The State of the Market for Contemporary Photography

[Pieter12]

Contemporary fine art photography is impacted in exactly the same way as every other kind of photography. In order to do it, the doer needs to make money. But there are already too many sources for "good enough" fine art photography for very little money. Not to mention, no one wants to put any "fine art" on their beige modern walls.

It took me one second to find a website that sells "fine art" photos, mounted and framed, a 5x7 for $20 - thousands of photos to choose from - all just as "arty" as you'd like.

It strikes me as sad that I see so many blank walls in homes, or walls decorated with decorator crap, like empty frames or bric-a-brac. For me it reflects a lack of appreciation of art or a lack of any imagination at all. Television screens seem to hold the place of honor in most homes today, the more and bigger the better. Art inspires me, I like to be surrounded by it.

And please share the website you are referring to.

 

[Pieter12]

Because it's all part of the same devaluation process. Who can make fine art photos if they can't get paid to take photos?

Most commercial photographers I know are lousy art photographers.

 

[JerseyDoug]

The whole contemporary fine art market may well be compromised when big name influencers begin selling AI generated images as non-fungible tokens.

 

[Don_ih]

It strikes me as sad that I see so many blank walls in homes, or walls decorated with decorator crap, like empty frames or bric-a-brac. For me it reflects a lack of appreciation of art or a lack of any imagination at all. Television screens seem to hold the place of honor in most homes today, the more and bigger the better. Art inspires me, I like to be surrounded by it.

And please share the website you are referring to.

The website is one of hundreds https://www.artgalore.ca
You can also order generic "art" prints from pretty much any place you can get your own photos printed.

I think there is a general lower appreciation for art of all kinds now, in terms of appreciation, although the ability to make art has opened up to massively more people.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It strikes me as sad that I see so many blank walls in homes, or walls decorated with decorator crap, like empty frames or bric-a-brac. For me it reflects a lack of appreciation of art or a lack of any imagination at all. Television screens seem to hold the place of honor in most homes today, the more and bigger the better. Art inspires me, I like to be surrounded by it.

And please share the website you are referring to.

There are TV's available that display art.

The Frame TV – Picture Frame Art TV

Enhance your everyday with The Frame: a TV featuring a picture frame trim that displays world-class art right on your wall to fit both your style and your space.

www.samsung.com

 

[VinceInMT]

No one is asking you to buy the work. As I have stated before, I doubt the majority of members of this forum buy any original work at all (not counting books), contemporary or not.

I am sort of guilty of that in that I haven't bought any original photographs but the walls of my home are covered with original art. The only photos on display are a few of my own but I have lots original drawings, my medium of preference, by artists I like and some stained glass works from an artist in Oregon.

 

[Don_ih]

I think what @greg zinselmeier was saying about how images are free to view carries weight, but mainly in the devaluing of printed art (and printed photos in general). Fewer and fewer people see any significant difference between a photo on a screen and a genuine print (and more and more people think a photo on a screen is superior to a print), so why would anyone expect them to place a higher value on a handmade art print?

 

[Pieter12]

I think what @greg zinselmeier was saying about how images are free to view carries weight, but mainly in the devaluing of printed art (and printed photos in general). Fewer and fewer people see any significant difference between a photo on a screen and a genuine print (and more and more people think a photo on a screen is superior to a print), so why would anyone expect them to place a higher value on a handmade art print?

Well, it depends on how you define value. Try selling (or insuring) that photo on a screen.

 

[Pieter12]

I am sort of guilty of that in that I haven't bought any original photographs but the walls of my home are covered with original art. The only photos on display are a few of my own but I have lots original drawings, my medium of preference, by artists I like and some stained glass works from an artist in Oregon.

At least you have art on your walls. And even if it's is only your own, the fact that you enjoy it that is all that matters.

 

[Pieter12]

The website is one of hundreds https://www.artgalore.ca
You can also order generic "art" prints from pretty much any place you can get your own photos printed.

I think there is a general lower appreciation for art of all kinds now, in terms of appreciation, although the ability to make art has opened up to massively more people.

Just like visiting a local outdoor art fair! I'm impressed. You could do better at Ikea.

 

[Pieter12]

The whole contemporary fine art market may well be compromised when big name influencers begin selling AI generated images as non-fungible tokens.

I don't see it as compromised. It is already happening. You just need to know what you are getting. Although as I have stated before, I don't perceive there to be many buyers of art on this forum. So what does it matter to you?

 

[faberryman]

I think what @greg zinselmeier was saying about how images are free to view carries weight, but mainly in the devaluing of printed art (and printed photos in general). Fewer and fewer people see any significant difference between a photo on a screen and a genuine print (and more and more people think a photo on a screen is superior to a print), so why would anyone expect them to place a higher value on a handmade art print?

Somehow I don't think having an electronic picture frame where you can load up an iconic photograph is the same thing as having an original iconic photographic print on the wall. I would think a laptop with iconic photographs might replace the photobook. Still, some people like having photobooks. They are tangible and you have a different experience leafing through them than you do pressing the right arrow key.

 

[Don_ih]

Somehow I don't think having an electronic picture frame where you can load up an iconic photograph is the same thing as having an original iconic photographic print on the wall.

That may be the case. But I doubt many people would see much difference between an original print and an inkjet made at Walmart, framed in a $4 frame, and put on the wall.

Try selling (or insuring) that photo on a screen.

Stock photography, for the most part, never gets off a screen. If it gets in print, it's paid for.

 

[faberryman]

That may be the case. But I doubt many people would see much difference between an original print and an inkjet made at Walmart, framed in a $4 frame, and put on the wall.

“Many people” probably would not see much difference. Photographers, and people who appreciate photography, probably would. Would you?

 

[TJones]

Because it's all part of the same devaluation process. Who can make fine art photos if they can't get paid to take photos?

Rich people. Retired people. People with a full time job who do it in their spare time.

 

[Don_ih]

“Many people” probably would not see much difference. Photographers, and people who appreciate photography, probably would. Would you?

It's probably reaching the point where most people who "appreciate" photography have never knowingly held an actual silver-gelatin print in their hands.
And why are you asking whether or not I can see the difference? What does that have to do with anything? I spent the morning making prints.

 

[Don_ih]

Rich people. Retired people. People with a full time job who do it in their spare time.

I think that probably describes the majority of "fine art" photographers - and also is majorly a group of people who will never sell a print (I'm in that group).

 

[Pieter12]

Rich people. Retired people. People with a full time job who do it in their spare time.

Teachers, people who work part time but do photography as their main activity, the ubiquitous "starving artists", trustifarians (well, I guess they're covered under "rich people"), people whose spouses earn most of the household income, people still living with or supported by their parents or relatives. Pretty much the same groups as other visual artists.

 

[Pieter12]

Stock photography, for the most part, never gets off a screen. If it gets in print, it's paid for.

Not the subject of this discussion. And stock photography gets appropriated all the time by some who think that anything they see online is up for grabs. That's why Getty continually scours for unlicensed use of their images.

 

[Don_ih]

The majority of images that would count as "fine art" (content-wise, composition-wise) are now taken on digital, stay on digital, go to a digital audience, and the photographers don't have an inkling of using an enlarger. They don't need much money to do it, either.

If you think there is nothing that counts as "fine art" imagery on stock photo sites, you must not have looked at them much. 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.
"This is a fine art photo." "It's a photo of a big rock. What makes it a fine art photo?" "The fact that nobody cares about what's in the photo - they just care about how the photo looks." "So, like a nude photo." "Yes. They're all fine art." "Of course."

 

[Pieter12]

The majority of images that would count as "fine art" (content-wise, composition-wise) are now taken on digital, stay on digital, go to a digital audience, and the photographers don't have an inkling of using an enlarger. They don't need much money to do it, either.

If you think there is nothing that counts as "fine art" imagery on stock photo sites, you must not have looked at them much. 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.
"This is a fine art photo." "It's a photo of a big rock. What makes it a fine art photo?" "The fact that nobody cares about what's in the photo - they just care about how the photo looks." "So, like a nude photo." "Yes. They're all fine art." "Of course."

Says you.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

Nudes outsell all the other categories in my experience. And Gregory Crewdson or Jeff Wall need not sell any significant quantity when a single print can go for 6 figure prices.

 

[Don_ih]

And Gregory Crewdson or Jeff Wall need not sell any significant quantity when a single print can go for 6 figure prices.

What about someone under the age of 60?

The question is, how collectible can something born in the age of infinite digital access be? Do younger people, aspiring to do art, even think in these terms, anymore?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What about someone under the age of 60?

The question is, how collectible can something born in the age of infinite digital access be? Do younger people, aspiring to do art, even think in these terms, anymore?

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.