen. An investment? Maybe.

 

[taylan]

Income, income, income... that is the main problem for me.
I have some special and very valuable prints belongs to other photographers. Also 5 of them belongs to year 1981 which is my birth year. The total values of them are much more then my 10 years income. I am so lucky that they gave as a gift to me. Also i have not sold any of my print ever but i gave approximately 250 of my prints to lots of people without any charge. I love to give them. Lots of mine friend hang at least one of my print to their walls and i feel very happy when i saw them.
In short, i believe in KARMA.

 

[Jamie123]

Hello Jamie123.

I agree with you that editors and such commission work. I'm unfamiliar with Kickstarter, but did look it up. It seems to be a place for 'Angels' to support up & comers, all very admirable, and if you get to choose the photograph you're buying, even better. My main thrustc was intended to relate to folk paying £250+ for a Bruce Gilden photo - a chap who doesn't really need our support - sight unseen. An investment? Maybe.

Kickstarter and similar pages are not just for up and comers. Bruce Gilden's project was on that site. It's intended to be an alternative way of funding, not charity. I suppose the idea behind it is now that traditional media are no longer funding such projects the content creators are approaching the target audience directly.

 

[ooze]

I have bought photos in the past and some of them hang on my wall. However, I haven't paid more than 100USD for any of them. I would not pay more than about 300USD for any photograph and I would almost certainly not buy a limited edition print...the idea of artificially inflating prices is abhorrent to me.

I very much prefer print exchanges and I have acquired some beautiful photographs this way.

 

[Dan States]

I've bought a lot of photo books, but never a print...I guess for the same reason I don't order meatloaf in a restaurant...I can make it myself. Besides, the likelihood is that the one image on my walls that I didn't make would get more comments and fame than all the rest of my rubbish and it would drive me nuts.

 

[jippiejee]

Besides, the likelihood is that the one image on my walls that I didn't make would get more comments and fame than all the rest of my rubbish and it would drive me nuts.

😀 haha. That, and then my taste exceeds my budget.

 

[hteasley]

We have two polaroid-on-gold prints from Patty Mulligan. I love her work.

My xmas present from the wife was permission to buy this Stanley Kubrick print, which is now framed and more awesome than awesome.

As to the rest of the stuff on the walls, most are watercolor paintings from my wife, photos of the kids by me, old family photos, and one photo of mine that isn't a sentimental shot, but a shot because I quite like it.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I don't think not looking at other photographers' work carries the risk of producing 'coincidentally derivative' work. It can only be derivative if it was derived from something and you cannot derive your work from something you do not know. Coincidentally similar work? Maybe. But if we're talking single images then every image is similar to some other in some regards. If we're talking a whole body of work then that would have to be a big coincidence.

I think you have to spend $100K on a good photo grad school to really make derivative photos ;-p

 

[Turtle]

Ha, yes.

As someone else alluded to earlier, by 'coincidentally derivative' I meant that others might consider your work derivative as a consequence of you unwittingly producing work that just happens to look like someone else's. By knowing what is out there, in detail, you can avoid ending up squarely in someone else's shadow. Basically parallel evolution.

Alternatively you can choose not to be bothered when your work ends up looking similar to someone else's. After all, its a big world and there are a lot of photographers out there.

I think you have to spend $100K on a good photo grad school to really make derivative photos ;-p

@ Menos, while I get this:

"I do have rotations of my own prints on walls or leaning against things, as I try, how they work. Having a print on display, being able, to see it is an important part of the creation of a photograph for me." Yes, absolutely!

... but I don't understand this:

"I actually try to prevent influence from other photographers on me - a short glance on the internet is fine, although, I try to limit this..."

Why is seeing other people's work a bad influence on you?

 

[menos]

Ha, yes.

As someone else alluded to earlier, by 'coincidentally derivative' I meant that others might consider your work derivative as a consequence of you unwittingly producing work that just happens to look like someone else's. By knowing what is out there, in detail, you can avoid ending up squarely in someone else's shadow. Basically parallel evolution.

Alternatively you can choose not to be bothered when your work ends up looking similar to someone else's. After all, its a big world and there are a lot of photographers out there.

That's why, I tell myself, it's best, to shut all doors and window blinds and try not to be influenced by longer looks at other peoples art.
That could be all pretentious, but I guess, it works best, to prevent one from straight unconscious copy work, which would be terrible. Arriving at a similar or accidentally same style, theme or look, as another photographer is absolutely fine, as long, as it's not the conscious or unconscious copy work.

There are of course interpretational works, as in music, but I have momentarily no interest in such.

There are moments, when one seems stuck and browsing other peoples artworks can be helpful for a hint or an idea, but one should not watch too long or too deep, which is why I wouldn't hang other stuff.

There is the thinking of "How self shoulder tapping of you, hanging your own prints!", but hanging one's own prints is not necessarily a look, what I did thing, but more a part of the work process with a picture!

Does it work that way?
How is the format?
Is this print the right size, igniting a viewers brain, to what I would want?
How is the print technically? Do I/ others see room for improvement after watching longer?

 

[myoptic]

I own a couple photographs by other photographers. I don't have any of my own pictures hanging on the walls, but those of other photographers whose work I really like... and can afford (once in a blue moon). The two pieces I have are Platinum/Palladium LF contact prints. My own work hangs in the houses of others, usually past exhibition stuff or prints ordered directly.

 

[gdmcclintock]

...
That could be all pretentious, but I guess, it works best, to prevent one from straight unconscious copy work, which would be terrible. Arriving at a similar or accidentally same style, theme or look, as another photographer is absolutely fine, as long, as it's not the conscious or unconscious copy work.
...

The fear of "conscious or unconscious copy work" is a bizarre pretension as it deliberately rejects inspiration that another's work may provoke.

 

[bgb]

I do actually but usually in the form of book like ?Milton Keynes" by our Vicky or that nice calendar
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113835
Might buy a print for the wall if i saw something that blew me away and I could afford it"

 

[Vince Lupo]

The photos I've usually purchased have been of the vintage variety, and right now I have a 1940's vintage Marion Warren print on the wall, as well as a 1930's vintage George Hurrell, and another lovely portrait from the 1930's by a NY photographer whose name I can't make out. I only have one small print of mine on a wall in the kitchen, and a few taped onto the side of the fridge. All the rest on the walls are paintings, a few Dutch tiles, and a couple of clocks.

 

[helen.HH]

I can't Imagine Living Without my library of Photography Books
There are/were so Many Talented Photographers
from the early 1900's to present Day
I feast on Viewing their Works....

I have One trade up on my Walls
And a B-day present from one of my FAV japanese photographers Junku Nishimura

Have Sold two prints .... And will probably BUY a few when the Time is right

Owning Books & Prints does Not Stfle my Vision..,, 😉

 

[Nando]

I don't by prints simply because photographs normally don't go well with the decor of my home. The majority of photos that I like wouldn't be suitable to hang in my house. The only photos on display are portraits of family and friends.

Like a few others, I prefer photography books. My B.A.S. easily exceeds my G.A.S. and storing books is a constant problem for me.

 

[jsrockit]

I don't hang my own...seems strange. However, if I see a friends photo that I really like, I will buy one. I don't buy well known photographer's work because it's too expensive. I'm more of a book guy.