General perception of photography

cliveh · May 10, 2014

I went into a gallery a few weeks ago that specialises in contemporary fine art, to discuss the possibility of exhibiting some work (it was some Van Dyke Browns I had in mind). When I mentioned the word photography I was told we dont exhibit photography. I was so taken aback by this response that I said OK and left. Perhaps I should have said I was a representative of David Hockney or Andreas Gursky. How would others react to such a blinkered response?

jp498 · May 10, 2014

Go somewhere your interests will be more understood and appreciated. There's still people with the hundred year old idea that photograph isn't art as you may have seen.

pdeeh · May 10, 2014

Galling as it may be, a curator of a private commercial gallery is at her (or his) liberty to exhibit only art in the media they prefer, that reflect their personal tastes.
She said "we don't exhibit photography" rather than "photography isn't fine art", and there's not a lot you can do except,as the previous poster said, move on and find a gallery that does express an interest in photography.

There's a recently opened photography-only gallery in Chapel St, though I suspect it may be only for the proprietors' work.

Congratulations, by the way,on persuading Newlyn to take your book.

AgX · May 10, 2014

Photography has long gained status in the art and gallery world.

This does not exclude that some galleries refrain from certain ways of expression. It always is a good idea to look into the exhibition history of a gallery before approaching them.

ic-racer · May 10, 2014

jp498 said:
There's still people with the hundred year old idea that photograph isn't art as you may have seen.

Or they thought the OP wanted to exhibit iPhone photos. Isn't that what most people these days think of when the word 'photography' is mentioned

cliveh · May 10, 2014

Iluvmycam said:
Get used to it. The world is polluted with pix.

Do your soliciting via the net and do it with photo galleries.

Here is the list in the US. Find one for the UK.

http://www.art-support.com/galleries.htm

Galleries are the biggest money hungry 'supposed art lovers' I've ever dealt with. Just remember that if and when you get in.

There is a big difference when someone works in a field for love of the medium as opposed to someone that does it all based on $$ and profit.

Thanks for that extensive list. It's difficult to know where to start.

benjiboy · May 10, 2014

cliveh said:
I went into a gallery a few weeks ago that specialises in contemporary fine art, to discuss the possibility of exhibiting some work (it was some Van Dyke Browns I had in mind). When I mentioned the word photography I was told we don’t exhibit photography. I was so taken aback by this response that I said OK and left. Perhaps I should have said I was a representative of David Hockney or Andreas Gursky. How would others react to such a blinkered response?

Many traditional commercial art galleries don't consider it art Clive, the idea that photography is "Art" is a very recent concept promoted by photographers agents, auction houses and photography galleries who sell photographers work, if you would have told most of the photographers of the 1930's and 1940,s who are these days considered great that their work was "Art", they would have laughed in your face.

snapguy · May 10, 2014

pollution

Although I agree there is a lot of pollution with a lot of so-called photography, the world is also polluted with "art." Oil painters, sketchers and so on are all over the place. Do they still sell oils on canvas Paint By Numbers kits? Don't forget there are entire towns in China that make faux Impressionist paintings on canvas in assembly-line fashion.
I would like to suggest that before you asked about exhibiting your photos you should have known they don't have any on their walls and what their general attitude is. It is called doing "due diligence."
You don't send a Film Noir-type detective novel to a publisher that publishes only boring textbooks or "bodice ripper" romance novels.
Photography is tough. Getting fabulous images is not enough.That is just the start. There's a lot more work to be done if you want to exhibit it. Sad, but true.

removed account4 · May 10, 2014

at least you didn't get the run-around

NB23 · May 10, 2014

99.99999% of photography is not art. And the 0.000001% to be seen as art has to come from a known Name with a solid body of work that's meaningful. There's too much photographic pollution out there.
I personally highly value my work and my whole process ethics which I would qualify of high standard. But I really doubt that it can be seen as art by the industry. And I don't particulary care. After all, my work is only that: my work. And I agree: documentary is not art. Why do street and documentary photographers want their stuff to be perceived as art? I have been approached by a few galleries for my Gypsies series and all that, but I wasn't excited enough. I didn't see the point. Why show my work to an uncultured public? What's the point when all they say is "wow, this is very national geographic-like". The point of Nat Geo is to teach people, to document. Not to be arty-farty.
Let's face it: photography is for books. HCB and Doisneau images are more appreciated in books then in Galleries. Imo.

Art photography has to be conceptual. No street BS will ever be considered art. That's my opinion.

Edit: i'm not dismissing your work which I havent seen, thanks to me always being on my iphone. I was criticizing the whole art-photography through my own photographs.

RalphLambrecht · May 10, 2014

cliveh said:
I went into a gallery a few weeks ago that specialises in contemporary fine art, to discuss the possibility of exhibiting some work (it was some Van Dyke Browns I had in mind). When I mentioned the word photography I was told we dont exhibit photography. I was so taken aback by this response that I said OK and left. Perhaps I should have said I was a representative of David Hockney or Andreas Gursky. How would others react to such a blinkered response?

I'd have respondede:

i guess I have to find a real fine-art gallery then"

RalphLambrecht · May 10, 2014

cliveh said:
I went into a gallery a few weeks ago that specialises in contemporary fine art, to discuss the possibility of exhibiting some work (it was some Van Dyke Browns I had in mind). When I mentioned the word photography I was told we dont exhibit photography. I was so taken aback by this response that I said OK and left. Perhaps I should have said I was a representative of David Hockney or Andreas Gursky. How would others react to such a blinkered response?

Well,I just recently became a coop owner of an art gallery.Now ,I decide what goes on the walls;problem solved.

gone · May 10, 2014

I would have said "yeah, you and the rest of the world". Photographs, generally speaking, do not sell. It's no more complicated than that. We could all make up a lot of very good and reasonable reasons for why that is, but it is what it is. Having come from painting and printing to photography, I have been seeing this for a long time.

In the end, there is a perception that it is "just a photograph", not a work of art. Actually, this is something that has bedeviled photography since it's very inception. I myself thought of it as something lesser back when all I did was "fine art". Now I know how difficult it is to make a memorable photographic image, but that doesn't change anything w/ galleries. They have to sell works to survive, and nearly everyone that walks in their doors prefers something else. The exceptions are galleries that show only photography. Their market is different.

Years ago I saw an excellent exhibit by a French photographer from the 40's (can't remember his name, unfortunately). Not one thing sold, even though the prices were not that high. I wanted to purchase a print and almost did, but like painting, I have learned not to have a strong work in my home because after a while I subconsciously start to emulate it. Ii was like that w/ an etching and aquatint that I once bought at auction by Georges Rouault. The thing drove me so nuts I finally gave it away. It had cost me more than I could afford at the time, but it was poison in the house. How could I ever do something like that?

The last time I had been in the gallery that sold none of the French guy's photographs was at a painting exhibit, and several large paintings that I did not particularly like sold for a lot more than they were asking for his photos. You could go crazy trying to figure out why one thing sells and another doesn't.

MaximusM3 · May 10, 2014

Clive, "photography", "prints", generally do not sell. Galleries understand that they only do under certain conditions, and that has a lot more to do with the artist and marketing. The image, the process, film, digital, size, whatever, is largely irrelevant. Everyone is a "photographer" these days, and as others have said, the world is polluted with images and there is a general sense of "who gives a shit?". If one can find a gallery/curator who actually believes in the photographer/artist, and his work, and will take time and effort to promote it, then good things may happen. Maybe. Unfortunately, it all comes down to investment and return, and most galleries find it a lot easier and more lucrative to sell a $50,000 painting than fifty photographic prints for $1,000. I love the work of Fan Ho for example. I can still buy original, gorgeous prints, printed by him, for $950 for $1,200 from Modernbook Gallery, and that says something. Trying to find a gallery that will get behind an unknown, in today's world, and peddle prints for $150-200 is very hard. Too much effort, and not enough money in it. You're almost better off pricing your work silly and giving the impression of exclusivity and prestige to a wealthy audience. Not easy, but I have had had more success with this approach...then again, I am not under pressure to sell my work to put food on the table, thankfully.

Ken Nadvornick · May 10, 2014

cliveh said:
When I mentioned the word photography I was told we dont exhibit photography.

That sounds to me more like a straight-up, no-bullshit answer to a good-faith, honest question.

It confers respect on the questioner by taking his question seriously and giving him exactly the information he needs to know, and is indeed asking for in the first place. Namely, that the audience frequenting that establishment would likely not be very receptive to the questioner's submissions.

And it does so in such a way as to not question the validity of those potential submissions. (He said they don't exhibit it, not that they don't like or appreciate it?)

If the above exchange accurately reflects the context of the conversation, then my response could only be an honest "Thank you very much for your time, you've told me exactly what I need to know." Followed by a handshake and a wish for the best of luck in the future. (Thus also not burning any future bridges.)

Perhaps too much reading between the lines here?

Ken

benjiboy · May 10, 2014

,The general perception of photography is that it is increasingly disposable and worthless that anyone with a smart phone or digital compact can do it ,and all kinds of organizations are fireing the photographers they employed because anybody can do it.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

jp498 · May 10, 2014

Photography and painting are VERY solidly commingled / integrated in my area. It is possible the gallery owner simply limits to certain styles for business reasons. That doesn't happen too much in my area. I've seen separate galleries for painting and photography in my travels, but locally that only happens when the artist has their own distinct gallery. I'm in the middle of some respected stomping grounds for famous photographers AND painters. I'm not in the gallery business, but I'd suspect they mix it up here to bring a bigger audience in their establishments (cast a wider net)

jovo · May 10, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
That sounds to me more like a straight-up, no-bullshit answer to a good-faith, honest question.

It confers respect on the questioner by taking his question seriously and giving him exactly the information he needs to know, and is indeed asking for in the first place. Namely, that the audience frequenting that establishment would likely not be very receptive to the questioner's submissions.

Consider the galleries that do not exhibit abstract painting in favor of contemporary realism, and vice versa. Or those that only put oils on the walls, and never show pastels. As Ken said, you got an honest answer about the gallery's target market, and not a judgement about what you had to offer.

Also consider that photographs for the wall are less and less likely to be shown having been replaced by photography on line and in books and magazines. Contemporary fine art photographic prints seem to be large, desaturated color images that embrace a noticeable degree of irony and decay and generally eschew the best characteristics of traditional photographs....lighting, composition, and ....oh perish the thought,.....beauty! I'd suggest making a series of such large color images of dog poo. Print them 40x50 inches and watch the galleries compete for even one or two. You'll be famous!!

General perception of photography

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency