The State of the Market for Contemporary Photography

[Pieter12]

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.

Since you seem to have very strong opinions on what qualifies as enduring fine art, how about helping us all out with some examples of what you consider good contemporary photography.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

My wife (common-law for 38 years) has always called me her long term, high risk, fine arts investment.

 

[chuckroast]

Since you seem to have very strong opinions on what qualifies as enduring fine art, how about helping us all out with some examples of what you consider good contemporary photography.

Good or Great - there's a huge difference. Moreover, it depends on how far back you want to go to call something "contemporary'. But ...

Vivian Maier - though she shot a long time ago, has only been brought to light in the last few years. I think she borders on great and could live on.

Avedon and Karsh, because their portraits have the potential to live on as art the same way the painters of the Dutch Masters have.

Both Edward and Brett Weston bordered on great but not enough time has passed to prove it.

You'll notice that a lot of the darlings of the arts crowd aren't on my list. Included among them are Salgado, Annie Liebovitz, William Eggleston, Sally Mann and their ilk. It's not because I think they are terrible - they are all quite competent in their own way. I just don't think their work even has the potential to be timeless.

OK, now your turn. Whom among contemporary photographers - let's say even going back to the 1950-60s - in your opinion has that potential in their work? I'm always excited to meet new work...

P.S. Notice that I am restricting myself only to what - in principle - could live on "forever" not necessarily what I like personally. Stravinski's music may well last for centuries, but I can't stand it

 

[Pieter12]

Good or Great - there's a huge difference. Moreover, it depends on how far back you want to go to call something "contemporary'. But ...

Vivian Maier - though she shot a long time ago, has only been brought to light in the last few years. I think she borders on great and could live on.

Avedon, because his portraits have the potential to live on as art the same way the painters of the Dutch Masters have.

Both Edward and Brett Weston bordered on great but not enough time has passed to prove it.

You'll notice that a lot of the darlings of the arts crowd aren't on my list. Included among them are Salgado, Annie Liebovitz, William Eggleston, Sally Mann and their ilk. It's not because I think they are terrible - they are all quite competent in their own way. I just don't think their work even has the potential to be timeless.

OK, now your turn. Whom among contemporary photographers - let's say even going back to the 1950-60s - in your opinion has that potential in their work? I'm always excited to meet new work...

Not sure any of those would qualify as contemporary. They're all dead, from almost 2 decades to 65 years ago. Try again. Or maybe you just don't consider any contemporary photographers as good enough. Try digging deeper than the photographers that are "top 40."

 

[chuckroast]

Not sure any of those would qualify as contemporary. They're all dead, from almost 2 decades to 65 years ago. Try again. Or maybe you just don't consider any contemporary photographers as good enough. Try digging deeper than the photographers that are "top 40."

Fair enough. Some of this is likely selection bias in that I've not seen much of interest in the last 20 years other than the discovery of Maier's work. Again, if you have strong candidates, I'm all eyes ...

 

[Pieter12]

Fair enough. Some of this is likely selection bias in that I've not seen much of interest in the last 20 years other than the discovery of Maier's work. Again, if you have strong candidates, I'm all eyes ...

It's a matter of taste. Among the living: off the top of my head, Robert Adams, Lee Friedlander, Josef Koudelka, Thomas Struth, Paul Caponigro, Carl Chiarenza. Some editorial folks like Stephan Vanfleteren. I'm sure there are more, just would have to do some more digging through my books and memory.

 

[Don_ih]

To be fair, there are many contemporary photographers on this forum.
I would hesitate calling Friedlander and Koudelka contemporary. I guess contemporary to other people in their late 80s.

 

[Pieter12]

To be fair, there are many contemporary ontemporaries photographers on this forum.
I would hesitate calling Friedlander and Koudelka contemporary. I guess contemporary to other people in their late 80s.

I consider them contemporary because they are alive and photographing now. Not that they are my contemporaries.

 

[Don_ih]

I consider them contemporary because they are alive and photographing now. Not that they are my contemporaries.

What is Koudelka photographing now?
These are guys who are having retrospective shows - because they are themselves practically "in retrospect". Your point with chuckroast was valid all those dead people are not contemporary. But all of Friedlander's contemporaries are dead.

 

[faberryman]

To be fair, there are many contemporary photographers on this forum.

Can you identify any active members of the forum who are Contemporary Photographers represented by major galleries, whose works sell for significant sums and are frequently bought for investment, and who are comparable in stature to the photographers who are the subject of the article linked to in the OP? Before you answer, please read the article linked to in the OP.

 

[bluechromis]

I have seen articles that say that the high-end art market has a strange history. They claim that until fairly recently, the elite gallery owners were actively trying to reduce the number of potential buyers, to make the art less accessible. The idea was that who bought the artwork and how elite they were was as important as the revenue for the sale. The advent of digital sales has opened things up. The other strange thing is that often now, the most valuable artworks are bought purely as an investment. They are sequestered in protected storage and never displayed. This raises questions about the role and purpose of art in society. In any case, the social/cultural importance of artwork seems to be increasingly diverging from its financial value.

 

[Pieter12]

What is Koudelka photographing now?
These are guys who are having retrospective shows - because they are themselves practically "in retrospect". Your point with chuckroast was valid all those dead people are not contemporary. But all of Friedlander's contemporaries are dead.

Retrospective shows are given to contemporary photographers, so what? Sure, pick on the old guys, but in my quick and superficial list of photographers, Thomas Struth and Stephan Vanfleteren are still producing work. Struth's work can command serious prices. Once again, a bit more effort would surely turn up more examples of contemporary photographers whose work might stand the test of time.

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).

 

[bluechromis]

In a video of an art historian I saw, he said that in the 1990's many of the prominent artists were incorporating some aspect of photography in their work, i.e., it was a facet of mixed media artwork. He said this showed that photography was totally accepted in the fine art world at that point, at least in the U.S. So it is now hard to draw the line between pure photography and photographic elements in a mixed media composition. This also makes it harder to make pronouncements about financial trends in the photography market because it can be unclear how to define photo art.

 

[Pieter12]

trying to reduce the number of potential buyers, to make the art less accessible.

Not sure how this tracks, unless it means raising the prices so fewer can afford to buy.

So it is now hard to draw the line between pure photography and photographic elements in a mixed media composition.

Very true. Many galleries that would be considered photo galleries show mixed-media work alongside straight photographic work.

 

[faberryman]

In a video of an art historian I saw, he said that in the 1990's many of the prominent artists were incorporating some aspect of photography in their work, i.e., it was a facet of mixed media artwork. He said this showed that photography was totally accepted in the fine art world at that point, at least in the U.S. So it is now hard to draw the line between pure photography and photographic elements in a mixed media composition. This also makes it harder to make pronouncements about financial trends in the photography market because it can be unclear how to define photo art.

I guess everyone will just have to muddle along as best they can.

On the other hand, maybe someone can invent the category "Mixed Media Photography" and then we can watch big fights break out about whether "Mixed Media Photography" is a subset of Photography or a subset of Mixed Media. Maybe its a subset of both. Maybe its a subset of neither, but its own separate category. However it turns out, those responsible for keeping track of the prices of art will probably track it separately.

 

[bluechromis]

I think there is a point that the proliferation of photo images from phones and other sources is devaluing photography somewhat, not just in the high-end art market but in society in general. But, as said, the entire market for art is in a slump. The article at the link said, "Sales in the Impressionist and Post-Impressionist sector, the dominant category 30 years ago, showed the largest decline in value between 2019 and 2020, with sales down over 50 percent." Impressionist art has been a blue-chip art commodity and does not suffer the challenges of proliferation or lack of credibility that photography does. So we should be cautious in assuming that the declining photography market is unique .https://news.artnet.com/market/art-basel-art-market-report-2020-1952001

 

[Don_ih]

Can you identify any active members of the forum who are Contemporary Photographers represented by major galleries

I will not identify any member of this forum that ticks all your boxes, but I can say I know of more than one. People here have usernames that don't match their real names.
As for the article, I read it. If you read my earlier comments, you'd see I agree with some of it. But I don't care about the higher-priced photos as much as I think there's a real threat to being paid to do photography at all.

In 1958, the year he died, Edward Weston sold prints for $25 (maybe $250 today).

I doubt Garry Winogrand sold a print for much. Or Diane Arbus, for that matter. I doubt Harry Callahan's prints demanded high prices during his life. Photos weren't worth much at all prior to the 80s. Robert Mapplethorpe apparently used to scour thrift stores to find photos - and found original Stieglitz prints. And speaking of Mapplethorpe, he mostly made money being paid to take portraits. His photos didn't rake in the money during his lifetime, even with all the infamy.

All collector markets get hot and cold. Buying a collectible for a million dollars is a gamble, not an investment.

 

[Don_ih]

The fact is, ultra-high-priced photographs have way more to do with dealers and collectors than with photographers.

 

[Pieter12]

The fact is, ultra-high-priced photographs have way more to do with dealers and collectors than with photographers.

That is true for most high-end transactions, not just in the visual arts.

 

[bluechromis]

Not sure how this tracks, unless it means raising the prices so fewer can afford to buy.


Very true. Many galleries that would be considered photo galleries show mixed-media work alongside straight photographic work.

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.

 

[faberryman]

But I don't care about the higher-priced photos as much as I think there's a real threat to being paid to do photography at all.

That explains why many of your posts have been off topic.

I doubt Garry Winogrand sold a print for much. Or Diane Arbus, for that matter. I doubt Harry Callahan's prints demanded high prices during his life. Photos weren't worth much at all prior to the 80s. Robert Mapplethorpe apparently used to scour thrift stores to find photos - and found original Stieglitz prints. And speaking of Mapplethorpe, he mostly made money being paid to take portraits. His photos didn't rake in the money during his lifetime, even with all the infamy.

None of those photographers are contemporary photographers. The are all dead.

All collector markets get hot and cold. Buying a collectible for a million dollars is a gamble, not an investment.

I guess it depends on whether you day trade art or are in it for the long run. And just because an investment doesn't pan out doesn't make it a gamble.

 

[faberryman]

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.

I suspect people buy art for all sorts of reasons running the gamut from crass to altruistic. I wouldn't want to generalize.

 

[Don_ih]

All of those guys are dead so they are not contemporary photographers.

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

just because an investment doesn't pan out doesn't make it a gamble.

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.

many of your posts have been off topic.

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

It is simply a matter of English language usage.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I guess everyone will just have to muddle along as best they can.

On the other hand, maybe someone can invent the category "Mixed Media Photography" and then we can watch big fights break out about whether "Mixed Media Photography" is a subset of Photography or a subset of Mixed Media. Maybe its a subset of both. Maybe its a subset of neither, but its own separate category. However it turns out, those responsible for keeping track of the prices of art will probably track it separately.

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