Selling prints on e-bay and elsewhere

Malibu

A
Malibu

  • 1
  • 1
  • 38
Rockwood Park-4

A
Rockwood Park-4

  • 0
  • 0
  • 45
Enamored

A
Enamored

  • 0
  • 0
  • 105
Kea'au Bike Flower

A
Kea'au Bike Flower

  • 3
  • 1
  • 152

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
180,518
Messages
2,490,972
Members
95,091
Latest member
gigidamico
Recent bookmarks
0

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Council
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,198
Location
Washington DC
Shooter
Multi Format
Actually AIPAD (Association for International Photographic Art Dealers) guidlines, "On Collecting Photographs" allow for varried editions at different sizes and in special portfolios. I don't have the guidebook in hand, so maybe someone with one in their grasp can be more specific. It is a very good booklet to have and can be ordered from their website I believe. Basically it means you can offer one edition at a size of 8 x 10 and another at say 11 x 14. I do editions of 25 of my silver prints, but now selected prints are offered in a PT/PD edition. This edition is for 15 - 7.5 x 7.5 prints that start several hundred dollars higher than my silver prints. I have only done this in the last year and they are already rivaling sales of my silver prints. I am now experimenting with a 12 x 12 and 24 x 24 platinum and will soon be offering them as well in editions of only 5. Again... only of very select images.

Bill

Bill - I understand and agree about the AIPAD rule - I was just explaining the rationale behind destroying the negative after the edition(s) is/are finished. If you are declaring a single edition of a single size in a single media, then many collectors will expect that once the edition is sold out, the negative gets FUBAR'ed.

I think the AIPAD guidebook is a good set of rules to abide by - unfortunately, there are photographers without ethics on the one side, and clueless patrons who don't understand editioning on the other, and make it harder for everyone else.
 

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council
Council
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
4,562
Location
North Coast BC Canada
Shooter
Hybrid
Then again...one need not climb aboard the gallery driven treadmill quest for fame.

In life, my wife and I have always chosen 'happy and humble' over 'get rich at all costs'. I could be making over double my current wage working in the local aluminum smelter or paper mill, but that would mean shift work and I couldn't walk my daughter home from kindergarten every day for lunch, and I wouldn't come home from work in a good mood.

I think I'd be happy enough selling in some local museums and through a website to make enough money to cover material costs + a bit more for some little extra's, such as adding to our daughters RESP (registered education savings plan).

Murray
 

Jim Jones

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
3,599
Location
Chillicothe MO
Shooter
Multi Format
At some point you have to bite the bullet and do that major price hike and get into the prestige gallery. . . .

That seems valid for those who enjoy money and merchandising more than doing photography. However, it would deprive friends and neighbors the pleasure of owning my photos, too great a sacrifice. It would also have denied the world much of the genius of Eugene Atget, Edward Weston, Gene Smith, and many others. Photography means galleries to some, pictures in print to journalists, creativity to artists, wedding gigs to others, and snapshots to millions. Inexpensive quality prints at local venues can be satisfying, too. There's room enough for all of us.
 

JBrunner

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,432
Location
PNdub
Shooter
Medium Format
Or brave persons could universally chuck the limited edition artifice. I find the idea of defacing my best negatives to create an artificial scarcity after I have pulled ten prints from them, repulsive.

I much more favor the "vintage" notion, where the negative date and the print date fall within the same year. Prints after the first year are no longer "vintage."

I usually make only 5-10 prints from a given negative anyway, but I find the concept of cerimoniously wrecking my negatives a bit silly, and I have better things to do than keep track of the total printing amounts for umpty negatives. My prints are already "rare" without my pretending so. If my son can print from my negatives for some bucks, years from now, great.

As far as being in the back of B&W as a "wannabe" I would just say it has been a very cost effective promotion, and that selling prints has far more to do with effective promotion in as many ways as possible, than what venue or venues your prints are marketed in. That little statement is what has been missing from this thread. Make a name- sell many prints. Be a nobody- sell few prints. Very few photographers have ever made it big by accident, but there are plenty of photographers better than me who sell very few prints because they simply can't stomach self promotion.

I'm J Brunner-Buy my prints- They are nice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bill schwab

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
3,751
Location
Meeshagin
Shooter
Multi Format
Then again...one need not climb aboard the gallery driven treadmill quest for fame.
You can say that again Murray. Like I said before, in this business the bank account rarely matches the fame. If you've got a good job that feeds your family... keep it. Those of us that don't are left to run that treadmill. From my perspective, anyone not independantly wealthy that would quit a good livelyhood to do this has not fully thought it through. Best to keep it as a hobby, avocation or passion. If you can sell a few prints on the side to feed your habit, all the better.

JBrunner said:
..defacing my best negatives to create an artificial scarcity after I have pulled ten prints from them, repulsive.
Edition or not, I would NEVER deface a negative.

JBrunner said:
As far as being in the back of B&W as a "wannabe" I would just say it has been a very cost effective promotion..
I certainly never meant that disrespectfully. I am extremely happy to hear that it has worked out for you as I have not heard of much success with those ads. Congratulations!

Bill
 

Early Riser

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,675
Location
USA
Shooter
Multi Format
For some a gallery is not needed. If you have the time to market your work and pack up prints for individual sales going to each purchaser then you might not need a gallery. For those who may be on the road a lot, a gallery takes care of a great deal of the logistics. I no longer have any full time assistance, maybe someday I will again, but for now it's a very high expense and there's a long learning curve for most new employees. I rely on galleries as being part of my marketing, as they market my work in their region, and they are also part of the inventory, distribution and delivery system of my work.

The other part of being with a brick and mortar gallery is that they do add to the perception that you are an established artist. This may not be as needed when you are in fact an established artist, but in the beginning it does add greater credibility.

Buying art on the internet does have some risk. Look at EBay, they have all sorts of security programs and safe guards and scams still happen daily. And you're also buying a print that you have not actually seen firsthand. When you go to a gallery, there's a sense that they may have greater integrity because they have something valuable to lose if they screw up, their reputation and then possibly their investment in their business. Also their obvious investment in a real business location, all the inventory they possess would indicate to most that there is a commitment there. In addition you can see the actual print you are buying and can even take it with you. When you buy on the internet, you do buy somewhat blind and that is going to be a tough issue for internet dedicated sellers to resolve.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,853
Shooter
Hybrid
Then again...one need not climb aboard the gallery driven treadmill quest for fame.

In life, my wife and I have always chosen 'happy and humble' over 'get rich at all costs'. I could be making over double my current wage working in the local aluminum smelter or paper mill, but that would mean shift work and I couldn't walk my daughter home from kindergarten every day for lunch, and I wouldn't come home from work in a good mood.

I think I'd be happy enough selling in some local museums and through a website to make enough money to cover material costs + a bit more for some little extra's, such as adding to our daughters RESP (registered education savings plan).

Murray

i'm with you murray!

john
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Council
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,198
Location
Washington DC
Shooter
Multi Format
That seems valid for those who enjoy money and merchandising more than doing photography. However, it would deprive friends and neighbors the pleasure of owning my photos, too great a sacrifice. It would also have denied the world much of the genius of Eugene Atget, Edward Weston, Gene Smith, and many others. Photography means galleries to some, pictures in print to journalists, creativity to artists, wedding gigs to others, and snapshots to millions. Inexpensive quality prints at local venues can be satisfying, too. There's room enough for all of us.

Jim- you missed a point in the next sentence or two--

If in the end it means you lose the smaller market galleries and your "affordable" sales there, then you do that. Maybe you don't do that now, at only four years in the "art" business, but at some point you'll have to, unless you want to intentionally limit your sales and your income. That's a value-call for you to make, and not one that anyone else can make for you, or for anyone to judge you by.

I said that if he wanted to go down a certain career path, which by approaching prestige galleries about showing his work, he is suggesting he is interested in, then he will at some point need to switch tracks. If not, then he doesn't need to. I also said that it is a judgement call that he needs to make for himself, and none of us should criticize it because we're not the ones who had to make it. I agree, there is room for all styles of photography marketing under the giant art tent. Certain styles will lead to certain outcomes - you just have to decide which outcome you want, and if you are willing to make the compromises it requires to achieve it. If you want fame and fortune from your artwork, then you go down the major gallery marketing route. If you want to make your friends and neighbors happy, then you don't market your work and don't put a pricetag on it. There's also lots of space in-between. Just, whatever path you choose, please don't become another Thomas Kinkade! :D There's enough mediocre overpriced kitsch in the world as it is!
 

skillian

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
277
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Shooter
8x10 Format
In marketing my prints to collectors, I've run into some issues with some who have refused to buy my work because it wasn't limited. At the end of the day, I want to make new work rather than printing old work, but I don't like the idea of "retiring" a negative simply to pacify collectors or some market condition. One idea I've considered is doing an initial edition of X number of prints - effectively the first printing of a given negative. Once those prints are sold, I would then charge considerably more to reprint those images again in the future. I'm wondering if this approach, along with price increases every few years, would effectively allow for the best of both worlds?
 

JBrunner

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,432
Location
PNdub
Shooter
Medium Format
I certainly never meant that disrespectfully. I am extremely happy to hear that it has worked out for you as I have not heard of much success with those ads. Congratulations!

Bill

No offense taken, more a counterpoint to photographers who think the world is going to beat down their door-

Success is of course a personal concept, but when running ads or promotions many people don't really understand how it works. Anything less than three or four impressions in a given placement is worthless. It takes eight to ten placements to really get any result that could be considered as representative. That means a B&W placement needs at least a year of running to show any results. Thats what any good marketing and PR person can tell you. Its cumulative, not resultant. Even more so with the photo game.
 

Shinnya

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
583
Location
Philadelphia
Shooter
Multi Format
I am too in the middle of trying to sell my prints for fundraiser. I usually do not sell or even actively show my prints, but I am trying this time for this purpose.

The thing that I tried to figure out is how to market them, which has been a big question to figure out.

I built a web page dedicated for that in the first place. Also, I certainly was hoping that the people who would buy the prints are people I have a personal contact with. So we did a fundraising party for them. Sure enough I have sold several so far.

But I do need to reach more than people that I know personally to achieve the amount of money that I need. So, I borrow a mailing list from one of the small very reputable publications for a very reasonable fee. I sent out about 1500 postcards to the people on the mailing list.

I am just about to place an ads in one of the small photography publications which will run the same ads quarterly for a year. This is a rather small publication, and I like images that I see. Also, I just started one here at APUG.

Now, I am getting these prints framed and go around the city to place them with some additional information. Anything from coffee shops to furniture stores. These are stores whose owner that I know well. I am framing the same print for these different locations in the city so that people became familiar with the image.

I am about to write press release to local news papers and magazines hoping that it will catch someone's eye. If someone writes about it, it would be a great publicity for us.

I am also considering of contacting to newly built condos in the city to see if I could put pictures up in their hallway. There was a surge of building condos in the city for a last couple of years, so that means there is a lot more walls to be decorated with some art.

My idea is that you do not know where people see your image and buy one. Certainly catering to "collectors" is one way to go, but my guess is that there is a lot more people out there do not necessarily consider themselves as a collector but still buy some arts for their wall.

So, I am doing a series of marketing one after another to publicize the print sale. Again, I am not recognized as a photographer in the area, and I do not do this usually which are not advantageous for me. It takes time and needs creative thinking. But, I am trying to figure out what would work and hope that accumulative marketing will work somewhat to my ends.

Warmly,
Tsuyoshi
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bill schwab

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
3,751
Location
Meeshagin
Shooter
Multi Format
The thing that I tried to figure out is how to market them, which has been a big question to figure out.
Tsuyoshi, This is right along the lines of a self-promotional campaign thread I just started. Your story would be a great one there if you don't mind sharing more.

Bill
 

rjas

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
227
Shooter
Medium Format
Or brave persons could universally chuck the limited edition artifice. I find the idea of defacing my best negatives to create an artificial scarcity after I have pulled ten prints from them, repulsive.

there is a seller on ebay who does nudes - he makes 5 prints, keeps one for himself, sells the other 4 each with a 1/4 of the negative. visions of grandeur i think.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,853
Shooter
Hybrid
there is a seller on ebay who does nudes - he makes 5 prints, keeps one for himself, sells the other 4 each with a 1/4 of the negative. visions of grandeur i think.


i really see nothing wrong with what he is doing.
i have made images for about 20 years where i
create a "thing" to print with and after i get a good image
or 2 or 3 i get rid of it. there is no way to make another
image, unless i contact print, or scan or make a copy negative
of the print.

one of the best things
about photography is the ability to make multiple images from one
negative, but i also think it can be the greatest stumbling block
of photography as well. nothing becomes unique if there are
10 or 20 or 250 or 1000 images. to me at least, this is why
i have always had an interest with photography from the era when
each image was singular. i see the other side of the road too, if someone
likes something you shouldn't deprive them of what they want ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council
Council
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
4,562
Location
North Coast BC Canada
Shooter
Hybrid
I finally found that B&W (USA) Magazine issue 14, August 2001 with my letter to the editor in it. Get a beverage, sit back, relax, and give it a read if you dare as it's a loooong one :wink: *This was written six years ago and there's a more than a few things I'd change, but... He titled it;

"Could The Internet Make The Conventional Gallery Obselete"?

"I have just finished Rosiland Smith's article in Issue 10 about the Internet and fine art photography sales - what was missing was any reference to the potential of individual photographers websites.

The real power of the Internet is equalization. No matter if it's a big name gallery or an artist who lives in some remote corner of the planet, everybody begins at the same point on a level playing field. For those who choose, the Internet could even replace galleries as the way photographers sell their work to collectors.

As I see it, there are three compelling reasons why photographers should consider sidestepping the whole gallery scene. Number one is commitment. Howard Greenburg couldn't have illustrated this more acutely in his quote, "I have an enormous inventory and represent so many photographers that I can't get it reviewed enough..."

How much effort is a gallery putting into promoting each artists work when what matters to the gallery is a sale - any sale. There are only so many square feet of wall space, and your photographs could well be lying in a drawer, unseen. If your sales trail off due to a lack of attention by gallery staff, no problem...a new flavour of the season could walk through the door at any moment, portfolio in hand, possibly providing a fresh flurry of sales.

Your own website works for you and promotes only you and your work.

Number two is the price of photographic works to the collector. Galleries call it a 50% commission. I call it a 100% increase above what the artist recieves. In the past, the most accepted way a photographer could increase awareness of his or her work was to become associated with a gallery - the bigger and more prestigious the better. The gallery then has to hire knowlegeable staff, have a premier location, and so on, thereby increasing the cost of the prints. It also has to represent enough photographers to slake the thirst of as many different collectors as possible, bringing us back to problem number one.

Number three is the galleries acting in their own interests by pressuring photographers into putting limitations on the number of prints for sale. It's an old story (ask OPEC) reduce availability and prices go up, but it's galleries, not photographers, who win in the long term. With their own websites photographers could formulate pricing structures that reflect their images and methods. Over time, prices would increase and sales drop off for an image; but doesn't it stand to reason that if, as Ansel Adams did, you set a deadline on the sale of new prints from old negatives before turning, let's say 70, sales would jump before the deadline? Wouldn't those who bought early and even those that bought late have made a sound investment? Wouldn't this provide the artist with an opportunity to generate a retirement income? Galleries can always get fresh talent to keep sales up. Photographers only have themselves - why put limitations on your lifes work?

Photographers are a fiercely independant lot. We move seperate from reality, seeing tonal / textural / spacial relationships no one else notices. Even if photographing with a friend we are essentially alone, seeing the world through the layers of our own life experience and expectations. We photograph and print the images ourselves because no one else can solidify our vision - why then leave our finished work in the hands of others to sell?

The Internet now provides photographers with an incredibly powerful earth-encircling alternative to galleries. A collector who doesn't have the time to wallow through the Web could hire the services of an Internet agent - somebody who after discussing the collectors likes and dislikes could (for far less than a 100% increase above what the photographer recieves) search on behalf of the collector and submit a variety of relevant choices.

It may sound as if this is an advertisement for my own website, but I don't have one. I have been using large format gear for 18 years and have kept my photography an intensely personal expression. I have not entered competitions or submitted work to group shows. I have had three one-man shows in local museums at pivotal points in my growth as an artist, but have not sent my work to any galleries.

What has brought me to mull this all over is that my work has reached a level where I would like to see where it sits in the scheme of things, to see how it will be interpreted.

Do I join the gallery herd, or keep my independence and set up a website? A huge question.

The nearest photography gallery is 1,200 miles down the road and there is nobody in these parts I can discuss things with. I'm hoping this letter will stir the pot enough to get some answers to these questions. What exactly are the benefits to the artist in gallery representation, and what exactly are the benefits to the collector to justify the 100% increase in price above what the artist recieves"?

Murray

P.S. I didn't get any answers, as the letters to the editor part of the magazine disappeared in the following issue.
 

kjsphoto

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
1,320
Shooter
Sub 35mm
Where do you find the prints for sale on ebay? I found none using their search engine. (but I'm not a very accomplished ebay user!)
Tim

The only way I know how to is goto the home page and click on art->photographic images

then on the left hand side you will get a photo finder box to further navigate.

Kev
 
OP
OP

Doug Hook

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24
Location
Bedfordshire
Shooter
35mm
Where do you find the prints for sale on ebay? I found none using their search engine. (but I'm not a very accomplished ebay user!)
Tim

I've just taken a quick look (art - photographs - contemporary) on what I think is UK e-bay. It must be very discouraging for photographers who are serious about their work to see the going price for other prints up for grabs - hardly covering the cost of a machine print.

Safe to say, e-bay does not generally appear to "represent" the kind of work referred to through this thread.... that often seems to rest with galleries and photographer's own websites. There are exceptions as some people have said through this thread; obviously many advantages and disadvantages to the various outlets to weigh up.
 

Donald Miller

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
6,233
Shooter
Large Format
i really see nothing wrong with what he is doing.
i have made images for about 20 years where i
create a "thing" to print with and after i get a good image
or 2 or 3 i get rid of it. there is no way to make another
image, unless i contact print, or scan or make a copy negative
of the print.

one of the best things
about photography is the ability to make multiple images from one
negative, but i also think it can be the greatest stumbling block
of photography as well. nothing becomes unique if there are
10 or 20 or 250 or 1000 images. to me at least, this is why
i have always had an interest with photography from the era when
each image was singular. i see the other side of the road too, if someone
likes something you shouldn't deprive them of what they want ...


John, I agree with you. Cole Weston did this very same thing back in the 80's each of his prints had a part of the negative attached to the back. I think that most of the sought after photographers of time past...printed a very few of some of their most famous images. On the other hand we have Adams who printed "Moonrise" until he himself was sick of it.
 

PatTrent

Member
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
411
Location
Brentwood, C
Shooter
Multi Format
John, I agree with you. Cole Weston did this very same thing back in the 80's each of his prints had a part of the negative attached to the back. I think that most of the sought after photographers of time past...printed a very few of some of their most famous images. On the other hand we have Adams who printed "Moonrise" until he himself was sick of it.

To me, a work of art should be unique. When I make a print, I make one for me and one extra to sell or give away. I keep the negative in case I should have to remake a print for some reason (hasn't happened yet, though).

Years ago I make a beautiful print of some callas for my mother, then framed it and gave it to her as a gift. She hung it in her living room and it received admiring comments from her friends. More than once she asked me if I could "Please make a print for [so and so]," and I replied: "Sorry, no. I made that for you--it's one of a kind, and that's why it's so special. It's a work of art." After a few times she stopped asking me and began to really appreciate the print even more. This was a confirmation to me, that I had the right idea.

I follow this principle for any type of craft/creation of mine: a ceramic, a piece of jewelry I designed and made, etc. I realize I'm in the minority. :tongue:

Pat
 
OP
OP

Doug Hook

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24
Location
Bedfordshire
Shooter
35mm
I finally found that B&W (USA) Magazine issue 14, August 2001 with my letter to the editor in it. Get a beverage, sit back, relax, and give it a read if you dare as it's a loooong one :wink: *This was written six years ago and there's a more than a few things I'd change, but... He titled it;

"Could The Internet Make The Conventional Gallery Obselete"?

"I have just finished Rosiland Smith's article in Issue 10 about the Internet and fine art photography sales - what was missing was any reference to the potential of individual photographers websites.

The real power of the Internet is equalization. No matter if it's a big name gallery or an artist who lives in some remote corner of the planet, everybody begins at the same point on a level playing field. For those who choose, the Internet could even replace galleries as the way photographers sell their work to collectors.

As I see it, there are three compelling reasons why photographers should consider sidestepping the whole gallery scene. Number one is commitment. Howard Greenburg couldn't have illustrated this more acutely in his quote, "I have an enormous inventory and represent so many photographers that I can't get it reviewed enough..."

How much effort is a gallery putting into promoting each artists work when what matters to the gallery is a sale - any sale. There are only so many square feet of wall space, and your photographs could well be lying in a drawer, unseen. If your sales trail off due to a lack of attention by gallery staff, no problem...a new flavour of the season could walk through the door at any moment, portfolio in hand, possibly providing a fresh flurry of sales.

Your own website works for you and promotes only you and your work.

Number two is the price of photographic works to the collector. Galleries call it a 50% commission. I call it a 100% increase above what the artist recieves. In the past, the most accepted way a photographer could increase awareness of his or her work was to become associated with a gallery - the bigger and more prestigious the better. The gallery then has to hire knowlegeable staff, have a premier location, and so on, thereby increasing the cost of the prints. It also has to represent enough photographers to slake the thirst of as many different collectors as possible, bringing us back to problem number one.

Number three is the galleries acting in their own interests by pressuring photographers into putting limitations on the number of prints for sale. It's an old story (ask OPEC) reduce availability and prices go up, but it's galleries, not photographers, who win in the long term. With their own websites photographers could formulate pricing structures that reflect their images and methods. Over time, prices would increase and sales drop off for an image; but doesn't it stand to reason that if, as Ansel Adams did, you set a deadline on the sale of new prints from old negatives before turning, let's say 70, sales would jump before the deadline? Wouldn't those who bought early and even those that bought late have made a sound investment? Wouldn't this provide the artist with an opportunity to generate a retirement income? Galleries can always get fresh talent to keep sales up. Photographers only have themselves - why put limitations on your lifes work?

Photographers are a fiercely independant lot. We move seperate from reality, seeing tonal / textural / spacial relationships no one else notices. Even if photographing with a friend we are essentially alone, seeing the world through the layers of our own life experience and expectations. We photograph and print the images ourselves because no one else can solidify our vision - why then leave our finished work in the hands of others to sell?

The Internet now provides photographers with an incredibly powerful earth-encircling alternative to galleries. A collector who doesn't have the time to wallow through the Web could hire the services of an Internet agent - somebody who after discussing the collectors likes and dislikes could (for far less than a 100% increase above what the photographer recieves) search on behalf of the collector and submit a variety of relevant choices.

It may sound as if this is an advertisement for my own website, but I don't have one. I have been using large format gear for 18 years and have kept my photography an intensely personal expression. I have not entered competitions or submitted work to group shows. I have had three one-man shows in local museums at pivotal points in my growth as an artist, but have not sent my work to any galleries.

What has brought me to mull this all over is that my work has reached a level where I would like to see where it sits in the scheme of things, to see how it will be interpreted.

Do I join the gallery herd, or keep my independence and set up a website? A huge question.

The nearest photography gallery is 1,200 miles down the road and there is nobody in these parts I can discuss things with. I'm hoping this letter will stir the pot enough to get some answers to these questions. What exactly are the benefits to the artist in gallery representation, and what exactly are the benefits to the collector to justify the 100% increase in price above what the artist recieves"?

Murray

P.S. I didn't get any answers, as the letters to the editor part of the magazine disappeared in the following issue.

This is a convincing advantage of having a website; as you say, for promoting you and your work. Such a shame there wasn't an opportunity then to see the replies.

I've taken a look at through many of the websites belonging to those contributing in this thread. I think they're very effective and display [impressive] work for the world to see. Some stunning images. Many are American and presumably serve their purpose well... is it too presumptious to ask how well and why is it that they're mostly American? What about Europe and other places? Different places, different markets?

While your points about galleries are well reasoned, do you think there is something to be said for galleries helping create markets, to stimulate interest and inspiration? I remember as a child (before the days of the internet!) visiting art galleries and they often made quite an impression on me. Right from real masters of oil painting through to weird sculptures, which to a school boy, were nothing more than piles of junk. Nonetheless, it made an impression on me. I clearly remember being intrigued, puzzled, moved, amazed at what I saw. I knew nothing of how galleries operated - and still don't - but that was irrelevant then. It was just a case of absorbing what was there. Websites have their purpose for sure but so too do galleries?
 
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:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab
Top Bottom