Fine Art Status

[cliveh]

If I was to buy a print by say William Eggleston, would it be the same price as a digital or chemical colour print? What do existing sucessful artists display? Does it effect their price?

 

[MaximusM3]

If I was to buy a print by say William Eggleston, would it be the same price as a digital or chemical colour print? What do existing sucessful artists display? Does it effect their price?

Well, Clive, here are a couple of answers: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...liam-eggleston-over-new-prints-of-old-photos/

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/14...-pigment-prints-fetch-5-9-million-at-auction/

And the most interesting quote: "Eggleston has been kind of stuck in the old school world of the photography collectors for a long time, whose primary concerns are about process, print type, print date, etcetera. [...] for contemporary art collectors it’s much more about the object itself—they couldn’t care if it’s a dye transfer or a pigment print or whatever, as long as the object itself is totally amazing, that’s what they care about.

This is an attempt to start a migration of Eggleston from the quote unquote confines of the photography world into the larger context of the art world. I think it was probably the most important event for Eggleston in a long, long time."


Beauty, in the end, is always in the eye of the beholder

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

So what's the difference?

But now comes the big difference. The earth shaking moment. The holy dipping of the fingers in the fluid filled trays. The sliding of the rigid paper into the wet welcoming receptacle. Is this it?? Is this the magical moment, that transcends digital, in fact life itself. Is this the critical element when one medium attains the cherished level of "art". I'm feeling faint.

As for making multiple prints. In analog I could make lots of prints that were identical one after the other, in not much of a different way than I do with inkjet. The only real difference is that if I were to go back in a week or year, the digital file would be closer to the original than an analog print would be. But in both cases, I'd probably tweak them slightly because I'm not the same person I was back then. You pay more for Giclee'.

I'm not an art dealer, but what's the difference if an artist sends the art to be printed with an offset litho printing press vs a Giclee'?

Most hand made prints have the had hands of the maker in the process. We are humans and it's virtually impossible to make every print exactly the same. To me, that's the difference.

 

[blansky]

Well, Clive, here are a couple of answers: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...liam-eggleston-over-new-prints-of-old-photos/

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/14...-pigment-prints-fetch-5-9-million-at-auction/

And the most interesting quote: "Eggleston has been kind of stuck in the old school world of the photography collectors for a long time, whose primary concerns are about process, print type, print date, etcetera. [...] for contemporary art collectors it’s much more about the object itself—they couldn’t care if it’s a dye transfer or a pigment print or whatever, as long as the object itself is totally amazing, that’s what they care about.

This is an attempt to start a migration of Eggleston from the quote unquote confines of the photography world into the larger context of the art world. I think it was probably the most important event for Eggleston in a long, long time."


Beauty, in the end, is always in the eye of the beholder

But again, as we talked about earlier, a "collector" may be the perfect analog client but most people really can't tell or understand the difference in analog and digital and just "like what they like".

 

[BrianShaw]

So maybe we should quit kidding ourselves that the processes are much different at all. They both are a manifestation of a vision we had when we looked at our original subject.

Amen.

 

[cliveh]

If like Eggleston you can sell a digital pigment print for $578,500. What is to stop the artist printing off another 500,000 copies or whatever, which would surely devalue the first one sold?

 

[BrianShaw]

That would devalue them all. The first buyer, though, would be getting screwed.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Does anyone believe Marshall McLuhan's saying "The medium is the message." ?

 

[MaximusM3]

If like Eggleston you can sell a digital pigment print for $578,500. What is to stop the artist printing off another 500,000 copies or whatever, which would surely devalue the first one sold?

The law of supply and demand always applies. One could sell one for $578,500, or sell 57,850 prints at Ikea, or various interior decorators for $10. To each his/her own. One could also do both. Whatever it takes to make a living.

 

[PKM-25]

And the mythological characterization of the hours spend toiling in the darkroom for the "perfect" print has no more credence that a digital photographer working on his computer for the same thing. Even though in digital, the print is relatively effortless, the post production is not.

I guess I live in and serve a different market then, a more inquisitive and cultured clientele, certainly with deeper pockets. Because in most cases, once the raw talent hooks the viewer with that "Curb Appeal", they are very interested in what they are looking at and what the life of the artist is like...how do they spend their time and what did they do to arrive at the final product. Every single magazine and newspaper who publishes an article about a featured artist goes into quite a bit of detail about the process.

Even though digital output is starting to catch on in some of our local galleries, darkroom prints from super talented photographers who could sell an image printed on a McDonald's sack it is so good are doing better than their digital counterparts with a real print, not a computer made one.

And that is the rub really, these are buyers that often use computers, some are even photo enthusiasts who have dabbled in photoshop to create things...even they tend to have more regard, respect and a restless admiration for those who do none of it via what everyone else in the world uses for nearly everything, the great big democratizing funnel known as the computer.

I have been seriously selling fine art prints for about 7 months now and in that time, my prices have doubled, my sales have too and whenever a potential buyer is on the fence about an image that they otherwise love, once they find out it never came close to a damn computer, out comes the checkbook.....

So yes, if you are showing amazing work *and* it is 100% pure photography, no computer anything, depending on who your market is, it can and often will have more value and as film use becomes even more niche, this trend will only continue.

But it HAS to be great work, period.

 

[Maris]

Will the continued use of digital photography elevate more film photography to a fine art status in the future? I’m thinking here in terms of a comparison to painting when photography came along. I would like to think so.

With the proviso that "digital photography" isn't photography at all, it's "digital picture-making", both forms, digital and photography, have been fine arts for a very long time.

Digital pictures are produced by a work flow exactly analogous to paintings and drawings. And the relationship of digital pictures to things in the real world is the same as that enjoyed by painting and drawing. The triumph of realism in Western art has been a great success story for at least the last 800 years and notwithstanding some essays into abstraction realist work, painting, drawing, and digital, continues that success. The only block holding back the full appreciation of digital work is its misidentification with photography.

Photography, the making of pictures out of light sensitive materials, is not just slightly different to digital it falls into an entirely different CLASS of image making. It belongs to those process in which the image has an indexical (apologies to Charles Sanders Peirce) relationship to subject matter. This small group of processes includes death masks, life casts, wax impressions, brass rubbings, coal peels, silicon rubber moulds, papier mache replicas, and photography. Of these photography is by far the most appreciated; deservedly so.

 

[Klainmeister]

I guess I live in and serve a different market then, a more inquisitive and cultured clientele, certainly with deeper pockets. Because in most cases, once the raw talent hooks the viewer with that "Curb Appeal", they are very interested in what they are looking at and what the life of the artist is like...how do they spend their time and what did they do to arrive at the final product. Every single magazine and newspaper who publishes an article about a featured artist goes into quite a bit of detail about the process.

Even though digital output is starting to catch on in some of our local galleries, darkroom prints from super talented photographers who could sell an image printed on a McDonald's sack it is so good are doing better than their digital counterparts with a real print, not a computer made one.

And that is the rub really, these are buyers that often use computers, some are even photo enthusiasts who have dabbled in photoshop to create things...even they tend to have more regard, respect and a restless admiration for those who do none of it via what everyone else in the world uses for nearly everything, the great big democratizing funnel known as the computer.

I'll second this sentiment here in Santa Fe. The galleries that are selling inkjets are hurting and the silver printers and other methods seem to still have a better market appeal. There's a crap ton of galleries here and the sharpened, colorful inkjet prints, I think, are becoming so ubiquitous that I don't find it strange that someone pulling out a checkbook feels a bit hesitant in plopping down fat cash for something you can find practically anywhere. Granted, the images still need to be amazing to get the sale in the beginning. I saw this first hand when I heard a couple of tourist talking about some works in a gallery here in town. "Oh, these are wonderful images. I really like this one" followed by the next series, equally beautiful and done by the same photography except done in silver "Honey, these are darkroom prints. WOW, that's spectacular". They had noted "Darkroom Enlargments - Fiber - Gold Toned".

Dick Sullivan shares some of this view in a recent post on his blog: Dead Link Removed

 

[MaximusM3]

Photography, the making of pictures out of light sensitive materials, is not just slightly different to digital it falls into an entirely different CLASS of image making. It belongs to those process in which the image has an indexical (apologies to Charles Sanders Peirce) relationship to subject matter. This small group of processes includes death masks, life casts, wax impressions, brass rubbings, coal peels, silicon rubber moulds, papier mache replicas, and photography. Of these photography is by far the most appreciated; deservedly so.

Isn't a sensor, light sensitive material? And analogue at that? Please, let's be fair at least.

"A CCD image sensor is an analog device. When light strikes the chip it is held as a small electrical charge in each photo sensor. The charges are converted to voltage one pixel at a time as they are read from the chip. Additional circuitry in the camera converts the voltage into digital information."

Once again, when we are talking about film vs digital capture, within the "fine art" realm, we are really blurring the line and that is NOT the market/buyers main concern. How many of you who actually sell prints through galleries have had buyers ask if the image was captured on film or digital? I've sold a decent amount of prints, between $800 and $1,500 and that question never came up. What matters is 1) Content. 2) A handmade print via a 100% traditional (for silver) or hybrid approach as is the case for most pt/pd, carbon, gravure prints produced today. One more time, in reference to Clive's original post (easy to get sidetracked here), I don't believe that digital capture/photography will elevate film capture/photography to a higher level simply because of its potential status as fringe, niche, whatever.

 

[removed account4]

maris

while i respect your opinion i think you are not exactly correct.
as i have posted before, in a similar posting you have made over the years ..
a sensor is light sensitive the only difference is that i can be used over and over again.

over the years, i have also read (that you believe) a photographic print isn't a photograph either,
it is just the negative that is the photograph ... anything that can capture an image with light
is a photograph, photograph means light drawing .... a sensor, a piece of emulsified film, or paper
even a sheet of cheap construction paper that fades in sunlight ... its all drawings with light ..

i don't know if the sensor revolution will increase the value of chemical based photography,
and i don't really care .. seeing most of the things i do will only increase in value
after i meet Professor Sandiford ( john malcovich ) and pull an art school confidential ...

 

[blansky]

I'll second this sentiment here in Santa Fe. The galleries that are selling inkjets are hurting and the silver printers and other methods seem to still have a better market appeal. There's a crap ton of galleries here and the sharpened, colorful inkjet prints, I think, are becoming so ubiquitous that I don't find it strange that someone pulling out a checkbook feels a bit hesitant in plopping down fat cash for something you can find practically anywhere. Granted, the images still need to be amazing to get the sale in the beginning. I saw this first hand when I heard a couple of tourist talking about some works in a gallery here in town. "Oh, these are wonderful images. I really like this one" followed by the next series, equally beautiful and done by the same photography except done in silver "Honey, these are darkroom prints. WOW, that's spectacular". They had noted "Darkroom Enlargments - Fiber - Gold Toned".

Dick Sullivan shares some of this view in a recent post on his blog: Dead Link Removed

How are the inkjet black and white doing? Is it just over saturated color that is becoming boring, which I think can easily happen?

 

[MaximusM3]

Who is the fool here? Peter Lik seems to be doing ok, and likely laughing off these arguments all the way to the bank I think it's overpriced, mass produced, over-doctored crap, but hey, he made it work for himself so good for him I guess. Also brings to mind a certain Thomas Kinkade.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Peter-Lik-G...42904?pt=UK_art_prints_GL&hash=item3ccb144c78

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Possibly an artist can keep ink jet prints high by agreeing to limit supply. After printing an agreed editions of prints, the image is erased. But how can buyers know for sure? I remember before Brett Weston died, he burned his negs. But digital image files can be flawlessly duplicated. During the 80s, photography wasn't considered art. Now it is. Are those against ink jet prints the same as those that rejected photography as art? Maybe people like me need to keep an open mind. History will tell if giclee prints will hold its value or not.

 

[Klainmeister]

How are the inkjet black and white doing? Is it just over saturated color that is becoming boring, which I think can easily happen?

I don't know, but what I have heard is that a handful of the more popular photo galleries here have been ditching up and coming digital printers in favor of silver or alt processes. Now is this the collector's that are driving this or the average consumer...I don't know. But without naming names, two prominent galleries here have indicated that the inkjets are not commanding the same price to justify hanging them on the wall for commission. What I was told by a sales person is that when a print reaches the $800-1,000 range, the buyer becomes more concerned with the methods involved in the production. Everything under that seems to not matter, but around that price and above, the person purchasing wants to know they are getting something original or handmade.

I read your larger post Blanksy and I agree with you %100. But here, this is what the market is indicating.

 

[MaximusM3]

I don't know, but what I have heard is that a handful of the more popular photo galleries here have been ditching up and coming digital printers in favor of silver or alt processes. Now is this the collector's that are driving this or the average consumer...I don't know. But without naming names, two prominent galleries here have indicated that the inkjets are not commanding the same price to justify hanging them on the wall for commission. What I was told by a sales person is that when a print reaches the $800-1,000 range, the buyer becomes more concerned with the methods involved in the production. Everything under that seems to not matter, but around that price and above, the person purchasing wants to know they are getting something original or handmade.

I read your larger post Blanksy and I agree with you %100. But here, this is what the market is indicating.

Exactly!

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

With the proviso that "digital photography" isn't photography at all, it's "digital picture-making"

That is truly one of the most bizarre and self-evidently false statements I've ever heard someone make about photography. Photography is about capturing light via a light sensitive surface -- film, digital, platinum, whatever -- with or without a lens.

 

[tkamiya]

I thought if the image wasn't captured with a Hasselblad with Zeiss made lens onto a Kodak film, it wasn't a photograph....

 

[Bill Burk]

... It belongs to those process in which the image has an indexical (apologies to Charles Sanders Peirce) relationship to subject matter. This small group of processes includes death masks...

This must be what intrigues me about the photograph of the death mask of Abraham Lincoln by Steichen. What could you call that? Self-indexing-cross-reference?

Reading Adam's autobiography. I'm still getting my head around the idea that Steichen wouldn't give Ansel Adams the time of day. So now I feel like I have to take sides (I'd side with Adams).

You know I appreciate Silver Gelatin prints and other analog prints. But lately, as I consider art that I might appreciate in the future... I think it may be more important to appreciate the artist first, then ask what process they followed to get those results.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Who is the fool here? Peter Lik seems to be doing ok, and likely laughing off these arguments all the way to the bank I think it's overpriced, mass produced, over-doctored crap, but hey, he made it work for himself so good for him I guess. Also brings to mind a certain Thomas Kinkade.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Peter-Lik-G...42904?pt=UK_art_prints_GL&hash=item3ccb144c78

Lik's Ghost is not doctored. It is the real thing.
The listing is a private buyer selling off at a profit in the UK. Peter Like is Australia-based though travels the world.
Lik's works do not command such astronomical prices. Here in Australia the highest paid for his work has been AUD$18,640 for a panorama of a settler's ruin in outback South Australia, printed to Ilfochrome Classic by ChromaColour (out of business).

 

[blansky]

Possibly an artist can keep ink jet prints high by agreeing to limit supply. After printing an agreed editions of prints, the image is erased. But how can buyers know for sure? I remember before Brett Weston died, he burned his negs. But digital image files can be flawlessly duplicated. During the 80s, photography wasn't considered art. Now it is. Are those against ink jet prints the same as those that rejected photography as art? Maybe people like me need to keep an open mind. History will tell if giclee prints will hold its value or not.

When buying photography of any kind you have to trust that the limited editions are truly limited. It's no harder to print hundreds of analog prints than it is to print digital prints. Obviously time consuming but you could easily print a hundred analog prints in a day.

As for when photography was considered art, I could have bought a portfolio of George Hurrell's work back in the 80s for $3000.

 

[MaximusM3]

It's no harder to print hundreds of analog prints than it is to print digital prints. Obviously time consuming but you could easily print a hundred analog prints in a day.

Really? how does that work?? Once you have an image done, finished, on your screen, an Epson 7890 can crank out 100 IDENTICAL 11x14 prints in about 8 hours. Do you really think you could get 100 complex prints, that require dodging, burning, maybe masking, bleaching, toning, washing, drying in 8 hours?? AND do you truly believe that it is not harder to produce 100 beautiful silver gelatin prints than it is spitting out inkjets, even after counting maybe one hour of post processing work in front of a screen? Please, let's get real.
When I do gravure, even after I get a plate finished, it probably takes me 4-5 hours to get five prints that I consider worthy of being framed, sold, or for a gallery show. It is NOT the same, for as much as you want to believe otherwise.