I basically agree with you, but saying what you have said just brings you up against the question "How do you quantify the artistic ability, etc., etc.?" One of the most useful ideas I have ever come across is the concept of the "1,000 billable hours a year." Using this, you figure out what you want to earn each year, figure out your total costs for materials, equipment, etc. (everything except your time), add the two figures together and divide by 1,000. This indicates directly what you should be charging to live the way you want to live (for most people, the 1,000 hours is sufficiently below the critical-stress burn-out level). It is a very valuable way of reviewing your business - if the figures don't add up, you could decide to work much harder (OK if you really understand what effect this will have on you), scale down your ambitions or in extreme cases realize that you are in the wrong business!blansky said:The fact of the matter is, what we sell our work for, which consists of our artistic ability, our craftsmanship ability, our genes, our years of study and our condo payments in Hawaii, has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with what the cost of materials are.
If you are still basing your pricing on what your costs are, you are screwed.
Michael
Jorge said: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....
QUOTE]
Ah semantics, semantics ...
It is good to have you back!
WarEaglemtn said:Was at a gallery opening and the photographer was asked by someone why his photos were so expensive. (minimum was $800)
livemoa said:Thanks David, perhaps I was too economical in my response....I think we all know the final production of our prints requires more than $20. But as I used to have in my signature, "if you buy a piano, you own a piano, if you buy a camera you are a photographer." This is the perception the public in general has, that making a photograph is a simple matter of pressing the button and spending a few minutes in a darkroom or a pc......so when someone asks "why should I pay $800 for a photograph?" Even tough they might be art collectors they might not be being rude, but honestly perplexed by the idea that one should pay so much for something that takes only a few minutes and "little" effort to make. Acting disdainful towards people like this is counter productive to all "fine art" photographers out there.....Jorge said: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....
QUOTE]
Ah semantics, semantics ...
It is good to have you back!
jerry lebens said:I hate long winded replies, especially my own, but picking up a few bits from this thread...
.
Maybe you don't like "long" replies; This one was exceptionall well-done.jerry lebens said:I hate long winded replies, especially my own, but picking up a few bits from this thread...
Of course it is "OK". I've seen worse - as results of protracted long-term thought".Second is the expression Fine Art Print ...
Defining the term Fine Print isn't too hard...A high quality photographic print, crafted according to traditional and commonly held craft and technical standards...(OK? It's the best I could do in a couple of minutes)
jerry lebens said:Another issue that worries me is the appropriation or theft, by "Artists", of "Art" and the term that often goes hand in hand with it "Creativity".
When someone says to me "I'm an Artist" or "I'm Creative", it carries with it the implicit assumption that "You are neither creative nor artistic".
jerry lebens said:How dare anyone say such a thing? It's tantamount to saying "I'm very clever and you are very stupid" or "I have a depth to my character which you lack". In real life people who say things like this get the punch in the mouth that they deserve.
Is it any wonder that members of the public are suspicious of the "Artists" who maintain such an attitude? In the UK, where many "Artist" expect to be subsidised by the taxpayers, I find the attitude repulsive. Even if it's true, I certainly wouldn't go around saying it.
David H. Bebbington said:Your inference and your inference entirely.
Out in the big bad world are disgusting syphilitic money-grubbing whores called professionals who (shock, horror) need to engage in a process called self-promotion (irrespective of their levels of talent) in order to live. If you have any conception that starving in a garret is in any way honorable, virtuous or desirable, or if you have any misconception that, in the time-honored British style, being the "right sort of chap" in a quiet self-effacing way will eventually lead to recognition - forget it!
I don't see where Mr. Bebbington was out of line in the least. Your passive attack on him looks very much like the snobbish stereotype you have placed upon others.jerry lebens said:Would it be too much for me to ask you to sign it as well?
billschwab said:I don't see where Mr. Bebbington was out of line in the least. Your passive attack on him looks very much like the snobbish stereotype you have placed upon others.
B.
jerry lebens said:That's the problem about inferring things, us non artist types keep going and doing it, willy nilly, when we ought to know better. I do apologise. I promise not to infer anything in future without checking with you first.
I am a professional photographer. I know that my level of talent is modest and my capacity for self promotion sometimes even embarrasses me. Still, I'm very glad that my last check up didn't reveal anything infectious (Can you get it from cameras?).
I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble following this - I think it's probably that silly inferring thing again. (Oops! Sorry! Again!) Are you saying that once a fellow knows he's "An Artist" he's entitled to go out and behave in whatever way he sees fit? That sounds rather good fun! I'd be jolly grateful if you'd send me a copy of the job description - if only to make sure I didn't infer it.
Would it be too much for me to ask you to sign it as well?
mrcallow said:I do not believe that artists can only be so named posthumously or by others........
......I can understand and appreciate that once you modify the word (as in fine artist) you invite judgment.......I am an artist, not a fine artist or a great artist, but an artist none the less.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?