'Fine Art' and 'just another pitcher'...

[livemoa]

I have had many experiences like the one that starts this thread, both as an artist showing work and as a visitor to galleries.

The situations vary, but generally if it is one of the later where I have been looking at a work and some one has come along and said something along the lines of "any one could do that" I have learnt to resist the temptation to say "Well shit head, if that's the case why isn't yours there" instead I say nothing and leave them alone to feel superior.

In WarEaglemtn case, as someone who exhibits and sells primarly through gallary shows, I can give a specific example. I say to people something along the lines of the following

"I have thought about what I want to do and I have worked at what I want to do. I have taken photographs and rejected them. I have thought more about what I want and taken more photographs, honed the idea, edited and rejected, anguished and felt as if I wasn't getting anywhere. In the end I have chosen these images. They may be some of the first, or the last. They are the ones I chose."

And when they say "but they are only photographs" then I glare at them and treat them like the idiots they are. And yes I have had people say that. The best was "but they aren't even in colour!"

 

[blaze-on]

Mr. Bebbington brought up a salient point with regards to the lady patron in question. Perhaps she is "uninformed" in the art world and buys because it is trendy/cool/bragging rights/whatever and just didn't "get" the photographs. Perhaps she is informed in the art world, understands composition/structure/form/light/etc. and simply wanted to hear the photographers reasoning or still didn't get it. And maybe the images didn't resonate with her, feel unique, or lacked impact.
That does not mean the photograph failed or succeeded. Many paintings mean different things to different viewers, and the same would hold true with a photograph. Some get it, some don't.

I understand Barnett Neumans and Kellys paintings because of my formal art education, but I don't like them per se, nor would (or could) I purchase them for any reason other than investment. But give me a Frankenthaler, Arthur Dove, or Rothko and I'm engrossed. Subjectivity.

My answer would have been simple, "what does it mean or say to you?"; or "why do you think it is or isn't fine art?". Throw it back at them.

I would not go so far as labeling her/him or any patron a moron, as most do not have a formal art education. I don't see a problem in explaining why I took a particular photograph, or what inspired me to make it.

As to me defining why it is "fine art", just about any answer would come off as elitist/pompous/stupid/arrogant. I feel it would be fruitless.

 

[bill schwab]

I know he visits this site...

So what is your point in not naming him? Is there some reason? If this person had such a difficult time speaking of his work and you know he visits this site... don't you think this kind of post might be viewed as something contrived to be inciting and to rub salt in his wounds? I've seen your work and it is very nice. A cut above much of what gets posted here. Why do you feel the need to take it upon yourself to "help" this man publicly in a forum such as this? ..."Maybe it will help him next time so he can give a simple explanation and not have to do the 'offended artist' act." If you know he sometimes visits here, why not contact him directly with your benevolence rather than trying to gather the lynch mob? I'm very interested. I'd also be very interested to hear the story from the photographer's side. It is easy for you to give us all your version for people to base their conclusions. However, something tells me your description of the "offended artist act" might be a little different as perceived by someone else who was there. For now I am afraid your post looks more like the "Artists are shysters and should be horsewhipped posting" mentioned by Mr. Bebbington.

Bill

 

[jovo]

While it's extremely tempting to be sarcastic with cabbage heads who ask seemingly dopey questions, it can also be an opportunity to offer a previously well considered answer. The most important thing is to not alienate a person who could, with a little 'coaching', become either an appreciative audience, or perhaps, a buyer.

The price question should be easy to handle with a little humor. It also doesn't hurt to answer such a question with another question like: Why are some restaurants more expensive than others? Why are plumbers rich? Why does coffee from Starbucks cost so much more than coffee from Dunkin Donuts and come in a size called 'grande'? It can also be offered that photographs are as inexpensive as they are because they may come in an edition of multiple prints rather than the far more expensive single iteration of a painting for example.

Or...you can just take a mouthful of wine and spew it all over the idiot who had the nerve to question your position on the pedestal.

 

[removed account4]

I'd be interested to know why some prints were "minimum $800" - implying there were other prints at higher prices...

jerry

i am sure he charges what the market will bear, just as a commercial photographer will charge 2-3,000$ / day as a "day rate" ... because people will pay them that much ...

 

[127]

Bizarely this just turned up on BB News...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/5081744.stm

Art is what people will pay $800 for...

Ian

 

[Jorge]

why not contact him directly with your benevolence rather than trying to gather the lynch mob?

Why? Apprently the guy was obnoxious enough to even preclude taking the time and effort to do something like this. I know Dan, and he does not suffer fools gladly, and I agree with him, if you are selling something for $800 that cost $20 to make, you better be prepared to speak intelligently and capably about your work, it is the least respect one can show a potential purchaser.

I havent found Dan to be dishonet so I am pretty sure his recount of the incident is pretty close to what happened.

 

[bill schwab]

Why? Apprently the guy was obnoxious enough to even preclude taking the time and effort...

Were you there? I think I asked Dan. I'd also still like to hear the photographer's side. That is if it is OK with you?

B.

 

[Jorge]

Were you there? I think I asked Dan. I'd also still like to hear the photographer's side. That is if it is OK with you?

B.

excuse me.....

 

[John Koehrer]

There are two schools of thought, The "ART" school which teaches the ability to be a pompous ass--I have a MFA so I'm an arteest.
And the technical which teaches technique first and later advances into creative seeing.
I feel that if you need to go along with your "artwork" to explain it, it has failed.
If you don't have a response prepared to defend your claim to be a "fine artist" and want $800 a print. You haven't done your homework and need to go back to school for the I'm an arteest 101 class.

 

[Eric Rose]

I think Poco hit the nail on the head. the best explaination of what "fine art" is I've ever read.

As far as the gallery altercation, they were both ignorant. Nothing much more you can say than that IMHO.

 

[Donald Miller]

I think Poco hit the nail on the head. the best explaination of what "fine art" is I've ever read.

As far as the gallery altercation, they were both ignorant. Nothing much more you can say than that IMHO.

Eric,
I agree with you on Poco's description...very well stated.

 

[jd callow]

I would have answered the woman, but the question would have been different because I don't call my photography 'Fine Art <fill in w/ subject>', just as I never referred to my painting or sculpture as 'Fine Art... '.

There are two schools of thought, The "ART" school which teaches the ability to be a pompous ass--I have a MFA so I'm an arteest.

This statement is complete BS.

What is sad is that, at least here in the States, the humanities are so woefully covered that art (this includes poetry, prose, music, on and on) might as well be rocket science and those committed to it aliens from another world.

There may be arrogance among some artists. Hell, how would you maintain your self esteem when much of the public refers to you with disdain ('arteest') even though it is readily apparent they haven't a clue about you or the subject?

In my experience many young artists are arrogant. This has more to do with their age than their field of study. Most older artists I know are generally smart, maybe eccentric, always interesting, but not the stereotype that is trotted out here on APUG time and again.

 

[blansky]

jerry

i am sure he charges what the market will bear, just as a commercial photographer will charge 2-3,000$ / day as a "day rate" ... because people will pay them that much ...

Top celebrity and fashion photographers charge $25,000 per day.


Michael

 

[blansky]

A "fine art" photograph is one that sells for more than it cost to make it.

If it "moves" you then it is a "moving fine art" photograph.

If not, it's just a run of the mill "fine art" photograph.

Many people make the mistake of confusing marketing with substance.

The answer to the lady in questions, question is simply "It's a fine art photograph because I'm charging $800 for it.



Michael

 

[livemoa]

snip...if you are selling something for $800 that cost $20 to make, you better be prepared to speak intelligently and capably about your work, it is the least respect one can show a potential purchaser.

good to have you back Jorge, hope you are fighting back that damn disease.

.... but come on, $20 to make, you know thats wrong. What about time, experiance, skill, editing chemicals, dark room rent, extra paper to get the print right (I am assuming this is a B&W print). How many images where made before the artist chose this one. Thats like saying a the Mona Lisa is worth $200 and thats mainly for the frame.

And as to being able to speak intelligently and capably, I thought we are always being told by people who are opposed to artists statements etc that the art should speak for itself.

 

[blansky]

What I always find interesting on a site like this that claims to be proponents of photography, is the way we attack other photographers that attempt to make money from photography.

I don't know if it jealousy or what, but people are always complaining about what some other photographer charges for their work. As if $800 was a lot of money. Given the fact that the gallery probably takes half of it, which brings it down to $400.

Do people think that this is too much money? To earn $60,000 per year, for a 5 day week you need to earn a little over $200 per day. ( and who wants to just earn $60 thousand per year. In California it ain't a lot. Maybe in Oklahoma it is.

If this print took a couple of days to shoot, print, frame, etc, then there is your $400. That would all be perfect if he then sold one per day. (fat chance)

Why we get all huffy at the marketing and selling of photography by people who make a living at it, seems counter productive here.


Michael

 

[RAP]

There are many fine comments on this thread about Fine Art Photography, great experiences and it is great that we can come here to read and share.

But what about the patron who took the time to go to the exhibit and ask some simple questions? Why all the frustrations over silly stupid questions? Instead of be littling them in public, why not show some patience for who could be considered a student of collecting fine art photography? The audience for black and white prints is very exclusive or maybe, very small and needs to be expanded greatly if analog photography is to flourish.

Why not ask the person which print they find most appealing and maybe ask why they like that image. Then add your own experience as to why you as the artist too the picture.

Potential patrons of the arts need to be nurtured along, educated, not insulted by temperamental artists. To meet the artist and listen to his thoughts, techniques, inspirations is essential to the sales process.

Just how many viewers looking at a work, who are thinking of buying, really understand what they are looking at? How many more would actually spend money to buy if someone, either the sales person, or better yet, the artist explained it to them?

In order to keep analog photography not just from dying, but flourishing, we as photographers have to find ways to make sales, money, build an end market for prints. The hobbiest, enthusiest will not keep analog photography alive very long, least of all temperamental artists.

 

[Jorge]

good to have you back Jorge, hope you are fighting back that damn disease.

.... but come on, $20 to make, you know thats wrong. What about time, experiance, skill, editing chemicals, dark room rent, extra paper to get the print right (I am assuming this is a B&W print). How many images where made before the artist chose this one. Thats like saying a the Mona Lisa is worth $200 and thats mainly for the frame.

And as to being able to speak intelligently and capably, I thought we are always being told by people who are opposed to artists statements etc that the art should speak for itself.

No it is not wrong, the value of the materials is $20, the experience, suffering, culling, etc, etc, nobody gives a rat's ass about. In the end it is what the print does for the viewer, if this person wanted to know why she should pay $800 for a print, I would have gladly told her why....

Blansky, nobody is tearing down the photography for wanting to make money, we are just saying he does not need to be an ass about it...... how many repeat customers for portraits would you have if you acted the same way?....

 

[livemoa]

Interesting how it's ok for the "patron" to be rude, undeucated, arrogant and insult the artist. I don't know how many times I have tried to explain what I am trying to do, or say, or represent in my work and to just be confronted at the end of it by "patron's" saying stuff like, oh but why don't you do more stuff like ...... enter "safe" photographer eg Adams etc here.

I'm happy to talk with people about what I do, in fact I often enjoy it, but you can often tell from the way a question is asked where the convesation is going to lead. You know, the sort of thing, a pompus "I am a collector (they bought two photgraphs of flowers and a bit of 'desgin' sculpture three years ago) and how can you justify calling this art?" sort of question. How do you deal with an idiot who has already made up their mind and you know wont change it?

 

[John McCallum]

You've got to be an exceedingly good salesman to do so. And by nature most artists just aren't. So don't. Better for the confidence and bank-book to focus energies on people who are genuinely interested with open minds. That may or may not have been the approach of the exhibitor who became the subject of this thread - who knows?

The few real collectors that I know will accept images in exhibition are art as a premise, then ask questions to help satisfy their curiosity or purchasing decision second. That's the hard part.

 

[naturephoto1]

No it is not wrong, the value of the materials is $20, the experience, suffering, culling, etc, etc, nobody gives a rat's ass about. In the end it is what the print does for the viewer, if this person wanted to know why she should pay $800 for a print, I would have gladly told her why....

Blansky, nobody is tearing down the photography for wanting to make money, we are just saying he does not need to be an ass about it...... how many repeat customers for portraits would you have if you acted the same way?....

Jorge,

From experience, and I have participated in many hundreds of Art and Art and Craft shows over the last 10 years there are many other costs involved than only $20. If you are printing your own B&W or color great. You have kept much of your pricing down. But for people like Robert Teague and myself, printing off a Chromira, LightJet, or Lambda machine we have a big price tag for those photos.

But that still isn't all for costs of the image. If you are selling the photo, it is generally matted- and depending on how, the size, and quality of the boards you can have about $20 to $30 just in Boards (this assumes 32" x 40", double mat, backing board and Foam Core backing -all acid free rag mat boards).

If you are going to frame then you have the cost of the grade glass that is being used and the additional charge for the frame be it metal or wood.

So if we go through all this and depending as I say on size, whose printing, etc., that $800 photo could easily have had at least $70 to over $200 in parts. To make it clear, I use custom made wooden frames directly from the maker (no middle man). These can easily run me $40 to $65 or more each. Glass prices can be all over the price range. Using the top of the line Tru Vue Museum Glass as an example in 32" x 40" can run about $75 to $80 a sheet.

By the way, I sell a Chromira printed 24" x 30" Fuji Crystal Archive Photo, double matted in 100% non Buffered Rising Boards, Custom made wood frame, archival dust cover back, and Museum Glass in the 32" x 40" for $850. The price is higher in a gallery. That price is inexpensive for the product.

Rich

 

[bill schwab]

I don't know if it jealousy or what....

Mr. Blansky, I think you've nailed it. Just once I'd like to see a posting about photographic artists and the money they charge for their work that was positive. Or at least that came from someone with a little experience with such things. If someone can point one out on this list, please show me. And don't tell me THIS thread started on a positive note. The quote from Mr. WarEagle stating... "while dripping with superiority and disdain for the lady who asked the question... all the while dressed in black and holding a wine glass" said it all for me. It was easy to see the distain with which that was written and the contempt the person writing it felt for the photographer.

In fact... what about (there was a url link here which no longer exists)? Is this what you mean WarEagle?



B.

 

[RAP]

When you boil it right down, the cost of materials, the cost of doing business as a fine art photographer is minimal. You can equate it to bidding on a commercial job, be it photography or construction. Is it really the cost of materials that justify the price, or even the time spent in travel, location, only to make an exposure for a fraction of a second that justifies the price of a photograph?

Or is it the image itself that justifies the value? A fine art print, material wise, is just paper, cardboard, plastic film, metal or wood frames. The real value is in the image itself, the information imbeded in the emulsion of the film transfered to the emulsion of the paper that establishes its value.

The image is what it is all about.

 

[John Koehrer]

The answer to the lady in questions, question is simply "It's a fine art photograph because I'm charging $800 for it.



Michael

That's the key isn't it.
I have met students from a local Chicago educational institution that couldn't print worth a darn but still thought that their MFA allowed their work to be called "fine art".