Lenswork article: pricing your artwork

[Michael Mutmansky]

I wonder what his buddy Whitherhill has to say about that...

Considering what he is putting out these days, I'd say that $20 a print is about on par. Have you seen the digital abortions of flowers and other bits? I get the sense he did a bit too much of the 'ole Peytoe in the 60's and it's coming back to haunt him.

Seriously, it strikes me he is facinated with the gradient tool and other things like that in PS, and hasn't gotten past that initial novelty level in his work. Considering the quality of his previous (traditional) work, I find it disappointing that he has been unable to produce quality images digitally without them succumbing to the novelty aspects of digital.

However, I'm sure that the images are much more broadly successful than his previous b&w work, as they probably appeal to many more people, simply because they are in color. When I first saw them in a gallery, I thought, 'These would look great in hotel rooms'. They have that somewhat generic, unassuming and unchallenging feel to them that would do well in that application. I get the impression he is trying to give the Kinkade crowd an aesthetic option. If it works, he'll make a mint doing it.


---Michael

 

[Jorge]

Considering what he is putting out these days, I'd say that $20 a print is about on par. Have you seen the digital abortions of flowers and other bits? I get the sense he did a bit too much of the 'ole Peytoe in the 60's and it's coming back to haunt him.

I saw them in his web site and I agree with your assesment, but I am sure he does not agree and I would bet my bottom dollar that he is not charging $20 for them......So I guess if you are Jensen's buddy it is ok to charge a lot for crappy pictures, but if you are not, then your $3700 print of a leaf is crap and not worth the paper it was printed on...... Imagine that!

 

[Kerik]

I for one prefer to spend my money on publications that don't hide their criticism of my business behind a banner that claims support.

Bill

Well said!! I have some experience with gallery representation, but not nearly at Bill's level. But, I've been involved with it enough to know that everything Bill says is T-R-U-E!! (now, back to work at my Day Job...)

 

[Shane Knight]

Irresponsible.

Brooks Jensen’s article “Trolling for Fools” is one-side, irresponsible, and unjust to the art photography and collector community. I believe editors of a wide distributed magazine take on amazing responsibilities for doing a proper job on choosing content that is well thought out and researched. Brooks words are not worthy as a magazine article but as a one-sided rant. It’s his personal business to rant all he wants, but when you have such a large community and audience that is vast in many different kinds of photographs, techniques, and markets, I find it irresponsible to take on such a role to dictate market prices.

If Brooks’s rant was worthy of a thought out article, he would have shown both sides of the story. One would think a 10 page article would cover reasons why some photographers charge what they charge. Instead he inputs long and irrelevant facts about the world economy. He never once mention any contrast between different types of products.


If you stand back and over look the rant you will notice:
…If you are spending more than I think you should, you are a fool…
…My 8x10 photographs are $20.00, and all 8x10 photographs should be price the same…
…Here is some useless facts about the economy..
…By the way, if you can’t find a $20.00 8x10 -- “Oh, and I almost forgot, my website is www.brooksjensarts.com - just in case.”

All of the above are my words expressing what I think Brooks is tying to say, except the last quote. These are Brooks’s finishing words in his 10 page rant.

-----------------------

Lets take a market that photographers generally do not know much about…let’s say… the magazine market.

Let’s pretend and say we are in a large book store with other customers looking at magazines. Let’s also say there are just as many customers in the store as subscribers to Brooks’s magazine. We are looking among hundreds of magazines, and we come across LensWork. Now this magazine looks different, it is smaller, heavier, very well printed , unique in its own way. Now I don’t know much about the magazine market, but it looks like someone spent some time and hard work because it looks pretty fine. You look at the price and WOW it’s almost twice as much as the others. I will buy it anyway…I LOVE the content and I find it WORTH it.

NOW -- A loud voice comes over the speakers in the book store -- “You are a fool if you buy a magazine for over $ 5.00”. Then goes to explain useless facts about the world economy. Finishes by speaking “Oh, and I almost forgot, I have $5 magazines on my side of the store”

I put the magazine down, because I don’t want to feel like a fool.


---------------------------


Irresponsible.


Thanks to good photographers and their hard work and products, buyers know the difference .

Shane Knight
www.shaneknight.com

Ps.. I feel like a fool because I purchase a magazine that is “Trolling for Fools” by charging twice as much. Won’t do that again.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Well said!! I have some experience with gallery representation, but not nearly at Bill's level. But, I've been involved with it enough to know that everything Bill says is T-R-U-E!! (now, back to work at my Day Job...)

That was the basic thrust of my post last month on the LF Forum when this debate came up.

Surprisingly, it was the one post that actually got Brooks to come out of the shadows and respond to the criticism. What he said, however, was not a satisfactory rational for his position, and he failed to respond when I challenged his thinking, so I guess it must come down to his essay being a bit of a rant after all.

I've let my subscription lapse, because of his declared bias toward digital as the solution to all problems, and this rant against photographers was the final nail.

I don't want to insult people who read Lenswork, but more and more, I get the impression that the magazine is geared toward wannabees. I don't just mean photographers, but wannabee collectors as well. I guess the people who aren't trying to do it won't find an article like that objectionable, but anyone who is trying to sell their photographs and maintain a level of self worth and dignity will find his writing at least partially offensive.

A real collector will find that essay offensive as well, as they are generally willing to spend money on images that apparently Brooks finds absurd.

Let me revise my statement a bit, he is trying to create a photography art market that rejects class divisions, and is rejecting the implicit selectivity that a piece of art has when it is priced above the average amount that people spend on a dinner out. The problem is that the 'typical' human has no interest in his effforts, and would rather have the Budweiser girls on the wall (or worse, spend much, much more on a Kinkade) than a $20 print of his.

The issues of class in art have been bandied about for centuries. It is an irrelevent argument because there will always be class seperations despite attempts by people like Brooks to destroy them. The second an aesthetic movement becomes mainstream (becoming accepted or understood by the majority classes), it becomes kitsch, and the class divisions (which are carefully maintained by those who are at the top) move on to another, leaving behind the mainstream.

I wish there were a magazine with the production quality of Brook's that has great images and didn't have an agenda like his. It would also be nice if they appreciated something other than a square or 4:3 rectangle, and if they were willing to consider alternative process photographers worthy of publication. I think that would take the best of his magazine and eliminate the worst and be a GREAT magazine to subscribe to.

---Michael

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Jorge,

Yes, he charges a lot more for them than that of course; after all, I saw them in a gallery, not at Wal-Mart in the poster section.


---Michael

 

[Jorge]

Some of the things that Bill, Shane and Michael wrote reminded me of an incident I had a few years back. Back in 1991 or 1992 my father was visiting and we went to a B&N. On the way out I picked up an issue of VC magazine and the first thing my father said was "Are you going to pay $5.95 for a photography magazine?"....his tone clearly indicated he thought I was a fool.

So, lets go to an airport, any airport and ask anybody we come across if they think a photography magazine is worth $10.......I bet laughter will be the mayority of the responses. Funny how the shoe seems to be too tight when it is on the other foot.....

Even worse, I bet the mayority of the Lenswork readership are photographers and not just bubba off the street.....I always thought it was not nice to bite the hand that feeds you.... :confused:

 

[avandesande]

The thing that I like least about lenswork is the the photographs are supposed to have some sort of underlying theme. Many of us are not interested in doing this kind of photography.

I wish there were a magazine with the production quality of Brook's that has great images and didn't have an agenda like his. It would also be nice if they appreciated something other than a square or 4:3 rectangle, and if they were willing to consider alternative process photographers worthy of publication. I think that would take the best of his magazine and eliminate the worst and be a GREAT magazine to subscribe to.

---Michael

 

[Kerik]

Face it, trying to put a value on art is futile. The value lies somewhere between how much the maker considers his skill and vision worth versus how much someone is willing to pay. If Brooks really wants to make his work available to to the "common man", why not just post hi-res files to download for free and let people print them out at home? But, obviously that's not his true motivation. He's taking the mass-market approach to make MONEY. Sell as many as possible at a very low price. For me, I'd MUCH rather sell one print for $500 than 25 prints for $20 each, regardless of the media. People who pay "gallery prices" on art for the most part don't give a rat's behind how much time or materials the artist has put into the work. It's an emotional thing... if the work tugs at their heartstrings hard enough, the wallet will open up.

 

[Daniel Grenier]

...... He's taking the mass-market approach to make MONEY. Sell as many as possible at a very low price.

Sort of what McDonald's did to food?

 

[avandesande]

Not McDonald's again. I think I would rather eat one of Brook's inkjet prints.

Sort of what McDonald's did to food?

 

[Eric Rose]

I don't call my stuff art. That's for other people to determine. If they think it's art, then it is, to them. If lots of people think it's art and think it's worth on average $1000 or $30 then that's what it's worth.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

For me, I'd MUCH rather sell one print for $500 than 25 prints for $20 each, regardless of the media.

This goes directly to what I wrote about 'self respect' and 'dignity'. It seems senseless to sell a print at a loss regardless of what the price is.

Of course, Brooks is not advocating that; his mass-market approach permits a much lower cost per print, but at the expense of the handwork involved, which I am personally not willing to do without.


---Michael

 

[Dave Parker]

I find it amazing, we are a determined group, not only can we beat a subject to death once....we can bring back and beat it to death a second time!! the horse dies and gets brought back to life, keep going guys, I think we had around 15 pages last time, now that we have had time to think about it, I bet we can at least get 20 pages going on this thread, you never know, it might actually beat out the AZO thread!!!!

LOL

Dave

 

[George Losse]

I tried to stay out of this one the first time around. But I read his article a different way then most are reacting to it here. I didn’t focus on what was written about what I should price my work at part. I focused more on the thoughts about other ways to put a photographic based product in front of the buying public at a price they can afford.

The best example of this I can think of is, how many of us have books on our shelves from our favorite photographers? Now, how many have photographs on our walls from the same photographers. Not many I’ll bet. Now I know some people here were buying before the prices went through the roof, I’m talking about buying at today’s prices.

I agree with the comments here, I don't like the way the article was written. And I agree with Bill’s earlier comments that a lot of what he has written about does sound like somebody who is frustrated on the outside of a system looking in.

But for me there are points in the article that do make sense. The average person cannot afford to buy original photography. If you were having trouble making a $400 car payment, would you think of spending that much on a photograph for your wall?

What I got out of reading his article was that there are not enough people who CAN afford the prices to sustain us as a business, if there were, there would be more people doing it. So maybe we need to make our money from our photography through the sale of books, note cards or calendars, cheaper products that regular people can afford to buy.

 

[Dave Wooten]

ditto what George Losse wrote...I do have photography by Brooks and I enjoy it, looks good...

It is one thing to make and produce exquisite fiber prints for gallery and museum display another to effectively have a net income from print sales.

I have actually, a time or two, gone to show openings, had the wine and cheese, enjoyed the prints and time after time at the end of the day, noted the artist went home with all the prints on the wall....all major art museums have the gallery store near the entrance where you purchase copies of the originals in the collection...note cards....tee shirts...mugs...calendars etc...it is good business and if it is your livelihood,
the difference in success and failure....I feel it also promotes the desire and appreciation for the original...I have a Karsh poster of the Hemmingway portrait hanging in my dark room, I love it, I also have a St. Ansel original in my living room, love it, and a Brooks Jensen print on the wall, love it, got a few original David L. Wooten platinum and silver prints on my wall, love them the most, maybe thats why no one else has one of these originals adorning their walls...I think I just might have Blaze-on, produce some mugs and tee shirts, get the word out...just might be time to come out of the closet....

Cheers
Dave in Vegas

 

[Kerik]

I find it amazing, we are a determined group, not only can we beat a subject to death once....we can bring back and beat it to death a second time!! the horse dies and gets brought back to life, keep going guys, I think we had around 15 pages last time, now that we have had time to think about it, I bet we can at least get 20 pages going on this thread, you never know, it might actually beat out the AZO thread!!!!

LOL

Dave

If you don't want to see long threads, why post inane comments like this? What exactly did this contribute? Or is it just to make you feel better about yourself?

"LOL"

 

[Dave Parker]

If you don't want to see long threads, why post inane comments like this? What exactly did this contribute? Or is it just to make you feel better about yourself?

"LOL"

Kerik,

I don't mind a long thread at all, I just find it extremely amusing to see this one again. I did not contribute a damn thing to this one, just my smart assed comment.

This horse was dead last time and it is starting to stink pretty good this time.

And yeppers, I feel pretty good..

Dave Parker
Satin Snow Ground Glass

 

[Kerik]

What I got out of reading his article was that there are not enough people who CAN afford the prices to sustain us as a business, if there were, there would be more people doing it.

Hi George,
I agree with most of what you said, but I would also say that there just aren't that many people that CARE about photography as art. I challenge anyone to ask any 10 of your non-photographer friends to name just one 'famous' photographer who isn't Ansel Adams. And many of them probably haven't heard of Ansel, either. We're swimming in a pretty small sea, my friends.

 

[Kerik]

Dave,

The two most useless comments on internet forums can be summed up as:

"hey, would you guys please stop talking about this" followed closely by:

"how come you guys don't discuss anything interesting".

But, if you need to do that for your own personal reasons, knock yourself out.

 

[Dave Parker]

Dave,

The two most useless comments on internet forums can be summed up as:

"hey, would you guys please stop talking about this" followed closely by:

"how come you guys don't discuss anything interesting".

But, if you need to do that for your own personal reasons, knock yourself out.

Kerik,

I never said it did not need to be discussed, if you had read my message, what I did say, was it has already been discussed to death and the same arguments that are getting posted today were posted a few weeks ago,

And as you, I have the right to post what I want on this thread or any other thread that happens to appear on this system.

I would remind you, there is an ignore user button, and in my case, I would suggest perhaps your blood pressure would stay lower if you put me on your ignore user list..

Dave

 

[Dave Parker]

There's also a new ignore thread option too Dave .

Thanks John,

I do know that very well, I was not trying to piss anyone off, and did not attack anyone at all, I was trying to make light of a situation that has been discussed extensivly, Kerik, must have felt the need and I have made use of the button.

Hope things are well down under.

Dave

 

[Dave Wooten]

all true, however, in past recent months, , "The Record Breaking Trend Continues" photo auction prices....Richard Avedon's "The Beatles"...$464,000, Irving Penn's "Woman with Roses" $307,000 Penn's Black and White Vogue cover, $216,000...and Girl in Bed on Telephone, $109,000...also Horst "Mainbocher
Corset, $216,000. $63,000 for a Man Ray from 1931...Helmut Newton's Bog Nude, 311,344....Maplethorpe's Poppy, 251,200 and

Dorthea Lange's White Breadline, $822,400 and we are not mentioning the cowboy...it goes on and on....

see this months FOCUS... page 19, the auction section article by Denise Spiller.."The Record Breaking Trend Continues"

Cheers

 

[Flotsam]

If you snap a digital file, dress it up in PS and can have a service bureau knock out hundreds of inkies at $1.00 apiece, slap them into envelopes and sell for $19.95+S&H. Then you've got a sweet little business going.
If you shoot film and process it, then carefully hand print the negative in the darkroom on quality paper, tone it, wash it to archival permanence and sell it for 20 bucks, then you are simply operating a charity.
Personally, I find more value in a handmade original photographic print than in a poster that was mass-cloned on a machine. It was far more expensive to produce and required more skill and personal investment of time and thought. I expect to pay more for it. That probably explains why an Ansel Adams portfolio of twelve original prints costs just a bit more than an Ansel Adams calendar containing the same images.

It reminds me of the old joke where one businessman says to the other, "But you are losing 10 cents on every unit you sell! How do you stay in business?" and the other fellow responds, "Simple, I make it up in volume"

 

[Dave Parker]

Well, I do know one thing,,Perhaps Brooks has picked up a few bucks on subscriptions with so many people discussing his article...hope so..

LOL

Dave