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.
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.
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.”
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)?
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.
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.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.
The Magnum sale is a terrific way to own and appreciate some fantastic prints.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.
deep insights
Maybe collecting photographs is suffering the same fate collecting Beanie Babies has: All the collectors are dead.
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.
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.
Jackson Pollock had to know he was making shower curtains…
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 ...
Ephemeral art can be “great,” for a while.
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.
Taking a portrait of Beyonce is one thing. Taking a picture of my Uncle Louie is another.
Maybe it's all to do with Sturgeon's Law: "ninety percent of everything is crap"
Some feel that Ted Sturgeon was over generous.
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.
Which means we need to do some more editing of our photographs. Go to Filckr and get started today.
(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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?