The State of the Market for Contemporary Photography

[bluechromis]

The interesting article the OP cited seems to emphasize the trend sales of the most expensive, high-end photographs with prints from iconic photographers getting lower prices at auctions etc. But those sales are only a part of the total sale of decorative original photos (those people put on their wall). Maybe the high-end sales are a bell weather about the entirety of the photo market. But I'm not sure how well those sales relate to all art photo sales or how accurately it reflects the valuation society places on art photography. I suspect the motivations of high-rolling investors or collectors may be different than those of average folks. In the town of Yachats on the picturesque Oregon coast, Bob Keller has photo gallery of mostly his work. I think his scenic stuff is pleasing and competently made. Perhaps it is not the most artsy, fartsy or strikingly original. Do the motivations of his customers align with those of the high rollers? I doubt it. When I visit towns and cities, I see a lot of galleries that are similar to Bob's. http://www.bobkellerphoto.com/Galleries.html

 

[faberryman]

The interesting article the OP cited seems to emphasize the trend sales of the most expensive, high-end photographs with prints from iconic photographers getting lower prices at auctions etc.

Yes, that is the topic of the article.

But those sales are only a part of the total sale of decorative original photos (those people put on their wall). Maybe the high-end sales are a bell weather about the entirety of the photo market. But I'm not sure how well those sales relate to all art photo sales or how accurately it reflects the valuation society places on art photography. I suspect the motivations of high-rolling investors or collectors may be different than those of average folks. In the town of Yachats on the picturesque Oregon coast, Bob Keller has photo gallery of mostly his work. I think his scenic stuff is pleasing and competently made. Perhaps it is not the most artsy, fartsy or strikingly original. Do the motivations of his customers align with those of the high rollers? I doubt it. When I visit towns and cities, I see a lot of galleries that are similar to Bob's. http://www.bobkellerphoto.com/Galleries.html

Entirely different market. I don't know that anyone keeps track of price trends there. It appears that Bob Keller charges $95 for a 9.3x12.5 inkjet print in a 16x20 mat. He can't be making much off each one. Bob Keller does not own the gallery in which he shows his work. Hopefully, the gallery is not taking a 50% commission. Probably not, it is a small building in a rural setting.

 

[Pieter12]

I was replying to Pietre, who was also talking about dead or near-dead photographers.



What's an instance where that's the case? If you buy a collectible as an investment, it is in every conceivable way a gamble.



The topic: the photographic collector's market has cooled off. Let's blame iphones. I think that could've been done in a page of posts.

None of the photographers I cited were dead at the time of the posting.

 

[Pieter12]

And pretty much any investment is a gamble of sorts.

 

[chuckroast]

I always keep my media separate. I never mix media.

Not even with a splash of gin and dash of bitters?

 

[Rrrgcy]

When I heard the thing about art dealers limiting customers, I also found that counterintuitive. Why would one not want as many potential customers as possible? But the article presented a solid basis for thinking this did occur. We are talking about a modest number of high-end galleries that in U.S. are almost all in New York. This is not your typical gallery that might be found in smaller cities. Those gallery owners did do things to vet customers beyond gauging if they had the money to pay.

I could imagine in that rarified world where customers would pay huge sums for artwork that different rules could apply. Why would those people buy art? One reason is to show off, to have art as a trophy. But if any slob that has some cash, like drug cartel bosses, can also buy similar art, it devalues it. But if the idea is that only best, most elite people that represent high society, can buy top art, then if I get some of that art, it shows I also am super elite.

There is the vernissage - and if you know, the (little publicized) pre-vernissage for the truly stratospheric wealthy for some of the biggest art events. I had gone to dinner one night with a friend long time no see during the Miami Art Basel. He happens to be a top North American financial investor, as in top. Like the top earner for a mega international bank/investment company. He brought along a wealthy client and her daughter. At dinner the client lamented and was huffed sharing his story about having approached a gallery at the convention center (the epicenter) earlier that day to buy a $13M+ artwork. That was the day of the vernissage. My friend’s client had collected the (contemporary) artist’s works before. But not from this dealer. When my friend’s client unilaterally decided to purchase the work right on the spot (meaning he’d made the decision without consulting or any help from the gallerist - he really wanted it), the owner/dealer calmly explained she wouldn’t sell it to him. He said he had the money ready to wire. She said, “Thank you for your interest. But no thank you… I’m waiting for another (client) who is interested and will sell it if they decide to buy.”

Funny business at that level. Being wealthy is So. Hard. I’m guessing at a certain level it’s feathers in the cap to market you have the top clients in hand. Which breeds more astronomical sales. I get it.

While dinner was free, the jacked up public parking fee I paid of $42 stung.

Pieter12 shared from the article, ”While the number of photographs on our smartphones rises (I have 13,000 and counting) as the prices at auction for masterworks of contemporary photography fall, too many of us are missing the thrilling exploration through this medium that is happening right before our eyes."

The other week I swapped my phone for a new pixel7 and despite last minute efforts lost 3k+ images, of which many/most I’d wished I had, I hadn’t printed. Prints rule. I’ve held original Stieglitz, Adams, Steichen, Capa in my mitts and contemporary works more abstract of architectural aspects I really Liked (shame on me not to remember the photographer) - I think I’d have bought the contemporary ones on (my) aesthetics alone. Again, parking fees are a lot for me.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

What is Koudelka photographing now?

Koudelka is very active. He's shooting panoramic format these days.

There is a film out about his work in Palestine:

Koudelka -

A unique and intimate look into the creative process of the legendary Czech photographer Josef Koudelka on his photographic journey through Israel and Palestine.

www.koudelka-film.com

 

[Alex Benjamin]

So we reduced "the greats of classical music in the 20th century" to one name, Stravinski?

Fine.

In the late 1740s, a few years before his death, they said J. S. Bach's music was old fashion, a product of its time, wouldn't survive. Yet, here we are.

 

[Don_ih]

None of the photographers I cited were dead at the time of the posting.

I had been responding to this:

As for the fact that most mentioned are near the end of their careers, unlike painters, a lot of photographers don't catch on and fetch high prices right out of school or at a young age. In 1958, the year he died, Edward Weston sold prints for $25 (maybe $250 today).

But it's not the fact that Edward Weston didn't catch on until he was dead that caused his prints to sell for so little. Photographs were not expensive in general until over 20 years later. No one thought they were collectible, even if they did consider them estimable. Photographers made money from clients and made some money by selling a lot of uncommissioned work. Even Ansel Adams sold his prints in the Yosemite gift shop.

Koudelka is very active.

That's good to know.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not even with a splash of gin and dash of bitters?

That would be a gin martini or gin & tonic, but never bitters sugar. None of those are mixed media.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is the vernissage - and if you know, the (little publicized) pre-vernissage for the truly stratospheric wealthy for some of the biggest art events. I had gone to dinner one night with a friend long time no see during the Miami Art Basel. He happens to be a top North American financial investor, as in top. Like the top earner for a mega international bank/investment company. He brought along a wealthy client and her daughter. At dinner the client lamented and was huffed sharing his story about having approached a gallery at the convention center (the epicenter) earlier that day to buy a $13M+ artwork. That was the day of the vernissage. My friend’s client had collected the (contemporary) artist’s works before. But not from this dealer. When my friend’s client unilaterally decided to purchase the work right on the spot (meaning he’d made the decision without consulting or any help from the gallerist - he really wanted it), the owner/dealer calmly explained she wouldn’t sell it to him. He said he had the money ready to wire. She said, “Thank you for your interest. But no thank you… I’m waiting for another (client) who is interested and will sell it if they decide to buy.”

Funny business at that level. Being wealthy is So. Hard. I’m guessing at a certain level it’s feathers in the cap to market you have the top clients in hand. Which breeds more astronomical sales. I get it.

While dinner was free, the jacked up public parking fee I paid of $42 stung.

Pieter12 shared from the article, ”While the number of photographs on our smartphones rises (I have 13,000 and counting) as the prices at auction for masterworks of contemporary photography fall, too many of us are missing the thrilling exploration through this medium that is happening right before our eyes."

The other week I swapped my phone for a new pixel7 and despite last minute efforts lost 3k+ images, of which many/most I’d wished I had, I hadn’t printed. Prints rule. I’ve held original Stieglitz, Adams, Steichen, Capa in my mitts and contemporary works more abstract of architectural aspects I really Liked (shame on me not to remember the photographer) - I think I’d have bought the contemporary ones on (my) aesthetics alone. Again, parking fees are a lot for me.

Tough life, but someone has to live it.

 

[snusmumriken]

So we reduced "the greats of classical music in the 20th century" to one name, Stravinski?

Fine.

In the late 1740s, a few years before his death, they said J. S. Bach's music was old fashion, a product of its time, wouldn't survive. Yet, here we are.

D’y think there’s a chance for Havergal-Brian, then?