A huge part of the art market today are sales generated by art consultants and interior designers. For people of substantial means, and those people often have several homes, hiring an interior designer to fill the walls is pretty common. For office buildings, first class hotels (the kinds that use real art, not posters) art consultants are hired to purchase the needed art. This is a very large part of the day to day art market and is the bread and butter of many galleries. It is more efficient for an art consultant to go to a gallery representing 30 artists and make a presentation of 30 artists to the client, than for them to contact 30 individual artists. So galleries still have a unique function, they have variety. But it is a fiercely competitive business.
Selling prints on e-bay and elsewhere
-
- Thread starter Doug Hook
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy JOBO ATL 1500/1000 or JOBO CPP2
- Started by balazsfff
-
For Sale Foto-100 bulk roll, 100'
- Started by MCB18
-
Free Hasselblad ELM battery adapters x2
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale Leica 14510 leather case for R-E, R4, R5, R6.
- Started by Chrismat
-
For Sale FS: A Pair of NORMAN Flash Tube Covers
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
A huge part of the art market today are sales generated by art consultants and interior designers. For people of substantial means, and those people often have several homes, hiring an interior designer to fill the walls is pretty common. For office buildings, first class hotels (the kinds that use real art, not posters) art consultants are hired to purchase the needed art. This is a very large part of the day to day art market and is the bread and butter of many galleries. It is more efficient for an art consultant to go to a gallery representing 30 artists and make a presentation of 30 artists to the client, than for them to contact 30 individual artists. So galleries still have a unique function, they have variety. But it is a fiercely competitive business.
bill schwab
Advertiser
It's all in the branding Brian and it is not as if you aren't getting your % out of each and every one of those that appear out there. You never should have licensed images to those poster companies if this bothers you. Personally I am happy these get out there in my case. I license very few images and the ones I do seem to sell well. More than that, they have done a better job of spreading my name than perhaps any other. I am happy for each and every exposure of my work. As for "confusing" collectors... true collectors of original work will not be confused and will not buy them. People who buy posters will. That is a dollar from someone who never would have seen your work if not for IKEA and those inexpensive repros.
Bill
bill schwab
Advertiser
Brian is very correct here. Many of my sales have been in large multiples for just such use. However, where consultants used to go to my galleries for this, I find an increasing number come directly to me because the information world we live in allows this. In such cases, I do not undercut my galleries. I charge the same price leaving the client no incentive to come to me for cheaper pricing. If one of my galleries is where they were introduced to my work, it is a different story. I am finding more and more that the gallery as a means of presenting your work to the world is far less important in this new world.
Bill
Bill, the poster publishers aren't selling them online, however almost anyone can become a customer of a poster publisher, buy posters and then sell them online. Someone even has matted and framed "Prescott Trees" inscribed the word "Worship" on the mat and sells them as religious art. I wonder if they know that it's actually a photo of a cemetary?
I'm used to licensing work, as you know stock sales of photography is bread and butter for advertising photographers, and as timing would have it I sold poster rights just this week for 6 more images. But still it pains me to see poorly reproduced versions of my work in huge numbers, and selling so cheap! I always feel a need to apologise for the print repro.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 227
- Format
- Medium Format
I started the print at $12.99 in hopes of attracting higher bids, like most items on ebay. when Im selling camera equipment I don't start it at the price I want, I usually set it at less than a quarter of what I am going for. I tried the same method for prints and it didn't work. If I try again, I will post for higher amounts but again like I said, who would pay $100 for a print from an unknown on ebay? Ebay is for bargains, I think he'd have better luck if he tried locally. Theres a small chance of someone buying it but that means tons of listing fees in relisting it in hopes of someone seeing it once and awhile.
Again you are right on Bill.
I too believe that every sale is a gift, and I feel lucky to have it.
Ray
I too believe that every sale is a gift, and I feel lucky to have it.
Ray
bill schwab
Advertiser
Answer here is simple Brian. Don't do it. No one is twisting your arm or making these "poorly reproduced" posters without your permission. If you know they will end up this way and it pains you so, why do even more?
B.
Bill, poor reproduction is one of the risks you take when you have any work reproduced by someone else. I've seen my work reproduced in magazines, newspapers, billboards, etc for nearly 30 years. I understand though that what I consider a poorly executed reproduction of my work may be viewed by the general public as still being a nice print. I have approval of the art but you know how it is, they show you a printers proof and then 2 weeks later go back on press and print 10,000. The printer's proofs are a joke, you need to be on press during the actual print run.
I continue to license my work because I am not in the position where I can afford to travel 5-6 months a year shooting as I do, spend a ton on equipment and supplies and not have some return on investment. I don't need to tell you how expensive this profession can be. I need to support myself and my work through the sale of prints and the licensing of my work. However that said I still cringe at poor reproduction.
A few years back the NY Times put my then NYC show on the recommended list ("the short list" as it's known) and was kind enough to reproduce "Breakwater" on the art listings page. However a panoramic format did not fit so they chose to crop the image to a square. They also reproduced it very badly, total mud. Part of me was really happy to have gotten the attention, part of me was concerned that my work, with my name attached to it, looked really bad and was now very public. This was not the first time this sort of thing has happened.
I know I can't have my cake and eat it too, but I think that I do have a right to feel dissappointed and that poor reproduction of my work doesn't reflect my efforts and ability. These situations can be both embarassing and possibly promotional at the same time. You don't feel the same way when it happens to you?
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
- Messages
- 1,296
- Format
- Plastic Cameras
I've seen it mentioned a few times already in this thread that by artist selling their work on Ebay for cheep, it hurts other artists that are trying to do the same thing. I feel this is not true. The value of a piece of art is NOT with the process, but rather with the name.
The photographers that sell their work for $20.00 are stating that $20.00 is all their prints are worth, and rarely will anyone pay more. This does not mean that all photographers work are only worth $20.00, nor does that photographers "market value" of HIS work affect the market value of your prints.
In regards to being in a gallery and selling on Ebay at the same time, I think that is okay as long as your Ebay prices are the same or more as the print in the gallery. The other acceptable thing would be if you were selling cheeper prints that were not available in the gallery, such as special or open editions. Ebay can still reach a larger market of viewers around the world then a gallery can.
The photographers that sell their work for $20.00 are stating that $20.00 is all their prints are worth, and rarely will anyone pay more. This does not mean that all photographers work are only worth $20.00, nor does that photographers "market value" of HIS work affect the market value of your prints.
In regards to being in a gallery and selling on Ebay at the same time, I think that is okay as long as your Ebay prices are the same or more as the print in the gallery. The other acceptable thing would be if you were selling cheeper prints that were not available in the gallery, such as special or open editions. Ebay can still reach a larger market of viewers around the world then a gallery can.
bill schwab
Advertiser
I do. I'm just realistic. I know this may sound trite, but after all these years I am still grateful to be in the position where someone wants to publish my work at all. I meet many deserving artists that never get the chance. I know it doesn't happen for everyone and am reluctant to sing my praises for fear it will all come crashing down. I have seen many people who think they had, or were going to "make it" just disappear. It can and will happen to any one of us trying to make our way like this. What I write here and in other threads is not designed to blow my own horn or boast of accomplishments, it is to give some perspective to those who think all is glamorous simply because you have gallery representation. You know the numbers Brian and you know as well as I how hard it is to make even close to a living doing this. Back to the original point, if you can do it by subsidizing your income on eBay... more power to you.
Bill (printing his butt off before the break)
This is an example of how artists undervalue their work. A gift is when you get something for nothing. It's just given to you without any effort or expense on your part. If you have taken the time to shoot the image, process the film, make a print, spot,mat and mount the print, you have made a serious effort and used your time and resources. When someone chooses to buy your work they are seeing value in it, they are choosing to possess it and are willing to pay for it. However it is only a fair exchange when you have charged the buyers, and have gotten paid, an amount that is reasonable and commensurate with the expense, effort and quality of the work you produce. Also for the buyer, you'll often find that the more people have paid for your work, the more they themselves value it. Human nature I guess.
The way that I view my print sales is not as a gift. I work extremely hard at what I do and spare no expense or effort. However I do view it as an honor that people would choose to make my work part of their home and their lives.
Ryan,
I'm confused by your position here. You started selling prints on eBay for $50 and over time, you rose your price. Now you're saying that people who sell prints at those same prices are doing everyone else a disservice for selling them too cheaply (by the way, the correct spelling is "cheap" - "cheep" is what baby birds do.) This seems like a double standard. Why was it OK for you to build a market for your work over time by starting with lower prices, but a bad idea for the other folks who have elected to do the same? At the end of the day, eBay is the ultimate free market system. We can praddle all day long about what we think our work is worth - how much it cost to make it, what is "fair", etc... But at the end of the day, you're selling a product and it's only worth what people are willing to pay for it. This is why (generally speaking) original prints from well-known photographers that pop-up on eBay from time to time sell for market prices (Brett Weston, Caponigro, etc...) However, it wasn't always that way for these guys. At some point, they had to build a reputation and audience for their work just like everybody else and most of them took decades to reach that point (a lifetime in some cases). As such, it seems perfectly acceptable to me for unknown photographers to offer prints on eBay at a lower price to build an audience. In this day and age, people have shorter attention spans than ever and many young photographers that I meet expect to bypass the long hard road it takes to build a name for themselves. With a few exceptions, careers are built over the long haul - even if the work is "good".
I'm confused by your position here. You started selling prints on eBay for $50 and over time, you rose your price. Now you're saying that people who sell prints at those same prices are doing everyone else a disservice for selling them too cheaply (by the way, the correct spelling is "cheap" - "cheep" is what baby birds do.) This seems like a double standard. Why was it OK for you to build a market for your work over time by starting with lower prices, but a bad idea for the other folks who have elected to do the same? At the end of the day, eBay is the ultimate free market system. We can praddle all day long about what we think our work is worth - how much it cost to make it, what is "fair", etc... But at the end of the day, you're selling a product and it's only worth what people are willing to pay for it. This is why (generally speaking) original prints from well-known photographers that pop-up on eBay from time to time sell for market prices (Brett Weston, Caponigro, etc...) However, it wasn't always that way for these guys. At some point, they had to build a reputation and audience for their work just like everybody else and most of them took decades to reach that point (a lifetime in some cases). As such, it seems perfectly acceptable to me for unknown photographers to offer prints on eBay at a lower price to build an audience. In this day and age, people have shorter attention spans than ever and many young photographers that I meet expect to bypass the long hard road it takes to build a name for themselves. With a few exceptions, careers are built over the long haul - even if the work is "good".
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
- Messages
- 1,296
- Format
- Plastic Cameras
Scott,
It's perfectly fine if someone sells their prints for cheap and slowly raises their prices.
Maybe you just confused what I said im my post. Sorry.
What I don't think is a good idea is when someone start low, then raises their prices and they don't sell...so they take them back down low. That's a bad idea.
Sorry about typos. No big deal.
It's perfectly fine if someone sells their prints for cheap and slowly raises their prices.
Maybe you just confused what I said im my post. Sorry.
What I don't think is a good idea is when someone start low, then raises their prices and they don't sell...so they take them back down low. That's a bad idea.
Sorry about typos. No big deal.
bill schwab
Advertiser
Sure you work hard, travel 5 months a year, sleep in cheap hotels, etc, etc, etc.... you've said so many times here. No one could possibly accuse you of not working hard. We all do. But the way I see it, anytime someone can do what it is they love to do, it is a gift. As I said, there are a great number of photographers out there that are equally deserving. The fact you and I are where we are and they are where they are has as much to do with luck and a gainfully emplyed spouse as it does hard work. Take that away and we are in the back of B&W buying ads to self-promote with all the other want to be's.
Bill
market econ 101
I love the nonsensical notion that, by pricing photographic work at a level the market will bear, sellers are somehow hurting higher-priced sellers, and should therefore desist.
Someone here complained that most artists undervalue their work; the evidence, however--gallery walls full of unsold photographic art--is that most over-price it. The only judgment of value that matters is that made by the buyer. This lack of economic understanding, whether it stems from ignorance or from ideology, is the major reason many photographic artists fail at the business of art. I speak as a person who sells photographic services and art as a sideline business, so I don't exempt myself from what I write.
That photography remains a sideline business for me reflects my understanding of its economics, as they apply to me. Based on what I can earn either practicing anesthesiology or creating photography, the marketplace obviously values my years of training and experience in the former capacity quite a bit more than in the latter, even though photography is much more enjoyable and fulfilling. Whinge all I want about how things "should" be different, they aren't. Most photographers and artists,frankly, are nowhere near as "good" (ie, sellable) as they think. Rather than accept this, they find all manner of excuses with which to explain it away. Reality bites.
Reality: photographic art is a luxury purchase for the majority of fine-art buyers (not talking about commercial photography here, or about wealthy art collectors), which competes for their discretionary income with other forms of art and entertainment. Ultimately the buyer must evaluate the work and place a value on it, expressed as the amount s/he'd spend to own it, in competition with everything else on which s/he could spend those dollars. This valuation encompasses considerations of the photographer's reputation and notoriety; the technical quality and aesthetic appeal of the work as judged by the buyer; as well as available alternatives--a movie ticket, a kitchen makeover, a new shirt. This is why a signed original Ansel Adams print of just about anything is going to fetch a higher price than a signed original Mike Sebastian of the same subject. Ansel is a little better known, and by far a better technician and aesthete. This stuff is so basic and obvious you'd think everyone would get it--but denial is a powerful human impulse.
Obviously, there are levels of price sensitivity among buyers; some will pay whatever is asked for a work, for a complex and individualized mix of reasons. Most simply will not pay the prices demanded for photography by little- or unknown photographers and galleries. Another hard and unwelcome reality that stubbornly persists despite being dressed up in various disguises.
Similarly, the photographer should be able to realistically appraise the potential value of his/her work to the buying public, based on the same factors as above, and make some hard choices about whether s/he can expect to make a living selling his/her work. Here is where most photographers seeking to sell their work fail. That they have failed is self-evident, since no one buys the work. This failure does not mean the work is "no good"; that's not the issue. The issue is one of value in the marketplace in which we all must ply our work. These sellers may console themselves with the attitude that the buyers are philistines; that they've been undercut by competitors; that they just can't attract the attention that will bring sales, etc. The simple reality is that potential buyers do not share the photographer's assessment of the work's value, and it remains unsold. This is fact, and must be accepted--somehow blaming the customer, the competition, or other unseen forces will not change it.
Like it or not, photography is different from other artistic media; the public looks at a photograph and, at some level, thinks "I could do that", an attitude they'd not assume about sculpture or painting. We all know it's not objectively true; but perception is reality, and the buyer's perception trumps the photographer's objective truth in the marketplace. Photography is more famiiar and accessible than just about any other form of art, and from the point of view of a seller, is a bit of a victim of its own success. Familiarity has bred contempt.
You may disagree with the market's verdict on your work, but you cannot escape its judgment if you wish to sell the work. It is simply absurd to continue to offer work priced above the level most people are willing to pay, and then to whine about one's lack of sales and about how one is being undercut by competitors. Those competitors are offering something of value at a price people are willing to pay. We may turn our noses up at it, or not share its creator's assessment of its artistic merit, in which case we have the option to go into any gallery and vote with our dollars on something much more expensive.
Brooks Jensen, disparagingly referenced in a previous post, understands the economics of the photographic art marketplace, disagree with him as you will on the particulars of his execution of his business. However, he's sold a lot of prints that someone must have liked well enough to purchase.
I love the nonsensical notion that, by pricing photographic work at a level the market will bear, sellers are somehow hurting higher-priced sellers, and should therefore desist.
Someone here complained that most artists undervalue their work; the evidence, however--gallery walls full of unsold photographic art--is that most over-price it. The only judgment of value that matters is that made by the buyer. This lack of economic understanding, whether it stems from ignorance or from ideology, is the major reason many photographic artists fail at the business of art. I speak as a person who sells photographic services and art as a sideline business, so I don't exempt myself from what I write.
That photography remains a sideline business for me reflects my understanding of its economics, as they apply to me. Based on what I can earn either practicing anesthesiology or creating photography, the marketplace obviously values my years of training and experience in the former capacity quite a bit more than in the latter, even though photography is much more enjoyable and fulfilling. Whinge all I want about how things "should" be different, they aren't. Most photographers and artists,frankly, are nowhere near as "good" (ie, sellable) as they think. Rather than accept this, they find all manner of excuses with which to explain it away. Reality bites.
Reality: photographic art is a luxury purchase for the majority of fine-art buyers (not talking about commercial photography here, or about wealthy art collectors), which competes for their discretionary income with other forms of art and entertainment. Ultimately the buyer must evaluate the work and place a value on it, expressed as the amount s/he'd spend to own it, in competition with everything else on which s/he could spend those dollars. This valuation encompasses considerations of the photographer's reputation and notoriety; the technical quality and aesthetic appeal of the work as judged by the buyer; as well as available alternatives--a movie ticket, a kitchen makeover, a new shirt. This is why a signed original Ansel Adams print of just about anything is going to fetch a higher price than a signed original Mike Sebastian of the same subject. Ansel is a little better known, and by far a better technician and aesthete.
This stuff is so basic and obvious you'd think everyone would get it--but denial is a powerful human impulse.Obviously, there are levels of price sensitivity among buyers; some will pay whatever is asked for a work, for a complex and individualized mix of reasons. Most simply will not pay the prices demanded for photography by little- or unknown photographers and galleries. Another hard and unwelcome reality that stubbornly persists despite being dressed up in various disguises.
Similarly, the photographer should be able to realistically appraise the potential value of his/her work to the buying public, based on the same factors as above, and make some hard choices about whether s/he can expect to make a living selling his/her work. Here is where most photographers seeking to sell their work fail. That they have failed is self-evident, since no one buys the work. This failure does not mean the work is "no good"; that's not the issue. The issue is one of value in the marketplace in which we all must ply our work. These sellers may console themselves with the attitude that the buyers are philistines; that they've been undercut by competitors; that they just can't attract the attention that will bring sales, etc. The simple reality is that potential buyers do not share the photographer's assessment of the work's value, and it remains unsold. This is fact, and must be accepted--somehow blaming the customer, the competition, or other unseen forces will not change it.
Like it or not, photography is different from other artistic media; the public looks at a photograph and, at some level, thinks "I could do that", an attitude they'd not assume about sculpture or painting. We all know it's not objectively true; but perception is reality, and the buyer's perception trumps the photographer's objective truth in the marketplace. Photography is more famiiar and accessible than just about any other form of art, and from the point of view of a seller, is a bit of a victim of its own success. Familiarity has bred contempt.
You may disagree with the market's verdict on your work, but you cannot escape its judgment if you wish to sell the work. It is simply absurd to continue to offer work priced above the level most people are willing to pay, and then to whine about one's lack of sales and about how one is being undercut by competitors. Those competitors are offering something of value at a price people are willing to pay. We may turn our noses up at it, or not share its creator's assessment of its artistic merit, in which case we have the option to go into any gallery and vote with our dollars on something much more expensive.
Brooks Jensen, disparagingly referenced in a previous post, understands the economics of the photographic art marketplace, disagree with him as you will on the particulars of his execution of his business. However, he's sold a lot of prints that someone must have liked well enough to purchase.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 476
- Format
- 4x5 Format
Its good to have an ER around with all the BS. Now if I can RAP in a few thoughts
BrownTrout Publishing had been doing my New England Black and White calendar from 2003 to 2006. But it was cancelled in 2007, along with all of the other b&w calendars, including David Muenchs, Kim Westons and Keith Carters. WOW, my name in with these guys? I did manage to contract for the 2008 NJ Wild and Scenic calendar in color.
But the b&ws were cancelled because they just were not selling. I think the main reason was because the reproductions were just not up to par. I enjoy working with them and I tried to get them to put 2 inch borders instead of bleeding to the edges, but they would not change.
Still, even with this exposure, I do not sell many prints. I make more money selling my color work as stock then print sales. Google my name, Rob Pietri, or Robert Pietri, see what you get. I have very good placement in the directories. But sales just are not happening for me. Ebay is looking more interesting.
Plenty of wannabes out there and not just in photography. You register with these art sites to show your work and you realize just how flooded the market is with all kinds of two dimensional art to the point where it is becoming a commodity, all competing essentially for the same dollars.
BrownTrout Publishing had been doing my New England Black and White calendar from 2003 to 2006. But it was cancelled in 2007, along with all of the other b&w calendars, including David Muenchs, Kim Westons and Keith Carters. WOW, my name in with these guys? I did manage to contract for the 2008 NJ Wild and Scenic calendar in color.
But the b&ws were cancelled because they just were not selling. I think the main reason was because the reproductions were just not up to par. I enjoy working with them and I tried to get them to put 2 inch borders instead of bleeding to the edges, but they would not change.
Still, even with this exposure, I do not sell many prints. I make more money selling my color work as stock then print sales. Google my name, Rob Pietri, or Robert Pietri, see what you get. I have very good placement in the directories. But sales just are not happening for me. Ebay is looking more interesting.
Plenty of wannabes out there and not just in photography. You register with these art sites to show your work and you realize just how flooded the market is with all kinds of two dimensional art to the point where it is becoming a commodity, all competing essentially for the same dollars.
bill schwab
Advertiser
Good point... great post. You had me all the way... until Brooks.
Not that his work isn't nice, but his way isn't going to get you anywhere either.Bill
Bill, doing what you love to do for a living is not a gift, it's a choice, and a harder choice as well. Most people choose the easy route, they go for the safer job or the job that suits their skills.
I believe that there is an element of luck out there, however I also believe that people either make their own luck or at least increase the possibility of being lucky. What is that saying, "chance favors the prepared mind"?
As for my wife being gainfully employed, which she is, the fact that I did very well as a photographer at a very early age has a lot to do with my circumstances now. I made a substantial living for a very long time and a lot of those resources have been poured into my change of careers. Was that 25 year career all luck? Did I have nothing to do with that?
Throughout the course of everyone's life there is one fork in the road after another. Every single day people make decisions that alter the course of their lives, for better or worse. Calling it luck is removing yourself from responsibility for it's success or failure. It's just as easy for someone who sits in front of the TV all day long and never gets anything done to attribute their lack of success with being "unlucky".
Bill I agree that there are many photographers out there who may be deserving of success, but maybe if they were truly deserving, by skill or effort or both, they would be. And not everyone does work hard. It's very easy to say that everyone works hard, it's a popular thing to say, but statistics would prove you wrong. What is that recent statistic? The average employee spends 90 minutes a day during business hours cruising the internet unrelated to their work? How many landscapes online do you see done on sunny easy days shot midday. How many of the landscape prints available for sale on the internet and eBay are shot by someone who has never gotten up early, walked the extra mile. or waited hours for the light to get right? It sure seems like most of them.
I know your work, you get up early, you go out in bad weather, you do what needs to be done, you really work at it, but that is not common. And you haven't reached your level based on luck, you've reached it based on talent, commitment and effort.
The economics of the art market are unusual when compared to other goods and services. Art has more in common with luxury goods which are not essential to survival, and the buying decisions of consumers are based more on psychology than rationality. That is why in some cases, the higher an item is priced, the more valuable it is perceived. For some fun Xmas-time reading, check out Thorstein Veblen's classic "The Theory of the Leisure Class", or "The Natural History of the Rich - a Field Guide" by Richard Conniff for a little funnier treatment of the psychology and buried evolutionary motivations behind the urge to pay too much for too little.
As to pricing...
The whole discussion of pricing artwork I think seems to come from two very different points of view:
The Brooks Jensen point-of-view seems to me to be oriented towards satisfying those artists whose primary motivation is to share work with as wide an audience as possible. So this means making it as easy as possible to gain access to the work, whether it be on the web or in the form of low cost inkjet prints. I think this orientation tends to lead the artist in the direction of lower-cost/higher volume production methods. The satisfaction comes from seeing many people enjoy the fruit of his/her labor. It is a very outward oriented point of view.
The other point of view is that the artist is engaged in a very personal pursuit, and that each image or work created is created first for the artist, and secondarily for the world at large. I think this point of view will cause the artist to place a high value on his/her output, since it represents a very private and personal expression. In other words, a large part of the satisfaction in creating art comes from the act of creation itself, and the need to share it with the world is secondary in importance. With this orientation in mind, it is unlikely that the artist will want to establish a low price for the work, since the a purchase by someone else is just icing on the cake.
In other words, it just depends on what races your motor. And just so people don't get the wrong idea, I am not saying that an outwardly focused artist is not interested in the process nor am I saying that an inwardly focused artist is not interested in gaining an audience. My point is that the relative ranking of those two factors in the artist's mind when deciding to put a price on all the hard work can determine where he/she lands on the pricing conundrum.
As to pricing...
The whole discussion of pricing artwork I think seems to come from two very different points of view:
The Brooks Jensen point-of-view seems to me to be oriented towards satisfying those artists whose primary motivation is to share work with as wide an audience as possible. So this means making it as easy as possible to gain access to the work, whether it be on the web or in the form of low cost inkjet prints. I think this orientation tends to lead the artist in the direction of lower-cost/higher volume production methods. The satisfaction comes from seeing many people enjoy the fruit of his/her labor. It is a very outward oriented point of view.
The other point of view is that the artist is engaged in a very personal pursuit, and that each image or work created is created first for the artist, and secondarily for the world at large. I think this point of view will cause the artist to place a high value on his/her output, since it represents a very private and personal expression. In other words, a large part of the satisfaction in creating art comes from the act of creation itself, and the need to share it with the world is secondary in importance. With this orientation in mind, it is unlikely that the artist will want to establish a low price for the work, since the a purchase by someone else is just icing on the cake.
In other words, it just depends on what races your motor. And just so people don't get the wrong idea, I am not saying that an outwardly focused artist is not interested in the process nor am I saying that an inwardly focused artist is not interested in gaining an audience. My point is that the relative ranking of those two factors in the artist's mind when deciding to put a price on all the hard work can determine where he/she lands on the pricing conundrum.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amen to that. Precisely my situation, to no little regret when viewed through the retrospectoscope. My problem to sort out....
I have noticed that with the increasing switch to digital workflow among printers and publishers that the ability to properly reproduce B&W is diminishing. Clearly the bigger market for printers today is color. When digital methodology hit the printing world all of the calibration methods were heavily weighted towards color. It seems that if you want good large scale publishing of B&W you need to find a niche printer still utilizing the older technologies or a small boutique printer specializing in very high quality, small run, and therefore very expensive, B&W printing.
Poorly reproduced B&W art does not sell well. B&W imagery suffers more from poor printing than does color printing. With the inability to consistently reproduce B&W well, and the subsequent drop in the sales of B&W posters or calendars, it is easy to see why many publishers are leaving B&W all together.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 476
- Format
- 4x5 Format
I have to correct myself. I was just at the BrownTrout website and there are 2007 calendars of Keith Carter's Horses and Kim Weston's Ballet calendars both in B&W.
Brian,
The best B&W calendar has always been the Ansel Adams one, which is also one of the best selling and rightly so because of the reproductions, and his fame. There are a few others but their quality is not that great.
The calendar market has always been dominated by color but I am trying to tap into it because it is a mass market that could also lead to buyers of prints. But as you said, the quality has to be there.
Thanks for the interchange between you and Bill. I am sure all benefited.
Brian,
The best B&W calendar has always been the Ansel Adams one, which is also one of the best selling and rightly so because of the reproductions, and his fame. There are a few others but their quality is not that great.
The calendar market has always been dominated by color but I am trying to tap into it because it is a mass market that could also lead to buyers of prints. But as you said, the quality has to be there.
Thanks for the interchange between you and Bill. I am sure all benefited.
I doubt it, but you are playing in a different world now. I have been told credentials as a commercial photographer mean nothing in the art world. In fact speaking with other dealers, I have learned it can be a disadvantage except in the case of a very few. Have you found this to be a problem? PD
PD, first welcome to APUG. I haven't found this to be a problem and I think my training and background has been a distinct advantage. I think it all depends on the standards that you apply to your work, if you've been working in a more demanding area of commercial photography, like national advertising or editorial work, you might be better suited and trained to succeed in the art world. I also know of, and even assisted, many advertising/editorial photographers who did quite well in the art world. Avedon, Penn, Newman, Adams, etc all did commercial work.
jovo
Membership Council
It would be interesting to hear some of you who sell your work offer some observations about the kind of work you do that actually does sell. I was looking at a NYC photographer's photoblog today in which he observed that only 5% of the work he was able to sell had people in it...that must be a helluva disappointment to street photogs.. almost no one was interested enough to pay for it. Likewise, the observation made earlier here that many look at photographs and elect not to buy them because either they themselves, or someone they're with has told them they could do just as well. Perhaps they say that because they're not seeing photographs that offer anything they haven't already seen...a lot!! I was also looking at some alt process sites today that displayed incredibly mediocre images printed with virtuoso skill in such processes. I hardly wanted to even look at them all let alone buy any.
Without meaning to exclude others here, Brian and Bill make photographs that I am absolutely certain the average viewer does NOT assume he could make himself. They're clearly and unequivically made with both technical AND unique artistic vision by professionals. I think that makes a HUGE difference!
Without meaning to exclude others here, Brian and Bill make photographs that I am absolutely certain the average viewer does NOT assume he could make himself. They're clearly and unequivically made with both technical AND unique artistic vision by professionals. I think that makes a HUGE difference!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |