why don't you buy other peoples photographs?

The only reason I don't buy photos more often is because I don't have enough income to do so.
I have a few prints which I've bought from other photographers though. They happen to be some of my favorite photos ever and they are all from folks in this forum and other email lists. None by any of the "greats" though these particular images could easily stand alone against work by any of the masters. That work and that talent is mostly here on RFF. So if I had more money to spend, I'd buy more photography. At this point I'd rather buy fine prints than gear.

Phil Forrest
 
I actually do buy prints, though not as many as I'd like to. In my house, I have other people's prints on the wall. Most of them have been bought at Gallery 44 (artist-run gallery of which I'm a member); I think the most I've paid is $350.

I do have some of my prints on the wall of my office though.
 
back alley said:
black on black...impossible to read.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing it out. I don't have the problem because I use the light background theme. apparently when you copy the text from a word processor to RFF it is not default color anymore but the color of the text in the word processor.
I'll see if there is some HTML tag I can remove.
 
I don't hang any of my own work, that would be far to self congratulatory. And are friends and relatives going to say 'I don't like it!' even if thats what they think? No, generally speaking they won't. Which all leads to a lack of perspective. So I like other peoples work on the wall, it keeps me on my toes, and my own work is for a scary and independently critical public.

Steve
 
i can hardly afford to print and hang my own work let alone pay for the work of someone else. that said, i would love to buy other people's work if i could afford it. i do, however, buy photo/art books when i can. you get a lot more photos/art for your money and i find browsing through such books really relaxing and inspirational.
 
I don't hang my own prints in my home. I have a lot of geometric abstract paintings on my walls. Only two photo prints, though, and those are prints I bought fom Chris Crawford. While I generally prefer photo books to prints, Chris' stuff is just so nice hanging on the wall!
 
"why don't you buy other peoples photographs?"

If money were not a problem, I'd be rotating others' prints on my walls along with mine. There are plenty out there that I'd love to have.

I think it's very neat to be able to share photos that I like with people who come over to my house. Especially from certain photographers whose work I admire.

But as mentioned above, photobooks are not a bad way to acquire others' works.
 
I've had a couple of people on this forum buy prints from me for their walls. as for me, I don't want to have photos on my walls, may it be my own or the work of others.
 
I'm just working on getting the walls, then I'll happily hang some photos on them. Unfortunately, my taste is always beyond my budget.
 
I would if i could afford them , but I have bought so many of their work on book form and that is the only way for the time being!!!
 
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, not extensively spending time on other photographers web galleries.

Having other photographers prints on walls would be a bad thing for me.
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.

The internet and digital post processing have badly crippled this part of creation for many people. I wish, I had a nice 20" hot press, which would make framing for display unnecessary for me - I would just matte the prints and archive them that way, leaning them out for display for a while.
 
It never came to my mind to sell a print of a photo that I made but I have purchased a print as part of a camera sale and one when buying a photo book from a member here at RFF. :)
 
I raised my prices a while back and still make (fewer but more profitable) sales while protecting the value of my images in the future. If you bought a print from me in the past then it appreciated! ;-p

I found it better to simply give prints away if it's a worthy cause rather than undervaluing your work and screwing over buyers, galleries, and yourself later on. I'm all for democratizing art but jeez, when you can buy a nice 11x14 for $50 it really means the image is worthless.

Same with jobs. It is better to shoot a job for free rather than lower your rates to peanuts. No matter how cheap you make it, it will always be too expensive to the client and it could haunt you when you want to charge their friend full-rate. If you're doing something on the cheap you still have obligations - whereas if you're giving it away then you have some leverage and leeway.

Trading can be very awkward when you discover you don't care for the other person's work. Hard to decline... I just threw some traded prints out last week, I didn't like them and want to have to care for them for years and have my heirs ask, "WTF is this?"

That said, we have a lot of other artists' work hanging and underfoot. My wife practically supports Etsy and keeps a lot of strange smelling hippie women off Food Stamps with all her purchases. I also display some of my older photos but it usually has to become a "classic" or come back from a show in a nice frame to gain wall space.
 
back alley said:
i'm making the assumption that most of us do not buy prints of another shooters work...preferring to hang our own only.
Click to expand...

Um. That's a faulty assumption. I have the work of two or three other people on my walls -- some from times and places not available to me, some in styles that I admire but don't spend much time on.
 
I'm assuming this extends to photo books etc?

I'm curious about this, because most of the biggest photographers from history can name their influences and are intimately knowledgeable when it comes to other people's work. It does not seem to cause them any problems in terms of the individuality of their work.

I wonder whether being familiar with a broad range of work out there actually helps prevent you unwittingly producing work that is 'coincidentally derivative.'



menos said:
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, not extensively spending time on other photographers web galleries.

Having other photographers prints on walls would be a bad thing for me...
Click to expand...
 
Except for my pinboard, where I have both mine and other photographers' work (mostly polaroids of mine and promo cards of other photogs) I don't really hang photos anywhere. It actually never even occured to me to hang my own work on my walls. That would just feel weird to me, like I'd be celebrating myself. I'm not saying that's what others do, I'm saying that's how it'd feel to me.

As for other photographers' work, I've only once bought a few prints from a young photographer whose work I appreciated. Never really did anything with them, though. If I had the money I'd probably get some original Stephen Shore prints from 'Uncommon Places'. They're quite small so they're not that expensive. But we're still talking several thousands of dollars, of course.
 
I regularly buy photographs from other photographers, most of the photographers are already dead though as I mostly collect tintypes and late 19th century to mid 20th century photographs that I find on flea markets for far less than a $100.

Dominik
 
Turtle said:
I'm assuming this extends to photo books etc?

I'm curious about this, because most of the biggest photographers from history can name their influences and are intimately knowledgeable when it comes to other people's work. It does not seem to cause them any problems in terms of the individuality of their work.

I wonder whether being familiar with a broad range of work out there actually helps prevent you unwittingly producing work that is 'coincidentally derivative.'
Click to expand...

Most famous photographers can name their influences but their influences are not always photographic. Also, depending on what period in history you're talking about you have to consider that at a certain time exposure to other people's photographic work was very limited. I probably see more photographs before noon than an early 20th century photographer did in a month.

I remember once reading an interview with a photographer (Chris Buck if I remember correctly) where he said (I paraphrase) "There are two types of photographers. Those who look at other people's work and those that don't". He counted himself amongst the latter. I don't think there's any right or wrong here, it just comes down to preference. I couldn't live without looking at other photographers' work as I love photgraphy. Does it get in the way of my own work? Sometimes it can as it''s hard to find one's own voice amongst the visual vocabulary one has gained through all the exposure to imagery. But it's something I'm willing to deal with.

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.
 
jordanstarr said:
...couldn't afford it.

That being said, I dropped $250 on kickstarter on a photographer (and friend) whose work and genuine approach to this particular documentary, would produce something I knew I would love. I get a 16x20 exhibition fiber print out of the deal. I think this is a great way to aquire prints. I saw Bruce Gilden hitting up money on kickstarter to produce "foreclosure" series and his 11x14 prints were only about $500 and you would also get a book out of the deal. I thought that was a pretty great deal, but it had to be a picture that you wouldn't see yet and you would chose from a selection of that series only. But if you know the photographer, the caliber of the work, etc. it's a great option.
Click to expand...

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.

No disrespect intended to Jordanstarr, he/she simply put into words an approach that, I guess, many people have when it comes to buying stuff you can't use, 'Can I sell it for more when I want to get rid?'.

Art as an investment has a long and prosperous history.

Yes, I know I'm stating the bleeding obvious :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom