The State of the Market for Contemporary Photography

[VinceInMT]

I think it may also be that certain kinds of images are falling out of favour with people. Maybe landscapes and flower photos (these are staples of home decor) just aren't as popular, anymore. And there is definitely a big stamp of disapproval of the female nude form.
Maybe it's also the case that, while the old favourites (Ansel, Weston, and Bert Stern) are still desirable, it's just very difficult for an unknown to become known to the point of being able to sell any significant quantity of prints.

In my neck of the woods, whether it’s photography or paintings, it’s “western art” that sells. Bison, cowboys, mountains, cattle, old barns, abandoned trucks, and fish are the stuff that qualifies as marketable “fine art.” You know, the same stuff you’ve seen over and over. No Native America content unless the artist is a registered tribal member since, otherwise, it’s ”cultural appropriation.”

 

[VinceInMT]

I'm way over 60. At my age one doesn't think too much about collectibles.
Actually it's more fun getting rid of stuff. You feel lighter and unencumbered.

I’m beyond 70 and I hear that but I am NOT downsizing at all. I still use all that “stuff” that goes with all my hobbies, interests, and passions. Get rid of my darkroom, workshop with the industrial sewing machine and woodworking tools, all the mechanics stuff and the vintage cars, the motorcycles, not to mention my art studio, all my baking stuff, my mancave that is a fully equipped 1970s audio paradise? Nope, getting rid of any of that would not make me feel “lighter and unencumbered.” What they heck would I do without all of that? Watch television (something I haven’t done in decades)?

 

[Sirius Glass]

In my neck of the woods, whether it’s photography or paintings, it’s “western art” that sells. Bison, cowboys, mountains, cattle, old barns, abandoned trucks, and fish are the stuff that qualifies as marketable “fine art.” You know, the same stuff you’ve seen over and over. No Native America content unless the artist is a registered tribal member since, otherwise, it’s ”cultural appropriation.”

Do not forget the chandeliers festooned with antlers.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm way over 60. At my age one doesn't think too much about collectibles.
Actually it's more fun getting rid of stuff. You feel lighter and unencumbered.

I’m beyond 70 and I hear that but I am NOT downsizing at all. I still use all that “stuff” that goes with all my hobbies, interests, and passions. Get rid of my darkroom, workshop with the industrial sewing machine and woodworking tools, all the mechanics stuff and the vintage cars, the motorcycles, not to mention my art studio, all my baking stuff, my mancave that is a fully equipped 1970s audio paradise? Nope, getting rid of any of that would not make me feel “lighter and unencumbered.” What they heck would I do without all of that? Watch television (something I haven’t done in decades)?

I am also on the high side 70 and I still enjoy surround myself with my hobbies, interests and passions. In the last ten years I have increased my actively used cameras and lenses, Pueblo pottery, tapestries and baskets as well as around forty actively used Aboriginal didjeridus, Yiḏakis, Mandapuls, Waŋgas, and Makos. In the last few years I have taken up learning to play the electronic keyboard and Theremin.

 

[chuckroast]

Collectible photography is like anything else that's collectible: meaningless to the majority of humanity.

Contemporary photography suffers from a general undervaluing brought about by the fact that so many people have immediate and (almost) free (by almost, I mean it's already been paid for) access to cameras that take the kinds of photos that they want. That extends from family portraiture through wedding photography (lots of exceptions there) through to journalism (the reporter takes pictures with his or her cellphone). Lots of product photography is also no longer done by "professionals". And stock photography is so blown up it seems to be almost impossible to make any money from it (unless you were the first one to upload pictures of people wearing masks, in various suitable situations). And there's so much stock photography, why would anyone need to hire a photographer for "typical" images for an ad campaign (Cheap ad campaign, that is) or industry-relevant flyer or pamphlet?

We may have access to a billion new free to view photos a day, but finding a good one is becoming more and more difficult.

No, "contemporary" photography has fallen victim to postmodernism which has robbed all the arts of any real meaning.

 

[snusmumriken]

There is nothing special about a photo that earmarks it "fine art" other than some rather banal compositional or content considerations. It's mostly artificial fluffing.

To be cynical, I think what marks a photo out as ‘fine art’ is that it’s very carefully presented and someone is asking a hell of a lot of money for it.

Returning somewhat towards the OP’s question, I see many photos I would love to have on my wall if only they were affordable. (And if only I could afford more wall.) But realistically, I don’t believe the economics of galleries and auction houses could ever allow prices to come within my reach. Best hope for someone like me is to know the photographer.

 

[reddesert]

People have been arguing about how to draw a distinction between "fine art" and illustration for a long time. Then there's the question of whether fluctuations in the highest end of the photography market - what the original article was talking about - have anything to do with aesthetic value. I think the author's point was essentially that they have to do with the mindset of potential collectors, and that's a little interesting because people with close to a million dollars to spend on a Gursky print use their cellphones exactly like everyone else, they just have a slightly newer model. I would think that they would evaluate an art acquisition like a business deal and not like an Instagram post, but I might be wrong.

Regarding owning photographs, you can buy a print from the Magnum square print sale for about $100, twice a year. It's only a tiny print (4x6" or so) and not optical hand-printed, but digital on real paper. Still a genuine print authorized by the photographer. I have one of a photograph I particularly like, and it will never be collectible or worth any money, but it was easily worth it to see the print every day.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I subscribe to Lenswork, a photo magazine that I receive in the mail They have 4-5 photographer essays in each. 6 times a year about 100 pages in each. There's also a dedicated "zine" Monograph in larger size I receive that is dedicated to one photographer and theme in each book. You can also purchase digital versions. They also have podcasts and other stuff.

LensWork

 

[Pieter12]

People have been arguing about how to draw a distinction between "fine art" and illustration for a long time. Then there's the question of whether fluctuations in the highest end of the photography market - what the original article was talking about - have anything to do with aesthetic value. I think the author's point was essentially that they have to do with the mindset of potential collectors, and that's a little interesting because people with close to a million dollars to spend on a Gursky print use their cellphones exactly like everyone else, they just have a slightly newer model. I would think that they would evaluate an art acquisition like a business deal and not like an Instagram post, but I might be wrong.

Regarding owning photographs, you can buy a print from the Magnum square print sale for about $100, twice a year. It's only a tiny print (4x6" or so) and not optical hand-printed, but digital on real paper. Still a genuine print authorized by the photographer. I have one of a photograph I particularly like, and it will never be collectible or worth any money, but it was easily worth it to see the print every day.

The Magnum sale is a terrific way to own and appreciate some fantastic prints.

On another note, it amazes me how many experts we have here on the forum with deep insights into the current state of the photography market and the impact of digital media on collecting. A TED Talk seems to be in order.

 

[Don_ih]

deep insights

Maybe collecting photographs is suffering the same fate collecting Beanie Babies has: All the collectors are dead.

 

[Pieter12]

Maybe collecting photographs is suffering the same fate collecting Beanie Babies has: All the collectors are dead.

Maybe not. Collecting Beanie Babies was a meaningless, commercially-fed fad.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe collecting photographs is suffering the same fate collecting Beanie Babies has: All the collectors are dead.

I am alive, therefore I do not collect photographs.

​

 

[chuckroast]

Maybe not. Collecting Beanie Babies was a meaningless, commercially-fed fad.

So is most contemporary "art" ...

More to the point, a good many great "artists" funded their work by doing (gasp!) commercial work as their day job. Among them include Edward Weston and Ansel Adams. Eugene Atget shot his now-revered Paris work as historical documentation as a commercial commission, and so forth.

At its best, art is for the artist. Everyone else just gets to look over their shoulders. In the end, probably the only real measure of "great" art is its durability. Does it speak to an audience long after the artist has disappeared? Since we cannot know this, the best we can do hope to make things that have at least the potential for this, while satisfying our own artistic cravings.

I'm told that Warhol knew his work was junk. Someone who ran in that circle explained to me that Warhol's actually great stuff never saw the commercial light of day. Jackson Pollock had to know he was making shower curtains - had he lived a few years later, he could have franchised it at K-Mart. But maybe he had greatness somewhere in there we never saw. The point is that - just as being an artist and an entertainer are different - driving commercial success and scratching your artistic itch is very different and most artists who persevere have to do some version of both. Even Bach had patrons ...

​

 

[VinceInMT]

At its best, art is for the artist. Everyone else just gets to look over their shoulders. In the end, probably the only real measure of "great" art is its durability. Does it speak to an audience long after the artist has disappeared? Since we cannot know this, the best we can do hope to make things that have at least the potential for this, while satisfying our own artistic cravings.

Ephemeral art can be “great,” for a while.

Jackson Pollock had to know he was making shower curtains…

Without the support of Clement Greenberg, Pollock might not have made the impact that he did.

The point is that - just as being an artist and an entertainer are different - driving commercial success and scratching your artistic itch is very different and most artists who persevere have to do some version of both. Even Bach had patrons ...

IMO, it’s all part of the entertainment industry whether it be visual arts, music, radio, TV, movies, sports, etc. There are makers and there are watchers. There is a commercial aspect to much of it though some makers are happy just to make without monetary rewards or showing to anyone else.

 

[faberryman]

So I tried to track down a definition of Contemporary Photography and found two: 1) works which were made from 1980 to the present, and 2) works of a living photographer who is still active. We could debate all day the appropriateness of those definitions, something I am not interested in doing, but at least they give us some rough estimate of what we are talking about. Most of the photographers heretofore mentioned in the thread would not be Contemporary Photographers under either of those definitions, and are not the subject addressed in the article linked to in the OP.

I am in San Francisco this week. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Fraenkel Gallery, and the Robert Koch Gallery all have exhibits of Contemporary Photographers. For old folks, the deYoung Museum has an exhibit of 100 Ansel Adams prints. Apparently nothing is showing at the Leica Store. All in all, a pretty good selection. I am glad I will not be sitting at home looking at the photographs on my laptop, or worse, on my phone.

Speaking of the San Francisco Leica Store, at the top left of its website it has icons with links for CameraWest and WatchShop. I'll see what that is all about when I am down there. I am guessing not even the mark up on Leica cameras and lenses can cover the rent, utilities, and salaries of the sales staff.

 

[chuckroast]

Ephemeral art can be “great,” for a while.

Only because popular taste tends to be rooted entirely in its own time. I know a lot of people who think the music of the Beatles is "great" but that's because they have some atavistic connection to it, not because it stands on its own as a memorable body of work. That's because ephemeral "greatness" is generally connected to the time and place of its creation. Only very rarely can art get past it's own time and live forever. Taken out of its time and place, it's hard to imagine the Beatles being resonant with listeners 300 years from now.

In fairness, I can think of precious few 20th Century candidates in music, painting, photography, etc. that are likely to survive hundreds of years. Even the very best of the best - Stravinski, Billy Strayhorn's arrangements for Duke Ellington, Miles Davis' "Sketches Of Spain", Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir", Edward and Brett Weston's abstracts, Karsh's portraits etc.- are unlikely to find their way out of their own time.

It's also worth noting the that half life of contemporary culture and art is getting shorter. The Beatles, Stones, and Zeppelin had many successful albums. Today's "artists" are lucky if their ear candy makes it past a couple songs. Painters come and go with fashion. Phone cameras have all but destroyed critical photographic viewing. This is not just me being grouchy, it's observably true. Almost all of the culture has become increasingly disposable and that means art will be similarly so.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Taking a portrait of Beyonce is one thing. Taking a picture of my Uncle Louie is another.

 

[VinceInMT]

Almost all of the culture has become increasingly disposable and that means art will be similarly so.

Maybe it's all to do with Sturgeon's Law: "ninety percent of everything is crap"

Some feel that Ted Sturgeon was over generous.

 

[chuckroast]

Maybe it's all to do with Sturgeon's Law: "ninety percent of everything is crap"

Some feel that Ted Sturgeon was over generous.

Yeah, and Murphy was an optimist

 

[MattKing]

Taking a portrait of Beyonce is one thing. Taking a picture of my Uncle Louie is another.

And I would guess that taking a portrait of your Uncle Louie, wearing one of Beyonce's outfits and singing one of her songs would be another thing all together .

 

[faberryman]

Maybe it's all to do with Sturgeon's Law: "ninety percent of everything is crap"

Some feel that Ted Sturgeon was over generous.

Which means we need to do some more editing of our photographs. Go to Filckr and get started today.

 

[chuckroast]

And I would guess that taking a portrait of your Uncle Louie, wearing one of Beyonce's outfits and singing one of her songs would be another thing all together .

Hey! Is that for sale? Where? How much? I'll bet Louie is a far better dancer ...

 

[chuckroast]

Which means we need to do some more editing of our photographs. Go to Filckr and get started today.

I think it was St. Ansel that said words to the effect that a photographer's most powerful aesthetic tool is the garbage can. Truer words ...

(I keep replying here because I am avoiding dry mounting prints - because I don't like doing it

 

[VinceInMT]

(I keep replying here because I am avoiding dry mounting prints - because I don't like doing it

Avoidance behavior. I could teach a class in that.

 

[chuckroast]

Avoidance behavior. I could teach a class in that.

But you don't because you are "busy" on Photrio, amirite?